What if CryEngine was used as Arma 3 future engine?

[ballistic09 241]

Uh, gigantic? The only gigantic is the daisies one which is slightly bigger than a 24 inch res. The rest of the pics are between 22" and 24" res, which I wouldn't consider too big. Also, there's only 5 pics so why the crying? Btw, if those pics were resized it wouldn't be as easy to appreciate the details and awesome graphics lol.

Because there's a 100kb limit for images... The very first image you posted is 2.1mb. :rolleyes:

[Soetdjuret 10]

Oh.. riight, didn't know that guys. Sorry, i'll put em in links for ya :) Feedback plz.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Uh, gigantic? The only gigantic is the daisies one which is slightly bigger than a 24 inch res. The rest of the pics are between 22" and 24" res, which I wouldn't consider too big. Also, there's only 5 pics so why the crying? Btw, if those pics were resized it wouldn't be as easy to appreciate the details and awesome graphics lol.

because posting thumbnails with links to the original image would totally ruin the quality.. ;)

Anyway, its useless to compare, the screens you posted are (AFAIK) of a currently unreleased version and we have no idea about the specs and FPS they were taken at.

[Soetdjuret 10]

because posting thumbnails with links to the original image would totally ruin the quality.. ;)

Anyway, its useless to compare, the screens you posted are (AFAIK) of a currently unreleased version and we have no idea about the specs and FPS they were taken at.

Err.... unreleased version? Nah, only unreleased one is the blade pic (first pic, but still rendered in realtime in CE2) the rest are taken form crysis, some of them are taken with custom assets and that's all. FPS, isn't a problem if u got a beef system. But playability and specs/settings isn't what matters here. It's about which engine that looks best and is most advanced. I actually had major problems to get stable framerates in Arma2, had to lower to medium. In crysis, i can almost run maxed settings along with 2x2 supersampling. Go figure which engine/game that is more demanding compared to looks. Crysis wins hands down.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Soetdjuret

[vegeta897 13]

The only gigantic is the daisies one which is slightly bigger than a 24 inch res. The rest of the pics are between 22" and 24" res, which I wouldn't consider too big.

Do you understand how image resolution works? It's not measured in inches.

Also this thread is a good read.

[Soetdjuret 10]

You guys seem hard to impress. Only 1 of you actually commented and responded to my original and first post. Rest of u only came with complaints over imagesizes, trying to correct me, appointing to the rules/telling me several times how things are and generally not even saying a word about what i came here for. I mean, are you really hard to impress? To me those screenshots are the very best/most realistic realtime rendered screenshots i've ever come by, are they not impressive? To me they look far superior to Arma2 even when rendering over resolution using the render-percent scale in the advanced options (similar to supersampling).

[Defunkt 431]

Ah ha... I thought I heard the dull *whack* *whack* *whack* of a Crysis fan beating off to screenshots.

CryEngine makes pretty pictures, so can ArmA but at least as important for most people here is the game built around the engine. At least ours is engaging enough we don't tend to spend much time trawling for validation on other game forums.

[Flash Thunder 10]

Maybe you should thank me...... :j:

Im not a moderator I can't ban you but you would've for posting a 2.1mb file on these forums.

Its called reading the rules when signing up....

Forum Rules link right by the logout button.

[ryguy 10]

Honestly I don't see what the big sh**fest is about switching engines. I don't see any distinct advantages the current Arma 2 engine has over the CryEngine.

Of course there's the problem of old scripts and models not working, and everything having to be done from scratch, but it seems to me something like that would (and should) be done if there's ever going to be an Arma 3. Take a look at flight simulator, they were working off of the same engine for about 10 years until they switched over. I don't think way down the road we should still be using OFP engines.

Edited January 18, 2011 by ryguy

[noubernou 77]

You guys seem hard to impress. Only 1 of you actually commented and responded to my original and first post. Rest of u only came with complaints over imagesizes, trying to correct me, appointing to the rules/telling me several times how things are and generally not even saying a word about what i came here for. I mean, are you really hard to impress? To me those screenshots are the very best/most realistic realtime rendered screenshots i've ever come by, are they not impressive? To me they look far superior to Arma2 even when rendering over resolution using the render-percent scale in the advanced options (similar to supersampling).

I'll just say this. The last thing I care about in ArmA2 is the graphics. If its not able to simulate real world weapons systems to a very high degree of accuracy, and allow that simulation to take place in a multiplayer environment then the graphics are worthless.

I'd rather see BIS spend money on hiring more developers and putting more into the R&D for the core simulation engine, not the graphics engine. The graphics engine is much easier to tape on at the end.

[4 IN 1 0]

Honestly I don't see what the big sh**fest is about switching engines. I don't see any distinct advantages the current Arma 2 engine has over the CryEngine.

Of course there's the problem of old scripts and models not working, and everything having to be done from scratch, but it seems to me something like that would (and should) be done if there's ever going to be an Arma 3. Take a look at flight simulator, they were working off of the same engine for about 10 years until they switched over. I don't think way down the road we should still be using OFP engines.

Nor do I think they should switch to "someone elses" engine as well, its better for BI to remove the limits they had by themself instead of counting on that "someone else" simply because BI know what they want to do, most of the time.

Edited January 18, 2011 by 4 IN 1

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

You guys seem hard to impress. Only 1 of you actually commented and responded to my original and first post. Rest of u only came with complaints over imagesizes, trying to correct me, appointing to the rules/telling me several times how things are and generally not even saying a word about what i came here for. I mean, are you really hard to impress? To me those screenshots are the very best/most realistic realtime rendered screenshots i've ever come by, are they not impressive? To me they look far superior to Arma2 even when rendering over resolution using the render-percent scale in the advanced options (similar to supersampling).

Screenshots are screenshots. Post an actual gameplay video made on something that doesn't have "NASA" written on the side or just give up now.

[Flash Thunder 10]

"Best looking engine around"

All pictures rendered in realtime using Cryengine2... It's far superior to the Real Virtuality 3 engine.

Best Looking engine around, Yes but the viewdistance is nothing like Real Virtuality engine

Far superior to RV engine........ Hell No, and this has already been discussed to death.

If BIS had a Dime for every time someone said that statement they would own the god damn moon.

[wolfbite 8]

"Best looking engine around" and "Far better than any iteration of cryengine" No offence but what a load of BS... Check this out before you make your judgment please:

All pictures rendered in realtime using Cryengine2... It's far superior to the Real Virtuality 3 engine. Here's more amazing pics in my gallery: http://nvnews.net/vbulletin/member.php?u=98711

No one is arguing that crysis doesnt look good. What we've been saying is that it wont be able to handle entities or draw distance....

At the moment I can fly my A-10 into a massive battle with 4km viewdistance and it runs well if you did that in crysis it would be a slideshow....

[twisted 128]

"Best looking engine around" and "Far better than any iteration of cryengine" No offence but what a load of BS... Check this out before you make your judgment please:

http://h-4.abload.de/img/big_01pqnd.jpg

http://h-4.abload.de/img/djungle1xotk.jpg

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/142/1/8/Crysis___Game_Environment___01_by_MadMaximus83.jpg

http://h-4.abload.de/img/daisieszqtx.jpg

http://h-2.abload.de/img/1kykz.jpg

All pictures rendered in realtime using Cryengine2... It's far superior to the Real Virtuality 3 engine. Here's more amazing pics in my gallery: http://nvnews.net/vbulletin/member.php?u=98711

some of those made my jaw drop they look so damn good. but how far and up to what distance can these be rendered at such detail? looks awesome but i like my 4000m+ view distance

[metalcraze 290]

All pictures rendered in realtime using Cryengine2...

With what FPS?

It's far superior to the Real Virtuality 3 engine.

Let's see.

CryEngine has a much worse AI, CryEngine isn't made for ArmA2 scale and won't handle it most likely, CryEngine doesn't have bullet tracing, placed damage (HP lines instead) - do you really want me to continue?

Oh but it has some advanced shader effects and physics that with AA2 scale won't give you a playable FPS on any PC.

Shader effects are what determines the 3D engine superiority - you heard it first here dudes.

[maddogx 13]

Shader effects are what determines the 3D engine superiority - you heard it first here dudes.

If only that were true. ;)

[MulleDK19 21]

I love Real Virtuality. But the lag of physics is a real shame. Perhaps that'll change now that a free version of DMM2 is on the way.

[maddogx 13]

Nice looking but "inconsequential" physics that don't need to be synched (aka Eye Candy) are certainly something that would visually spice the game up a bit. At the moment the basically "spectral" particle system and otherwise very rigid (and bouncy) bodies in the game make it feel very artificial and bland.

I'm not advocating a complete switch to a different physics engine, but improving some areas of the current one would make all the difference:

- Friction. (More of that, including corresponding effects.)

- Object bounciness. (Mainly less of that.)

- Soften up infantry collision detection.

- More of that inverse kinematics sweetness!

The addition of some third party tools (like DDM2, as MulleDK suggested) for local eye candy effects would be the icing on the cake. :D

[NeMeSiS 11]

You guys seem hard to impress.

Yes, very. We have seen dozens of other engines, and not 1 capable enough to replace what we currently have. Of course, most of them have 1 or more points that are better than VR3, but none had the allround capabilities that we have now. And noone here seems to be willing to sacrifice anything for an improvement in another area.

(And sorry for last page, i really thought those screenshots were related to Crysis2, or at least that engine build, of which i havent seen anything running on my own PC yet)

Edited January 18, 2011 by NeMeSiS

[metalcraze 290]

Quite ironically Crysis2 will look worse than ArmA2 thanks to it being multiplatform which means it was made for 5 years old hardware and PC users will get only improved textures - at best.

Just check out Crysis2 screenshots - what a shame.

[Nephris1 10]

Btw. why do ypu think there will be another ArmA engine or ArmA3?

I think i can slightly remember an interview b4 ArmA2 release...or slightly after...hwere was stated,that there arent any intentions towards a third title.

I would be glad if so, maybe in 5 yrs or what ever, but as far as this is not sure, this discussion seems to be irrelevant.

Or have you read any rumors of further developments?

I mean right after Arma2 everyone knew about another title, a proper Arm,A to be in development, what was ArmA2 at the end.

Or is this discussion meant just hypothetic?

[Soetdjuret 10]

Ah ha... I thought I heard the dull *whack* *whack* *whack* of a Crysis fan beating off to screenshots.

CryEngine makes pretty pictures, so can ArmA but at least as important for most people here is the game built around the engine. At least ours is engaging enough we don't tend to spend much time trawling for validation on other game forums.

It's not a trawling for validation, it's a response to two persons claiming that the RV3 engine was superior looking to Ce2, which isn't true, and i proved that via some screenshots. And am not a crysis fan nor do i spank my monkey to the pics, that's just a really idiotic comment.

Its called reading the rules when signing up...

thing is.. forum rules tend to be pretty much the same among most boards, therefor i don't spend alot of time reading the rules for each forum i visit and post in.

I'll just say this. The last thing I care about in ArmA2 is the graphics. If its not able to simulate . . .

True. But to me graphics are also important to create immersion and atmosphere.

Screenshots are screenshots. Post an actual gameplay video made on something that doesn't have "NASA" written on the side or just give up now.

http://vimeo.com/14480956

youtube:

watch?v=zlFXPjV6Boc&hd=1

watch?v=TA6tTm05Cbg&hd=1

watch?v=hAh5tlA0LHQ&hd=1

watch?v=iwT8XM0AUPM&hd=1

watch?v=jTCZapyjB70&hd=1

watch?v=_IwNGTWiNGo&hd=1

Best Looking engine around, Yes but the viewdistance is nothing like Real Virtuality engine

Far superior to RV engine........ Hell No, and this has already been discussed to death.

If BIS had a Dime for every time someone said that statement they would own the god damn moon.

Um, yes... u can have extreme drawdistance in crysis too, it's not bound to a skybox and the c_vars settings are editable to any number you want. Such as the e_lod_detail_distance, e_view_distance_ratio_vegetation, the e_vegetation_sprites_distance_ratio and the e_lods command. U can also get shadow-drawdistance cast from objects and vegetation increased extremely etc...

So it's not far superior? Then show me some pics that looks as good as the ones from crysis i posted. Pics or your words are thin as air.. Btw, there's no need to be cursing here boy...

No one is arguing that crysis doesnt look good. What we've been saying is that it wont be able to handle entities or draw distance....

At the moment I can fly my A-10 into a massive battle with 4km viewdistance and it runs well if you did that in crysis it would be a slideshow....

It's all a matter of triscount and u know it, u can make same view in Ce2 optimizing the trees and the vegetation polycounts and get very stable framerates.. Read my post above about drawdistance. On a side note, as i said earlier, Arma2 was very heavy on my system and i had to lower the settings quite a lot to get it smooth. In crysis, i can max it out...

With what FPS?

Let's see.

CryEngine has a much worse AI, CryEngine isn't made for ArmA2 scale and won't handle it most likely, CryEngine doesn't have bullet tracing, placed damage (HP lines instead) - do you really want me to continue?

Oh but it has some advanced shader effects and physics that with AA2 scale won't give you a playable FPS on any PC.

Shader effects are what determines the 3D engine superiority - you heard it first here dudes.

With good fps, at least on my system.

Lets see, Crysis has great AI, it could be made for Arma2 scale if optimized and lods used correctly, dont know about the bullet tracing tho... Want me to continue? Shaders isn't everything, but what still matters is the fact that Ce2 produces better graphics...

Quite ironically Crysis2 will look worse than ArmA2 thanks to it being multiplatform which means it was made for 5 years old hardware and PC users will get only improved textures - at best.

Just check out Crysis2 screenshots - what a shame.

This is another bull statement by a person whos assuming things without knowing better. Crysis 2 PC version wont suffer anything from the consoles, it's a whole other team working on the PC version. Consoles will run DX9 at medium settings, while PC will have up to Very high settings, Anti-aliasing, DX11 mode and related dx11 effects, then ofc there are the modding community which will make shadermods, flowgraphs and high-res texturemods to beef up the visuals even higher. Then ofc there's supersampling to reach even higher visuals. Consoles won't have any of this, they will run with analytical edge-AA and medium settings. Crysis 2 will look far better than Arma2 for sure, atleast for the PC version.

[wolfbite 8]

Okay max out crysis to 4 km put in several hundred scripted entities with a full battle raging and take a video of it running smoothly.........

[metalcraze 290]

True. But to me graphics are also important to create immersion and atmosphere.

ArmA2 graphics do that just fine. Crysis graphics have even less to do with reality than ArmA2's bloom.

With good fps, at least on my system.

But is it at least 3km view distance with that much detail? Because on some of those screenshots it looks like it's 200m at best.

Lets see, Crysis has great AI

Is this a joke? Crysis has your typical dumb arcade shooter AI where enemies just spawn out of thin air when you get close enough to them, then run at you shooting. No team work, no flanking manouevres, no bounding, no nothing. And when you get 100m away from their spawn point what do they do? Correct they return to their original position and... disappear when you get far enough.

it could be made for Arma2 scale if optimized and lods used correctly

LODs have nothing to do with 300 AIs being calculated independently on the whole hugeass map during the whole time doing many advanced things, other than standing in one place, waiting for the player. With every single bullet fired by them traced in real time at all times. Crysis engine isn't fit for that and optimizing it for something like this will take many many years.

Codemasters that have been there for 3 decades completely failed to handle a scale only 2 programmers handled with ease in OFP 10 years ago. Do you think Crytek is better?

I mean even 10 years later puny OFP dumps AAA Crysis when it comes to scale and AI

Shaders isn't everything, but what still matters is the fact that Ce2 produces better graphics...

So what? Crysis Engine is worse at pretty much everything else compared to RV3.

And as for graphics - detail in Crysis is considerably lower than in ArmA2's Chernarus so what you are saying is still in question.

Crysis 2 PC version wont suffer anything from the consoles, it's a whole other team working on the PC version. Consoles will run DX9 at medium settings, while PC will have up to Very high settings, Anti-aliasing, DX11 mode and related dx11 effects, then ofc there are the modding community which will make shadermods, flowgraphs and high-res texturemods to beef up the visuals even higher.

There are PC screenshots bro, they look pretty bad. Crytek isn't doing separate models for consoles and PC - no matter what shader you will slap on them they will still look as edgy and low-poly as they do now. As for DX11 effects - I'm still waiting on my DX10 effects from Crysis I've heard you can enable there. Did any Crysis community member add them after 3 years? Because I can see zero difference between Crysis under XP and 7

Edited January 18, 2011 by metalcraze