What if CryEngine was used as Arma 3 future engine?

[jblackrupert 14]

supposably there is going to be a freeware version of the Cryengine. Anyone seen any details on that?

[avengerzx 10]

Use your brains and think, with huge demanding game ARMA 2 is, imagine it is running with CE instead... What kind of computer would you need to run it?

*Satisfying the CPU needs of AI Calculation and Graphics demand.

i7-980x on 5Ghz?

4 way SLi GTX 580??

1600w PSU??

Gosh, save it.. Its global warming, save some electricity!!!!

Also I remembered BI saying that they would make more DLC and Expansions (Engine Upgrades such as RTT, Dynamic View Distance, Improved Physics with Ragdoll effects etc.) instead of writing a new Engine again (which basically means to continue ARMA 2 sequel and not creating ARMA 3, just IMPOSSIBLE and never will)

Edited January 21, 2011 by avengerzx

[PuFu 4600]

Yes, i think everyone is aware by now. The problem with physics is synking over the network. And while most likely possible in LAN, it is definitely not possible via the wnet using current available bandwidth.

Ragdoll, even if widely used, is an aging tech, witch creates as many issues as it solves.

And while i am for improving the basics of BIS games physics (gravitation effects, collisions and G force acceleration) i still think that until a proper human physics solution hits the market (forget about euphoria for now), there is no way to get away from preset animations for deaths and movement, but rather go the way of further interpolation, and eventually having more independent body zones to work with (at the moment A2 has lower and upper body), to get a more fluid transition and movement control, as well as allowing more varied animations by combining existing ones per each part

[avengerzx 10]

Read all the arguements about the CE2 Military Simulator here

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?p=1831189

[Lorca 10]

Everyone is aware that the CryEngine's excellent physics engine is a SP-only solution right? In MP there is a vastly reduced physics capability, probably on ArmA2's level.

I believe Cryteck did that for practical reasons. Crysis MP maps are very smal in comparison to Arma and having physics on many stuff in such a reduced place and in such a fast pace game will create a lot of chaos and confusion to the point of annoyance, not to mention the extra unneeded reduction in fps. I thought about that when I realized that(for those who don't know) when you are alone in the map many things do have physics enable but when somebody else joins in, the game starts over again and those objects become static. Obviously, Cryteck is trying to avoid something. I actually like it that way. Unnecessary clutter is not always good in MP.

[dm 9]

I believe Cryteck did that for practical reasons. Crysis MP maps are very smal in comparison to Arma and having physics on many stuff in such a reduced place and in such a fast pace game will create a lot of chaos and confusion to the point of annoyance

Wow, thats the worst excuse I've ever heard... "They switched the physics off in multiplayer because it would be annoying"

Yeah, right, and I'm the Queen of France

[dmarkwick 261]

I believe Cryteck did that for practical reasons. Crysis MP maps are very smal in comparison to Arma and having physics on many stuff in such a reduced place and in such a fast pace game will create a lot of chaos and confusion to the point of annoyance, not to mention the extra unneeded reduction in fps. I thought about that when I realized that(for those who don't know) when you are alone in the map many things do have physics enable but when somebody else joins in, the game starts over again and those objects become static. Obviously, Cryteck is trying to avoid something. I actually like it that way. Unnecessary clutter is not always good in MP.

Precisely :) Except that it's an even more practical reason than annoyance, it's simply object sync. And it's why ArmA2 doesn't have Crysis-level physics, but every now & then one of these threads come up and it needs to be explained all over again.

[Pain0815 10]

I believe Cryteck did that for practical reasons. Crysis MP maps are very smal in comparison to Arma and having physics on many stuff in such a reduced place and in such a fast pace game will create a lot of chaos and confusion to the point of annoyance, not to mention the extra unneeded reduction in fps. I thought about that when I realized that(for those who don't know) when you are alone in the map many things do have physics enable but when somebody else joins in, the game starts over again and those objects become static. Obviously, Cryteck is trying to avoid something. I actually like it that way. Unnecessary clutter is not always good in MP.

But Dice got it with BF bc, or soldners a few years ago could do that too.

Thats not the problem. The problem is that all resources are already needed for the small corridor levels in crysis, and crytek isnt able to make a good mp part at all.

For such large scaled maps in the crysis editor like in arma 2 you have to reduce anything, from amount of objects over textures to drawdistance.

Then the AI problem is still there, because you cant put in hundreds of permanent bots which operate together into this map.

Read all the arguements about the CE2 Military Simulator here

You can simulate flying a chopper or diving with a boat/tank whatever.

But its a software for military and comercial use only.

Do you know how they train? They train small limited scenarios not whole wars with hundreds off ppl connected....

For this the mapsize is enough, and i think the military has better and more powerful simulators for that.

Im sure most of this training programs wont run on normal pcs there, they will used in real simulators instead, and for this they dont need the software can all those featured things at once.

There would be modules for diffrent needs, specially desingned for their simulators.

[metalcraze 290]

Read all the arguements about the CE2 Military Simulator here

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?p=1831189

That doesn't even have ballistics and is miles behind OFP in scale and features

Yes I certainly will want a gameplay that is much worse than what was in ArmA series 10 years ago but with better shaders

Edited January 21, 2011 by metalcraze

[Gunter Severloh 4052]

i think the military has better and more powerful simulators for that.

Actually they do to some degree, not all but some military, and polics, and other serviceman use VBS2 http://www.bisimulations.com/products/vbs2

if not mistaken for their training for simualtion.

In one way BIS can make a simulator like this with all the bells and whistles for simulation, and I wonder why were playing Arma2 OA when we could be in VBS2.

[katipo66 94]

In one way BIS can make a simulator like this with all the bells and whistles for simulation, and I wonder why were playing Arma2 OA when we could be in VBS2.

Cost, and the fact that for gaming purposes VBS2 would not bring much new to the table that Arma doesn't provide, that's what I got from their forum cos I considered buying it

[nettrucker 142]

Compare the prices then you know why we're playing ArmA instead of VBS.

I believe that's reason enough.

kind regards

[Psilocybe 3]

As long as Arma2 is the cooler one of the two soldiers.

[metalcraze 290]

Cost, and the fact that for gaming purposes VBS2 would not bring much new to the table that Arma doesn't provide, that's what I got from their forum cos I considered buying it

You can shoot from vehicle windows, better breathing simulation, ships move, there are vehicle transports (the ones that transport vehicles and you can ride into them on the vehicles - no magical teleport) - ships and airplanes, fast roping, real time 3D editor with built-in context help and examples for each command, AAR system showing smallest details down to each bullet's trajectory, leaning in vehicles (that is very badly needed in choppers right now) finally glass actually breaks, not magically changes texture - that's but a small list of features VBS2 has. Since 2007.

Obviously we can't have them in our "civil" version because why would military buy VBS then?

[Pain0815 10]

Actually they do to some degree, not all but some military, and polics, and other serviceman use VBS2 http://www.bisimulations.com/products/vbs2

if not mistaken for their training for simualtion.

In one way BIS can make a simulator like this with all the bells and whistles for simulation, and I wonder why were playing Arma2 OA when we could be in VBS2.

Yeah they use it for limited realtime edited scenarios for their simulators.

The lite versions arent for training...

And you can use vbs on your pc (you can buy a privat licence), but its not like the army use it in most things. they have vbs connected into simulators with plastic weapons and real cockpits with ppl editing scenarios on the fly to train special situations.

L025fgD9V5A

DwcykqKEAoM

-9rGx_NjUBQ

Edited January 21, 2011 by Pain0815

[CameronMcDonald 146]

You can shoot from vehicle windows, better breathing simulation, ships move, there are vehicle transports (the ones that transport vehicles and you can ride into them on the vehicles - no magical teleport) - ships and airplanes, fast roping, real time 3D editor with built-in context help and examples for each command, AAR system showing smallest details down to each bullet's trajectory, leaning in vehicles (that is very badly needed in choppers right now) finally glass actually breaks, not magically changes texture - that's but a small list of features VBS2 has. Since 2007.

Obviously we can't have them in our "civil" version because why would military buy VBS then?

The rest of the VBS2 owners will probably back me up on this, but honestly, I prefer ArmA 2 over VBS2, having owned it pretty much since it came out. It's a question of accessibility, not to mention that VBS2 looks truly horrible in comparison (minimal normal/specular maps).

As to your statement that obviously we can't have them in our "civil" version because the military would all go out and buy ArmA instead - have you considered that the military pays money an order of magnitude higher for that kind of input and developer support for those features, rather than simply typing verbal fluff into an online forum and expecting it to magically fall into your hands?

[Pain0815 10]

game (sim) > modular training software for privat using

[noubernou 77]

I'd rather PLAY ArmA2 any day of the week over VBS2. VBS2 has some nice stuff in it, but really it comes down to hardcore training scenarios that are beyond what even the most dedicated milsim people would want to put up with (or need).

[dmarkwick 261]

The rest of the VBS2 owners will probably back me up on this, but honestly, I prefer ArmA 2 over VBS2, having owned it pretty much since it came out.

Yes, I agree with this :) I've had VBS2, and honestly I do prefer ArmA2 over it.

[gossamersolid 155]

I like the extra features that VBS2 has, but since I primarily play ArmA 2 in multiplayer or script for multiplayer purposes, there'd be no point in me dropping the cash required for VBS2 :)

[Baff1 0]

I have to say that the idea of a realtime editor is a major lure.

I would definitely like the ability to roleplay my scenarios as a dungeon master so to speak rather than rely on pre-scripting and triggers.

On topic, as much as I would enjoy a game like ArmA on the Cry Engine, I vastly prefer the continued development of alternative game engines.

I also do not believe that ArmA's considerable AI code is something I would like to see lost from gaming.

Despite ArmA having truely stunning graphics... there is more to marvel at in this game than just that.

[Pain0815 10]

Go get vte. Much things you can do in vbs, you can do in arma with the right missions/mods.

on topic

im sure the cryengine is able to get those small scenarios for the army pourposes running, but its not able to get full big scale wars with ai and many players like arma done.

If a military "sim/game" with cryengine is comming, i think its more the scale of BF2:PR instead of arma battles.

And in arma you see that a milsim turns into mindless deathmatch and a freakshow without gameplay/gamemodes that forces teamwork like PR did that with the original bf2 vanilla freakshow on every server.

So a game can be realistic like shit without the instruments forcing players to work as a team you wont get realistc gameplay at least (coop yes but pvp not).

If a good realistic mp game (for me/in my eyes) comes out i will get it, no matter what engine it uses. If you want one with cryengine you cant think it will be like arma.

You will get a smaller scale military game, but with better graphics and physics maybe (and less AI numbers).

Edited January 23, 2011 by Pain0815

[Lorca 10]

Despite ArmA having truely stunning graphics... there is more to marvel at in this game than just that.

That my friend, is something I'm just realizing as a new Arma 2 player. And that only sightseeing Chernarus in the editor with a friendly AI doing chauffeur duties.

[igneous01 19]

well while i will admit the cryengine3 is amazing in how it models physics, there not real world physics.

i dont believe an m16 could split a 30cm thick tree in less than one magazine. Only a fifty caliber would have that capability, and even then it would take quite a few rounds...

second

64 player coop (talking unit wide events here) doing an operation with company sized enemy ai. that already would be a HUGE load on servers (and it is on the ones we run now) plus taking into consideration

-the AI choices to move, find cover, suppress, flank, lay down smoke, etc etc. And also

-calculating all ballistics being fired (bullet drop, wind deflection, damage to objects, calibre used)

-if your running mods like slx or zeus, then cpu gets eaten really fast when it comes to ai (as there very very dynamic in these mods)

plus the 225sq km map

plus any modules like wounding, ambient civilians, etc, etc

I just dont think it would be possible for alot of people to run all this and cry3 engine. if any at all could.

plus the lighting effects in cry3 when going through branches and leaves is enough cpu drain. since every ray of light has to be checked to see if it collided with an object (similar to ballistics, only thing would be on a much higher level, as the rays are very small and numerous)

so as kool as the cry3 engine is, theres just no way to incorporate this without limiting the game to an elite group of ppl capable of processing that much.

but i conclude with this:

vr3 = real life based

cry3 = hollywood based

[Callaghan 1]

Maybe I dont know enough about cryengine3, but this sounds like a terrible, game-destroying idea. Cryengine would use so many resources just off the bat that the simulation end of things would have to be greatly thinned out. This would reduce the simulation to such an extent that most of us old timers would simply refuse to play it. This suggestion seems to come from console kids who have only just started playing arma. Just as importantly, the licence would be so expensive that BIS would have less resources for the game in general. I'm not against them looking for 3rd party engines - esp, when it comes to physics. At the same time, lets not let the only combat game remotely worth playing become ruined by some shiny 'flavour of the moment'.