What if CryEngine was used as Arma 3 future engine?

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

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'.

THIS.

/Thread

There really is nothing else to say on the subject

[nodunit 397]

EDIT: Awww you/thread'd, now I can't comment until someone else does :(

[Posta 10]

EDIT: Awww you/thread'd, now I can't comment until someone else does :(

Here you go!

Anyway, I prefer smooth and functional graphics over flashy. The current engine (Arma II: OA) doesn't have flashy graphics with a lot of eye candy. BUT it doesn't run super smooth either. :(

But the gameplay is so good that I can't sleep. And the community with all the good mods with frequent updates keep me busy.

All improvements are good improvements. The name of the engine isn't important.

[metalcraze 290]

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'.

CryEngine3 is also completely unfit for simulations and complex AI. I think the fact that during 7 years CE is on the market it got only one military "simulation" which is about disabling IEDs is very telling.

Why do people think that when the engine is changed all complex gameplay will magically appear out of nowhere together with graphics?

Edited January 28, 2011 by metalcraze

[Baff1 0]

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.

Given that the Cryengine 3 is the version that was designed to work on consoles, I don't think there is any reason to assume it is particulary resource hungry at all.

[Defunkt 431]

I recently bought Crysis & Crysis Warhead and am currently playing through the first, I rather like it and the engine is most definitely extremely capable. I believe you could make an excellent milsim out of it but OMG, what a massive amount of work it would take. For all the engine might provide a suitable foundation, none (literally zero) of the assets (models, terrain etc.) or game code (AI, movement, weapon handling etc.) in the retail game is even close to useful for the purpose.

[nkenny 1057]

How can a thread suggesting a course of action that sees Bohemia not only abandoning their flagship product, previous experience with the software, but also a massive amount of licensing money possibly reach nearly 50 pages?

Accept that Real Virtuality engine does some things well-- and other things not so well. Every game engine is a mixture of compromises. For the massive expanses of terrain, sheer amount of military hardware, and AI functionality; RV does a pretty decent job.

-k

[Pyronick 21]

At this point Real Virtuality definately has the upper hand as it is in a much further developed state.

But CryEngine 3 might be eventually, after years of development be suitable for simulations with the magnitude of Real Virtuality today.

I read that in May this year VBS2 1.50 will be capable of simulating terrains up to 250000 km²! That is the entire United Kingdom and a few channel islands!

It will also feature subterranean structures, multi-resolution terrains and full terrain paging. I still hope for terrain and vegetation triangle tessellation though.

Edited January 28, 2011 by SgtH3nry3

[Flash Thunder 10]

At this point Real Virtuality definately has the upper hand as it is in a much further developed state.

But CryEngine 3 might be eventually, after years of development be suitable for simulations with the magnitude of Real Virtuality today.

I read that in May this year VBS2 1.50 will be capable of simulating terrains up to 250000 km²! That is the entire United Kingdom and a few channel islands!

It will also feature subterranean structures, multi-resolution terrains and full terrain paging. I still hope for terrain and vegetation triangle tessellation though.

It appears that arma 3 whenever it comes will have a 40km viewdistance and all these new paging terrain features that are coming to the new version of VBS

Now could Crytek's engine do that?

[metalcraze 290]

But CryEngine 3 might be eventually, after years of development be suitable for simulations with the magnitude of Real Virtuality today.

RV won't stand in one place either (I very much hope so)

[Posta 10]

Is it impossible to create a mil sim like ArmA II with superb graphics running better than crap on a modern computer? (Tech-wise)

[Pulverizer 1]

It appears that arma 3 whenever it comes will have a 40km viewdistance and all these new paging terrain features that are coming to the new version of VBS

Now could Crytek's engine do that?

Rendering super low-res terrain far out is nothing new. Soldner rendered hills to some 25km away in 2004, while having trees and stuff visible to about 1km. I'm sure Crytek could add such a feature to their engine no problem.

[Haystack15 10]

Rendering super low-res terrain far out is nothing new. Soldner rendered hills to some 25km away in 2004, while having trees and stuff visible to about 1km. I'm sure Crytek could add such a feature to their engine no problem.

Every engine should be able to add that now. RV just got to it early.

[MrXToTheN 10]

It appears that arma 3 whenever it comes will have a 40km viewdistance and all these new paging terrain features that are coming to the new version of VBS

Now could Crytek's engine do that?

Do you really think they couldn't make it work?

Crytek is one of the most advanced developers in regards to technology and honestly I don't think Bohemia is as good as them in that area (no dissing, I really like ArmA in most aspects).

I have access to the educational license of CryEngine 3 and according to Crytek CE3 has "infinite worlds" streaming technology. It streams everything automatically and you don't have to set anything up manually.

I don't know how well it actually works, but I will try that once I am back at university later in March (if I can manage to pass one very important exam that is).

[wolfbite 8]

Is this thread still going?

[PuFu 4600]

Is this thread still going?

Unfortunately

[maddogx 13]

If people want to fanasize, let them.

Just like my long-lasting threeway relationship with Jessica Alba and Elisha Cuthbert, an ArmA game on the CryEngine is, always has been and always will be just another pipe dream.

Shh, girls, it's okay. I still love you anyway.

[Haystack15 10]

Is this thread still going?

only reason why it keeps going is because people fail to see that BIS would not throw away a engine they have worked on for 10 years.

[gossamersolid 155]

While we are talking about stupid things that will never happen, how about ArmA 3 is on the World of Warcraft Engine?

We could have large dedicated servers that can hold multiple thousands (EVEN WITH AI ZOMG)

/troll

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

Arma 3 will ship as a box containing travel documents to an island where you will be given a rifle and left to get on with it. This will be called the "real reality" engine. People will still claim Cryengine has better graphics though.

[purepassion 22]

Sorry but all this is just embarrassing...

[Pulverizer 1]

Bumping a thread only to complain that it is still going... will actually make the thread grow and go up, see?

[ben_s 11]

Unfortunately

And with CryEngine3 now being used in a so called "military sim" style game. This thread wont die anytime soon. :rolleyes:

BIS has worked on their RV engine for a long time, And I don't think anyone can see them dropping it anytime soon.

[Pyronick 21]

Most ArmA 2 gamers don't even know the true potential of RV. Most of us haven't even seen VBS2 in action, let alone the newer versions of VBS2.

[Cyteless 10]

It'd be nice to see a bit of healthy competition on the milsim market, but I'd very much doubt it would come from CE3.