Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jonneymendoza

What if CryEngine was used as Arma 3 future engine?

Recommended Posts

Secondly, it's amusing how quickly some of us forget that Crysis (an almost 2 year old game) is an FPS killer on even the fastest of machines (and that's with limited amounts of AI etc).

Not really - Many games I have are harder to max out than Crysis is with my gtx260.

Hell, even fallout3 is considerably more difficult to max out than Crysis is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, yet another way for people who have no clue about gaming or computers to pump out garbage FPS' - my priceless thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can anyone think about a future engine for ARMA 3, when we can`t seem to get ARMA 2 running well on a wider scale????? I am running this game maxed @ 1680x1050x32, but all my buds basicly stopped playing cause of the lacking performance and bugs. *aarrgghh*

They won`t be wanting to buy ARMA 3, if ARMA 2 doesn`t get the love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really - Many games I have are harder to max out than Crysis is with my gtx260.

Hell, even fallout3 is considerably more difficult to max out than Crysis is.

Really :D

I can max FO3 easily. Even on a single 285, FO3 can be maxed (see link). When you introduce SLI, you are cooking :)

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-285-review--3way-sli/19

You CAN'T max Crysis on a 260. Of course maybe you consider that playable, but I don't.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/palit-geforce-gtx-260-sp216-sonic-review--test/14

As I suspected, ok @ 1280 x 1024, but not at anything higher.

N.B. Those 260 tests were done at "gamer" settings which are not the highest and they only used 2 x AA. That's not even close to "maxed" JFYI.

Even an i7 965 @ 3.7 and a 285 aren't capable of more than 35 FPS @ 1920 x 1200 and 285 is considerably faster than 260. The link also shows that even using SLI, Crysis is still not breaking 60 FPS @ 1920 x 1200. Tri-SLI is a little better at 74 but FO3 is outperforming Crysis with room to spare in every single test. FO3 is 40% faster than Crysis on a single 285 @ 1920 x 1200.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-285-review--3way-sli/17

Crysis is an FPS killer PERIOD. CryEngine 3 would be a poor choice of engine for A3 IMHO. If you were to combine it with A2's current AI, you might actually succeed in going back in time. It would be just that slow.

Eth

PS : I even gave you the benefit of the doubt by using Crysis:Warhead as a benchmark which was much better out of the box than the original Crysis in terms of performance.

Edited by BangTail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BiS already did a dynamic destruction, don't you remember the video with house made of bricks? Quite a long time ago, when it was still a Game2 (or how it was called).

But they did not implement it into Arma2 just mailny because of the multiplayer. I redirect those who do understand Czech to this (no time for translation, sry :)

K neustale omilane fyzice, je tu nekolik problemu, ktere dodnes nejsou doresene a ktere znemoznuji plne dynamickou fyziku (nejen v nasich hrach).

1) nedeterministicnost, tzn. je velmi obtizne zajistit aby fyzikalni simulace dopadla u vsech klientu pri multiplayeru stejne (bad company nema tusim multiplayer), ostatni hry to resi tak ,ze fyzika je spis na okrasu v tom smyslu ,ze vysledek simulace destrukce nema vliv na hru (odletujici kusy napriklad primo nezabiji hrace, jinak v MP zacne dochazet k nekonzistnostem), tento pristup se nam ale prilis v simulatoru nelibi

2)Dynamicke destukce zachovavaji objem destruovaneho telesa (na toto zatim neni v zadne hre, pokud je mi znamo, bran zretel) -to v praxi znamena, ze zbudou trosky o stejnem objemu a ty muzou zatarasit cesty pro AI i hrace, ai pak musi dynamicky neustale preplanovavat trasu, coz je nesmirne vykonostne narocne (pokud je ai pojato obecne jako u nas), budou navic nastavat situace, kdy ai nebude mit zadny zpusob, jak se z uzavreneho prostoru dostat, cely zpusob reprezentace pruchodnosti terenem musi byt dynamicky a kongitivni (odvozen od toho co ai muze skutecne vedet, ne od staticke znalosti site pruchodnosti)

3) nesmirne vypocetne narocne, takze je nutny vicejadrovy HW, ale predevsim narocne na zobrazeni, kazda volne letici troska, ktera pak nezmizi, ale zustane ve scene se musi stat samostanym objektem, coz klade obrovske naroky na zobrazovani predevsim diky narustajicimu poctu tzv. sekci ve scene, DX9 HW je velmi citlivy prave na pocty techto sekci, znamenalo by to tedy v podstate hru orientovat primarne na DX10 HW.

4) vzhledem k neschopnosti zajistit deterministicnost simulace, je nutne synchronizovat vysledky simulace i jeji prubeh , coz by take neumerne zvysilo naroky na sitovy provoz hry.

5) vyroba modelu pro dynamickou destrukci je radove 4x pracnejsi nes standartnich modelu, vyzaduje vyuziti uplne jinych modelovacich postupu a novych typu nastroju, ktere nejsou k dispozici v produkcnim stavu. Navic nutne vede k urcitym kompromisum vzhledem k visualni kvalite.

Z toho vseho plyne, ze dynamicka destrukce, predevsim u budov, je stale laboratorni technologii a nesjspis bude lepsi ji implementovat komercne nejdriv mimo oblast her, kde je mozne standartizovat HW na strane uzivatele a predpokladat provoz na rychlych lokalnich sitich.

Zaverem, nikdo nerekl, ze neexistuji i jine a vice herni pristupy nez dynamicka destrukce a ze o nich nebudeme uvazovat.

And about processing thing that the player don't see? I find that vital. It can be simplified an I bet it is in some ways, but not left to some pure statistic method like the way the battle is automatically solved in Total War series :D Nope. Arma2 is a SIMULATION (or wants to be), not a player-hero gamey...

Ok, try to convince soldiers, that things they don't see, that are behind this small hill, are not important and they should not care... :D

---------- Post added at 10:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 AM ----------

Aaand, do you remember Infiltration? A total mod for good ol' UT engine? Up to the present day, it is still the best soldier/weapon sim out there. And the devs, Sentry Studios, have been continuously looking for a new engine, that they could use for their already superb mod.

Maybe we should ask them, why they don't want to use the Cry Engine...probably you can find out "why" on their discussion board.

Or maybe we could ask the DCS why they don't use the Cry Engine for KA-50, or grotesquely we could ask the Creative Assembly why they don't use CryEngine for the Total war series :D

Face it or not, CryEngine is fancy and superb engine, BUT it is made for different games, for different approaches to games. Does not mean anything is superior or inferior, it is just different, different features, different needs. And it is not the first time in this thread, someone is trying to mention this fact. CryEngine is GREAT but it is not an ultimate universal game solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well from my experiance, I like Crysis a lot but I have never fully enjoyed it. There was always some lag. Never fully playable. Although I didnt have the best PC back then. Then Warhead came out and it was really a pleasant surprise how good it ran. So on 9800GTX it was like this. I had on 1024 and everything maxed out OR 1680 and texture detail down to medium.

So I guess if BIS would have enough time and if they get it right they could make and awsome game BUT Im not sure if I would like to see the trie. There were games in the past that were followed by a sequel made after years in another engine or by another company and it sucked big time.

Anyway, from my experiance I had good and bad times with cry-engine. I would prefer a mayor revision on current engine to converting everything to new engine. I fear that new engine could kill all the charm this game, that the game would go TOO "the other way".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow its my dream ARMA 3 look like that !

or will look likr OFP2 but more Realstic :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wow its my dream ARMA 3 look like that !

or will look likr OFP2 but more Realstic :P

DR looks awful. Just saying :D

Eth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bohemia would need alot of money to purchase that engine. Which they obviously don't have. And I don't think they would ever stop using their own engine. Which is a shame since it is so buggy and virtually unplayable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it plays smoothly. Just saying :D

Not sure what your point is? A2 plays smoothly for me and everyone in the group I play with across many different configurations.

Anyway, there is a thread for discussing that train wreck of a game (DR) and this ISN'T it so back on topic if you please.

Eth

---------- Post added at 04:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------

Bohemia would need alot of money to purchase that engine. Which they obviously don't have. And I don't think they would ever stop using their own engine. Which is a shame since it is so buggy and virtually unplayable for me.

Fixed.

Secondly, I don't think you or I or anyone else (apart from those directly involved) can speculate on BI's financial situation. The fact is, you don't have a clue.

Eth

Edited by BangTail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bohemia would need alot of money to purchase that engine.

You don't know that.

It is simply dumb to ask Mercedes to buy an engine from BMW.

The price would be enormous for simple reasons.

And in this case: It wouldn't even work, for the game cannot be compared to this milsim.

Which they obviously don't have.

You don't know that.

It is not obvious.

I like them not spending money on tricky-shitty marketing like Codemaster did and does - if you mean that "obvious" thing.

And I don't think they would ever stop using their own engine.

There is indeed no reason for them to do so.

I wouldn't want them to.

Which is a shame since it is so buggy and virtually unplayable.

This is wrong.

It's not buggy.

And it's very playable.

Having had hundreds of hourslong multiplayer games since release.

Don't tell people false things.

Edited by Herbal Influence
speling schit ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can max FO3 easily. Even on a single 285, FO3 can be maxed (see link). When you introduce SLI, you are cooking

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforc...w--3way-sli/19

You CAN'T max Crysis on a 260. Of course maybe you consider that playable, but I don't.

1440x900 and I can't max every available option for fallout3 on my 260 unclocked. Maybe it's my processor (working at 50% during the game..) or drivers not working correctly with fallout3, but my average framerate is 20 when looking at scenery, and 40 when looking high.

As for crysis - I lied, it isn't totally maxed out. It has a few configs which improve framerates and in most cases improves the visuals. CCC 2.1 at the second-to-last level it offers. Got around 30fps on average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im ok with a updated BI engine just they need to consult the editor designers of say UE3 or CE2 cuz those are very easy and capable editors. So comparing those editors to the BI editor to those it needs loads of work to compete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not new engine, they just need to take out a loan maybe and get some physics up in this b**ch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember this discussion many moons ago. The response from BIS was basically this...

Middleware Engine + BIS = Too Costley

I think in the end if the ARMA series continues, BIS will develop thier own engine to meet thier needs and the needs of the market place.

I myself would like to see alot of the "physics" and "Eye Candy" implimented in-game, realistically I don't think it will happen because you will have to own a NASA super computer to run the title.

Edited by swtx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bis should not use CryEngine 3 as that engine was created solely for the xbox 360 and ps3. It is not designed for the PC. Crytek said that for the PC they will use a modified cryengine 2. There are a number of comparison video's on youtube between CE2 en CE3 and you will see that CE3 is actually a step back from CE2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bis should not use CryEngine 3 as that engine was created solely for the xbox 360 and ps3. It is not designed for the PC. Crytek said that for the PC they will use a modified cryengine 2. There are a number of comparison video's on youtube between CE2 en CE3 and you will see that CE3 is actually a step back from CE2.

http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=851&Itemid=1

Yes, a step-back from CE2.

And the videos on youtube are comparing a console to a very expensive PC. Guess who's going to win that fight? No PC videos of CE3 have been released that I know of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember this discussion many moons ago. The response from BIS was basically this...

Middleware Engine + BIS = Too Costley

I think in the end if the ARMA series continues, BIS will develop thier own engine to meet thier needs and the needs of the market place.

I myself would like to see alot of the "physics" and "Eye Candy" implimented in-game, realistically I don't think it will happen because you will have to own a NASA super computer to run the title.

imo the eye candy of arma 2 is fine. its just the physics that are sub par. You can level a building dynamicaly like in BC2. you can destroy trees and other vegetations liek in BC2/Crysis.

If you want to simulate a real war you need to make the world itself act and feel like your in a war.

When i play arma 2 and inside a town being bombed my fighter jets and large heavy tanks, i still see buildings standing.

Now take a look at a real world location like iraq. Where ever their has been a conflict, that area has been smashed to bits. i just dont see that in Arma 2 at all.

Also, the sound effects on Arma 2 are sub-par imo. They really need to make the sounds more realistic and dynamic. BC2's sound effects are amazing and many here would agree on that.

Just look at the arma 2 expansion thread. people are wishing the new expansion will have BC2 kind of audio effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
imo the eye candy of arma 2 is fine. its just the physics that are sub par. You can level a building dynamicaly like in BC2. you can destroy trees and other vegetations liek in BC2/Crysis.

If you want to simulate a real war you need to make the world itself act and feel like your in a war.

When i play arma 2 and inside a town being bombed my fighter jets and large heavy tanks, i still see buildings standing.

Now take a look at a real world location like iraq. Where ever their has been a conflict, that area has been smashed to bits. i just dont see that in Arma 2 at all.

Also, the sound effects on Arma 2 are sub-par imo. They really need to make the sounds more realistic and dynamic. BC2's sound effects are amazing and many here would agree on that.

Just look at the arma 2 expansion thread. people are wishing the new expansion will have BC2 kind of audio effects.

I think this is it. If they are not making a new 64bit engine or willing to license one then it is over for ArmA. They have squeezed as much as they can out of this tired old engine. It made them money. Now it is either time to move on to a better engine or do something not ArmA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
imo the eye candy of arma 2 is fine. its just the physics that are sub par. You can level a building dynamicaly like in BC2. you can destroy trees and other vegetations liek in BC2/Crysis.

If you want to simulate a real war you need to make the world itself act and feel like your in a war.

When i play arma 2 and inside a town being bombed my fighter jets and large heavy tanks, i still see buildings standing.

Now take a look at a real world location like iraq. Where ever their has been a conflict, that area has been smashed to bits. i just dont see that in Arma 2 at all.

Also, the sound effects on Arma 2 are sub-par imo. They really need to make the sounds more realistic and dynamic. BC2's sound effects are amazing and many here would agree on that.

Just look at the arma 2 expansion thread. people are wishing the new expansion will have BC2 kind of audio effects.

One thing that killed the immersion for me in Arma 2 that BIS is already dilligently working on for OA is the sound engine, sound immerses me more into War scenarios more than high res textures and high polycount models.

If the sound was more beefy, and had all the proper properties, like distance, fade, echo, cracking etc it would make me feel like I was apart of the war more.

BIS has heard it over and over but the special effects/weather/particle effects could use some more development time and polish, make sure every gun behaves like it would in the real world, Barret 50 cals should eject a 50 cal casing and it should spew out alot of smoke and kick up some debris etc.

IMO if anything needs more polygons it would be the terrain, high polygon terrain especially at large viewdistance looks damn right sexy, im sure A2 already has pretty high polycounts with the terrain.

and I would improve the texture quality of the terrain, the chernarus land texture is just pure ugly, im guessing it was taken from satellite pictures, its really low res, and seeing how spotty it is kills immersion for me when having fire fights over long distances.

BIS should use there Mocap studio more often and create like a dozen or so mocap death animations, seeing the same one is even for high caliber bullets or the guy just being overkilled completely is silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A2 plus that auto-generating room technology would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this is it. If they are not making a new 64bit engine or willing to license one then it is over for ArmA. They have squeezed as much as they can out of this tired old engine. It made them money. Now it is either time to move on to a better engine or do something not ArmA.

Damn, sometimes I feel I am the only one without access to Real Virtuality and its source code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

The Real Virtuality Engine (RVE) is still the most advanced simulation and gaming engine that can run in a PC environment. COD CRY, Unreal and BF engines are just not in the same league. None of them has the terrain streaming or AI capabilities of RVE. NOT ONE! Nor do they have a development environment in the same league. And not even the dedicated Real Time Strategy games can match RVE's entity count, view distance or terrain size.

I know many competitors hope BIS will abandon it so that they can steal it.

BIS are already doing some thing none ArmA; in the form of the Carrier Command sequel.

My own thoughts are as I have often said is:

1) Ignore the morons with no Software Engineering training or experience who say build a new engine from the start again, at the best such people are imbeciles at worst they are out to steal abandoned tech or feed a myth into the BIS business model with intention to cause BIS to fail as a business.

2) BIS have a massive 15 year investment in RVE with its unrivaled extensibility and its tools. They should continue on the same policy of changing out modules of the engine and increasing its usability.

Reuse of existing code is the same business model as in all major successful software development from OS's like Linux, Windows and MAC, to business packages from SAP to Adobe Acrobat, to virtually every successful game package.

The cost of retraining all your staff to use new tools and code alone would bankrupt you.

BIS just need to keep adding to and improving RVE. That is the software engineering paradigms of Rapid Application and Agile software development based on iterative development and the incremental and evolutionary models.

The opposite BIG PLAN, Big Design Up Front (BDUF) Waterfall models have been the seen of the biggest Software engineering disasters in history.

3) The third thing BIS need to do is segment the development market by realizing that BIS are not merely some military/simulation/game developer they are an Universal Engine Developer.

RVE is a universal engine.

As such BIS needs to realise they are the hardware seller making and selling Jeans or Shovels, and running the Sarsaparilla stand in the gold rush and not the people panning for gold. In other words they are Levi Strauss, Sears and Coca Cola, not Larry the prospector. When Marek and the board of BIS realise this, then they will seriously change the game and simulation developer business market. And could even end up controlling it.

Then they can segment the market and license the engine they have developed and make use of the Million Monkey effect to spring off cloud development of multiple game types using RVE, paid for by both development license sales and a big percentage cut plus future licensing on MODs that are good enough to sell via the likes Steam to begin with then on to other.

4) The other thing BIS need is Console Developer version of the engine.

Like I said BIS ignore the develop the new engine numpties, they are idiots.

Kind Regards walker

Edited by walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all

The Real Virtuality Engine (RVE) is still the most advanced simulation and gaming engine that can run in a PC environment. COD CRY, Unreal and BF engines are just not in the same league. None of them has the terrain streaming or AI capabilities of RVE. NOT ONE! Nor do they have a development environment in the same league. And not even the dedicated Real Time Strategy games can match RVE's entity count, view distance or terrain size.

I know many competitors hope BIS will abandon it so that they can steal it.

BIS are already doing some thing none ArmA; in the form of the Carrier Command sequel.

My own thoughts are as I have often said is:

1) Ignore the morons with no Software Engineering training or experience who say build a new engine from the start again, at the best such people are imbeciles at worst they are out to steal abandoned tech or feed a myth into the BIS business model with intention to cause BIS to fail as a business.

2) BIS have a massive 15 year investment in RVE with its unrivaled extensibility and its tools. They should continue on the same policy of changing out modules of the engine and increasing its usability.

Reuse of existing code is the same business model as in all major successful software development from OS's like Linux, Windows and MAC, to business packages from SAP to Adobe Acrobat, to virtually every successful game package.

The cost of retraining all your staff to use new tools and code alone would bankrupt you.

BIS just need to keep adding to and improving RVE. That is the software engineering paradigms of Rapid Application and Agile software development based on iterative development and the incremental and evolutionary models.

The opposite BIG PLAN, Big Design Up Front (BDUF) Waterfall models have been the seen of the biggest Software engineering disasters in history.

3) The third thing BIS need to do is segment the development market by realizing that BIS are not merely some military/simulation/game developer they are an Universal Engine Developer.

RVE is a universal engine.

As such BIS needs to realise they are the hardware seller making and selling Jeans or Shovels, and running the Sarsaparilla stand in the gold rush and not the people panning for gold. In other words they are Levi Strauss, Sears and Coca Cola, not Larry the prospector. When Marek and the board of BIS realise this, then they will seriously change the game and simulation developer business market. And could even end up controlling it.

Then they can segment the market and license the engine they have developed and make use of the Million Monkey effect to spring off cloud development of multiple game types using RVE, paid for by both development license sales and a big percentage cut plus future licensing on MODs that are good enough to sell via the likes Steam to begin with then on to other.

4) The other thing BIS need is Console Developer version of the engine.

Like I said BIS ignore the develop the new engine numpties, they are idiots.

Kind Regards walker

Now that 64bit is here to stay and as stated before that Win7 is the last 32bit OS for Microsoft BIS needs to change over at some time in the next couple of years. "Windows 8" comes out in early 2012. It is 64bit ONLY. Either change the current RVE to 64bit which would give it the much needed memory space it needs or build a new 64bit RVE. Other options are license a 64bit engine then modify or move on to greener pastures.

I hope they build a new 64bit RVE. I love what BIS has done and I will continue to support them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×