Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jonneymendoza

What if CryEngine was used as Arma 3 future engine?

Recommended Posts

looks too good to be true. i remember when dragon rising first came out with the batch of target renders(the infamous artillery "gameplay"). the end product looked nothing like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cryengine is shit for the pourposes you need for a milsim.

- way to small maps for mp

- bad AI which spawn in at distance

- max playercount 32

Try build a 200km² map in the crysis editor, place 200-300 permanent, not spawning enemy and civillian AI.

Then you see the limits.

Its not an engine for such a game like arma, it fits for games like crysis/battlefield/cod and such games.

Sure it looks good and has good physics, but its too limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever played far cry 2? That map isn't much smaller at all than Chernarus, with a decent view distance as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it has constantly spawning AI, usually in the same places. Its not dynamic at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you ever played far cry 2? That map isn't much smaller at all than Chernarus, with a decent view distance as well.

Yeah and? The example is way too inferior.

That includes heavily outdated graphics which is how engines are judged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread title should be renamed to Arma 3: Engine upgrade requests and features so we can stop this idiotic comparison of Crytek engine vs RV platform.

this whole thread has been derailed.

Basically Crytek engine is inferior because:

Non advanced AI, they state is advanced but I dont see no flanking or anything advanced being carried out by the AI, not to mention they spawn in proximity to the player (its a player centric engine). FPDR

You will never get High viewdistances with that kind of Crysis detail at Point blank to the models

32 player Max MP count FPDR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line. Why would BIS invest in a new engine. The VR engine (probably)still has a little more give but the cruncher would be that most gamers don't invest time in this sort of military simulator making it difficult to justify.

My crystalball gazing shows ArmA2 being the mainstay of milsim players for the next 5 maybe 10 years, by wich time the american military industrial machine will have paid some project (such as those already stated) enough money to produce some beutifully enticing rubbish that under cuts the BI military market and BIS end up focusing on other game types.

I hope I'm wrong, but the murmurings from BIS lead me to think this way.

Even so I intend to enjoy Arma as long as its around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try build a 200km² map in the crysis editor, place 200-300 permanent, not spawning enemy and civillian AI.

Then you see the limits.

.

reality check needed here.

arma2 quickly slows down to a crawl with the above as well.

I've hardly ever seen large scale engagements in arma2 as the engine just can't handle that. And as for drawn distances, with my ati5870 i find 1500-3000m to be ok when not too many units (and i mean a couple dozens at most) are around. and that's with most settings at normal (shadows to high to engage gpu)

arma2 engine certainly isn't the final word in long distance large engagements. not by a long shot. and sometimes the engine looks pretty dated at longer ranges with shadows not being rendered/simulated out at distances.

i am a mad arma2 fan, but would like to see it evolve a hell of a lot more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.........

Can be done with the right LOD and model optimizations, but not with my current hardware... Btw, Arma2 also uses LOD systems, so details isn't rendered at full in the distance. It can easily be done though...

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Crysis graphics has even less to do with reality? Care to develop that further? Makes no sense to me.

Yeah, at 3km details has to be lowered in LOD, thats true, arma2 also has it, but i'd say u can get very similar results to Arma or even better with Ce3.

Am not joking, the AI of crysis can be dumb sometimes yes, but it's fully functional and acceptive. What you said about enemies spawning out of thin air is not true. They are located already when you come there, as for the first level.. when u get down the hill in "first sunrise" the boat is there, the enemies are striving the beach, and a korean is taking a leak. And they don't just run around. They hunt you if they hear or see you from far away. If u cloak in one place after getting spotted, soldiers will come down to that position to search for you. They will try to move around to flank you, beef up to Delta difficulty and you will see.

Cryengine can easily be optimized for a game like Arma2 or 3... at least on the PC platform on decent hardware. And it's not called Crysis engine, it's called CryEngine.. let's say it together: CryyyyyEngiiiine.. Now hope u learned it this time.

"I mean even 10 years later puny OFP dumps AAA Crysis when it comes to scale and AI" dumb comment. Were talking about the engines here. Not crysis VS Arma.. You speak like a true Arma fanboy. Stick to the discussion please.

"detail in Crysis is considerably lower than in ArmA2's Chernarus so what you are saying is still in question."

Err? Are you retarded for real? Cryengine2 produces alot better graphical detail than your RV3 engine. And for all those who say "yeah but can it do 3km view distance" YES it can, with the right LOD settings, perfectly playable and great detail. You know so little about the crysis modding, the tools, sandbox etc so you shouldn't speak. You're embarrassing yourself with comments like these.

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

What screenshots are you referring to? Mine i posted? Or the released by crytek? The one i posted doesn't look bad, it's the best graphics out there. And the PC screenshots of Crysis 2? Is those what you meant? Or more specifically these:

http://www.abload.de/img/crysis2_december_2010_xqzp.jpg

http://h-4.abload.de/img/nanosuit0lns1st8l1oq6.png

http://www.abload.de/img/crysis2_december_2010_wqco.jpg

http://www.abload.de/img/crysis2_december_2010_ksg8.jpg

http://www.abload.de/img/crysis2_december_2010_2qab.jpg

You think they look "pretty bad" ? is that it?

No, they are not doing separate models for the PC, but they use tessellation for PC which makes objects look much better than the consoles. You need to learn a thing or two before you speak, so much BS coming out from your little mouth. About the DX10 effects for Crysis? U can enable them via C_vars or running Vista or Win7 and enabling VH settings from the ingame menu. The few things dx10 has that dx9 didnt have in crysis, the most obvious ones are Object based motion blur then theres stuff in Dx10 that Crysis has particle emitters and some dynamic lightsources that are restricted by devs to DX10 mode aswell as simple deffered lights that are used when a bullet collides with metal litting up impact surface. DX10 also has higher precision for some effects and higher sampling rate though difference there is subtle. Then Crytek style OBM only works fully correct in DX10 and particle quality is higher in DX10 using geometry shaders. If you can see zero differences between vanilla crysis in dx9 and dx10 then it's real bad, because in dx9, settings are locked to High only. But can be workarounded with cvar settings a.k.a ini files to get the Veryhigh settings under dx9, and if done so, there is little to no real visual difference to dx9 and 10, youre right about that much. Still, however u do u wont get OB-motionblur.

The cryengine is shit for the pourposes you need for a milsim.

- way to small maps for mp

- bad AI which spawn in at distance

- max playercount 32

Try build a 200km² map in the crysis editor, place 200-300 permanent, not spawning enemy and civillian AI.

Then you see the limits.

Its not an engine for such a game like arma, it fits for games like crysis/battlefield/cod and such games.

Sure it looks good and has good physics, but its too limited.

Another dumb comment. Were still comparing the ENGINES and not crysis and arma as the games themself, you talk about small multiplayer maps and MP playercounts etc. That has nothing to do with the engine itself, but to make the maps suitable for the type of core gameplay that crysis MP has. Spawning 300 enemies with AI would be possible if handled via the GPU, but the AI of crysis is calculated by the CPU, therefor there are limits yes. This can be rewritten in the engines code when the engine is licensed so theres not a too big problem.

CryEngine would fit very nice into games like Arma, it's all about optimization and doing the LOD right. But u dont know sh*t about that stuff right? U dont know about tris-counts either? Guessed that. Learn before you speak sir.

This thread title should be renamed to Arma 3: Engine upgrade requests and features so we can stop this idiotic comparison of Crytek engine vs RV platform.

this whole thread has been derailed.

Basically Crytek engine is inferior because:

Non advanced AI, they state is advanced but I dont see no flanking or anything advanced being carried out by the AI, not to mention they spawn in proximity to the player (its a player centric engine). FPDR

You will never get High viewdistances with that kind of Crysis detail at Point blank to the models

32 player Max MP count FPDR

Yes this discussion is idiotic because you guys have limited knowledge about Cryengine but speaks just as if you did, and also.. you assume things over and over again which are not correct.

Yes there's flanking. no they don't spawn proximity to the player. U can easily get that kind of high detail even at high viewdistances, just alter some cvar commands, will it be playable? Prolly not if u don't use correct LOD systems, Arma2 has LOD too, stop being ignorant. 32 player max MP has nothing to do with restrictions within the engine itself. Stop talking things without knowing.

Yeah Crytek is an awesome engine!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

Crytek is the name of the compant, CryEngine is the name of the engine and Crysis is the name of the game itself. Get it right next time. Btw, why were u banned? For saying that the Crytek engine is awesome? hm... Doesn't sound like a fair ban to me.

http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2009/06/arma-ii-review/10km.jpg This picture is easily recreated with the Cryengine, even in the sandbox itself. Just do terrain, TOD, throw in some houses and add a bunch of pinetrees and u have it.

Edited by Soetdjuret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cryengine can easily be optimized for a game like Arma2 or 3... at least on the PC platform on decent hardware

Really? I haven't seen any game come close to the Arma series in terms of scale and amount of AI units moving about. In a CTI (Capture the Island), there can be literally hundreds if not thousands of squads, helos's, transport trucks, planes etcs... performing all sorts of individual tasks.

I think easy might be an overstatement :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you love the CryEngine so much, go play Crysis.

We don't need Crysis Fan Boys here.

The discussion isn't about if i love cryengine or crysis. It's about which engine that looks better. And also if Cryengine would be suitable for a game like Arma. If you love to complain and not taking part in the discussion, go home play with yourself. And am not a fan boy, if you actually take time to read what i say, am just informative and keeping a discussion.

Anyway, back to topic! http://armed-assault.de/screenshots/arma2-chernarus-2-2_1_5427.jpg I will try to make a good comparison shot from a huge forest map released by the community.

In this picture: http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/9271/arma2int200808141223113.jpg You can clearly see the use of low-detailed sprites further away. Some lodded houses, then some large scaled textured geometry, then behind the first hills theres: Nothing, just a grey mist. Same with the first pic i posted. This could with ease be recreated in the sandbox LOL. I'll come back with some examples. I will own you few who say Cryengine wouldn't be suitable for a game like Arma due to draw distance and performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The discussion isn't about if i love cryengine or crysis. It's about which engine that looks better. And also if Cryengine would be suitable for a game like Arma. If you love to complain and not taking part in the discussion, go home play with yourself. And am not a fan boy, if you actually take time to read what i say, am just informative and keeping a discussion.

Ok, so you register this month and all 9 of your posts are in this one thread. You only came here to argue with people and promote your fanboyism to the CryEngine.

Please go home, this is grown up talk and you are too young to hear what this forum has to offer.

One day, when you are old enough, you will understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to back the CryEngine really, but it could be JUST the graphics engine. There is no reason you'd have to use the same AI or physics engine.

That being said, I think something like Outerra as it gets more mature is a better suited graphics engine than the CryEngine for simulations of this size.

CryEngine would be a step down in terms of potential world size. We should be looking at things that will EXPAND the size of the world.

I want to be able to have a HIMARS and lob rockets 180Km away to a target. I'd like to see the RV engine or CryEngine do that. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so you register this month and all 9 of your posts are in this one thread. You only came here to argue with people and promote your fanboyism to the CryEngine.

Please go home, this is grown up talk and you are too young to hear what this forum has to offer.

One day, when you are old enough, you will understand.

Ye, i got into this thread somehow.. Don't remember, then i see two persons saying that Arma2 looks better than any installment of the cryengine. I register to correct them, because Arma2 will never looks as Crysis can. Or any other game out there for that matter.. Am not arguing, am correcting them and showing them the true potential about Cryengine. Atleast i can keep a good, constructive and mature discussion. Comments like yours really show that you're the one that need to grow up, trying to insult me and stuff, thats really pathetic. Contribute to the topic instead of spreading BS and insults please. Am 23, how old are yourself?

Not to back the CryEngine really, but it could be JUST the graphics engine. There is no reason you'd have to use the same AI or physics engine.

That being said, I think something like Outerra as it gets more mature is a better suited graphics engine than the CryEngine for simulations of this size.

CryEngine would be a step down in terms of potential world size. We should be looking at things that will EXPAND the size of the world.

I want to be able to have a HIMARS and lob rockets 180Km away to a target. I'd like to see the RV engine or CryEngine do that. :p

So you still don't think cryengine can render large areas with good frames? What are you even basing this on? Crysis? Crysis levels are much much smaller than the ones in Arma2, and there is no other games using Cryengine2 out there to compare with. You need to be into crysis modding, mapping and know your way around the sandbox to really make fair judgements.. Other than that, i can only see how you make this all out from 1 game which is far from the type of game Arma games are. But that doesn't mean the engine can be optimized and used for large areas. Get a grip on things and read some about cryengine, or even better.. take some time with the sandbox, import some pines, create geometry, place textures, objects and trees then allow high res sprites and bump the sprites distance and activate e_lods 1 via console... THEN SPEAK..

Now to the pwn part:

http://a.imageshack.us/img809/7407/00198.jpg - Eorzea, FF XIV map for crysis.

http://h-2.abload.de/img/aerialstitchhxg9.jpg

http://h-2.abload.de/img/00032sfhuaxf8.jpg

http://h-2.abload.de/img/aaaz9w3.jpg

See those 4 pics? That's long drawdistance in crysis, while 2 of them show of forest environment in much much greater quality than in Arma2. I'll be back with more. I will also take some pics from a huge forest map myself and even show the fps counter, so you will se how it's possible. Arma2 uses sprites at distances, their LOD system does that, along with geometry textures, and low-res houses, see.. highres houses is only suitable at close range where u can spott a bad texture. At 3km u don't need this because it's too far away. There for LOD's are used. Same as in crysis, If sprites are used only, u can get even longer distances in Cryengine i believe, they even promoted 16km view distance in the early 2006 Cryengine2 techdemo that was released back at around E3 2006.

Edited by Soetdjuret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See those 3 pics? That's long drawdistance in crysis, while 2 of them show of forest environment in much much greater quality than in Arma2. I'll be back with more. I will also take some pics from a huge forest map myself and even show the fps counter, so you will se how it's possible. Arma2 uses sprites at distances, their LOD system does that, along with geometry textures, and low-res houses, see.. highres houses is only suitable at close range where u can spott a bad texture. At 3km u don't need this because it's too far away. There for LOD's are used. Same as in crysis, If sprites are used only, u can get even longer distances in Cryengine i believe, they even promoted 16km view distance in the early 2006 Cryengine2 techdemo that was released back at around E3 2006.

I am not saying it can't do large areas, just it is not purpose written for that sort of thing. There are better engines in development that are able to simulate thousands of kilometers of terrain. Have you seen Outerra? It can render the entire planet from space down to ruts in a dirt road... :p

HmeiXEm9hFY

When you show me a video of the CryEngine doing that then I will maybe take another look at it, but right now I personally am looking at Outerra.

Also those screenshots only show a few kilometers at most, even the first one. That is maybe 2 1/2 kilometers at most, that is the first level of Crysis if I am not mistaken... I played the game, I know how big that area is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not saying it can't do large areas, just it is not purpose written for that sort of thing. There are better engines in development that are able to simulate thousands of kilometers of terrain. Have you seen Outerra? It can render the entire planet from space down to ruts in a dirt road... :p

When you show me a video of the CryEngine doing that then I will maybe take another look at it, but right now I personally am looking at Outerra.

Also those screenshots only show a few kilometers at most, even the first one. That is maybe 2 1/2 kilometers at most, that is the first level of Crysis if I am not mistaken... I played the game, I know how big that area is.

But how do you know it's not written for this kind of environments? Crytek even had as sale arguments for it's engine that it could handle up to 16km view distances, 12km high mountains, no skybox limitations etc etc..

Ok, so none of those 3 showed more than 2 1/2 kilometers? What about this one: http://a.imageshack.us/img809/7407/00198.jpg

That's at least as, or even bigger distance than this:

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/9271/arma2int200808141223113.jpg

And this: http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7662/arma2oa2010111921062964.jpg

And this: http://www.armedassault.com/pic_arma2/ArmA2meeting.jpg

Sure Microsoft FSX is one example, but the graphics as getting closer to the ground look horrible, that's because it's lodded down. Google earth is even bigger, it has no objects at all (except for some simple 3dmodels for city structions) I mean were do we start, were do we stop? From the tiny good looking indoors of Doom3 when it came, to vast open and beautiful areas of Oblivion.. Oblivion had about 41 square kilometers and thats huge for a game like that. Also here LOD is lowered to display more vegetation at greater distances.

Btw, Arma2 looks kinda washed out, and i don't like the bloom-ish lighting they use.. It will never even come close the the precise, complex and advanced lighting that Cryengine can produce:

excavator4hh3i.jpg

Edited by Soetdjuret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

That was an internal joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But how do you know it's not written for this kind of environments? Crytek even had as sale arguments for it's engine that it could handle up to 16km view distances, 12km high mountains, no skybox limitations etc etc..

Ok, so none of those 3 showed more than 2 1/2 kilometers? What about this one: http://a.imageshack.us/img809/7407/00198.jpg

That's at least as, or even bigger distance than this:

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/9271/arma2int200808141223113.jpg

And this: http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7662/arma2oa2010111921062964.jpg

And this: http://www.armedassault.com/pic_arma2/ArmA2meeting.jpg

Sure Microsoft FSX is one example, but the graphics as getting closer to the ground look horrible, that's because it's lodded down. Google earth is even bigger, it has no objects at all (except for some simple 3dmodels for city structions) I mean were do we start, were do we stop? From the tiny good looking indoors of Doom3 when it came, to vast open and beautiful areas of Oblivion.. Oblivion had about 41 square kilometers and thats huge for a game like that. Also here LOD is lowered to display more vegetation at greater distances.

Btw, Arma2 looks kinda washed out, and i don't like the bloom-ish lighting they use.. It will never even come close the the precise, complex and advanced lighting that Cryengine can produce:

I'm no talking about view distance mate... I am talking about the entire area that is being simulated. Those screen shots still show only a few km of view distance anyways and I doubt that they are meant to be traveled much further than what you can see.

Besides, ArmA doesn't NEED the CryEngine, the game is NOT a graphics game, nice graphics are a bonus, but not needed. I'd rather have simpler graphics and the ability to render dozens or hundreds of more entities in a scene. Even lighting I am not concerned about.

I am not saying the CryEngine is bad, its just not the right engine for this sort of platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else getting sick of reading this CryEngine vs. RV debate? It is extremely unlikely that BIS will ever abandon RV and start using the CryEngine. End of story.

Now back to the actual topic, k thx bai.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

look there has been many discussions about using the CryEngine for ArmA2 or 3 but is not gonna happen so get over it . look here is my point why would a company that has the ability to make their own game engine waste the money to purchase another game engine form some other company. and if they did so it would not make enough/more in profits from having that engine in new customers to justify it. simple business. plus they would have to completely redo all the models,configs,etc,etc. to make it work with the new engine. not to mention that Bohemia Interactive has been around and using their own game engine since late 1990s eary 2000s and just look at how big and not to mention very dedicated community. no other game can even begin to claim that!!!!!!!!!! so with all that said drop the CryEngine crap .IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!! there i put it in plane english for u and its all caps so it easy for u to see.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone else getting sick of reading this CryEngine vs. RV debate? It is extremely unlikely that BIS will ever abandon RV and start using the CryEngine. End of story.

Now back to the actual topic, k thx bai.

That is the actual topic... :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is the actual topic... :p

Oh wow, you're right. If only that were apparent from the thread title.

Ah well, I'll stay out of this "discussion" then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crysis graphics has even less to do with reality? Care to develop that further? Makes no sense to me.

Lightshafts everywhere like everything is covered in dust, cartoon-ish sea waves, fluffy clouds that look nothing like real clouds in the clear sky (ArmA2s photo-textures for one are way better) - the only thing that is missing is unicorns.

Yeah, at 3km details has to be lowered in LOD, thats true, arma2 also has it, but i'd say u can get very similar results to Arma or even better with Ce3.

Crysis had a view distance of 1-1.5 kms, upon coming closer to those sprite trees they were still remaining sprite trees and you couldn't reach them because Crysis was basically a corridor. Open areas at each level were of the size of Proving Grounds at best. So you can only speculate.

Am not joking, the AI of crysis can be dumb sometimes yes, but it's fully functional and acceptive.

Actually calling it "AI" is a bit of a stretch. Seriously how can you call primitive bots that can do nothing but running at you shooting - good?

What you said about enemies spawning out of thin air is not true. They are located already when you come there

Yes they are being put there when you come into a specific area, while previous ones far away get removed.

when u get down the hill in "first sunrise" the boat is there, the enemies are striving the beach, and a korean is taking a leak.

Yes. Every time they do exactly the same thing, being in the exactly same position doing exactly the same thing limiting script tells them to do.

And they don't just run around. They hunt you if they hear or see you from far away. If u cloak in one place after getting spotted, soldiers will come down to that position to search for you. They will try to move around to flank you, beef up to Delta difficulty and you will see.

I don't get it? Are you actually agreeing with me there?

If they will hear you they will just rush at you and the whole "flanking" is nothing but them dancing around you within 50m. And they will do all of this every single time.

And again don't forget that the moment you leave the area of their scripts - they will run back to their initial positions because they are incapable of following you further than the place they were scripted to be in.

Cryengine can easily be optimized for a game like Arma2 or 3...

CryEngine is completely unfit to handle a game like ArmA like you already proven yourself in your comment. It took BIS 10 years to bring AA2 to where it is now - and they were making an engine for this very game right from the start.

How many decades will it take CryTek to bring an engine to AA2 level that is incapable of handling 200km2 areas in real time, incapable of having non-scripted dynamic AI on the whole map at all times doing many things in different ways - not just waiting for the single Chosen One Player to arrive, incapable of handling realistic ballistics where thousands of bullets are being calculated on the whole huge map at all times - and being sent over the network in multiplayer too - without lag, incapable of supporting more than 32 players in multiplayer?

Face it - CryEngine is primitive - it can only do beautiful shaders and eyecandy physics - and that's the only thing that makes it different from CoD's Quake 3 engine iteration.

"I mean even 10 years later puny OFP dumps AAA Crysis when it comes to scale and AI" dumb comment. Were talking about the engines here. Not crysis VS Arma.. You speak like a true Arma fanboy. Stick to the discussion please.

I'm sticking to the discussion. I'm saying that CryEngine AI is way worse than the one that was in OFP (aka RV1) 10 years ago.

If I was a fanboy I would be just throwing insults around and crying about how graphics is what determines the engine superiority, despite the engine being inferior in everything else.

Err? Are you retarded for real? Cryengine2 produces alot better graphical detail than your RV3 engine. And for all those who say "yeah but can it do 3km view distance" YES it can, with the right LOD settings, perfectly playable and great detail. You know so little about the crysis modding, the tools, sandbox etc so you shouldn't speak. You're embarrassing yourself with comments like these.

I post facts, you can't even post a proof of CryEngine working like that. So far you posted some static screenshots where areas were made just to make screenshots of them from the very same position and some arguments that only prove that CryEngine is primitive.

What screenshots are you referring to? Mine i posted? Or the released by crytek? The one i posted doesn't look bad, it's the best graphics out there. And the PC screenshots of Crysis 2? Is those what you meant? Or more specifically these:

http://www.abload.de/img/crysis2_december_2010_xqzp.jpg

http://h-4.abload.de/img/nanosuit0lns1st8l1oq6.png

http://www.abload.de/img/crysis2_december_2010_wqco.jpg

http://www.abload.de/img/crysis2_december_2010_ksg8.jpg

http://www.abload.de/img/crysis2_december_2010_2qab.jpg

You think they look "pretty bad" ? is that it?

Yeah. Look at them, they only show a one tight corridor where the background 400m away is horribly blurred and bloomed to hide how lowpoly and low detailed those buildings are. Trees have waaaay less detail than any tree on Chernarus - and on Chernarus there are dozens of them being rendered at once. You can also see that nano-suit lost all those small details from Crysis1 so it won't cause additional lags on consoles.

In other words Crysis2 does look worse than Crysis1, losing the last bits of reality and starting to look more like Gears of War.

No, they are not doing separate models for the PC, but they use tessellation for PC which makes objects look much better than the consoles.

They won't be applying it to everything. There is no videocard on the market currently that will handle such load.

Tessellation or not - it won't save Crysis2 from looking like it looks now.

The few things dx10 has that dx9 didnt have in crysis, the most obvious ones are Object based motion blur

Object based motion blur is perfectly possible under DX9 - you easily enable it by editing a string in Crysis config under XP.

As I've said I saw absolutely no difference under XP and 7 both with 4850 and 260. The only thing I had to do to see no difference is edit Crysis config to unlock additional effects EA locked in agreement with Microsoft and Nvidia to sell more Vista and 8800s

Edited by metalcraze

Share this post


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

×