What if CryEngine was used as Arma 3 future engine?

[whisper 0]

The basis of choice for a potential future ArmA3 engine should definitely not be graphics, but centered around what ArmA3 is built for : scale & freedom (& realism if I don't want to be killed on sight by some member of the community :p )

Pushing again and again for CE2 engine because "it looks better" is really a moot point.

In terms of scale, freedom and realism, what is gained over RV when using CE2?

I can see what Outterra like pointed by Nou could bring, I can't see what CE2 can bring

Edited January 19, 2011 by whisper

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

@Soetdjuret

I see you posted some vids there, a teaser trailer and some crysis(1) mods... I wouldn't exactly class that as gameplay, or good.

[wolfbite 8]

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...

Dude do you actually read before replying? We're talking about handling things other than just graphics. Such as hundreds of units you cant see still doing whatever they were doing.

Crysis only has units when you can see them ... It doesnt matter if he's taking a piss or whatever. Thats just something its set to do when you see it. The A.I in crysis isnt dynamic enough for ArmA's sake.

[metalcraze 290]

Dude probably fired up OA, saw that the graphics aren't about fancy shaders and desert is full of sand, immediately turned it off and came here bitching not understanding what ArmA2 is all about (aka dynamic battlefield where anything can happen and the player is just a cog in the machine - in contrast to scripted corridor shooters where you just run from the trigger to the trigger)

Edited January 19, 2011 by metalcraze

[pathetic_berserker 4]

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..

How do we KNOW it is??

My comment maybe considered a bit cynical but we have all seen unfounded claims made by developers. ie Codemasters effort regarding Dragon Rising, they were releasing outragous claims and video trailers right up to the games release.LOL

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:

Personaly I don't disagree with you on this point, I turm my PP off.Though I prefer washed out to technicolor, for this game atleast. But at the end of the day the only real improvement in all those pics you posted, that I see, is better bloom and shadows. Two things that may be improved in the RV engine someday, that certainly don't justify a completely new engine.

May i suggest Soetdjuret that you spend abit more time playing the game and a little less time trying to sell a (sort of unrealized) graphics engine. Once you have played seriously enough to realize that you aren't looking at the scenery anymore because your trying to stay alive, you'll probably be able to come in here and bag the game as much as you like.

[Steakslim 1]

I'll just chime in (and I probably already have in this thread somewhere) and say...as a future engine.....unlikely. As for a competing game on Cryengine 3, a possibility only if a studio takes interest, see OT discussion on similar subject that seems less rabid than this one about a possible simulator in the works (not game). Truth is ArmA doesn't need CryEngine 3, but RV does however need a bit of an overhaul if a 3rd installment of ArmA is to be released in a few years time. Improve in physics, even a small one if it must be and it doesn't have to be ragdolls, just something a little more advanced to help do away with some of the strange physic anomalies we're used to seeing from time to time, and for immersion. Also render-to-texture being another one that I'm sure quite a few would love to have, but that's another discussion for another thread, probably locked by now :D

Also I'd hope BIS will also decide that the human eye can actually handle it's own shit and tone down the bloom, or improve it in some way, as someone mentioned earlier that Cryengine actually did it quite well. Actually Cryengines post processing effects, even the unrealistic ones like the lightrays were rather well done (and I'd like to see those applicable in some way in hazy, dusty, atmospheric conditions in ArmA someday) along with other things like the textures. I bitched about the facial textures in ArmA2 when it was coming out and people kinda scoffed at me for it, then Arrowhead rolled around with much improved faces and a lot of people were all joyous like that one of the badly wanted improvements and I wonder just how bipolar some of the people in this community are or did I have the misfortune of running into a bad few?

[Soetdjuret 10]

watch?v=-V396uuiAsU

Large scale terrain and long viewdistance rendered in realtime inside Cryengine2.

Take that

[metalcraze 290]

You totally don't get it do you? Map size is just 1/100 of complaints about what CryEngine cannot do

But the video kinda shows it all - maps are about 2km by 2km and when choppers fire there is no bullet tracing and deflection

Dude have you actually tried playing ArmA2?

Edited January 20, 2011 by metalcraze

[Soetdjuret 10]

Played both Arma1 and 2, and they kinda suck, gameplay wise. But as a sim it's ok.

Care to explain what bullet tracing does? Enlighten me because i dont know.

Oh and about AI, who cares.. "There is no reason you'd have to use the same AI or physics engine." This doesn't seem to go into your head. If CE would be used in Arma3 then AI would be reworked ofc.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Soetdjuret

[katipo66 94]

I want Arma to look as good as that video... now!

I hate hearing why it cant, love hearing why it can...

[metalcraze 290]

Played both Arma1 and 2, and they kinda suck, gameplay wise. But as a sim it's ok.

A complex gameplay in them sucks because?

Judging by how you think that graphics is the only thing different between two games you played ArmA for 5 minutes or something?

Care to explain what bullet tracing does? Enlighten me because i dont know.

Basically RV offers a realistic ballistic simulation. The bullet always appears in the gun barrel - then it travels from there. When it hits something depending on the material it can either go through with a changed trajectory, stay in it or get deflected (it's easily seen when firing from some high caliber weapon or when using tracer rounds). It still remains dangerous when it still moves however there is also a velocity present and bullet will lose speed and height over time (usually after 300-400m for most rifles), as well as will inflict less damage when it hits someone (or none at all depending on whether it hits an armour or unarmoured part of the body). None of this CryEngine is able to simulate. In the video we can easily see that bullets fly from the chopper at all the random trajectories, like they are being fired by some spray-gun, like it happens in so many arcade shooters which won't happen in real life with that gun - and then just hit the ground and stay there.

Wind also deflects bullet from its original trajectory.

Oh and about AI, who cares.. "There is no reason you'd have to use the same AI or physics engine." This doesn't seem to go into your head. If CE would be used in Arma3 then AI would be reworked ofc.

And it would take how many years just to rework AI to AA2 levels? (let alone the network code which in AA2 can transfer thousands of simulated bullets over network and not cause the server to burn - and then there is a lot of stuff still left to rework - just to update CryEngine to where RV is now)

"Who cares" isn't something you can say about AI in the game where it plays the major role, and not just bots that will wait for player to come and shoot them

CryEngine is just fancy shaders and physics and nothing else. There is nothing stopping BIS from adding them to RV... except they have to make gameplay something much more than run'n'gun of Crysis as well - and that's much more important than a generic arcade shooter you will complete in 6 hours and forget forever.

Edited January 20, 2011 by metalcraze

[avengerzx 10]

Just a Straight Answer from Dwarden:

It is impossible

[katipo66 94]

Just a Straight Answer from Dwarden:

It is impossible

Like flying was...

[-)rStrangelove 0]

What if CryEngine was used as Arma 3 future engine?

ArmA3 would cost a lot more. Simple answer. ;)

[whisper 0]

Repeating the question : What in terms of scale, freedom, and realism, does CE2 brings that RV has not?

I can see a bit of better physics, and I've nothing showing this can scale up well (isn't it disabled for example in MP?)

[gossamersolid 155]

Played both Arma1 and 2, and they kinda suck, gameplay wise. But as a sim it's ok.

Care to explain what bullet tracing does? Enlighten me because i dont know.

Oh and about AI, who cares.. "There is no reason you'd have to use the same AI or physics engine." This doesn't seem to go into your head. If CE would be used in Arma3 then AI would be reworked ofc.

If you don't like the game and you are only here to promote your fanboyism with the CryEngine, then fuck off and leave.

Nobody wants to read your stupid posts anymore.

Edited January 21, 2011 by GossamerSolid

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

If you don't like the game and you are only here to promote your fanboyism with the CryEngine, they fuck off and leave.

Nobody wants to read your stupid posts anymore.

This.

The only thing you have proven with your meaningless posts is that you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. Go play Crysis and stop posting on this forum.

[Defunkt 431]

Seems he's not even getting a whole lot of support on the Crysis side either...

I love Opperation flashpoint and Arma 2, And I tried it. I started with the largest possible map size and started and started putting in the mountains ect. after about 70% thru it was already starting to show signs of stress. I started again with the next size down and after finishing the terrain I started getting signs of stress on the texturing. So I went down again and whilst I had achieved terrain and basic textures it was still no good

I have a PC thats can run Crysis on max setting DX10 with little performance loss but the scale I was asking just wouldnt work...

Cry Engine 3??

http://www.crymod.com/thread.php?threadid=66540

[maturin 12]

Like flying was...

I don't want to playing a game made out of wood and fabric like the first planes were. We already have high speed rail.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Seems he's not even getting a whole lot of support on the Crysis side either...

http://www.crymod.com/thread.php?threadid=66540

LOL @ this guy:

Is it possible? Some smart-ass guys on bohemia interactive forums are saying Cryengine2 couldnt be suitable for a game like Arma2 due to drawdistance and performance. So, can someone prove them wrong?

/pwn.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

now where talking

Not really. The AI suck. They are stupid to watch them evade you.

[noubernou 77]

Again, not to defend the cry engine, but if you limit it to just graphics then you can replace the AI with any number of solutions.

AI engine is not the same as the graphics engine. The AI engine could run with a 2D map of circles and lines.... :p

[Lorca 10]

For me comparing between the Cryengine and Arma's VBS is like comparing and asking which is better a sniper or a tank soldier. They are both great soldiers in what they do and both perceive and approach their obstacles in such a way they think is more suitable for their situation.

[PuFu 4591]

Again, not to defend the cry engine, but if you limit it to just graphics then you can replace the AI with any number of solutions.

AI engine is not the same as the graphics engine. The AI engine could run with a 2D map of circles and lines.... :p

Same goes for the physics engine...

The question of the thread being "what if CryEngine was used as Arma3 future engine". In my mind, there is no chance for that since BIS workflow is based on their RV engine. BUT taking a leap of faith and saying that BI would buy and use that license, i foresee it would be a step back in terms of gameplay, even if the gfx / particle effects and physics would be a slight improvement

[dmarkwick 261]

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. Or, at least that's the case in Crysis, which is the only CryEngine game I have.