Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jonneymendoza

What if CryEngine was used as Arma 3 future engine?

Recommended Posts

a. There is no game

b. It's just a graphics demonstration

Using a video that shows nothing but a few kinds of bloom effect, while also showing that engine has no ballistics in the process - isn't really a good idea if you want to say it's suited for simulations.

Edited by metalcraze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errr, its not a mathematical simulation in the same vein as that used in ARMA2. It is a graphics and physics engine that looks ace.

Arma 2 has placed graphics as a secondary consideration really, the focus is on true to life physics and real time modelling of ballistics, weapons and their effects. Having a tornado throw a few boxes around is really good, but not what is needed in a sim type game like arma.

I would guess Arma 3 features a lot more destructible terrain/ buildings, TBH we already have realistic night/day cycles and weather effects. Most of the comments on here and the mods being created are not in response to the original game content or how it is lacking in any way, just the fact people want a lot more of it, they don't want a radical reworking of the game.

You can have Crysis graphics and physics but you can't have a hugely complex mathematical model in the background as well. Drive a vehicle in Crysis and you will see just how crude it is in some areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arma 2 has placed graphics as a secondary consideration really, the focus is on true to life physics and real time modelling of ballistics, weapons and their effects. Having a tornado throw a few boxes around is really good, but not what is needed in a sim type game like arma.

Arma 2 does this...? News to me!

True to life physics being straight line ballistic trajectory of rocket based weapons? Helicopters and planes are are so easy to fly that a goldfish could do it? No shrapnel from exploded bombs / mortars?

Arma 2 has no physics ;) just a poor fakery of such things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us just hope they implement Havok Physics Engine into Real Virtually 3.

Havok Engine is widely use across games most noticeable is Half Life 2 which was Source Engine developed by Valve Co.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
avengerzx ...

i prefer this Physical engine over paid ones http://bulletphysics.org/wordpress/

Oh no you didnt!?!

You've mentioned this now a couple of times....probable, possible, aint never gonna happen....?

You are now the official BI tease :D

Edit: :'''(

Edited by froggyluv
sobbing like a manly man made womanly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you trying to tell us something, Dwarden??? :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you trying to tell us something, Dwarden??? :eek:

no, i only hint what i prefer ... it has nothing with company stance on the subject :)

at least for the moment

{Dwarden takes out his "Bullet" driven equipment and goes on 'adopt IT' rampage}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no, i only hint what i prefer ... it has nothing with company stance on the subject :)

at least for the moment

{Dwarden takes out his "Bullet" driven equipment and goes on 'adopt IT' rampage}

Oh lawd... :yay:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering how many in this thread have actually played Crysis MP?

If MP didn't turn you off, maybe this will...

There will be no Nano suit in Arma :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arma 2 has no physics ;) just a poor fakery of such things.

By that logic, all software simulations are fake. To say ArmA 2 has no physics is just a complete lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think they should update the existing engine. No reason to go to the cryengine when the engine that BIS has been using since OFP has been working just fine. Granted it has it's problems, but I feel more comfortable with this engine than I would with a new one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol CryEngine is completely mismatched for this game. It just wouldn't work.

The reason why the Crysis engine is so much prettier and does so much swanky stuff, is because everything is much smaller. Just play the game and look at how 'big' the locations are. They are all narrow and restricted with mountains blocking you in and you can't climb them and invisible walls everywhere. It would be fine for some little single player missions, but Arma is about enormous multiplayer missions, and the Crysis engine would just destroy PC's if it was used on huge locations. Look at Crysis 2 multiplayer, the maps are all tiny, and that is why. Use Crysis engine on an area the size of Chernarus or something and your PC would just laugh at you.

Crysis engine is for super visuals, Arma engine is for super size. You can't have both! Maybe in 10-20 years when the average gamer PC has 8 core CPU's and 16gig of RAM minimum etc.. I am just glad that Arma 2 looks as good as it does. When I use 2xAA the game is gorgeous.

Edited by Pummel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crysis engine is for super visuals, Arma engine is for super size. You can't have both!

I don't agree. Arma engine is very demanding even in small areas.

Personally I think that it's better to build a good game around a good engine rather than the other way around. Arma 2 will always be limited by it's, hmmm, rather bad engine.

Look at Battlefield 3 for example. Take Frostbite 2 and make a mod for it. Or Cryengine for that matter. That's a better way to go.

BIS guys (and/or girls) are great at many things. But NOT when it comes to engines (physics, graphics).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
limited by it's, hmmm, rather bad engine.

BIS guys (and/or girls) are great at many things. But NOT when it comes to engines (physics, graphics).

And what experience do you base your clearly knowledgeable comments on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because there are tons of proven engines handling large scale, and BI's engine issue clearly shows they know nothing, compared to all the other engines studios who are really specialized in large scale. Look at BF3 !!!!

/sarcasm

BF3 scale == uber fail compared to Virtual Reality, let's keep serious, gents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in agreement that a fresh engine upgrade is in order. The Real Virtuality engine (not virtual reality) is more than a decade old, and is missing features of a next-gen engine that it now needs. Proper physics being a big one. For me that's all that's fundamentally missing in the game (the physics in Arma can barely be called physics due to the current engine limitations, e.g. armoured cars being blown 300ft in the air anyone?). I'd like to hide a tank in a house or if my patrol vehicle is hit by an IED along a steep mountain pass, I want to see it perhaps barrel roll down the mountainside to it's demise.

I love the RV engine like I love my old dog. Great service over the years and has matured into a fine animal, however, it's true that you can't teach an old dog new tricks. And this dog is starting to slip behind the times.

I do not agree with the CryEngine for ArmA. As somebody rightly pointed out, the maps are tiny in Crysis because of the awesome amount of detail they pack into it. It's the same with the Frostbite engine, the more scale you have the less shiny and breakable stuff you can have.

I hope they manage to strip the RV engine down and build it back up with next-gen features. The RV engine and Arma 2 could be better though, I'd love to see something like the "fifth wheel" from VBS2 added to Arma, allowing for towing and articulated trucks. It seems almost fundamental to me, none of this silly attach-to scripts, which barely fit the purpose but aren't exactly realistic and look woeful. As VBS2 is a full training simulator, and the Arma series are games, there's no reason i can see why a feature like that in both titles would be a problem.

They cannot expect to release another full title (e.g. ArmA3) on this engine unless the dev's pull a giant golden rabbit out of their collective backside.

Edited by Tavish
removed typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any reason what makes me believe that there will come a ArmA3, apart from the Engine diskussion?

A statement from BIS, for example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't agree. Arma engine is very demanding even in small areas.

Personally I think that it's better to build a good game around a good engine rather than the other way around. Arma 2 will always be limited by it's, hmmm, rather bad engine.

Can you please specify what is your own experience with game engines? Playing a scripted game doesn't count as experience...Working on/with one does though

Look at Battlefield 3 for example. Take Frostbite 2 and make a mod for it. Or Cryengine for that matter. That's a better way to go.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there will be no SDK for BF3. Plus the size, AI brains, computations behind the curtains are well...maybe 1/20 of what A2 needs to function (not brilliant, but better than most).

BIS guys (and/or girls) are great at many things. But NOT when it comes to engines (physics, graphics).

There is so much more about a game than fancy physics and graphics...

I'm in agreement that a fresh engine upgrade is in order. The Real Virtuality engine (not virtual reality) is more than a decade old, and is missing features of a next-gen engine that it now needs. Basic physics being a big one.

The core engine and 3rd party physics engine can work together. There is very little reason to implement the physics engine in the core one, unless you are building for consoles, and your pipeline needs to to be a lot more different. Doubt BIS will be making games for consoles anytime soon.

The next-gen engine is a term invented by some developers, used for their revamp core engines (sounds cooler, doesn't it), and started from packing as much as possible on a console game...There is no such thing as next-gen engine unless it allows the use of my 12 (soon to be 24) GB of ram, my 6 cores and both my CPU and GPU for rendering purposes, including ray tracing (even in its basic form).

Is there any reason what makes me believe that there will come a ArmA3, apart from the Engine diskussion?

A statement from BIS, for example?

Not really...on the contrary (there was a post of suma or maruk saying that they might take a break from military games - can't find the source atm).

Edited by PuFu

Share this post


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

×