What if CryEngine was used as Arma 3 future engine?

[Sniperdoc 0]

We can already do all of that with the engine ArmA 2 is using now.

Arma 2 is nowhere near the league of Cryengine 2...

Try shooting a tree into pieces. Oh... can't do that? Cryengine 2 can.

Try amassing 8000 barrels and letting physics take care of it... oh ya... Arma 2 can't.

Hell, the Arma 2 engine can't even do 64-bit. Oh... on top of that, it can't even load textures properly when maxed on a 32-bit machine.

To even compare Arma 2's engine to the Crytek Engine or to put it in the same league is just ridiculous. Mind you I'm not a fan of Crysis as they limited the "open-ended" game to a particular path when they didn't need to. But engine wise... that Cryengine is so far ahead of everything else it's not even funny.

The ONLY thing that Arma 2 engine has going for it is its AI system which is very commendable but due to it's complexity is highly bugged. Otherwise the engine is old and flawed and BIS continues to propagate it.

Let's leave the fanboy comments from the posts ok?

Edited October 16, 2009 by Sniperdoc

[dmarkwick 261]

So, it seems like my tree destroying mission involving 8000 balanced barrels might be in danger of not being realised with the ArmA2 editor? Damnation. :)

[Flash Thunder 10]

I don't care for better graphics All I want is for Arma 2 if possible to get som DAMN physics already its 2009!!

I want softbody physics and real physics on vehicles, that would make killing people and driving soooooo much better, and the game would be even BETTER! :)

Maybe a few more higher resolution textures and Parallex maps.

BIS PHYSICS PLEASE!

[dmarkwick 261]

To even compare Arma 2's engine to the Crytek Engine or to put it on the same league shows your inexperience with game technology.

The ONLY thing that Arma 2 engine has going for it is its AI system which is very commendable but due to it's complexity is highly bugged.

These two comments reveal your own ignorance on the matter. I'm not here to "defend" ArmA2's engine, but I do say that it's designed around different parameters from Crytek's. Horses for courses mate. No engine will be the right engine for ALL projects. You couldn't use Crytek's engine for ArmA2's tasks, therefore the issue of the Crytek engine awesomeness over ArmA2 is entirely irrelevant.

[Sniperdoc 0]

No engine will be the right engine for ALL projects. You couldn't use Crytek's engine for ArmA2's tasks, therefore the issue of the Crytek engine awesomeness over ArmA2 is entirely irrelevant.

Absolutely. And if you read who I was commenting do you'd have applied your statement towards that individual. It's apparent you didn't see what I was trying to state... pretty much what you're saying to me.

The OP already stated that Cryengine 3 could suit a game LIKE Arma. Not that it had to be used for Arma specifically.

Is it semantics... yes... but that's how we perceive things... isn't it?

Can we say 63 entities limit in CryEngine 3?

Can you back this up with fact or are you just projecting your perceptions on everyone?

Bohemia Interactive is a small company, they know and love the engine that they're using now (Forgot the name). There is absolutely no point in using the CryEngine 3, it's expensive it's something Bohemia isn't used to and we can already do alot with the engine we have, though it would be nice, it isn't necessary.

They may know the engine, but they sure can't get it working properly as most people on a 8GB system can attest to. Hell most people can't max the game out to get it to run smoothly... EVERYONE has to dumb down something on their settings to get the dang thing to run. Whether it's limiting the RAM, using some switches in command line, or running the game on an antiquated operating system. Vista has been out for how long? How many gamers are using 64-bit? Those that aren't are behind the times. Even businesses are moving towards 64-bit now. Come on... 32-bit Windows XP and 4GB of RAM??? BIS is old hat and they're trying to prolong their life. We've already passed 8GB and we're in the 12GB RAM on a desktop world... get with it BIS... jesus!

It's like those people that play Eve on a 1.4GHz Celeron and a GeForce 5600 with 1GB of RAM... people... you can't continue to play games on a 7 year old PC...!!! It's not going to happen.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Sniperdoc

[dmarkwick 261]

Absolutely. And if you read who I was commenting do you'd have applied your statement towards that individual. It's apparent you didn't see what I was trying to state... pretty much what you're saying to me.

It looks, to me, like you're replying to Fudgeblood, who's not saying anything like you seem to think he is. I don't believe semantics is the reason :)

If you wish to discuss Crytek's awesomeness over another engine based on that 8000 barrel demo vid, be aware that the demo vid is not recorded realtime. It's rendered frame by frame similar to a 3D app. It would be akin to pausing ArmA2's engine every single frame, allowing the graphics to render to it's full potential, then adding that frame to the end of an animation.

[Sniperdoc 0]

It looks, to me, like you're replying to Fudgeblood, who's not saying anything like you seem to think he is. I don't believe semantics is the reason :)

I don't know...

We can already do all of that with the engine ArmA 2 is using now.

Sounds pretty much like he's trying to state that Arma 2's engine is the same as CryEngine... which considering it's not at all the same, is furthest from the truth. And you were trying to tell me that:

These two comments reveal your own ignorance on the matter. I'm not here to "defend" ArmA2's engine, but I do say that it's designed around different parameters from Crytek's. Horses for courses mate. No engine will be the right engine for ALL projects. You couldn't use Crytek's engine for ArmA2's tasks, therefore the issue of the Crytek engine awesomeness over ArmA2 is entirely irrelevant.

I don't know... sounds pretty much what I was trying to say already...???

If you wish to discuss Crytek's awesomeness over another engine based on that 8000 barrel demo vid, be aware that the demo vid is not recorded realtime. It's rendered frame by frame similar to a 3D app. It would be akin to pausing ArmA2's engine every single frame, allowing the graphics to render to it's full potential, then adding that frame to the end of an animation.

Sure, just like all the OFP DR videos were done. I get it. But the matter at hand is still that CryEngine does most things better than the Arma 2 engine. Period. A majority of the issues in Arma 2 are limited to an antiquated engine programmed towards an antiquated OS.

I don't think that there is one game out there yet that uses real-time procedurals besides Crysis. Crytek (I believe) was the first to implement them and is still the only devgroup that is using them. Even the AI is highly impressive.

The fact that the CryEngine 3 is able to almost flawlessly present on a PC, XBOX and PS3 at the same time... that's an amazing feat if it truly works as it was represented.

[dmarkwick 261]

I don't know...

Sounds pretty much like he's trying to state that Arma 2's engine is the same as CryEngine... which considering it's not at all the same, is furthest from the truth.

Aah, I see where you've made a leap, when Fudgeblood said "We can already do all of that with the engine ArmA 2 is using now." he was responding to the statement "Fully destructible enviorments, Open world . easy create to mods"

I don't believe he was trying to say it was the same (your phrasing), only that it could do those things. Some of them maybe not as fine as Crytek (destruction models) but some of them better (open world). I believe he was saying the engine was suitable for the job. Personally, having tooled about with Crytek 2, I don't believe it has the open world technology necessary, which at least we seem to agree on there. It has a fine grained destruction and physics model, suitable for a strictly player-centric game, not one suitable for a genuine large area complex scenario.

Sure, just like all the OFP DR videos were done. I get it. But the matter at hand is still that CryEngine does most things better than the Arma 2 engine. Period. A majority of the issues in Arma 2 are limited to an antiquated engine programmed towards an antiquated OS.

As mentioned, it's strictly player-centric. "Most things"? I don't believe Crytek is tested with massive numbers of AI, all unscripted and acting cohesively, in a genuine open environment. I don't believe, from an architectural standpoint, that it even makes sense to talk about the Crytek engine processing units on the other side of the island fighting independent battles away from the player.

There might be reason for someone to say: "So what, if it's away from the player what's the point of processing it", but that's what ArmA2's engine is designed to do. That's why it looks like it does. That's why it performs as it does. Completely different from the requirements of Crytek-powered games.

Why do I harp on like this when you maintain we're saying the same thing? Because if Crytek's angine COULD do "most things" better than ArmA2's, there would be little reason not to recommend that engine. Which apparently for some reason you're not. You seem to be giving out a mixed message.

I don't think that there is one game out there yet that uses real-time procedurals besides Crysis. Crytek (I believe) was the first to implement them and is still the only devgroup that is using them. Even the AI is highly impressive.

Real time procedurals, like procedural textures? The very first Unreal engine used procedurals. And, ArmA2 engine now has capacity for using procedural textures I've recently read.

The fact that the CryEngine 3 is able to almost flawlessly present on a PC, XBOX and PS3 at the same time... that's an amazing feat if it truly works as it was represented.

Hmm. Yeah. You mean like how OFPDR was presented? ;) Actually, I would believe most of Crytek's claims, they do seem to make a great product. I haven't really seen it put to great use, but I can see it's a great tool.

[AndresCL 10]

I don't know...

Sounds pretty much like he's trying to state that Arma 2's engine is the same as CryEngine... which considering it's not at all the same, is furthest from the truth. And you were trying to tell me that:

I don't know... sounds pretty much what I was trying to say already...???

Sure, just like all the OFP DR videos were done. I get it. But the matter at hand is still that CryEngine does most things better than the Arma 2 engine. Period. A majority of the issues in Arma 2 are limited to an antiquated engine programmed towards an antiquated OS.

I don't think that there is one game out there yet that uses real-time procedurals besides Crysis. Crytek (I believe) was the first to implement them and is still the only devgroup that is using them. Even the AI is highly impressive.

The fact that the CryEngine 3 is able to almost flawlessly present on a PC, XBOX and PS3 at the same time... that's an amazing feat if it truly works as it was represented.

You got to remember that the same engine that ran ArmA 1 also ran VBS2 (Virtual Reality Engine 2) and VBS2 was developed for several armies around the globe. Now, what do you think they care about most?

Besides, i dont think they care about running VBS2 on consoles, neither BIS of developing another engine exclusively for "civilian" audiences (gamers) and the competition is near to non-existent in the mil-sim FPS genre

Among other reasons, changing to other engine is cost and time consuming, pretty much useless

[banenwn 10]

Nah i like the arma engine just fine.I dont think a 300 man battle would run to well on the cry 3 engine.You guys dont realize that the cry engine have made rail shooters not open ended at all with very little activity going on screen at one time.I dont think theres a PC out there that could run arma 2 with a crytek engine especially in huge warzones.

Edited October 16, 2009 by banenwn

[Aelin 10]

AHAHAHAHHAHAAH

cry engine in arma 3?yeah,and 12 NSA pcs in my home!

[echo1 0]

Ah yes, the obligatory, poly-annual, "Hey guiz, BIS should use the Crytek engine for reasons that serve only to prove how little I know about anything." Given the uncanny predictability of these threads, the boys in Greenwich could synch their atomic clock to their appearance.

[Sniperdoc 0]

Nah i like the arma engine just fine.I dont think a 300 man battle would run to well on the cry 3 engine.You guys dont realize that the cry engine have made rail shooters not open ended at all with very little activity going on screen at one time.I dont think theres a PC out there that could run arma 2 with a crytek engine especially in huge warzones.

I guess I have YET to see something that massive. For some reason I have this really strong belief there's no way the Arma Engine can handle it either. Probably way easier in MP than 300 AI... I just don't buy it.

Also just to kind of prove a point, you said:

There might be reason for someone to say: "So what, if it's away from the player what's the point of processing it", but that's what ArmA2's engine is designed to do. That's why it looks like it does. That's why it performs as it does. Completely different from the requirements of Crytek-powered games.

I would say if the engine runs like crap because it IS keeping track of so much stuff then it IS an engine problem. Personally I believe it HAS those problems, because it's tracking things that are unnecessary. Kind of the, "If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound?" methodology. Why would the system need to track how Natalia is walking from City A to City B because her car blew up and that there's military guys hidden in the woods. Is she walking left foot first or right foot first? How is she turning her head to observe the military guys in the woods? (Just using generalized examples)

If it's story line specific and the military guys killing her has some effect on the game... it can just be a scripted event. Reducing the amount of calculations being done... but instead, we get a full fledged, free environment that has soooo many options that the system gets bogged down.

And that's what's happening with the Arma engine. There's too much freedom for the AI to do STUFF even when the player isn't even aware of what is happening...! How does that STUFF affect the next mission? NOT ONE IOTA!!! The only thing that affects the next missions is what the player has done. SO... in effect... the whole process of giving non-visible or non-storyline affecting entities the FREEDOM to do what they want... is pointless and consumes CPU cycles that the ARMA engine just does not have to give.

That's ONE place where the Crysis engine is way ahead of the Arma engine. Sure even if it can ONLY do 63 entities as was "assumed"... why does it matter... are you EVER fighting more then 60 guys at one time in Arma? It's not relevant and not conducive to making the most out of the gaming experience.

[LJF 0]

ArmA3 on Cryengine ... ah ... well ... that would be ... interesting ... but I can't really see Cryengine handling 2000AI or 225sq of land somehow ... or the AI. I love all of these things about ArmA2.

So yeah, interesting certainly but I see no reason why they should suddenly abandon what I consider one of the marvals of game engines.

[Opticalsnare 12]

Well ive used both engines, ive made alot of stuff on both engines, from maps,sounds,configs,particles lighting etc etc, Crytek engine imo is superior. The reason im using ArmA2 engine atm is because its focased more on military combat and already has a command system for AI doing their own thing. The only thing i found lacking in CryTek engine was that it didnt handle the AI very well, nor could you have huge amounts of them. It was hard to import custom weapons, such as models and other stuff.

The maps however you could easly make a massive map, even to the same degree of what ArmA 2 can, it was just the AI were horrible and the ballistics were non-existant and there was alot to be added for it to become a military sim. Apart from that i think its an amazing engine and an amazing editor that people should not question until they have fully used it and know of its full potential.

[Alex72 1]

Sniperdoc:

And that's what's happening with the Arma engine. There's too much freedom for the AI to do STUFF even when the player isn't even aware of what is happening...! How does that STUFF affect the next mission? NOT ONE IOTA!!! The only thing that affects the next missions is what the player has done. SO... in effect... the whole process of giving non-visible or non-storyline affecting entities the FREEDOM to do what they want... is pointless and consumes CPU cycles that the ARMA engine just does not have to give.

Ummm... No.

You missed the point of those AI being faught by human players in different areas at the same time. Also, when the AI is too far away to even hear or spot the players they can be scripted to be "invisible". When you get within a predefined circle (trigger - made by the mission designer) they will "pop" out. This has been done in many large missions to preserve performance. And it works great.

Alex

Edited October 17, 2009 by Alex72

[subs17 9]

I think ideally BIS next version of Arma should go Global. As it is Arma is more of a battlefield sim than just a standard FPS so a merging of simulation types is the way to go. So for starters the worlds most ultimate combat sim needs a Global map thats not saying that the level of detail is the same throughtout the whole planet only in key areas that are relevant to the campaign and missions. The ultimate combat sim would have these features:

1/ Global map

2/ FPS ACE for Arma

3/ Helicopter sim DCS KA50 level

4/ Jet aircraft Open Falcon F-16/ VRS Superhornet

5/ Tanks Steel beasts

6/ Ships/Submarines 688i, Dangerous waters

Such an engine would allow for the most realistic style of simulation I think for aircraft if BI talked to sim companys like ED, XSi and/or VRS and come up with a MP compatible code all of this is quite possible. Same could be said about the tanks and with multi-core PCs the ability to switch from flight to FPS mode would be quite possible. Already in DCS you can walk around once you've ejected so DCS is sort of heading in that direction anyway.

The advantages of this is that players can make armys in their own countrys and online wars are possible as well as the addition of logistics and poilitical elements. Aircraft can be flown in their most realistic form and used realistically online. IMO the minimum requirement for the aircraft would be the stock SFM aircraft from lockon such as the A-10 with just Mavericks, CCIP, CCRP and strafe delivery but if they used DCS level then you would have radio freqs, data links, buddy lasing etc. The map doesn't have to be Global but in the ideal world that is the ultimate.

[Alex72 1]

^^ That is the dream sim... :)

Didnt DCS (ED) work on some (collaboration?) infantry module that will work together with their upcoming A-10 for mil usage? Think i remember seeing some image of units on a roof top lasing a target for the A-10...

Im a bit scared though of how everything will turn out in the future as in milsims will decline in popularity due to we being a dying breed of hardcore gamers, and the rise of those horrible (IMO) consoles and instant gratification games. Because no matter how much i would want to look forward to a simulator like that described by SUBS17 i cant help get a small feeling of that it will never happen. Not on the civ market anyway. Ofcourse anything made for the mil that companies see civs want could be realized, but...

I just think it wont happen for some reason. But i do hope. If there is a god - he should know i do hope, and i hope hard.

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

Can't believe this is even being discussed. Arma2 has only been out for 6 months ffs.

Crytek shows off some neat graphics and everybody goes bonkers. Whoop-ie.

[kozzy420 21]

I love Cryengine but I also love the ARMA2 engine :D

[jonneymendoza 10]

I cant believe people think teh destruction is top notch in this game when its not. i ask again how can you blow a hole on a side of a building using a tank?

how come the LOD of the grass is soo low deeming it "useless" from a distance as you cant hide on it?

Arma 2 engine is decent but not as good as cryEngine with its brilliant physics, texture quality and overal presentation.

[Chunk3ym4n 10]

Honestly I find Cryengine 3 capable of handling what ArmA 2 needs. I've used both editors before and Cryengine 3 does almost everything better than ArmA 2 other else than bullet physics(gravity only, no bullets going through walls) and the AI. You can very easily make 225^2km maps inside Cryengine 2 as well. It also doesn't have that annoying problem of drawing shadows through the mountains or hills(it calculates sky accessibility). But I know this isn't going to be a possibility though but we all know that BIS will just revise their engine for more current games!

[An Fiach 10]

I guess I have YET to see something that massive. For some reason I have this really strong belief there's no way the Arma Engine can handle it either. Probably way easier in MP than 300 AI... I just don't buy it.

Also just to kind of prove a point, you said:

I would say if the engine runs like crap because it IS keeping track of so much stuff then it IS an engine problem. Personally I believe it HAS those problems, because it's tracking things that are unnecessary. Kind of the, "If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound?" methodology. Why would the system need to track how Natalia is walking from City A to City B because her car blew up and that there's military guys hidden in the woods. Is she walking left foot first or right foot first? How is she turning her head to observe the military guys in the woods? (Just using generalized examples)

If it's story line specific and the military guys killing her has some effect on the game... it can just be a scripted event. Reducing the amount of calculations being done... but instead, we get a full fledged, free environment that has soooo many options that the system gets bogged down.

And that's what's happening with the Arma engine. There's too much freedom for the AI to do STUFF even when the player isn't even aware of what is happening...! How does that STUFF affect the next mission? NOT ONE IOTA!!! The only thing that affects the next missions is what the player has done. SO... in effect... the whole process of giving non-visible or non-storyline affecting entities the FREEDOM to do what they want... is pointless and consumes CPU cycles that the ARMA engine just does not have to give.

That's ONE place where the Crysis engine is way ahead of the Arma engine. Sure even if it can ONLY do 63 entities as was "assumed"... why does it matter... are you EVER fighting more then 60 guys at one time in Arma? It's not relevant and not conducive to making the most out of the gaming experience.

People have run 2000 AI in ArmA 2, you won't find any servers that size because, who wants to pay for all of that bandwidth? The rest of your post just highlights what you don't understand about ArmA 2.

---------- Post added at 02:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 AM ----------

Crytek engine imo is superior. The only thing i found lacking in CryTek engine was that it didnt handle the AI very well, nor could you have huge amounts of them. It was hard to import custom weapons, such as models and other stuff.it was just the AI were horrible and the ballistics were non-existant and there was alot to be added for it to become a military sim.

Do you see what is wrong with this post? You state,paraphrasing, "Crytek is superior except that it lacks in every area that is relevent to my interests."

[IronTrooper 0]

No need for a new engine. BI's engine is more or less sufficient. It just needs some key improvements like:

- better physics

- better AI (except for the known problems I still miss them using/searching buildings effectively)

- breaking some limitations (walking in vehicles, weapon system, inventory system, hitpoint system)

- some visual stuff that is years behind (animation system, dynamic lightning)

- better performance (full quadcore support)

That's practically all. I think, with the speed BI are working, it could be in ArmA 4 :)

Edited October 17, 2009 by IronTrooper

[Herbal Influence 10]

No need for a new engine. BI's engine is more or less sufficient. It just needs some key improvements like:

- better physics

- better AI (except for the known problems I still miss them using/searching buildings effectively)

- breaking some limitations (walking in vehicles, weapon system, inventory system, hitpoint system)

- some visual stuff that is years behind (animation system, dynamic lightning)

- better performance (full quadcore support)

That's practically all. I think, with the speed BI are working, it could be in ArmA 4 :)

Are you going to call us dull who have fun hours and hours without missing what you call "key improvements"?

You sure that you are asking for something that COULD be done in an afternoon, are you? Blaming BI to only be able to do this in Arma4?

You sure show us a milsim where everything you blame BI for that it's missing now - is already working bugfree? At best "since years"?

And at the same time doesn't need a more-than-high-end-pc?

Sorry, but I found it so arrogant ... just assuming BI developers are normal persons, I wouldn't mind them, calling you right like that.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Herbal Influence