What if CryEngine was used as Arma 3 future engine?

[subs17 9]

I think the side mission for the convoy involves more than 3 vehicles and also the convoy attack on your base is at least 5 or 6 armoured vehicles. Definately it is one of the best MP missions ever created especially the ACEmod one.

[jwalstab 10]

I think you guys don't understand the limitations of the cry engines...and to that sniperdoc guy saying arma 2 should be a scripted affair, and you do not need more than 64 entities on a map..why the fuck are you even playing arma if you like that kinda thing? I like the fact I can shoot an enemy in a forest, causing a huge chain reaction of random events even though I can't see it rather than the same scripted event each time. That is the true beauty of this game.

1. There isn't much room for a dynamic enemy...AI is totally scripted in all games using the cry egine, some people in the community for the cry engine have tried to create dynamic scripts to simulate and oppposing AI force and failed because of the huge overhead it generated for even simple tasks like patrolling or guarding bringing the engine to its knees even on high spec computers.

2. The engine doesn't like large distances..don't believe me, well I have played around with the cry engine quiet a bit using thier editors and I can tell you anything over 100m looks like utter shit no matter what computer...the levels are always designed so foliage blocks your view if you try and look over 50m. Scenery looks good but the units pop up out of no where (bit like arma 2 actually but on a worse scale)

3. On screen there is usually only a maxium of 40 units..anymore and it will generally crash the engine.

Edited October 19, 2009 by jwalstab

[trunkz jr 0]

Would never work :(

[LJF 0]

I've also created content and mods for various other games, and I will comment that the tools for the Arma series leave a lot to be desired. In fact, I'm almost to the point that I refuse to believe that BIS used V3 to create Utes or Chernogorsk.

Visitor is a brilliant tool, but yeah, I think they used some other program/s as well, or a more robust version of V3. I just want to know how they managed to handle the textures for that much terrain, I'm working on a 5km x 5km (5120x5120 pixels) map at the moment and it's killing my machine, how they did a map that's nearly 10x larger is beyond me.

[jonneymendoza 10]

I think you guys don't understand the limitations of the cry engines...and to that sniperdoc guy saying arma 2 should be a scripted affair, and you do not need more than 64 entities on a map..why the fuck are you even playing arma if you like that kinda thing? I like the fact I can shoot an enemy in a forest, causing a huge chain reaction of random events even though I can't see it rather than the same scripted event each time. That is the true beauty of this game.

1. There isn't much room for a dynamic enemy...AI is totally scripted in all games using the cry egine, some people in the community for the cry engine have tried to create dynamic scripts to simulate and oppposing AI force and failed because of the huge overhead it generated for even simple tasks like patrolling or guarding bringing the engine to its knees even on high spec computers.

2. The engine doesn't like large distances..don't believe me, well I have played around with the cry engine quiet a bit using thier editors and I can tell you anything over 100m looks like utter shit no matter what computer...the levels are always designed so foliage blocks your view if you try and look over 50m. Scenery looks good but the units pop up out of no where (bit like arma 2 actually but on a worse scale)

3. On screen there is usually only a maxium of 40 units..anymore and it will generally crash the engine.

Well what Arma needs to do is makle the game more dynamic and realistic. i would like to see better and more animations with the AI and your player. Better destructible enviornments and more optimisation with the engine.

Guys i love Arma 2 and i cant see many faults with it but it can be improved and imo CryEngine 3 could help improve things for future sequals.

[viibez 10]

(oops i forgot to quote! lol nvm) Both points make sense guys. But lets not ignore the facts! their engine does look amazing, and it would be friggin awesome to see such detail etc in Arma EVENTUALLY!!

Who knows maybe arma 3 will be just like that. plus in time the arma engine & hardware technology will get better and by then be able to handle all the AI etc in such detail :)

The poster has a dream, and i like it ;p

Edited October 19, 2009 by viibez

[mr_centipede 31]

... it would be friggin awesome to see such detail etc in Arma EVENTUALLY!!

to see such level of detail in ARMA -> yes.

using cryengine for ARMA -> no

I think that's what have been the consensus here

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Does CryEngine support multiplayer coop? Coop support is the main reason for the games I play. I stay away from the rest.

[mcvittees 0]

I just replaced my dead 880gtx with a HD5850 and very excitedly fired up Crysis and Warhead. I couldnt believe it - I prefered the graphics of Arma! Far more gritty and real - Crysis looks like a cartoon in comparison. It was quite disappointing. Still, it runs faster than ArmA but then that took 2 years for my rig to manage. The latest stuff always runs slow when you crank things up.

[jwalstab 10]

Well what Arma needs to do is makle the game more dynamic and realistic. i would like to see better and more animations with the AI and your player. Better destructible enviornments and more optimisation with the engine.

Guys i love Arma 2 and i cant see many faults with it but it can be improved and imo CryEngine 3 could help improve things for future sequals.

Yea but what I was saying is cry engine 3 is not an engine designed for large scale long range outdoor combat with unscripted ai. You may think it looks pretty, but it is not suited to a military simulator.

[Chunk3ym4n 10]

I just replaced my dead 880gtx with a HD5850 and very excitedly fired up Crysis and Warhead. I couldnt believe it - I prefered the graphics of Arma! Far more gritty and real - Crysis looks like a cartoon in comparison. It was quite disappointing. Still, it runs faster than ArmA but then that took 2 years for my rig to manage. The latest stuff always runs slow when you crank things up.

I agree ArmA II looks more "real". Even though Cryengine 2 has much more detailed environments it is more colorful and cartoony than ArmA II. But this is mostly up to the developers because I think Crytek wanted a lush green environment.

[Sniperdoc 0]

to see such level of detail in ARMA -> yes.

using cryengine for ARMA -> no

I think that's what have been the consensus here

When it works... I don't see all of these issues in Crysis:

Edited October 19, 2009 by Sniperdoc

[dmarkwick 261]

*sigh*

Conveniently ignoring all the things Crytek CANNOT do. Including scaling UP BTW. Like supporting massive battles. Or a real open environment.

Etc. It's a fine arcade engine mate, but not much else IMO. Too player centric.

[WarProph3t 10]

How 'bout if the ArmA 2 engine was 64 bit?

I'm not a computer savvy guy but wouldn't this help?

Would it be time consuming to do?

[Sniperdoc 0]

I guess I'm still stuck on the fact that if you can't see it happening as a player, why it would have to be calculated, but to be honest... now that has even been debunked as being a problem.

There was a post where a player made a single AI map and the game STILL ran like garbage. This is on a Q6600 at 3.6Ghz and a GTX285... I mean seriously...? So, if it's not the AI causing all this slowdown... wtf is it? Why is the game, that DOESN'T have a HUGE amount of graphical splendor performing so poorly... seriously...?

How 'bout if the ArmA 2 engine was 64 bit?

I'm not a computer savvy guy but wouldn't this help?

Would it be time consuming to do?

I think it would totally resolve all Arma's problems. MEMORY... RAM...

[dmarkwick 261]

I guess I'm still stuck on the fact that if you can't see it happening as a player, why it would have to be calculated, but to be honest... now that has even been debunked as being a problem.

It has? I don't think so pal. I do it ALL THE TIME and it's ALWAYS worked fine.

There was a post where a player made a single AI map and the game STILL ran like garbage. This is on a Q6600 at 3.6Ghz and a GTX285... I mean seriously...? So, if it's not the AI causing all this slowdown... wtf is it? Why is the game, that DOESN'T have a HUGE amount of graphical splendor performing so poorly... seriously...?

Ah right. One guy had a problem etc..... the entire thing must be garbage for everybody in all circumstances. Seriously, I have to wonder why you bother, this is obviously garbage.

BTW - why DO you bother?

---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:04 PM ----------

I guess I'm still stuck on the fact that if you can't see it happening as a player, why it would have to be calculated

It reveals the fidelity of the game engine IMO. It's something that I don't believe any other engine does, and it's part of the reason people like it. To be sure, the further away in a game, the more "statistical" certain calculations can become, but I think ArmA2's scale pushes the limit to what amount of statistical processing can be ignored. I don't see how a gameworld can get too much bigger without offsetting some calculations to statistical.

But then, I would have said even ArmA2's gameworld would be too big :) I am constantly surprised by it's ability.

[jonneymendoza 10]

what about battlefields new frostbite engine? dx11 support. full destructible enviornment and big maps

[Steakslim 1]

what about battlefields new frostbite engine? dx11 support. full destructible enviornment and big maps

not that big

[Flash Thunder 10]

what about battlefields new frostbite engine? dx11 support. full destructible enviornment and big maps

None of BF's maps will ever be 220KM or however Chernarus is.

How about BIS just rebuild the whole engine for Arma 3 and use a new script language, DX11 coding, open GL 5.0 or something, 64bit support, and cache everything like Tree textures and ground textures, and put full Physics and softbody physics, and some really damn good Lighting and Special effects! :dancehead:

I think this would make any Arma game perfect.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I am always amazed that people are so easily fooled when it comes to technology :D

Advertisers love these fools.

Stick "New Improved Recipe!" on it and these people will buy anything.

After being fooled with CM DR you would think people would learn. Just proves the adage that you can fool some of the people all the time.

The so called "NEW" cry engine some people think is so good is in fact the old engine with DX11 on it and aimed fare and square at the console market.

And for a simulation like ArmA it is fundamentally flawed in exactly the ways DR was; it is based on rag doll style destructablity physics and is not scaleable.

Listen up people: unless the laws of physics change radically there never ever ever be a large scale thousands of entities mp simulation with rag doll style physics.

Rag doll type physics will never work for a simulation like ArmA in MP, the speed of light ignores all idiots. DO THE MATH!

Even in single player it will not scale to thousands of entities as is needed for ArmA on any computer likely to be produced in the next 20 years; unless some totally unknown tech allows us to surpass Moore's Law. Once again DO THE MATH!

Another fundamental problem is that the cry engine has not got terrain streaming technology. Without it is limited to its current small world environments.

The cry engine is very old tech despite the "New Improved Recipe!" label. It is stuck in the rag doll culdesac producing the same old, same old, scripted shoebox games.

People do not understand how powerful, adaptable, unlimited and extensible the Real Virtuality Engine. IMHO opinion not even BIS know what their engine is capable of' with the right marketing strategy and a small amount of additional development the Real Virtuality Engine could replace and wipe out every other simulation engine.

Kind Regards walker

Edited October 20, 2009 by walker

[ModeZt 0]

I dream about arma3 engine that will have lag-free multiplayer for 200 players and 75 fps with the same gfx we have now. That's all i want from the new engine. I'm afraid that ain't gonna happen tho.

[LJF 0]

I just want an improved RV4, maybe one that had faster (reactions) more accurate physics (the physics now ARE good despite what many people think, they are just slow acting and don't always work, other than that they're good enough), better performance and material penetration, so that tanks could work without having hitpoints :\

That ... would rock.

[Heatseeker 0]

I dream about arma3 engine that will have lag-free multiplayer for 200 players and 75 fps with the same gfx we have now. That's all i want from the new engine. I'm afraid that ain't gonna happen tho.

The way my Arma II looks it should already run at 75 fps.. some people think im joking when i tell them that to me Arma 1 looks better (and runs better too).

In Arma 1 i didnt get abnormal looking trees atleast.. i really wouldnt mind if BIS toned down the graphics in exchange for a less agressive LOD system.

And the game is seriously lacking on the physics department, im not talking about ragdolls, barrels or obvious physics candy, im talking about lightweight vehicles and how everything feels.. weightless.

[bangtail 0]

The way my Arma II looks it should already run at 75 fps.. some people think im joking when i tell them that to me Arma 1 looks better (and runs better too).

In Arma 1 i didnt get abnormal looking trees atleast.. i really wouldnt mind if BIS toned down the graphics in exchange for a less agressive LOD system.

And the game is seriously lacking on the physics department, im not talking about ragdolls, barrels or obvious physics candy, im talking about lightweight vehicles and how everything feels.. weightless.

A1 might look better on your system, it certainly doesn't on mine, so that's purely subjective.

CryEngine 3 looks ace but I don't know if it's suited to BI's "style" of development.

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).

Eth

Edited October 21, 2009 by BangTail

[mr.g-c 6]

The way my Arma II looks it should already run at 75 fps.. some people think im joking when i tell them that to me Arma 1 looks better (and runs better too).

In Arma 1 i didnt get abnormal looking trees atleast.. i really wouldnt mind if BIS toned down the graphics in exchange for a less agressive LOD system.

And the game is seriously lacking on the physics department, im not talking about ragdolls, barrels or obvious physics candy, im talking about lightweight vehicles and how everything feels.. weightless.

I agree with you here. We (my Brothers and me) had the same topic a few days ago and we came to the conclusion that Arma1 somehow looks way more "mature" to us.

Strange to explain, but its all those things started from proper contour-rich faces in Arma1 compared to those puppet-like ghost-faces in A2, over the ridiculous "console-green" Menue's in Arma2, up to the terrible bad looking Sattelitemap in Arma2s Chernarus....

On the other hand there are those nice shaders which let look glass, metal-surfaces and water simply amazing, then the nice new Trees and Grass....

Arma1 with the new DX9 Shaders would have been more than enough for me graphically wise.

BTT:

IF there will be a Arma3 or a similar MilSim-FPS by BIS, i'd say (no joke!) keep the engine, but fully replace/rewrite all the parts which are currently presenting a huge limitation for certain features missing or which hinder needed optimization performance/stability wise.