What if CryEngine was used as Arma 3 future engine?

[mattxr 9]

BI engine is ever expanding.. Who knows what we will have with the BIS engine by the time Arma 3 comes out.. Deveplopers dont need no other engine.

[Oleg-Russia 10]

they need to make teh world more destructible and more dynamic. I also want to see teh cq be more refined and solid. Right now cq seems rigid and stiff with no life whatsoever. Give us cqc bad company 2 style with arma 2 weapon accuracy and recoil and where good to go

totally agree,

BI engine is ever expanding.. Who knows what we will have with the BIS engine by the time Arma 3 comes out.. Deveplopers dont need no other engine.

How can you explain then the amount of lags/bugs and low FPS? Crysis i can run on a veryhigh settings without anyproblems , A2 i can barrely run on Normal and still have fps like 15-18 and in forrests 9-10.

"Deveplopers dont need no other engine"

Take a look at Crytek a good comapny to have a look at . Cryengine 1 / Cryengine 2 , wanna know the difference Cryengine 2 was written from a scratch. The technical solutions they used are brilliant ,

like:

-3d bump ,yes looks like 3d model of stone but it`s a texture

-Not rendering any models/polygons that are not in players visibility

-Lighting what Arma doesn`t have at al , personally as 3d artist i can`t call it a lighting/light

-Textures of vegitation ,still can see the enemy through leaves, beautifull textures and have no lag

-Explosions/muzzleflashes are awesome, A2 have worsest muzzleflashes and explosions i`ve ever seen , beside that they provide enormous drop in FPS , just blow up a building bring lots of dust in the air and you`re running on 4-10 fps.

The optimization of visuals is horrible, feel like developers do not even try to spend eninge resources in proper effecient way.

-CQ that in my opinion totaly not exist in A2

-Interaction between weapons and surrounded enviroment, A2 have worset interaction in my opinion of all the games i`ve played , that crazy scroll menu kills me:"Ok i want to switch to Igla AA launcher, :scroll:>:scroll:>:scroll: Ops shit no,no,no it`s abit higher :scroll:>:scroll:>MMB , Congratulations you`ve been killed because you was too slow"

Have never spend that much time to coordinate my movement and switching weapons , do we also spend same amount of time in real life on thinking about taking a next movement/picking a right gun/getting into a vehicle answer is no we just do it and very quick.

In all other game the way you move/animations/interaction is soooo smoooooooth, just pleasure to play it.

I can keep on teling you what A2 needs to be a complete game , still in my opinion current state of A2 is nothing more then beta quality , even BFBC2 beta was muuuuuuuuuuuch better then final A2 with 1.05 and beta patches other it.

One thing for sure, i hope BIS have learned their lesson ,what can happend if you bring out the game thats soo...... lablabla crappy

Still love A2 and trying to close my eyes on all the bugs and lags that BIS have provided me with in hope that BIS will make on one day a new game that will take all the best from other games and keep soul of Arma series.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Oleg-Russia

[gossamersolid 155]

I've seen quite a few people recommend CryEngine 3.

I'm sitting here and laughing and how stupid of an idea that would be.

1) CryEngine 1 still runs like crap for what it gives you

2) I don't want to sit there loading a map for 2 minutes then have to load a new section of the map every 2 minutes I walk around

3) BIScript would have to be abandoned and that would kill the modding scene we currently have

All the people that keep suggestion CryEngine 3 need to go back to Crysis or COD, because the engine wouldn't suit ArmA.

As for 64-bit support, I think that ArmA 3 would do well with the ability to address more than 2gb of ram.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

You guys probably forgot that BIS have way enough money (from selling VBS2 over 1,5 million copies to military wich delivers them lots and lots of money) to buy CryEngine 3 if they are to lasy to develope new good engine by them self.

My final word , if BIS will decide to keep just tweaking their current engine and not writing new one wich will fit into the next-generation game engines , Arma 3 will be an EPIC fail , even worser than A2 on it`s release because A2 engine just can`t handle all the stuff BIS try to put into a game, it`s TOO OLD.

P.S. "Fudgeblood" if people at BIS have the same taste like you and don`t like to move\take new steps in development and explore the new worlds ,just sitting on one place and be happy with what they have. IF IT`S SO Probably A2 was the last massive selling title BIS shipped to the shops.

WRONG. BIA made VBS2, not BIS. 2 different companies.

[[frl]myke 14]

You guys probably forgot that BIS have way enough money (from selling VBS2 over 1,5 million copies to military wich delivers them lots and lots of money) to buy CryEngine 3 if they are to lasy to develope new good engine by them self.

BIS != BIA

ArmA 2 = BIS

VBS2 = BIA

Although both have "Bohemia Interactive" in their name, doesn't mean they can profit from the other branches financial profit.

Also you forget that VBS2, which is delivered to military forces, have another support level than ArmA 2. If ever a bug is detected by any military customer, BIA will receive a E-mail or phone call from him, get a report about the bug and immediately half a dozen programmer will right start to eliminate this bug within hours and send a patch immediately after the problem was solved.

By reading this, you might get an idea why VBS2 is so expensive. And you might understand that BIS will probably not profit from BIA's sales.

If you start stating facts, you should know them.

[Flash Thunder 10]

BIS != BIA

ArmA 2 = BIS

VBS2 = BIA

Although both have "Bohemia Interactive" in their name, doesn't mean they can profit from the other branches financial profit.

Also you forget that VBS2, which is delivered to military forces, have another support level than ArmA 2. If ever a bug is detected by any military customer, BIA will receive a E-mail or phone call from him, get a report about the bug and immediately half a dozen programmer will right start to eliminate this bug within hours and send a patch immediately after the problem was solved.

By reading this, you might get an idea why VBS2 is so expensive. And you might understand that BIS will probably not profit from BIA's sales.

If you start stating facts, you should know them.

Imagine if we had that for Arma 2 which I would gladly pay for,

Fix Frame rate limited by AI for christ sake! Next morning. FEELIN GOOD! :D

Ill pay 1500 dollars for it, it would be so worth it in the long run!

I agree GrossamerS Cryengine 2 is nice but it doesnt have anything near the quality that RV has if you use the console commands in Crysis fly up about 100 feet everything will look like crap and the viewdistance is nothing but Textured hills that give the illusion that there actual places.

Im being naive and hoping that the Unlimited detail technology actually gets on its feet and that BIS will obtain it and use it for Arma 3 so we dont have to worry about performance and BIS would save alot of time not having to make any LOD's.

[nodunit 397]

totally agree,

How can you explain then the amount of lags/bugs and low FPS? Crysis i can run on a veryhigh settings without anyproblems , A2 i can barrely run on Normal and still have fps like 15-18 and in forrests 9-10.

"Deveplopers dont need no other engine"

Take a look at Crytek a good comapny to have a look at . Cryengine 1 / Cryengine 2 , wanna know the difference Cryengine 2 was written from a scratch. The technical solutions they used are brilliant ,

like:

-3d bump ,yes looks like 3d model of stone but it`s a texture

-Not rendering any models/polygons that are not in players visibility

-Lighting what Arma doesn`t have at al , personally as 3d artist i can`t call it a lighting/light

-Textures of vegitation ,still can see the enemy through leaves, beautifull textures and have no lag

-Explosions/muzzleflashes are awesome, A2 have worsest muzzleflashes and explosions i`ve ever seen , beside that they provide enormous drop in FPS , just blow up a building bring lots of dust in the air and you`re running on 4-10 fps.

The optimization of visuals is horrible, feel like developers do not even try to spend eninge resources in proper effecient way.

-CQ that in my opinion totaly not exist in A2

-Interaction between weapons and surrounded enviroment, A2 have worset interaction in my opinion of all the games i`ve played , that crazy scroll menu kills me:"Ok i want to switch to Igla AA launcher, :scroll:>:scroll:>:scroll: Ops shit no,no,no it`s abit higher :scroll:>:scroll:>MMB , Congratulations you`ve been killed because you was too slow"

Have never spend that much time to coordinate my movement and switching weapons , do we also spend same amount of time in real life on thinking about taking a next movement/picking a right gun/getting into a vehicle answer is no we just do it and very quick.

In all other game the way you move/animations/interaction is soooo smoooooooth, just pleasure to play it.

I can keep on teling you what A2 needs to be a complete game , still in my opinion current state of A2 is nothing more then beta quality , even BFBC2 beta was muuuuuuuuuuuch better then final A2 with 1.05 and beta patches other it.

One thing for sure, i hope BIS have learned their lesson ,what can happend if you bring out the game thats soo...... lablabla crappy

Still love A2 and trying to close my eyes on all the bugs and lags that BIS have provided me with in hope that BIS will make on one day a new game that will take all the best from other games and keep soul of Arma series.

The 3D bump as you name it is called Parrallax mapping which is present in Arma2, it's just not as noticeable in most area's. CE2 will lag you, the reason the campaign in crysis does not do so is because they cleverly used invisible walls that basicly stop rendering EVERYTHING behind them even when you do face them, they were used extensively in the missions in many places.

if Arma2 had this it probably would be able to run much better but placement would be a nightmare since it's not sections of maps.

And it is lighting no matter what you say 3D artist or no, if the area has a light source and is effected in some way by it, that is lighting, it may not be the best, it may not be the prettiest but it is still lighting.

You are right on the muzzle flashes, CQB explosions and so on they certainly aren't the best and could use some improvement but the day Arma2 moves to the same ease as pulling and switching between weapons in COD or CSS is the day the game has lost its roots, movement and so on really isn't that hard, I do wish there was another way to go through weapons but just about every key is used up as far as I am aware.

And Arma2 does not render objects when you aren't looking at them, the problem is the vegetation has some performance issues in some area's and it is everywhere, I'm talking tree's. All in All you will never get Crysis much less Crysis 2 lighting, dynamic lights and vegetation physics but at the same Crysis will likely never be able to achieve everything Arma2 can do 'behind the scenes' but to give them credit the community has done some great things for it such as getting actual workable aircraft.

Oh and one last thing I forgot to mentioned, Crysis is very GPU dependant wheras A2 is CPU so you need a very good processor to get the best you can.

Edited June 3, 2010 by NodUnit

[noubernou 77]

Oh and one last thing I forgot to mentioned, Crysis is very GPU dependant wheras A2 is CPU so you need a very good processor to get the best you can.

Really can not stress this enough. People need to realize that essentially there is no meaning behind what you see happening in terms of the graphics wootness in Crysis. The things that happen inside ArmA2 have meaning, purpose, and in many ways, even lacking a general physics engine (ArmA2 has specific simulation routines for different types of objects), much much more dynamic.

Just watch Shilka light up infantry at night and watch the tracers flying around, yea thats pretty, but its also every single of one those rounds being simulated. Your CPU eats!

[Flash Thunder 10]

Really can not stress this enough. People need to realize that essentially there is no meaning behind what you see happening in terms of the graphics wootness in Crysis. The things that happen inside ArmA2 have meaning, purpose, and in many ways, even lacking a general physics engine (ArmA2 has specific simulation routines for different types of objects), much much more dynamic.

Just watch Shilka light up infantry at night and watch the tracers flying around, yea thats pretty, but its also every single of one those rounds being simulated. Your CPU eats!

Indeed, also battles occuring out of the players view are also being processed.

CPU and Harddrive are the most crucial to getting Arma 2 to perform well

[Oleg-Russia 10]

SO you guys want to tell me that my CPU : Intel Core 2 Quad with 2.6Ghz isn`t good anough .

P.S. i`m not telling you that A2 have to move on Cryengine 2/3 or what ever engine ,i`m just giving an examples between 2 game engines how they can handle the lighting ,etc,etc. THe last thing i want to say to not keep this huge battle in this thread , i wish that A3 will be more user friendly , not so NASA computer dependant to run it without lags and have a good graphic quality presented in it wich have to be balanced , for example models in A2 are high quality , VFX/muzzleflashes and lighting are horribl and not soft to look at, the eye feeling have to be good in overall.

And yes i really want to thank all the community modders that have fixed some bugs improved the game added new features such as flares and all that stuuf wich makes game more user friendly and makes it funnier to play.

And by the way you tell me Arma 2 is very CPU dependant and Crysis GPU well combine this 2 features and get a perfect game :) LOL

I`ve noticed some of the people reacted very angry on what i`ve written , please don`t be ,chill out/relaaax :)

All i wanted is just to understand why A2 came out so crappy on it`s day release and is still lagging.

If you don`t like the things i`ve said here , don`t take it close to your hart , i have my opinion like all of you do , and sometimes truth is hard .

However I say all the best to BIS and may we support them on making an A3 on a very high level.

Goodluck all :)

CHAO :)

Edited June 3, 2010 by Oleg-Russia

[whisper 0]

How can you explain then the amount of lags/bugs and low FPS? Crysis i can run on a veryhigh settings without anyproblems , A2 i can barrely run on Normal and still have fps like 15-18 and in forrests 9-10.

Scale, modability, freedom. 3 things missing from Crysis engine when you compare to ArmA engine.

And funnily enough, NO OTHER ENGINE has these 3 parameters, and the only one which tried failed big time to deliver.

Imho, you CANNOT expect the same quality on the amount of content, scale, etc... you get in ArmA compared to Crysis. The fact no one has done it apart from BI is very significant to me. And somewhat nullify comparisons.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

How is this discussion still continuing?

The likelihood of BIS ever switching to a new engine is extremely small. There's just no incentive. It would take even longer and more money to bring any 3rd party engine up to speed with the requirements that RV3 already fulfills, not to mention the whole BIS team would have to learn a new engine, change their workflow, possibly change their tools, etc... Not to mention how much more difficult it would be for the communty to adjust.

I swear... some people just don't understand how big of a deal switching engines would be. BIS already invested more than 10 years into the development of RV3, they're not going to be able to replace it in any short amount of time.

[Dynamic Echo 10]

Scale, modability, freedom. 3 things missing from Crysis engine when you compare to ArmA engine.

And funnily enough, NO OTHER ENGINE has these 3 parameters, and the only one which tried failed big time to deliver.

Imho, you CANNOT expect the same quality on the amount of content, scale, etc... you get in ArmA compared to Crysis. The fact no one has done it apart from BI is very significant to me. And somewhat nullify comparisons.

You're kidding, right? CryEngine 2 (and I assume CryEngine 3) can do very large scales if using appropriate streaming technology. Modability - it is actually easier than modding Unreal 3, well, in my opinion, and you can do just as much if not more than with Unreal 3. Freedom? Not really sure what you mean by that, CryEngine supports fairly large sandbox environments, as do many engines.

I'm not saying that the A2 engine is bad, though it does need more optimisation so we can get some visual polish, but CryEngine 2/3 ain't bad either.

[Delta 51 10]

So many people feeling so inclined to use their opinionated superpowers to destroy all foreign or undecidable evil.

In the end, the system works, the ArmA community love it, no valid point to change it. You don't like something, go mod it.

[Oleg-Russia 10]

Who`s saying we are happy with what we have and we don`t want any improvement in visual/physics/dynamics ,specially for this kind of persons i post here some screenshots from Cryengine 2 (don`t you that Arma looks like this?)

http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/1b6gv.jpg

http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/4rg2z.jpg

http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/00057e0a1.jpg

http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/28wl204if.jpg

http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/16b4h.jpg

http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/2q2xh.jpg

http://img9.abload.de/img/751-wasserfall---gischrqrw.jpg

http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/naturefinalobn9.jpg

http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/apocalypse_wow.jpg

http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/crysis_0001qp0c.jpg

http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/screenshot0284.jpg

http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/screenshot0279.jpg

http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/1e6fb.jpg

http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/wrrs_scrnsht_b_a_019.jpg

http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/3yqj7.jpg

Pictures are linked from:http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=840&Itemid=1

Don`t tell me you want to play Arma games in such beautyfull enviroment,

AND YES these pictures are captured realtime!!!

Just look at vegitation/lighting/dust/night/day-night coloration

Edited June 3, 2010 by Oleg-Russia

[whisper 0]

You're kidding, right? CryEngine 2 (and I assume CryEngine 3) can do very large scales if using appropriate streaming technology. Modability - it is actually easier than modding Unreal 3, well, in my opinion, and you can do just as much if not more than with Unreal 3. Freedom? Not really sure what you mean by that, CryEngine supports fairly large sandbox environments, as do many engines.

I'm not saying that the A2 engine is bad, though it does need more optimisation so we can get some visual polish, but CryEngine 2/3 ain't bad either.

I'm not saying CE2/3 is bad either.

Does it have 200+ sq-km detailed terrain + infinite procedural terrain around (apparently improved in OA from the empty land we have today), up to 10km view distance, hundreds (up to 1000+) of possible AI running their own actions (with their FSM, acting dynamically, though that is a point that surely can be improved), MP accepting up to 100+ players, every vehicle and units playable (even animals), I don't have the count, but it's pretty big number?

Mission editor?

scripting capability from in-game? Editing in other engine requires lots of external stuff installed.

Typically : what is the scale seen in the whole package of pictures linked above?

[Zipper5 74]

No, because then Arma 2 will be even more performance demanding. Crysis is a corridor shooter with much smaller scale "open" environments compared to Arma 2. If Arma 2 were to run with similar looking graphics it would chug like hell, so I'd expect the hypothetical Arma 3 to do the same. Personally, I care more about gameplay than graphics.

[nodunit 397]

Who`s saying we are happy with what we have and we don`t want any improvement in visual/physics/dynamics ,specially for this kind of persons i post here some screenshots from Cryengine 2 (don`t you that Arma looks like this?)

Don`t tell me you want to play Arma games in such beautyfull enviroment,

AND YES these pictures are captured realtime!!!

Just look at vegitation/lighting/dust/night/day-night coloration

Perhaps but only if it could do all of what RV3 can do right now, and I can already garuntee you...it can't.

A great many of us don't care about how the game looks and how it could look better in comparison to A2 and OA, what we care about it what the engine can do and how versatile it is.

I really don't understand why people cannot seem to understand this..BI games are simulations of some sort and anyone who has had experience with simulation can tell you that in aspects they are never going to look at pretty as the mainstream because they do far more all the time.

DCS black shark beautiful as it is does not support normal mapping and terrain is more bland in comparison, tree's are 2D alpha channels but do you honestly think people buy these for their graphics?

What arma2 and OA have right now as far as simulations go is beyond fine, it's probably one of the most visually complex in terms of materials it uses and how it uses them etc but it will never be maintsream which focus on glamour, if you think you can have both you are in for some serious frame rate disasters, you may even burn some components..

One more thing, CE2 and 3 have enriched enviroments because of Screen Space Ambient Occlusion..this is why vegetation and leaves have more shading, Operation Arrowhead will have this and can infact be seen in screenshots.

Edited June 3, 2010 by NodUnit

[STALKERGB 6]

At the end of the day, unless BIS could suddenly cough up hundreds of thousands of pounds (or any other currency!) to buy a license to use the engine then it won't happen, I can run ARMA2 fine on full(ish) settings and it looks good enough.

With regards to modding, I, along with almost every other Op:F/ARMA modder would have to relearn how to get their stuff in game.

ANyway, we all know what happens when a game attempts to do what Op;F and ARMA do with a different engine... *looks at the game that cannot be named... :)

[An Fiach 10]

also Oleg, anyone familiar with graphics can see the visual tricks they pull off in those screen captures.

[tacticalnuggets 24]

I'm sure everyone here agrees that the arma2 engine needs to be optimized and the lods need to be better looking/fixed for some. Thats one of the main problems with arma2 graphics wise is transfering information from the distance to close is inefficient and demanding. Even the original ofp had a more natural transition. I feel like they are optimizing and fixing things that are in high detail 50m from you, but everything outside of that looks ugly and slows your computer down. They just need to spend more time on that aspect of the graphics and they could shut up a lot of the complainers. Things pretty close to you look very similar to crysis in the detail aspects, but things further away just kill what feeling you had for something close to you.

In other words, stuff at a distance is so radicaly different from stuff up close to you it kills the immersion, especialy at low fps.

[Delta 51 10]

Here are your problems, the Cryengine has to be able to support the following [which it doesn't] on maps that are greater than 200km^2:

- Dynamic tides [high tide and low tide cycle]

- Astrology system [stars in the right place during the right time of year]

- Dynamic weather system, that effects all parts fo the game [tides, waves, effectiveness of smoke, ballistic physics]

- A FULLY modifiable system, that isn't just to add new players and pew pew devices, but change some of the coding and interfaces that run the whole game

- real ballistics system

- vegetation system [trees leaves and layout are dependent on season and age]

- support over 100 players in real time

- support hundreds of AI going about their business, even when the player is not within a certain range

Those are Armed Assault and ArmA 2 features, Arrowhead brings more to the table not achievable on any other engine to date.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

At the end of the day, unless BIS could suddenly cough up hundreds of thousands of pounds (or any other currency!) to buy a license to use the engine then it won't happen

Even if BIS could afford to, I don't see how they would have any incentive to switch engines. I'm sure they're perfectly content with their own, and have no desire to invest not only the money but the time and manpower into developing off of a new engine.

[Smurf 12]

I think that the military guys ,who bought\maintain VBS will say whats the next step. The next ArmA will be a consequence of that.

[Flash Thunder 10]

Even if BIS could afford to, I don't see how they would have any incentive to switch engines. I'm sure they're perfectly content with their own, and have no desire to invest not only the money but the time and manpower into developing off of a new engine.

yeah if they coughed up 100k i would rather like BIS to buy something like Euphoria by Naturalmotion so we could have some physics/better animation

Seems alot of people in here think the simple solution is to just license Cryengine 2 or 3 and Arma 3 would have those graphics and have every feature that A2 currently has this is terribly wrong.

Cryengine is designed to work one way RV engine was designed to work in one way. They will never in any degree run in parallel, although the RV engine could come damn close one day through constant development.

RV4 for Arma 3 should focus on eliminating major flaws and Bugs that the past RV engine have had since OFP like AI having issues crossing bridges, inability to model tunnel environments, AI performance issues, LOD system, animation system, config handling, memory glitches and the like. Basically Bugs that are in A2 that have also been in OFP and A1.

I think that should be the first priority of BIS engine programmers, before thinking about adding any new functions. :)

Edited June 4, 2010 by Flash Thunder