Soetdjuret

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.

watch?v=-V396uuiAsU Large scale terrain and long viewdistance rendered in realtime inside Cryengine2.Take that

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.. Ok, so none of those 3 showed more than 2 1/2 kilometers? What about this one: http://a.imageshack.us/img809/7407/00198.jpg That's at least as, or even bigger distance than this: http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/9271/arma2int200808141223113.jpg And this: http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7662/arma2oa2010111921062964.jpg And this: http://www.armedassault.com/pic_arma2/ArmA2meeting.jpg Sure Microsoft FSX is one example, but the graphics as getting closer to the ground look horrible, that's because it's lodded down. Google earth is even bigger, it has no objects at all (except for some simple 3dmodels for city structions) I mean were do we start, were do we stop? From the tiny good looking indoors of Doom3 when it came, to vast open and beautiful areas of Oblivion.. Oblivion had about 41 square kilometers and thats huge for a game like that. Also here LOD is lowered to display more vegetation at greater distances. 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:

Ye, i got into this thread somehow.. Don't remember, then i see two persons saying that Arma2 looks better than any installment of the cryengine. I register to correct them, because Arma2 will never looks as Crysis can. Or any other game out there for that matter.. Am not arguing, am correcting them and showing them the true potential about Cryengine. Atleast i can keep a good, constructive and mature discussion. Comments like yours really show that you're the one that need to grow up, trying to insult me and stuff, thats really pathetic. Contribute to the topic instead of spreading BS and insults please. Am 23, how old are yourself? So you still don't think cryengine can render large areas with good frames? What are you even basing this on? Crysis? Crysis levels are much much smaller than the ones in Arma2, and there is no other games using Cryengine2 out there to compare with. You need to be into crysis modding, mapping and know your way around the sandbox to really make fair judgements.. Other than that, i can only see how you make this all out from 1 game which is far from the type of game Arma games are. But that doesn't mean the engine can be optimized and used for large areas. Get a grip on things and read some about cryengine, or even better.. take some time with the sandbox, import some pines, create geometry, place textures, objects and trees then allow high res sprites and bump the sprites distance and activate e_lods 1 via console... THEN SPEAK.. Now to the pwn part: http://a.imageshack.us/img809/7407/00198.jpg - Eorzea, FF XIV map for crysis. http://h-2.abload.de/img/aerialstitchhxg9.jpg http://h-2.abload.de/img/00032sfhuaxf8.jpg http://h-2.abload.de/img/aaaz9w3.jpg See those 4 pics? That's long drawdistance in crysis, while 2 of them show of forest environment in much much greater quality than in Arma2. I'll be back with more. I will also take some pics from a huge forest map myself and even show the fps counter, so you will se how it's possible. Arma2 uses sprites at distances, their LOD system does that, along with geometry textures, and low-res houses, see.. highres houses is only suitable at close range where u can spott a bad texture. At 3km u don't need this because it's too far away. There for LOD's are used. Same as in crysis, If sprites are used only, u can get even longer distances in Cryengine i believe, they even promoted 16km view distance in the early 2006 Cryengine2 techdemo that was released back at around E3 2006.

The discussion isn't about if i love cryengine or crysis. It's about which engine that looks better. And also if Cryengine would be suitable for a game like Arma. If you love to complain and not taking part in the discussion, go home play with yourself. And am not a fan boy, if you actually take time to read what i say, am just informative and keeping a discussion.Anyway, back to topic! http://armed-assault.de/screenshots/arma2-chernarus-2-2_1_5427.jpg I will try to make a good comparison shot from a huge forest map released by the community. In this picture: http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/9271/arma2int200808141223113.jpg You can clearly see the use of low-detailed sprites further away. Some lodded houses, then some large scaled textured geometry, then behind the first hills theres: Nothing, just a grey mist. Same with the first pic i posted. This could with ease be recreated in the sandbox LOL. I'll come back with some examples. I will own you few who say Cryengine wouldn't be suitable for a game like Arma due to draw distance and performance.

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... Crysis graphics has even less to do with reality? Care to develop that further? Makes no sense to me. Yeah, at 3km details has to be lowered in LOD, thats true, arma2 also has it, but i'd say u can get very similar results to Arma or even better with Ce3. Am not joking, the AI of crysis can be dumb sometimes yes, but it's fully functional and acceptive. What you said about enemies spawning out of thin air is not true. They are located already when you come there, as for the first level.. when u get down the hill in "first sunrise" the boat is there, the enemies are striving the beach, and a korean is taking a leak. And they don't just run around. They hunt you if they hear or see you from far away. If u cloak in one place after getting spotted, soldiers will come down to that position to search for you. They will try to move around to flank you, beef up to Delta difficulty and you will see. Cryengine can easily be optimized for a game like Arma2 or 3... at least on the PC platform on decent hardware. And it's not called Crysis engine, it's called CryEngine.. let's say it together: CryyyyyEngiiiine.. Now hope u learned it this time. "I mean even 10 years later puny OFP dumps AAA Crysis when it comes to scale and AI" dumb comment. Were talking about the engines here. Not crysis VS Arma.. You speak like a true Arma fanboy. Stick to the discussion please. "detail in Crysis is considerably lower than in ArmA2's Chernarus so what you are saying is still in question." Err? Are you retarded for real? Cryengine2 produces alot better graphical detail than your RV3 engine. And for all those who say "yeah but can it do 3km view distance" YES it can, with the right LOD settings, perfectly playable and great detail. You know so little about the crysis modding, the tools, sandbox etc so you shouldn't speak. You're embarrassing yourself with comments like these. What screenshots are you referring to? Mine i posted? Or the released by crytek? The one i posted doesn't look bad, it's the best graphics out there. And the PC screenshots of Crysis 2? Is those what you meant? Or more specifically these: http://www.abload.de/img/crysis2_december_2010_xqzp.jpg http://h-4.abload.de/img/nanosuit0lns1st8l1oq6.png http://www.abload.de/img/crysis2_december_2010_wqco.jpg http://www.abload.de/img/crysis2_december_2010_ksg8.jpg http://www.abload.de/img/crysis2_december_2010_2qab.jpg You think they look "pretty bad" ? is that it? No, they are not doing separate models for the PC, but they use tessellation for PC which makes objects look much better than the consoles. You need to learn a thing or two before you speak, so much BS coming out from your little mouth. About the DX10 effects for Crysis? U can enable them via C_vars or running Vista or Win7 and enabling VH settings from the ingame menu. The few things dx10 has that dx9 didnt have in crysis, the most obvious ones are Object based motion blur then theres stuff in Dx10 that Crysis has particle emitters and some dynamic lightsources that are restricted by devs to DX10 mode aswell as simple deffered lights that are used when a bullet collides with metal litting up impact surface. DX10 also has higher precision for some effects and higher sampling rate though difference there is subtle. Then Crytek style OBM only works fully correct in DX10 and particle quality is higher in DX10 using geometry shaders. If you can see zero differences between vanilla crysis in dx9 and dx10 then it's real bad, because in dx9, settings are locked to High only. But can be workarounded with cvar settings a.k.a ini files to get the Veryhigh settings under dx9, and if done so, there is little to no real visual difference to dx9 and 10, youre right about that much. Still, however u do u wont get OB-motionblur. Another dumb comment. Were still comparing the ENGINES and not crysis and arma as the games themself, you talk about small multiplayer maps and MP playercounts etc. That has nothing to do with the engine itself, but to make the maps suitable for the type of core gameplay that crysis MP has. Spawning 300 enemies with AI would be possible if handled via the GPU, but the AI of crysis is calculated by the CPU, therefor there are limits yes. This can be rewritten in the engines code when the engine is licensed so theres not a too big problem. CryEngine would fit very nice into games like Arma, it's all about optimization and doing the LOD right. But u dont know sh*t about that stuff right? U dont know about tris-counts either? Guessed that. Learn before you speak sir. Yes this discussion is idiotic because you guys have limited knowledge about Cryengine but speaks just as if you did, and also.. you assume things over and over again which are not correct. Yes there's flanking. no they don't spawn proximity to the player. U can easily get that kind of high detail even at high viewdistances, just alter some cvar commands, will it be playable? Prolly not if u don't use correct LOD systems, Arma2 has LOD too, stop being ignorant. 32 player max MP has nothing to do with restrictions within the engine itself. Stop talking things without knowing. Crytek is the name of the compant, CryEngine is the name of the engine and Crysis is the name of the game itself. Get it right next time. Btw, why were u banned? For saying that the Crytek engine is awesome? hm... Doesn't sound like a fair ban to me. http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2009/06/arma-ii-review/10km.jpg This picture is easily recreated with the Cryengine, even in the sandbox itself. Just do terrain, TOD, throw in some houses and add a bunch of pinetrees and u have it.

It's not a trawling for validation, it's a response to two persons claiming that the RV3 engine was superior looking to Ce2, which isn't true, and i proved that via some screenshots. And am not a crysis fan nor do i spank my monkey to the pics, that's just a really idiotic comment. thing is.. forum rules tend to be pretty much the same among most boards, therefor i don't spend alot of time reading the rules for each forum i visit and post in. True. But to me graphics are also important to create immersion and atmosphere. http://vimeo.com/14480956 youtube: watch?v=zlFXPjV6Boc&hd=1 watch?v=TA6tTm05Cbg&hd=1 watch?v=hAh5tlA0LHQ&hd=1 watch?v=iwT8XM0AUPM&hd=1 watch?v=jTCZapyjB70&hd=1 watch?v=_IwNGTWiNGo&hd=1 Um, yes... u can have extreme drawdistance in crysis too, it's not bound to a skybox and the c_vars settings are editable to any number you want. Such as the e_lod_detail_distance, e_view_distance_ratio_vegetation, the e_vegetation_sprites_distance_ratio and the e_lods command. U can also get shadow-drawdistance cast from objects and vegetation increased extremely etc... So it's not far superior? Then show me some pics that looks as good as the ones from crysis i posted. Pics or your words are thin as air.. Btw, there's no need to be cursing here boy... It's all a matter of triscount and u know it, u can make same view in Ce2 optimizing the trees and the vegetation polycounts and get very stable framerates.. Read my post above about drawdistance. On a side note, as i said earlier, Arma2 was very heavy on my system and i had to lower the settings quite a lot to get it smooth. In crysis, i can max it out... With good fps, at least on my system. Lets see, Crysis has great AI, it could be made for Arma2 scale if optimized and lods used correctly, dont know about the bullet tracing tho... Want me to continue? Shaders isn't everything, but what still matters is the fact that Ce2 produces better graphics... This is another bull statement by a person whos assuming things without knowing better. Crysis 2 PC version wont suffer anything from the consoles, it's a whole other team working on the PC version. Consoles will run DX9 at medium settings, while PC will have up to Very high settings, Anti-aliasing, DX11 mode and related dx11 effects, then ofc there are the modding community which will make shadermods, flowgraphs and high-res texturemods to beef up the visuals even higher. Then ofc there's supersampling to reach even higher visuals. Consoles won't have any of this, they will run with analytical edge-AA and medium settings. Crysis 2 will look far better than Arma2 for sure, atleast for the PC version.

You guys seem hard to impress. Only 1 of you actually commented and responded to my original and first post. Rest of u only came with complaints over imagesizes, trying to correct me, appointing to the rules/telling me several times how things are and generally not even saying a word about what i came here for. I mean, are you really hard to impress? To me those screenshots are the very best/most realistic realtime rendered screenshots i've ever come by, are they not impressive? To me they look far superior to Arma2 even when rendering over resolution using the render-percent scale in the advanced options (similar to supersampling).

Err.... unreleased version? Nah, only unreleased one is the blade pic (first pic, but still rendered in realtime in CE2) the rest are taken form crysis, some of them are taken with custom assets and that's all. FPS, isn't a problem if u got a beef system. But playability and specs/settings isn't what matters here. It's about which engine that looks best and is most advanced. I actually had major problems to get stable framerates in Arma2, had to lower to medium. In crysis, i can almost run maxed settings along with 2x2 supersampling. Go figure which engine/game that is more demanding compared to looks. Crysis wins hands down.

Oh.. riight, didn't know that guys. Sorry, i'll put em in links for ya :) Feedback plz.

Uh, gigantic? The only gigantic is the daisies one which is slightly bigger than a 24 inch res. The rest of the pics are between 22" and 24" res, which I wouldn't consider too big. Also, there's only 5 pics so why the crying? Btw, if those pics were resized it wouldn't be as easy to appreciate the details and awesome graphics lol.

http://img5.abload.de/img/tank2pvhx.jpg http://img5.abload.de/img/crabs5m7y.jpg

"Best looking engine around" and "Far better than any iteration of cryengine" No offence but what a load of BS... Check this out before you make your judgment please: http://h-4.abload.de/img/big_01pqnd.jpg http://h-4.abload.de/img/djungle1xotk.jpg http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/142/1/8/Crysis___Game_Environment___01_by_MadMaximus83.jpg http://h-4.abload.de/img/daisieszqtx.jpg http://h-2.abload.de/img/1kykz.jpg All pictures rendered in realtime using Cryengine2... It's far superior to the Real Virtuality 3 engine. Here's more amazing pics in my gallery: http://nvnews.net/vbulletin/member.php?u=98711