43 replies to this topic

[Elepole]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 April 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

Yet. Some of the visuals I am pretty sure will improve with Direct X !! (someday), and things like destructible terrain are in it, just turned off right now.

You either are very optimistic, or naive:

1: DirextX11 does not magically improve something, you have to make 3D model/textures/shader accordingly to make use of those feature.

2: The artistic choice is what make a game appealing, not the technology used for it. The game does not look like crap because it use DirectX9 (hint: Crysis 1 DirectX9 mode send MWO in the shame corner), the game look like crap because of the crappy 3D model/texture/shader/artistic choice.

Exemple: WHY using those ugly *** filter ????? They look crap in DirectX9, they will look crap in DirectX 11.

[Chavette]

Royalewithcheese, on 17 April 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

Achieved... with CryEngine 3.

I bet you keep this pic on your desktop/bookmarks for fast reference

[Celestial]

Elepole, on 17 April 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

1: DirextX11 does not magically improve something, you have to make 3D model/textures/shader accordingly to make use of those feature.
2: The artistic choice is what make a game appealing, not the technology used for it. The game does not look like crap because it use DirectX9 (hint: Crysis 1 DirectX9 mode send MWO in the shame corner), the game look like crap because of the crappy 3D model/texture/shader/artistic choice.
Exemple: WHY using those ugly *** filter ????? They look crap in DirectX9, they will look crap in DirectX 11.

Exactly this.

[Viperion]

wouldn't frost engine been the preferable choice.. due BF3? considering size of the map and etc.. ?

[Jabilo]

Yes, but the game is in beta.

Bugs and content are a priority right now, but once we are in full release dev resources may be released to improve art assets.

Once that happens they will be able to utilise Direct X 11 features to improve the look of the game.

In addition Direct X 11 may bring performance benefits. Modern engines and hardware can run some graphical features faster under DX11 than DX9.

For certain combinations of hardware and settings (high end) FPS may actually increase.

[Zerberus]

Not so sure if it was right for the game, but the forum is DEFINITELY powered by a Cry engine sometimes

[Shumabot]

It would have been great if they knew how to use it. I still doubt they know what the buttons and levers do though...

[TehSBGX]

I'm always going to have the stance unreal engine would of just been a better idea.

[Malora Sidewinder]

Best is extremely subjective.

This was the most COST EFFECTIVE engine to run on... Per say the best? For the *type* of game mwo SHOULD be, I'd say frostbite 2 would have probably been better. but considering how expensive that would have been to acquire the rights to, and how inefficient the engine can be in certain circumstances, i'd say Cryengine 3 is the right choice.

Not to say frostbite is a better engine than cryengine. it isn't. it's just much better for destructive environments at a larger scale than cryengine. cryengine is smoother and looks better and is more versatile, and generally the better engine... but frostbite 2 would definitely fit for a mech game better.

[Turist0AT]

why not frostbite 2

[Shumabot]

Turist0AT, on 17 April 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

why not frostbite 2

An engine that hasn't been licensed to anything outside of its owning company and which probably uses a tremendous number of proprietary tools that can't be licensed themselves.

[Elepole]

Viperion, on 17 April 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

wouldn't frost engine been the preferable choice.. due BF3? considering size of the map and etc.. ?

Even without considering that Frost 2 is an EA only engine, it would have been the worse to use for one single reason:

It take WEEKS to setup a Frost 2 developing environment, and that is from the guys that developed the engine itself. How much time to setup an Unreal Engine developing environment ? 1 hour 30 minutes, including the downloading time, on my computer.

Malora Sidewinder, on 17 April 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

This was the most COST EFFECTIVE engine to run on...

Unless you know exactly how much the license cost them i highly doubt this is true. If CryEngine was the most cost effective engine on the market i wonder why so many indie developing team and AAA developing team use Unreal Engine instead.

[Belorion]

http://www.crydev.ne...detail.php?id=4

http://mycryengine.com/?conid=70

[Elepole]

Belorion, on 17 April 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

http://www.crydev.ne...detail.php?id=4

http://mycryengine.com/?conid=70

Unreal Engine do that too, and they started way sooner than Crytek. Try again. May i point out that, like for Unreal Engine, this is only for non commercial game ?

Edited by Elepole, 17 April 2013 - 01:37 PM.

[MorbidGamer]

For 1 you can't tell it's cryengine. They don't even have DX 11 in yet. To me this game looks bad. Only the mech models are any good. But they arn't great. So, no I don't think cryengine was a good choice. They seem to have to many problems with it.

[xRaeder]

Viperion, on 17 April 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

wouldn't frost engine been the preferable choice.. due BF3? considering size of the map and etc.. ?

I don't believe EA is licensing that outside of the EA developer network.

[Syllogy]

Because Epic has a history of not supporting their Unreal engine (do a google search on Unreal lawsuits).

And CryEngine is Free-to-play friendly.

[Kylere]

No, the "cry" engine is not capable of doing what they need with the game. No 360 view compressed, no rear firing weapons, unalterable terrain, rotten performance.

Can it even handle different gravities?

It cannot handle hand to hand combat with mechs. Yeah, the cry engine was a poor choice. It is intended for twitch games and that is the direction they are having to go with MWO as a result.

[superbob]

Cryengine 3 is supposedly very coder friendly, especially when elaborate modifications are necessary, like seen in MWO. Judging by how fast the game went into closed beta, this must at least be partially true. At that point some of the engine limitations became apparent, like netcode not handling fast moving mechs properly. But again, the fact PGI managed to pretty much rewrite the netcode in under a year and then extend it with HSR shows that cryengine 3 is very flexible and likely well suited for the job.

[MaddMaxx]

And the Armchair Dev's get to speak yet again. Let's put up some Game Dev resumes lads and lasses. At least prove you actually understand what the *uck your on about.... please. It has become a really bad joke.

Le sigh...

Edited by MaddMaxx, 18 April 2013 - 08:43 AM.