Even if I hadn't spent like 2 years working in CE for MWLL, I could still say it's a netcode issue> because PGI has stated it's a limitation of HSR themselves.
And one would think that "speed" would be relative to the environment it happens in right? Not sure how one can try and compare 1000m/s in SC (as good stuff) versus max. 171kph in MWO (boooo bad stuff). Different vehicles in different spaces.
And one would think that "speed" would be relative to the environment it happens in right? Not sure how one can try and compare 1000m/s in SC (as good stuff) versus max. 171kph in MWO (boooo bad stuff). Different vehicles in different spaces.
No, it's actually due to SC being clientside oriented while MWO is serverside, it makes things operate very different by changing who decides what is happening due to latency alone.
Mas, the networking guy over at RSI, has talked about the netcode and how much of a PITA it is working with the CryTek engine's netcode. So far they aren't able to get enough players in a single instance to make it work even halfassed, much less what they NEED it to be able to handle for their grand vision. They are talking about 50 players per instance at the least, and they can't get half that currently. It's the CryEngine that's the problem, both the netcode AND the rendering. Mas is working on getting the rendering fixed, that's something he can do, but the netcode, well...
I wouldn't be too surprised if RSI picked up the UE4 engine already and is working on a total rework, they got the money, and it's really a far better option. PGI should look at doing that as well.
And RSI is ridiculous for taking 90 million dollars and not developing their own damned engine.
Client side vs server side. The Cryengine doesn't do it.
Developing an engine from scratch isn't trivial. In fact, it's probably a huge waste of resources, and it'll be a buggy mess if they are trying to develop it under a crunch. And we know Star Citizen is permanent crunch development.
I don't necessarily want to be negative, but... err....I have yet to see evidence of the contrary. Star Citizen has ships moving 1,000 km/h (300 m/s) in cryengine in an alpha.. for example..
I play MWO because it's fun, and I enjoy it. I support PGI in hopes of improvement, like you.
The maps are scaled to the ships, just like the maps here are scaled to the mechs. You can't compare the speeds because you're measuring in scaled units, not absolutes.
And RSI is ridiculous for taking 90 million dollars and not developing their own damned engine.
YOU should know better, MW:LL devteam said it themselves, anything over 16 players for MW:LL isn't stable, CryTek doesn't support large numbers of players, and that's using their stock clientside based netcode.
PGI changed it from client to server, avoids hackers, allows more players, also causes other problems because the CryTek engine wasn't designed to be serverside and it just ain't happy with it, on TOP of all the other problems it already has.
RSI developing their own engine, yes, probably would have been the best option, but that would also require 2 years of development before the paying public got to see anything. That's the average devtime for creating your own engine from the ground up, it can be longer or shorter, but generally 2 years. iD used to take longer between engines, so did Epic, and you can clearly see the results of taking the extra time.
Kristov Kerensky, on 11 March 2015 - 09:29 AM, said:
YOU should know better, MW:LL devteam said it themselves, anything over 16 players for MW:LL isn't stable, CryTek doesn't support large numbers of players, and that's using their stock clientside based netcode.
PGI changed it from client to server, avoids hackers, allows more players, also causes other problems because the CryTek engine wasn't designed to be serverside and it just ain't happy with it, on TOP of all the other problems it already has.
RSI developing their own engine, yes, probably would have been the best option, but that would also require 2 years of development before the paying public got to see anything. That's the average devtime for creating your own engine from the ground up, it can be longer or shorter, but generally 2 years. iD used to take longer between engines, so did Epic, and you can clearly see the results of taking the extra time.
If you're not going to be selling your engine it's a terrible idea to build one yourself. It's just not worth the extra time and money. Developing your ideal engine is going to cost you a lot more than simply using an existing one that's only good enough.
Only when you're trying to do something no available engine can do should you even consider making your own, and if you do end up building one it's probably going to be marketable only because it can do something new.
Well that makes sense I remember the HSR thing too well shoot. PGI really didn't know what they were doing.
Actually it is more that they know their limitations at present. Their code is not efficient enough to serve the needs of the game at the connection speeds and pings that the player base has to work with.
For example in the US a 30 ping might degenerate to something similar to a 45 ping with the added data transfer but the 100 and 150 ping players would become unplayable.
You can hope everyone's code will be incredible, but there is a big upside to hiring direct from CryTek to have experts in house.
R.I.P. Flea we never got a chance to pilot you just because of the Cry Engine. Curse you CryTek!
Just to explain Flea has MASC as a standard on the mech due to how Cry Engine runs it cannot handle speeds over 170 kph very well so were stuck with mechs below that limit and its Cry Engines fault.
"Commandos yes I know one can do 171.1 technically higher then the limit but even that 1.1 has trouble in the game and ends up rubber banding."
Has less to do with Cryengine and more to do with how PGI utilizes said engine.
But either way...they will not be making mechs that go faster the 171.
If you're not going to be selling your engine it's a terrible idea to build one yourself. It's just not worth the extra time and money. Developing your ideal engine is going to cost you a lot more than simply using an existing one that's only good enough.
Only when you're trying to do something no available engine can do should you even consider making your own, and if you do end up building one it's probably going to be marketable only because it can do something new.
QFT
Yes, I agree with you on that, and that's probably why RSI went with an existing engine, MOST of what they want to do can be done with existing engines. CryEngine, not the best choice for a MMO however, being clientside driven and not being good with more than 16 players. It is cheap though, and that was probably the foremost reason it was used, combined with it's graphics capabilities, which sadly PGI doesn't really push by any mean. SC already has some stunning graphics, no two ways about it, but the netcode is being a source of real issues for RSI. Not exactly easy to do massive space or ground combats as they promise when more than 16 players bugs out. They've got some creative ideas they are working on, and I really do hope they can get it working, it's something I would spend money on.
Client side vs server side. The Cryengine doesn't do it.
Developing an engine from scratch isn't trivial. In fact, it's probably a huge waste of resources, and it'll be a buggy mess if they are trying to develop it under a crunch. And we know Star Citizen is permanent crunch development.
Nice way to swing it around to the people making the game on said engine with said crappy net code!
Try MW:LL. Same yet older engine, far better code.
Quote
Is that a way of saying Lights Suck because I can prove you wrong just requires a lot of circling around you and fight you as a assualt mech solo.
I believe that's what they were implying. I also think that opinion sucks balls because that basically means "We don't want 20 ton mechs because they aren't meta in PGI's bad design." What that clearly means is PGI needs to redesign their game to allow such things to be viable. FLD and pinpoint convergence seem like perfect places to start. Small target + slow convergence = viable 20 tonners -- until they make a mistake.
Kristov Kerensky, on 11 March 2015 - 09:29 AM, said:
YOU should know better, MW:LL devteam said it themselves, anything over 16 players for MW:LL isn't stable, CryTek doesn't support large numbers of players, and that's using their stock clientside based netcode.
Who got rid of 8v8 for 12v12 on maps designed for 8v8...?
Again its not the engine, its the people utilizing the engine. Its all a balancing act. They went for big pew pew with bad servers, one netcoder, and server side architecture.
Thats PGIs choice.
The engine can handle more than '171kph', just not with the way PGI has orchestrated the game. In a 4v4 mode, with clientside, you could do speeds even higher im sure. Theres not really a limit. Its just how to balance the other factors.
But yeah, in house engines are expensive, but theyre also driving all the successful games. Its not a case of something like Halflifes engine being used for Left for Dead...this is a case of taking an engine and doing things with it it wasnt designed to do.
If you put a game on an FPS engine...its going to be an FPS, or its going to be broke.
Try MW:LL. Same yet older engine, far better code.
Find me video of MW:LL without rubber banding, please.
How about find me video of MW:LL with ... oh, let's say 16 people playing (8v8) that has less rubber banding than an MWO 12v12 match?
KraftySOT, on 11 March 2015 - 09:58 AM, said:
Again its not the engine, its the people utilizing the engine. Its all a balancing act. They went for big pew pew with bad servers, one netcoder, and server side architecture.
It's funny that SC is having the same netcode issues as MWO did. Maybe... you know just maybe it *is* the engine?
You can talk and try to explain to people why MWO has more hit reg issues (heavy server side verification), but it won't sink in to some people.
They will still point to a game that more heavily relies on the client or has poor server side checks and say..."LOOK, game X does it smoother and better" . Well better when it isn't getting constantly hacked and manipulated.
Heavy reliance on server side checks like this game is going to create a little bit more hit reg issues, and that can be compounded by poorer connection quality.
The best PGI can hope to do is work on tweaking client side prediction to make it more accurate. About the only thing I do think PGI needs to work on is the collision warping. That seems like something that can be programmed out and improved. As for basic hitreg, that may never be perfect and good enough for some players liking.
Notice where people, and eventually a dev says that MWO is server side hit detection, and SC is client side. Also notice where its not an issues specifically to the Cryengine, it happens in Planetside 2 as well. With the Forgelight Engine (completely different)
A large part of the problem for clientside is that the US/Canada ISP service is AWFUL and drops packets like crazy.
Though CIG and RSI are working together to fix those issues if it is actually the Crytek engine.
For instance rubber banding isnt "a cryengine problem" its an "internet gaming" problem:
[color=#FFEA8E]The server state-changes only go out when they absolutely need to. There will be much calibration to network code - and the biggest enemy is "jerk" or sudden-changes-of-acceleration (this is what typically causes warping and jumping in multiplayer games -- unless you have a remote-player-dampener on someone -- but if you do, you are implicitly adding some latency in the name of smoothing motion). All broadcast schedules for all entities in the game are dynamic at runtime.[/color]
In theory, our rubber banding could be solved by a world class algorithm that does that remote player dampening and prediction. Which adds latency (just like our verifying HSR does), but adds smoothness and less rubber banding.
Its not easy.
Im not saying PGI are a bunch of incompetent noobs, they arent. Just this is above their ability and bottom line.
Its not the engine. Its alot of things, but it isnt the engine persay.
Find me video of MW:LL without rubber banding, please.
How about find me video of MW:LL with ... oh, let's say 16 people playing (8v8) that has less rubber banding than an MWO 12v12 match?
I could keep going. Some of them are up to 32 players.
If you've experienced lag recently, it is only because the servers for it are now in Russia. The game hadn't had much rubber banding (for anyone under 150 ping) before the cease/desist order when the servers were US/Europe based.
That doesn't make it the game engine's fault. That's player fault or locational issues. Most videos (and my own playthroughs) have not had much if any. I experience it far more frequently in MWO from glitches like this one.
Also no graphical issues, like this temporal distortion caused by bad LoD Scaling
---
On hind sight which is always 20/20, you might notice something else. MW:LL keeps mechs within 7 to under 15 meters tall.
MWO's minimum size is 9.6 meters and it goes up to 17.6 meters. Furthermore, MW:LL uses lower-level code for things like the HUDs and interfaces, MWO uses Scaleform which Russ has recently admitted gives a larger-than-anticipated performance impact. (Right shift + F11 to remove the hud; my FPS jumps by slightly over 20 and I'm running an R9 270x 3 gig card. Since I get no change whether minimum or maximum graphics, that's coming from the processor which is under load from MWO's scripts and poorly spread over multiple cores; this is a well documented issue with MWO that is not shared with most CryEngine games.).
Now that said, it can be in part the 'version' of CryEngine that PGI got. If you haven't noticed despite the several updates CryEngine 3 got since 2011, PGI had only updated it once, and made comments that they could not upgrade it to the newer versions without having to redo many assets, "So we're having to create our own patches to problems with our version of CryEngine."
So there are problems with the engine, no doubt. But those are not related to mech speed.
Also a better game design wouldn't require mechs to be so fast, and thus they won't have to have such extremes in speed, and the Flea could be possible even within the limitations regardless of whether the fault is PGI or the Engine or both.
0
Ghogiel, on 10 March 2015 - 11:50 PM, said:
