46 replies to this topic

[S204STi]

CocoaJin, on 24 March 2015 - 08:30 PM, said:

The ARMA2 engine would have been nice CW platform. Whole moons and planets rendered as one to several large islands. Each island being a territory capture segment toward planetary ownership.

Hmm... no. That engine is a poorly written mess. Server frame rates with anything more than a couple dozen players are through the floor.

[Jetfire]

Heffay, on 25 March 2015 - 09:57 AM, said:

As an F2P game, MWO has to make sure the game works for as many possible systems as they can. The minimum game requirements are incredibly flexibly. If they decided to ramp up the minimum requirements, they could do a lot more. However, they'd have to walk away from a significant portion of their player base.

I remember them saying once that 30% of their players play the game at 1024x768. I mean you can DO a lot if you require a minimum of 8GB of RAM, i7's and a 970 or higher graphics card, but then your potential player base evaporates.

Star Citizen is willing to walk away from the marginal systems, but they are a rather unique snowflake.

Bingo, my cellphone has more CPU power than some systems out there running this thing. When 90+% of their income comes from high end PC users then we could see the equivalent of walking around the Crysis 1 island in mechs crushing trees and cars underfoot.

[KraftySOT]

Theyve tried to make mechs in Arma multiple times. Cant be done. It doesnt use "hitpoints". It uses joules and 'hardness'.

[KraftySOT]

And sadly the fact is that no engine out there is currently taking advantage of everything we have.

I can only think of two games that have dropped 32 bit. And that in theory, could have been dropped years ago.

[dr lao]

Yeah I play assassin's creed liberation hd at all high setting with a low end CPU witch im changing soon and a high end GPU ti 750 .
MWO needs a high end cpu wish it relied more on the GPU

Edited by dr lao, 25 March 2015 - 10:56 AM.

[LT. HARDCASE]

In hindsight, they're wishing they'd gone with UE3, but we won't see a new engine until Mechwarrior Online 2: Grind Harder with a Vengeance.

Edited by Kevjack, 25 March 2015 - 12:21 PM.

[nitra]

WM Quicksilver, on 24 March 2015 - 08:47 PM, said:

They always have plenty of choices, but there were probably a couple of main reasons for going cryengine over Unreal. Licensing costs and extremely shiny.

Now that being said, the collision code they said they pretty much had to scrap to fit their needs which is probably more the reason we have so many hit reg issues, well that and the tick rate probably being too low (can't remember the exact number).

The real advantage of the Unreal over Cryengine was the wealth of resources behind it and it tends to scale well from low end to high end, Cryengine does not seem to do that well in that area which is generally bad for F2P games or any game that wants to be a competitive game.

Still the engines available at that time, they really only had a few choices.

UE3 (like you said mature and lots of support)

cryengine 3 (cutting edge at the time)

gamebryo/lightspeed (ermmm no. while fallout and skyrim are great games a mechwarrior they do not make)

Source (source2 not released at time, so that would be an ancient engine)

Unity (another engine with tons of support. but in no way do i see mechwarrior being produced in that engine at that time.)

Uniengine (sounds promising but i have yet to see anything from that engine that resembles a mech warrior online experience)

Frostbite (This would have been an interesting choice as the mechs in BF 2142 had a similar feel to what we have in MWO )

Idtech (restrictive licensing was probably a no go for this engine, although a idtech 4 version of mech warrior online would also be interesting. quake wars enemy territory was not a bad game)

Bigworld (world of tanks, snatched up by wargaming.net in 2012 what would mwo be like in bigworld ??? hmmmmmm it would be a different game thats for sure)


and yes there is still a slew of engines to choose from but giving the vision that mech warrior set out to achieve

it probably excluded alot of engines at the time as not being able to handle the concept.

so we really only had 4

cryengine
unreal engine
frostbite
idtech

i personally think a unreal engine based mechwarrior online would have been more like hawken, but watching red orchestra 2 tank gameplay kinda proves me wrong in that regard.

either way if we could choose a different engine i would rather see mechwarrior in frostbite but i would have rather it have its own dedicated engine above all else.

Edited by nitra, 25 March 2015 - 12:28 PM.