Possible New Engine For Mwo
#121
Posted 28 February 2016 - 03:34 PM
If Teh Devs are recycling all the assets, that means meters are still meters and 'Mechs are still big, right?
What does this get us?
#122
Posted 28 February 2016 - 03:53 PM
Choppah, on 28 February 2016 - 03:18 PM, said:
In that case, we might as well cease discussing the topic. We do not have any knowledge on which engines PGI could or could not work efficiently with. At this point, I'd agree with Gyrok and say they've got to have some experience with the CryEngine just from working with it for so long, but that's just a guess, nothing more.
Regarding your example, I'd hate to see PGI pick an engine that promotes quantity over quality, but that, again, is just me.
#123
Posted 28 February 2016 - 05:00 PM
Too bad such a thing does not exist yet, "brigand" being the closest for path-tracing and "voxelfarm" being the closest for smooth voxel terrain.
#124
Posted 28 February 2016 - 06:08 PM
collisions
good physics
destructible terrain
and when I say an engine that does, I mean an engine that PGI is able to do that with.
#126
Posted 29 February 2016 - 07:09 PM
Sandpit, on 28 February 2016 - 06:08 PM, said:
collisions
good physics
destructible terrain
and when I say an engine that does, I mean an engine that PGI is able to do that with.
Sandpit .....exactly what I was thinking. Much win in your post. Im sure when they do upgrade they will have a an easier time implementing all those things and more. Hell I would founder some more money to them if I thought it would help.
Carl
Carl
#127
Posted 29 February 2016 - 07:15 PM
For everyone saying "This engine is better".
Do you actually have experience using said engine, compared to another, for your given application?
Or is this hearsay and talking out of asses?
#128
Posted 29 February 2016 - 07:42 PM
GreyNovember, on 29 February 2016 - 07:15 PM, said:
For everyone saying "This engine is better".
Do you actually have experience using said engine, compared to another, for your given application?
Or is this hearsay and talking out of asses?
"better" is subjective for the most part.
For me "better" simply means something PGI is more comfortable and knowledgeable ins using because they've openly admitted that they lacked any real training or experience with the engine.
#129
Posted 29 February 2016 - 07:57 PM
Sandpit, on 28 February 2016 - 06:08 PM, said:
This is the key phrase, and it's what really makes a lot of this discussion irrelevant. Which engine is "better" is very, very subjective at the best of times. But it's what PGI can get out of the engine that really matters.
I personally lean towards going to CE4 as probably the best bet vs. another engine, regardless of the engine's capabilities, simply because PGI has a metric shitton of experience with CryEngine (if a much older version). Sure, they've done a hell of a hack job with it, and you can argue they've done very poorly overall, but doing things wrong tends to also show where you could have done them better.
As either path requires basically a full rewrite of all that code, it also grants an opportunity to do things the right way (or, well, at least better), and while CE4 is no doubt different from CE3 (I make no claims to being familiar with either) I'm sure lessons learned from one would be directly applicable to the other.
With that in mind, I'm not really sure that there's another engine offering enough more than CE4 to offset the learning curve differences unless some PGI devs have substantial experience in said other engine. Particularly considering - going back to Sandpit's point - that just having increased capabilities does not necessarily mean PGI can or will make use of them.
#130
Posted 29 February 2016 - 08:52 PM
Wintersdark, on 29 February 2016 - 07:57 PM, said:
This is the key phrase, and it's what really makes a lot of this discussion irrelevant. Which engine is "better" is very, very subjective at the best of times. But it's what PGI can get out of the engine that really matters.
I personally lean towards going to CE4 as probably the best bet vs. another engine, regardless of the engine's capabilities, simply because PGI has a metric shitton of experience with CryEngine (if a much older version). Sure, they've done a hell of a hack job with it, and you can argue they've done very poorly overall, but doing things wrong tends to also show where you could have done them better.
As either path requires basically a full rewrite of all that code, it also grants an opportunity to do things the right way (or, well, at least better), and while CE4 is no doubt different from CE3 (I make no claims to being familiar with either) I'm sure lessons learned from one would be directly applicable to the other.
With that in mind, I'm not really sure that there's another engine offering enough more than CE4 to offset the learning curve differences unless some PGI devs have substantial experience in said other engine. Particularly considering - going back to Sandpit's point - that just having increased capabilities does not necessarily mean PGI can or will make use of them.
That's the only thing that could make them heavily consider switching engines, having the option to work with an engine they're more familiar with after 4+ years with this engine. It's a huge thing to switch engines this far into development in an online game like this so it would have to be something major for them to give it that much consideration
#131
Posted 29 February 2016 - 09:32 PM
Sandpit, on 29 February 2016 - 08:52 PM, said:
Or cost.
I don't have the slightest clue what costs are in this situation, but if another was substantially cheaper... Probably a bad idea, but this IS PGI. As much as I love em, they don't always make great long-term choices =)
#132
Posted 29 February 2016 - 10:58 PM
Wintersdark, on 29 February 2016 - 09:32 PM, said:
I don't have the slightest clue what costs are in this situation, but if another was substantially cheaper... Probably a bad idea, but this IS PGI. As much as I love em, they don't always make great long-term choices =)
I may be mistaken but I think Russ mentioned cost and being similar. I dunno tho, I could be completely wrong on that one.
They don't make long-term choices in the first place lolol Honestly it's a big factor as to why MWO has so many band-aid type fixes. Some were PGI's fault, others were not. This summer and fall COULD be a huge turning point for this game though. A new heat system, new game modes, Phase 3, new maps, and a possible new engine that (hopefully) would help speed up dev times for the game.
#133
Posted 01 March 2016 - 01:03 AM
Keep in mind, most developers who buy an engine license will either praise the engine, or say little of it at all. This speaks for itself as simple omission is often, but not always, the developers not wanting to stir the pot with someone they're under contract with when they have nothing nice to say. Thumper rule meets corporate posterior insurance, really. PGI has over the years of work on MW:O said nothing nice of CE (a sentiment they share with others, notably Chris Roberts of Star Citizen), so this means that PGI carefully looking before they leap into CE4 is extremely refreshing and reassuring.
Edited by Sir Roland MXIII, 01 March 2016 - 01:03 AM.
#134
Posted 01 March 2016 - 08:32 AM
Sir Roland MXIII, on 01 March 2016 - 01:03 AM, said:
Keep in mind, most developers who buy an engine license will either praise the engine, or say little of it at all. This speaks for itself as simple omission is often, but not always, the developers not wanting to stir the pot with someone they're under contract with when they have nothing nice to say. Thumper rule meets corporate posterior insurance, really. PGI has over the years of work on MW:O said nothing nice of CE (a sentiment they share with others, notably Chris Roberts of Star Citizen), so this means that PGI carefully looking before they leap into CE4 is extremely refreshing and reassuring.
I can remember Russ stating that this was a new engine for them and their training and support with it was minimal at best. They spent their budget on a big engine but the package it came with provided with very little in the way of tech support after like the initial training period that came with their package
#135
Posted 01 March 2016 - 10:50 AM
I mean, it could very well be, that a new version of CryEngine wouldn't let them reuse assets from an older version of it....
#136
Posted 01 March 2016 - 11:07 AM
Metus regem, on 01 March 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:
I mean, it could very well be, that a new version of CryEngine wouldn't let them reuse assets from an older version of it....
I think a lot of the cryengine issues just come from inexperience working on it in terms of MWO and PGI. That's not a knock on them but when you look back at this history of the game dev...
Something just hasn't been right several times. Over a year to develop a GUI. Collisions. $250k and 6 months per map, etc.
I just hope whatever decision they make takes this into account. It sounds like PGI is thinking a little more long-term, but it's PGI so we'll jsut have to wait and see
#137
Posted 01 March 2016 - 11:13 AM
Sandpit, on 01 March 2016 - 11:07 AM, said:
Something just hasn't been right several times. Over a year to develop a GUI. Collisions. $250k and 6 months per map, etc.
I just hope whatever decision they make takes this into account. It sounds like PGI is thinking a little more long-term, but it's PGI so we'll jsut have to wait and see
I hope they are thinking a little more long term, and make a decssion based on more than just "oh! look how pretty this can look!"
I mean we have seen the graphics in MWO go backwards from the beta to now... ammo explosions, the whole leg bendy thingy to go with hill sides, glowing eyes on the Atlas...
Man I wish I could've been around for this...
#138
Posted 01 March 2016 - 11:47 AM
I'm not saying the man was blasted and talking out his coolant flusher; a new engine could potentially offer the game a lot. But they could also decide it's not worth the incredible levels of hassle it would entail. Remember - it's not just porting the game itself to a new engine, it's also a case of rebuilding all the in-house tools Piranha uses to do development. They may well have to do the latter before the former can even begin, and doing all that would pretty much freeze active game development until the switch was through.
You guys ready to wait on that? Let them have a year to get the engine swapped around and everything settled into place again without hassling their jimmies over "Y U NO MAEK CW BETER?!1!" or "Y U NO SULERIS?1?" or "WARE MY MADCAT TOO?!"
...yeah. I didn't figure you were good for that, either. Asking for patience from this community is sort of like asking for tolerance and forbearance from OH GODWIN NO.
#139
Posted 01 March 2016 - 11:56 AM
Metus regem, on 01 March 2016 - 11:13 AM, said:
I hope they are thinking a little more long term, and make a decssion based on more than just "oh! look how pretty this can look!"
I mean we have seen the graphics in MWO go backwards from the beta to now... ammo explosions, the whole leg bendy thingy to go with hill sides, glowing eyes on the Atlas...
Man I wish I could've been around for this...
I was
It was a combination of PGI not being able to get some of this stuff to work without causing major issues elsewhere and some players trying to run MWO on a potato and complaining that performance sucked.
#140
Posted 01 March 2016 - 12:56 PM
Without potatos we wouldnt have vodka and then where would we be ? No neutral alcohol for our mixes.
15 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 15 guests, 0 anonymous users