183 replies to this topic

[Gyrok]

Destructicus, on 26 February 2016 - 10:05 PM, said:

I really really hope somehow, someday, this game will be run on Unreal

Unreal is actually not a great engine for a game like this...

The physics in CryEngine are far more thorough, and UE is honestly pretty limited in some respects comparatively. There are some things that UE does well...like run on minimal hardware. That is mostly because the design for the the render thread, and primary game thread, is so archaic that it still has not been adapted to run on more than 2 threads at the moment...but I digress.

Having tested both engines, this game is honestly better suited to CryEngine.

Edited by Gyrok, 27 February 2016 - 09:55 AM.

[Lostdragon]

If they could have figured out a way to use Unreal or Frostbite to start with PGI would probably have a much better game right now. I really hope they change engines and can speed up development.

[Gyrok]

Lostdragon, on 27 February 2016 - 09:57 AM, said:

If they could have figured out a way to use Unreal or Frostbite to start with PGI would probably have a much better game right now. I really hope they change engines and can speed up development.

Changing engines will likely stall development for a while.

Think about how much they have changed from CryEngine base engine to get to this point. They would have to rewrite the client and server code to deal with the new engine, they would have to relearn the ins and outs of the new engine...after doing that with CryEngine for the last 4 years...

It honestly makes very little sense. CryEngine is a great engine anyway...they just actually do not utilize lots of the tech included in the engine.

[Y E O N N E]

Lostdragon, on 27 February 2016 - 09:57 AM, said:

If they could have figured out a way to use Unreal or Frostbite to start with PGI would probably have a much better game right now. I really hope they change engines and can speed up development.

Frostbite is not for general consumption. It's for EA consumption, only.

[Gyrok]

Yeonne Greene, on 27 February 2016 - 10:01 AM, said:

Frostbite is not for general consumption. It's for EA consumption, only.

Yeah...I actually tried to get a license to that at one point during the initial engine search for a project we began about 6-8 months ago. Basically EA told us..."you have to talk to DICE"...so we talked to DICE, and they basically told us where we could go, and what we could put somewhere when we got there...

[Tarogato]

Anjian, on 27 February 2016 - 01:59 AM, said:

How many game engines out there that can be licensed? There are so many out there.

I am very impressed with the game engine War Thunder is using. From the graphics to the frame rates and the solidity of the netcode. BigWorld game engine bought and used by Wargaming is ideally for large scale multiplayer online games, and is also used with other MMOs.

To minimize porting from Cryengine, one has to use a game engine that uses C++ for its developmental language and Lua for scripting. The most well known engine that meets that would be Valve's Source 2 engine.

Crytek is said to be tethering financially, so support and further development may have been impacted by its financial situation. With this happening its no wonder PGI maybe wisely looking for a new game engine.

... you might want to watch this, then. =P

[Lostdragon]

Gyrok, on 27 February 2016 - 10:01 AM, said:

Changing engines will likely stall development for a while.

Think about how much they have changed from CryEngine base engine to get to this point. They would have to rewrite the client and server code to deal with the new engine, they would have to relearn the ins and outs of the new engine...after doing that with CryEngine for the last 4 years...

It honestly makes very little sense. CryEngine is a great engine anyway...they just actually do not utilize lots of the tech included in the engine.

It is not like they are developing at a tremendous pace as is. If they had to spend some time switching to a new engine it would probably be better for the game in the long run because Cryengine 2 really isn't that great. They picked it because it was cheap and they got what they paid for. Besides, Russ said moving to the new Cryengine will be just as much work as porting to a new engine, so if there is a better option now is the time to take it.

Yeonne Greene, on 27 February 2016 - 10:01 AM, said:

Frostbite is not for general consumption. It's for EA consumption, only.

Yeah, but man is it pretty. I wish they could have gotten rights for it without having to publish through EA.

[Zordicron]

MrMadguy, on 26 February 2016 - 11:56 PM, said:

What I want to say, is that one of the reasons, why so few players play this game - is because only a few players can afford 2K$ computer, that can handle Crysis-level game smoothly. Most players still have computers, that can handle only Half-Life-level obsolete games, on old fashioned BSP/Lightmap engine without even basic things, like bumpmap support, like Wow. That's why millions of players play Wow and only 2K players play MWO. Even more demanding engine will simply finish this game.

My computer is from 2009, it is a first generation I7 quad core with borderline minimum RAM. I have little issue with how this game plays. There has always been hyperbole about how good a rig you need to run MWO, and the ones spouting how you need a new PC: how much older do you need to get then 2009? Sorry MWO won;t play on a Asus Netbook running windows XP.

Comparing an online FPS, of any kind, to WoW is just more hyperbole.






On the topic of "what can the new engine do" Russ basically confirmed the new engine would expedite the "fix" for the attrocious loadout save times when you have numerous mechs. He said it could be done on current engine also, but would be tedious, and it made more sense to include it in the tech upgrade instead. Thats just ONE thing we would see as a benefit to an engine change. IMO, it is an opportunity for PGI to overhaul in a majort way some of the core mistakes they made in stuff like that. Inventory access for mechlab is ANCIENT, goes back to beta. What else might fall under that umbrella? net code maybe? Engine update is the biggest news we have had in a long time when we talk about game performance and how it relates to everything in some way. When you talk about changing how data is moved from client to server, thats pretty much as core as it gets improvment wise.

[pbiggz]

Gyrok, on 27 February 2016 - 09:55 AM, said:

Unreal is actually not a great engine for a game like this...

The physics in CryEngine are far more thorough, and UE is honestly pretty limited in some respects comparatively. There are some things that UE does well...like run on minimal hardware. That is mostly because the design for the the render thread, and primary game thread, is so archaic that it still has not been adapted to run on more than 2 threads at the moment...but I digress.

Having tested both engines, this game is honestly better suited to CryEngine.

Actually on the contrary, unreal is a fantastic engine for mech games. That being said, it will be cryengine 4 that they upgrade to, not unreal. They have an existing licensing agreement with crytek, and when they upgrade, we'll see a notable performance upgrade as they abandon their in house render pipeline for the ones crytek engineers wrote. They will also have full support from crytek, rather than the negligible support they have now, because we've been on the same cryengine build for about 3 years now. Its a modified beta cryengine 3 build that is largely unsupported because its not standard, or up to date.

And to anyone who is complaining about the low end. First, the vast majority of players in this game have computers that will handle it. Abandoning DX 9 does not mean moving to the current DX 11 implementation, it means you move to crytek's dx 11 which runs smoother and at a much higher framerate than dx 9 and is even less demanding on your system. If your GPU is so old it doesn't support DX 11, you have no business playing any modern PC games at this point. Direct X 9 was released 9 years ago. No modern developer uses decade old graphics API. Get used to it.

[Luminis]

I'll be honest, I don't care much what engine PGI upgrades to. Gut feeling here, but I'm inclined to believe that it's going to be CryEngine 4 - seems more like than the other two candidates I consider feasible, Source 2 or Unreal Engine 4.

Either way, upgrading to a new engine, whichever one it will be, does show some commitment to the game. Whatever one might think about the pace PGI has been developing the game at, whatever one might think about the sort of content they've been adding, that sort of commitment isn't something I'd expect a developer to exhibit for a game they keep on minimum life support as a cash grab.

What I'd like to see with the implementation of a new engine (fixes of long standing issues aside) is destructible environments. Not just the ability to run trees and lantern posts over, more like... An AC10 being able to punch through a wall while a laser only scorches its surface. Pipe dream, probably, but hey, if the new engines supports that sort of stuff without too much work needed on PGI's part, why not?

Edited by Luminis, 27 February 2016 - 11:44 AM.

[DaZur]

MrMadguy, on 27 February 2016 - 02:08 AM, said:

This won't happen. PGI has curved hands - this can't be fixed by any engine. Game engine - is just a tool, like a hammer for nails hammering. It's still up to you to fill your game with content and code it properly. If you hold it for wrong side - then no matter, how decent it is - you won't succeed no matter what.

Don't mean to pick on you but again your wrong... Yes, a game engine is a tool and a tool is only as good as it's user.

That said, the quality and availability of the manufacturer support system, the robustness of their development tools and the simplicity of instruction, all factor into the proficiency of the developer and the success of the project.

Reality is Cryengine is well known for being a bear to work with and their post licensure support is questionable at best. There are circles in game development who consider Cryengine the epitome of a provisional "cash grab" licensure/engine.

Having said that PGI is surely culpable in selecting it in the first place AND then hamstringing themselves by not retaining a development team who had even the slightest inkling how to take MWO to the next step.

The smartest thing PGI could do would be to latch onto a licence/engine that is simian simple to develop with that has a proven track record in providing the foundation to build up from.

Edited by DaZur, 27 February 2016 - 12:06 PM.

[Rorvik]

Sandpit, on 26 February 2016 - 09:36 PM, said:

Russ says MWO could be moving to a completely new engine and hasn't decided between that or the cryengine update

I still don't understand why, why, why they went with CryEngine over Unreal.

Edited by Rorvik, 27 February 2016 - 12:24 PM.

[Gyrok]

Rorvik, on 27 February 2016 - 12:23 PM, said:

I still don't understand why, why, why they went with CryEngine over Unreal.

CryEngine has better Physics

CryEngine has amazing support on up to date engine builds

CryEngine has lots of robust features they are not even using now.

CryEngine is capable of amazing top end performance and graphically stunning games

CryEngine better utilizes multi-core processors

CryEngine offers more backend render pipelines

CryEngine has better support for OSes beyond windows

CryEngine enables open source libraries without issue

CryEngine is setup to take any netcode you build very readily

CryEngine has equally as good a set of developer tools

[Lostdragon]

Rorvik, on 27 February 2016 - 12:23 PM, said:

I still don't understand why, why, why they went with CryEngine over Unreal.

$$$$$

[Sandpit]

DV McKenna, on 27 February 2016 - 04:07 AM, said:

Never going to happen the best you can hope for is the upgrade to cryengine

no offense but you obviously didn't listen to what was said or are just being very apathetic. You can tell by the way Russ is talking that this is a huge decision for PGI and they are very seriously looking into switching engines

Lostdragon, on 27 February 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

$$$$$

actually, they went with Cryengine because it was the best engine they could and from Day 1 it's been a major culprit behind the glacial dev speeds here. PGI had VERY minimal training with the engine, didn't have much in the way of support, and the engine (obviously at this point) did not do what they expected it to be able to do in a lot of areas.

I imagine it's one of the main reasons it took a year to develop a UI, collision issues, physics, etc.

[Ghogiel]

pbiggz, on 27 February 2016 - 10:27 AM, said:

Direct X 9 was released 9 years ago. No modern developer uses decade old graphics API. Get used to it.

DX9 came out with the first xbox iirc. So even older than 9 years. Which just makes your point even more clear, all the more reason to retire the API. Since the current consoles all run Dx11, DX9 is ready to be burried.

[Ghogiel]

Sandpit, on 27 February 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

actually, they went with Cryengine because it was the best engine they could and from Day 1 it's been a major culprit behind the glacial dev speeds here. PGI had VERY minimal training with the engine, didn't have much in the way of support, and the engine (obviously at this point) did not do what they expected it to be able to do in a lot of areas.

I imagine it's one of the main reasons it took a year to develop a UI, collision issues, physics, etc.

Pfft. If a studio can't learn and can only go glacial speed with CE that's not good. Making it sound like CE is some voodoo arcane tech no one can work with at a speed modern studios require. If that were true, we probably aren't going to be going much faster. Ever. Nothing suggests another engine is going to be any quicker dev speed. That's pure specualation. Really on the market their only alternative that would be a potential upgrade is UE4.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Sandpit, on 27 February 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

no offense but you obviously didn't listen to what was said or are just being very apathetic. You can tell by the way Russ is talking that this is a huge decision for PGI and they are very seriously looking into switching engines

The only reason to go Unreal, is to let them put the beta shield back up and continue to sell mechpacks with an excuse.

[Lozruet Gravemind]

Pariah Devalis, on 26 February 2016 - 11:06 PM, said:

Unreal 4, Frostbite, CryEngine 4.... Anything. It's a ton of work, but if it makes the game more stable, perform better, and opens up new options for the developers while simultaneously removing several current headaches for the devs than it would be incredibly worthwhile.

Id say Unreal and Frostbite are the top two contenders outside it being a simple update to Cry4. But if like Russ said that its as difficult to change to Cry4 as it would be to change to lets say Unreal 4, then why stick with Cryengine when the others are superior and have a Dev community you could ask help from. Im sure that Dice wouldnt mind giving them pointers on how Frostbite works, or anyone working on Unreal giving them some tips and hints. I would say best thing for PGI to do is go with the most supported and most used engine. Makes it easier for them because of the amount of Devs they can talk to about it.

[Tarogato]

I'm surprised so many people are saying this game runs on Cry Engine 2. ... lol, it does not. This is Cry Engine 3, folks.