183 replies to this topic

[Goose]

What the longest sightline any of these UE games have ever dealt with?

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?

[Luminis]

Choppah, on 28 February 2016 - 03:18 PM, said:

t I think players should view this topic as what would work for this dev team, with their peculiar track record, and not some other dev team, game, situation, etc.

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.

[Exilyth]

I'm dreaming of an engine which does real time ray/path tracing and has support for (destructible) smooth voxel terrain.

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.

[Sandpit]

I'd like an engine that does
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.

[carl kerensky]

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

Go Baby go......This will be the equivalent of the Rennassaince !! Hell Ya

Carl

[carl kerensky]

Sandpit, on 28 February 2016 - 06:08 PM, said:

I'd like an engine that does
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

[GreyNovember]

Wait.

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?

[Sandpit]

GreyNovember, on 29 February 2016 - 07:15 PM, said:

Wait.

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.

[Wintersdark]

Sandpit, on 28 February 2016 - 06:08 PM, said:

and when I say an engine that does, I mean an engine that PGI is able to do that with.

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.

[Sandpit]

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

[Wintersdark]

Sandpit, on 29 February 2016 - 08:52 PM, said:

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

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 =)

[Sandpit]

Wintersdark, on 29 February 2016 - 09:32 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 =)

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.

[Sir Roland MXIII]

For those wondering about PGI and what experience they have engine-wise, MW:O was their first foray into CryEngine. Prior to that, they used a lot of Unreal Engine, elthough of course not UE4 as it came out after MW:O. Note that Transverse (yeah you folks forgot about this particular skeleton in the closet it seems) was UE3, and they stated they wanted to get back to an engine they knew.

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.

[Sandpit]

Sir Roland MXIII, on 01 March 2016 - 01:03 AM, said:

For those wondering about PGI and what experience they have engine-wise, MW:O was their first foray into CryEngine. Prior to that, they used a lot of Unreal Engine, elthough of course not UE4 as it came out after MW:O. Note that Transverse (yeah you folks forgot about this particular skeleton in the closet it seems) was UE3, and they stated they wanted to get back to an engine they knew.

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

[Metus regem]

As mus as I love CryEngine, it is a system hog, that to get the most out of, targets a very specific type of computer and gamer. I'm not against them moving to a new version of it, but what would it offer over an engine that they are more familiar with? What would it offer over a newer version of Unreal Engine? What in the box tools are included with CryEngine and Unreal Engine? How comfortable is the PGI coders, modelers and sound engineers with those tools? How easy is it for them to make adjustments as needed in those engines? what engine would have the more robust net code for them to work with? And lastly, perhaps the most important question, what would be the cost to migrate to these engines?

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....

[Sandpit]

Metus regem, on 01 March 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

As mus as I love CryEngine, it is a system hog, that to get the most out of, targets a very specific type of computer and gamer. I'm not against them moving to a new version of it, but what would it offer over an engine that they are more familiar with? What would it offer over a newer version of Unreal Engine? What in the box tools are included with CryEngine and Unreal Engine? How comfortable is the PGI coders, modelers and sound engineers with those tools? How easy is it for them to make adjustments as needed in those engines? what engine would have the more robust net code for them to work with? And lastly, perhaps the most important question, what would be the cost to migrate to these engines?

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

[Metus regem]

Sandpit, on 01 March 2016 - 11:07 AM, said:

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

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...

[1453 R]

While I was as surprised as anybody else over how gung-ho Russ was in the last Town Hall over an engine swap, recall that A.) engine swaps are enormous undertakings that WILL disrupt content generation/release for quite some time (y'know, those things everyone is always saying Piranha needs to release every seventeen minutes or they'll Quit Forever™?)...and B.) Russ was drinking and had been talking for a while.

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.

[Sandpit]

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.

[dwwolf]

Hey dont knock Potatos.
Without potatos we wouldnt have vodka and then where would we be ? No neutral alcohol for our mixes.