26 replies to this topic

[m]

Hello everyone. Here is my 300th post. As per usual, every 100th post I put something up that I think is interesting to discuss.


Here's the article:

http://www.htxt.co.z...e-humble-bundle


Considering the costs (in the thousands per month from what I've read in the past) to use the CryEngine that PGI is using now (2010-11 variant of 2.2/2.5 that I am pretty sure was upgraded to CryEngine 3), and the fact that so many people complain about the limitations of that version and development time against the game, would it be feasible to use this engine?

• Swapping assets should be possible as the newer version, I would assume, should be backwards compatible
  
• The cost structure seems viable
  
• We could choose what we would want in a map on the CryEngine site and post the textures and so forth here ( https://www.cryengine.com/marketplace )
  
• FPS should improve, especially with the newer versions of DirectX
  
• The engine should be hardware friendly toward newer gpus and freesync capable products
  
• With companies like nVidia and AMD opening up their software and making them open source to communities, it could make the game much more stable and more compatible than it is now

What does everyone think? Let's discuss.

Edited by m, 23 March 2016 - 06:55 AM.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

PGI should switch to an engine that has built in support for server authenticated net code.

IIRC cryegnine still doesn't have that.

[Metus regem]

I think PGI should find an engine they like and most importantly, are comfortable programing for. I think at time, PGI is in over their heads with CryEngine, it doesn't seem the easiest to work with.

[cazidin]

How many thousands of hours would it take? What would the benefits be in terms of gameplay? I.e. UI, Balance, etc.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Congrats on 300 posts. TONIGHT. YOU DINE... IN HEEEEELLLLLLLLL!!!!!!

[Cion]

This is what should happen:

Currently PGI has to pay a....30%? royalty on every dollar earned for using the current engine. Newer engines are much more relaxed on that royalty tax. Unreal is 5%?. I think the new Cryengine is less than the current one as well.
PGI should then calculate the possible savings per year from switching to a new engine, and use that number as a guideline to hire additional programmers to begin porting the game to the new engine. They work for one year, without disrupting current development, because they are additional hires.
PGI then ports, makes up the costs in one year, and everyhing else is profit.

disclosure: my percentages on the royalties are just from what I remember, they could be different, but the concept is the same.

Edit: Congrats on 300th post!

Edited by Cion, 23 March 2016 - 07:26 AM.

[sycocys]

Well since they only have 5 programmers that can barely handle programming anything new for the current game - do you want them taking 12+ months off to port the game to a new engine and still not be able to update the game in any sort of timely manner?

Personally I don't think it make sense to do unless they are actually going to nut up and hire more competent programmers.

[Alardus]

What is with the recent proliferation in the coding/gaming community of calling small slices of something 'a la carte'? It just bugs me to no end and this convention needs to die. Its for food, not programs.

Edited by Alardus, 23 March 2016 - 07:30 AM.

[Podex]

Do they even have the capital to pay for it? I imagine that they run pretty lean since revenue is probably fairly erratic.

Is it a good idea for me? Oh yeah, bring it.
Is it a good idea for them? Probably not.

Upgrades like this are usually filled with problems that nobody could have ever foreseen. What works on one client may completely tank on another. There are thousands of variables on thousands of machines with thousands of setups, and the resources are likely not there to handle the load. What they have works and it would be sensible to stick with the current engine.

[Alistair Winter]

m, on 23 March 2016 - 06:51 AM, said:

Hello everyone. Here is my 300th post. As per usual, every 100th post I put something up that I think is interesting to discuss.

I do the same with every 10,000th post.

m, on 23 March 2016 - 06:51 AM, said:

What does everyone think? Let's discuss.

I really have no idea, but my immediate reaction is that the current engine is good enough. It's just about:

• PGI devs learning how to use it
  
• PGI devs making good artistic choices.

For example, compare Polar Highlands with Alpine Peaks. They're night and day. But also, compare the mountains on River City with the mountains on Polar Highlands. The mountains / cliffs on River City look absolutely terrible. It's just bad craftsmanship.

Ultimately, I don't think an engine upgrade is a big deal, but I don't really know. Maybe an engine upgrade will make it easier to create truly lush grasslands and forests with lots of vegetation without melting our computers. And maybe we will finally have inverse kinematics back after 4 years. In that case, it's probably worth it.

[Triordinant]

MoonUnitBeta, on 23 March 2016 - 07:25 AM, said:

Congrats on 300 posts. TONIGHT. YOU DINE... IN HEEEEELLLLLLLLL!!!!!!

[Barkem Squirrel]

It is a decision PGI will most likely have to make for next year. At that point they would have been running the game for what 5 years on the same engine. They will have to upgrade at some point, but what will they chose?

Then again next year I would have been running this computer for over 6 years.

[Gas Guzzler]

Russ has declared on Twitter that they will begin their full assessment of the new cryengine "Soon". Perhaps to coincide with the the Fire Moth release

Either way, I believe the process will end up take several months to port over to the new engine.

[Rhaythe]

No.

They won't, because there's nothing to be gained. It doesn't provide anything the game absolutely requires; it won't necessarily even make the game look better. That takes extra assets, extra configuration, extra time. And jumping engines - even for a sequentially newer one - can be a significant strain on resources.

But they really won't do it because it's unmarketable. And everything comes down to finances.

[Gas Guzzler]

Rhaythe, on 23 March 2016 - 08:02 AM, said:

No.

They won't, because there's nothing to be gained. It doesn't provide anything the game absolutely requires; it won't necessarily even make the game look better. That takes extra assets, extra configuration, extra time. And jumping engines - even for a sequentially newer one - can be a significant strain on resources.

But they really won't do it because it's unmarketable. And everything comes down to finances.

Well, they want the game to be viable for another 5 years and they said they were considering an engine upgrade so its definitely possible..

[Podex]

Gas Guzzler, on 23 March 2016 - 08:15 AM, said:

Well, they want the game to be viable for another 5 years and they said they were considering an engine upgrade so its definitely possible..

Doesn't BT/HBS have something in the works? If so, that could put a damper on a long term strategy.

[Ghogiel]

Cion, on 23 March 2016 - 07:25 AM, said:

This is what should happen:

Currently PGI has to pay a....30%? royalty on every dollar earned for using the current engine. Newer engines are much more relaxed on that royalty tax. Unreal is 5%?. I think the new Cryengine is less than the current one as well.
PGI should then calculate the possible savings per year from switching to a new engine, and use that number as a guideline to hire additional programmers to begin porting the game to the new engine. They work for one year, without disrupting current development, because they are additional hires.
PGI then ports, makes up the costs in one year, and everyhing else is profit.

disclosure: my percentages on the royalties are just from what I remember, they could be different, but the concept is the same.

I am pretty certain PGI has paid for a full license and not a royalty share free indy license.

Edited by Ghogiel, 23 March 2016 - 08:22 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Podex, on 23 March 2016 - 08:21 AM, said:

Doesn't BT/HBS have something in the works? If so, that could put a damper on a long term strategy.

Not really, FPS vs strategy style game will attract different crowds. Me? I'm going to be playing BattleTech while waiting for matches in MWO.

[Podex]

Gas Guzzler, on 23 March 2016 - 08:27 AM, said:

Not really, FPS vs strategy style game will attract different crowds. Me? I'm going to be playing BattleTech while waiting for matches in MWO.

Gotcha. I was unsure what type of game they were planning on. In that case, the BT/HBS endeavor could work in PGI's favor.


And also...I'm really not going to miss Megamek. Great game, but as engaging as an all white Rubik's Cube.

[Goose]

How is it there was no tech from MWO flowing back to CryEngine in the first place? "Cross-licensing" is a thing, right?

How is it re-implementing MWO tech into the new CryEngine will be as hard this time around as when inventing it?

What are the upsides of even changing, what with all the potato issues we already have? Everyone says "DX12," but that involves Win10, which isn't exactly setting the world on fire.

I sometimes wonder if we might not get more mileage out'a talking with the shop(s) whom got PhysX running within CryEngine …