Jump to content

Mechwarrior Online And Cryengine

9 replies to this topic

Poll: Should MechWarrior Online get a new Game Engine? (37 member(s) have cast votes)

Which game engine would you choose for MWO?

  1. CryEngine (Keep it, just update it!) (3 votes [8.11%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 8.11%

  2. Unity (2 votes [5.41%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.41%

  3. Frostbite 3 (Battlefield 4 & 1) (5 votes [13.51%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 13.51%

  4. Unreal Engine 4 (Ark: Survival Evolved) (25 votes [67.57%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 67.57%

  5. Havok Vision Engine (Fallout 4) (2 votes [5.41%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.41%

  6. BigWorld (World of Tanks) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 VenomSpike


  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 4 posts

Posted 18 September 2016 - 11:25 PM

Being a free-to-play game means there are plenty of people here in the community who don't necessarily go all out for their gaming rigs (I being one of them). Having to play on low graphical settings with a terrible frame rate really detracts from the MechWarrior game I know and love.

I'm not sure how difficult it would be for PGI to switch from CryEngine, but there's plenty of other amazing options out there like Unreal or Unity that have very beautiful rendering, better netcoding, and allow for some better gameplay at lower graphical solutions.

Please vote and share your opinions!

#2 Kaptain


  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,256 posts
  • LocationNorth America

Posted 19 September 2016 - 12:22 AM

It will never happen but UR would have been better.

#3 technopredator


  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • LocationBehind you

Posted 19 December 2016 - 04:01 AM

Frostbite 3 sopports OpenGL/Vulcan and DirectX, AMD and Nvidia API, that's a prettycomplete engine. I'd recommend OpenGL, faster that DX and has about the same features with great eficiency in handling the hardware, and you can port games to smarthphones, consoles, Linux, MacOS and Windows even in Web Browsers with WebGL, so why the *** devs keep using DX so much instead of OpenGL?

OpenGL is freeware, you can contribute to its development and is developed by Silicon Graphics, it was their idea to make a free, portable, hardware and performance efficient API to the World, DirectX came later but only for Windows, and has always been slower and more complicated and limited according to many devs on reviews ovwr the years, and SG is a leading 3D graphics card and workstation hardware designer, so they should know, so again Why The *** are people still using DirectX more? If I was a game dev, for sure would use what's more efficient and handlea hardqare well, and is portable, even with browsers; I really don't understand it.

CryEngine uses exclusively DirectX and is anything but efficient, specially when it keeps GPUs at 100%, I have 2 old ATI 4670 HD in CrossFire and they get hot and never come from 100%, not even when the activity is low, that's a not well designed engine, they try to get performance by brute force, overworking the hardware and the electrical bill, and as users report with many graphic lag and issues, I really don't understand PGI

Real life example, probably 1 of many, I have read of a few: https://www.extremet...even-on-windows

Edited by technopredator, 19 December 2016 - 04:28 AM.

#4 BTGbullseye


  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 592 posts
  • Location"ATMs are worthless with their current missile health and minimum range"

Posted 30 July 2017 - 03:27 PM

Unity and UE4 both support Vulkan as well, and they are a lot less expensive to implement than Frostbite. (plus no money would go to EA, which is a huge plus IMO)

#5 Nesutizale


  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 847 posts

Posted 04 August 2017 - 09:26 AM

Just because the engine is pretty or supports some tech dosn't mean it will work for MWO.
As seen with Mass Effect Andromeda, it took them so long to get it working, for an RPG type of game, that lots of elements where not done right or buggy.

So judging the engine just for the "it looks nice" or "it supports a tech I like" dosn't realy work.

When the last demo of MW:5M is any indicator it seams that the Unreal engine might be a worth it. IIRC they said they where supprised how easly they could get the demo up and running.
Still that was only a very small part of an entire game. I hope we will see some progress at the next MechCon.

If that experiment goes well I wouldn't mind if they switch MWO to Unreal engine as long as we keep our stuff.

#6 Methanoid


  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 358 posts

Posted 14 August 2017 - 01:54 PM

Should be Unreal obv, so we could just make our own damned servers hosted with custom maps that anyone could easily make.

#7 Exilyth


  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 1,729 posts
  • LocationTerra

Posted 05 September 2017 - 10:43 AM

Voting for UE4 since opengl/vulkan support, compatible with more OSs and easier to use asset pipeline (also more powerfull scripting language).

#8 SirDubba


  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts
  • LocationFinland

Posted 22 September 2017 - 02:49 PM

(I'm too tired to write properly, sorry)

Anything but the current mess. I've upgraded from HD6950 to GTX 980 (with Haswell 1230v3) and I saw no proper improvements. Overally the gaming experience makes me quite angry, unless I have enough beer for couple hours of MWO. 170fps on drop screen, 30fps on worse maps like Frozen City, smooth frames on HPG, stuttering slideshows on River City.
Framerates fluctuate so much between maps and different situations that I still don't believe were out of beta stage. Changing graphics settings doesn't help at all, but disabling the in-game HUD let's my framerate back up for some reason. The most optimized part of this game might be the galaxy map, which was the only screen that utilized ~100% of my last GPU.

I'm so tired of waiting this game to be finished but somehow I still want to believe. If Piranha succeeds with MW5, it would be only right to ditch the cryengine and make MWO great again, I don't care if it takes another year to just finish the engine and start working on the content after that.

#9 Nesutizale


  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 847 posts

Posted 24 September 2017 - 06:09 AM

Wasn't the HUD kinda hacked in with something from outside of Cryengine? I vaguely remember that there was something about the UI that made quite some problems.

#10 50 50


  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • LocationSydney

Posted 13 October 2017 - 12:05 AM

If there was a clear benefit to changing the engine and porting the game across, particularly if it brought in new features/depth then I would back it.

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users