0
Sir Roland MXIII, on 03 December 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:
What I find hilarious about all this discusion is the fact that despite being newer, which in the end isn't worth anything in and of itself, there are 'older' engines that are far more powerful than CE3. For example, Unreal Engine 3, which is 5 years old, and performs well on computers BELOW minimum spec.
I know, because I did for most of the past 5 years. Min spec for UE3 requires a dual core, I ran a single core, and my GPU was slightly below min spec as well. It ran, and ran fine, albiet on lowest settings. Besides performance capacity there are many things better about UE3 as well - for instance, UE3 made hitboxes obsolete, 5 years ago, with per-pixel hit detection.
UE3 also obsoleted bump-mapping, by combining both the role of bump mapping and hit detection in a new graphics model - each part of a game that is rendered by UE3 has two meshes, which is normal, but what is NOT normal is how they are used. Where engines like CE3 rely on one mesh to be the graphics and another the hitbox, UE3 has a motile skeleton mesh that is low-poly, like the obsolete hitbox, and covers where and what a unit is doing. The skin is a high poly mesh rendered over the low poly skeleton, which is bump mapping at an unreal level - pardon the pun.
For the CPU and GPU, this results in the game having characters and maps that look extremely high poly, but perform as if low poly - a truly revolutionary idea, executed extremely well. Many, MANY games since have used UE3, some of which were MMOs - Tera, for example - which means the UE3 netcode has already been sorted out and is now standard, prior to someone like, say, PGI, using UE3.
Now, the hit detection of UE3 is achieved by having each part of the overlaid mesh act as a hitbox - because of this, you get a sort of WYSIWYG shooter - what you see, is what you can hit. Granted, MW:O has semi complex hitboxes, because it's using seperate hitboxes for each mech hit location. So I can feel like it's the more accurate per-pixel hit detection... until I go to shoot at something moving 90+ kph that is actually, somehow, able to OUTRUN it's own hitbox.
This is ludicrous, especially given that I have never seen that issue anywhere else, and this is something that, say, UE3 would have to be TOLD to do. And nevermind the fact that the UE3 graphics are out-*******-standing on my machine where the MW:O are set to low so I can have a semi-playable piece o' **** graphics experience. Woohoo. Joy. I am seriously impressed. /Ben Stiller Voiceover.
Short version, I guess, is this. Just because CryEngine 3 is newer does not make it good. New can be poo. Old is still the ****.
Moral of the story: When it comes to game engines, PGI chose... poorly.
I know, because I did for most of the past 5 years. Min spec for UE3 requires a dual core, I ran a single core, and my GPU was slightly below min spec as well. It ran, and ran fine, albiet on lowest settings. Besides performance capacity there are many things better about UE3 as well - for instance, UE3 made hitboxes obsolete, 5 years ago, with per-pixel hit detection.
UE3 also obsoleted bump-mapping, by combining both the role of bump mapping and hit detection in a new graphics model - each part of a game that is rendered by UE3 has two meshes, which is normal, but what is NOT normal is how they are used. Where engines like CE3 rely on one mesh to be the graphics and another the hitbox, UE3 has a motile skeleton mesh that is low-poly, like the obsolete hitbox, and covers where and what a unit is doing. The skin is a high poly mesh rendered over the low poly skeleton, which is bump mapping at an unreal level - pardon the pun.
For the CPU and GPU, this results in the game having characters and maps that look extremely high poly, but perform as if low poly - a truly revolutionary idea, executed extremely well. Many, MANY games since have used UE3, some of which were MMOs - Tera, for example - which means the UE3 netcode has already been sorted out and is now standard, prior to someone like, say, PGI, using UE3.
Now, the hit detection of UE3 is achieved by having each part of the overlaid mesh act as a hitbox - because of this, you get a sort of WYSIWYG shooter - what you see, is what you can hit. Granted, MW:O has semi complex hitboxes, because it's using seperate hitboxes for each mech hit location. So I can feel like it's the more accurate per-pixel hit detection... until I go to shoot at something moving 90+ kph that is actually, somehow, able to OUTRUN it's own hitbox.
This is ludicrous, especially given that I have never seen that issue anywhere else, and this is something that, say, UE3 would have to be TOLD to do. And nevermind the fact that the UE3 graphics are out-*******-standing on my machine where the MW:O are set to low so I can have a semi-playable piece o' **** graphics experience. Woohoo. Joy. I am seriously impressed. /Ben Stiller Voiceover.
Short version, I guess, is this. Just because CryEngine 3 is newer does not make it good. New can be poo. Old is still the ****.
Moral of the story: When it comes to game engines, PGI chose... poorly.
You sir obviously know nothing about this otherwise you wouldn't have posted understand the platform then come back thanks thats the difference between UE3 and CryEngine 3.4 CryEngine is more resource heavy
Edited by fxrsniper, 04 December 2012 - 08:15 PM.
