CryEngine 3 Page 2

  • Page

    of 3 First / Last

  • Deleted user 25 March 2009 11:43:19
    boabg wrote:
    N@ wrote:
    boabg wrote:
    As long as it's better than their last console effort. FC2 runs like a dog on the 360.

    boabg, that's the second time I've seen you post about the 360 version of FC2 looking dodgy. boabg, um, there's nowt wrong with the frame rate in 360 Far Cry 2 ya silly sausage. :p

    Honestly? In the bit you get the disease at the start there was shocking slowdown and tearing where you get shot in the firefight. Two frames passed from standing upright to lying on the ground. That's all I've played so far.

    Ah, yes having recently started a new game on the 360 version, yep, I agree with you 100%. It's all uphill (for the frame rate) from there though.
  • Widge Moderator 25 Mar 2009 13:39:16 12,583 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    hiddenranbir wrote:
    No wonder so few people are using CryEngine2. Crytek are giving crap all support because they've already abandoned it for this new engine.

    No-one uses CE2 because they want people to be able to play their games above 20fps!

    _ _ _

    www.unpaused.co.uk - electronic noise adjective salad

  • Buran 25 Mar 2009 17:48:12 13 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Incorrect. Latest pacth to Crysis Wars and the Crysis Wars SDK was launched three days ago.

    The reason because only a few developers had choice the CE2 to games to make games is because the license is around 1 million $, a lot more than UE3.

    And Widge, if these were the explanation, why consoles are full of sub 720p res-sub 30 fps games?
  • Deleted user 25 March 2009 18:49:35
    720p

    http://www.gamersyde.com/leech_10376_en.html
  • Martin85 25 Mar 2009 20:39:03 151 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    boabg wrote:
    Honestly? In the bit you get the disease at the start there was shocking slowdown and tearing where you get shot in the firefight. Two frames passed from standing upright to lying on the ground. That's all I've played so far.

    Really? I've played the whole game on my 360 and never experienced anything like that. The frame-rate does fluctuate a little in busy gun fights, and the shadows do look like crap on the 360 (though not on the PS3, as I understand it), but overall it plays pretty smooth and I really enjoyed it. Perhaps your 360 just randomly glitched there for a second or something? Anyway, I think you're exacerbating the issue, somewhat.

    As for the video, nothing earth-quaking in my opinion. I mean it's cool and all, and the prospect of playing Crisis on my massive television is excellent. But, I don't know, it just doesn't have that 'zing' when graphics send shivers up your spine. Maybe I've just had a bit too much of the 'jungle' crap over the past few years.
  • kcorb 25 Mar 2009 21:15:45 2,147 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Wastelander wrote:
    mikew1985 wrote:
    UncleLou wrote:
    FC2 wasn't done by Crytek. In fact, they have absolutely nothing to do with it. It's not even their engine.

    Um isn't it a modded FC1 engine?

    Nope.
    Actually it is.

    I've seen developer interviews where they are so proud to point out that they are using less than 3% of the original engine.
  • Deleted user 25 March 2009 21:27:51
    Yeah, that's a bit like saying Source is a modded Quake 1 engine.
  • hiddenranbir 26 Mar 2009 00:47:58 5,743 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Every engine is the same engine. Sorted, no?
  • kcorb 26 Mar 2009 16:38:05 2,147 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Yes. I find it funny to quantify an engine. What does 3% even mean? They started with a complete engine, and modified it. It obviously isn't specific, but they didn't make it themselves.

    And yes, Source is exactly a modified Quake engine.

    And no, every engine isn't the same. That's ridiculous.
  • roz123 26 Mar 2009 17:35:59 7,107 posts
    Seen 7 days ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    source modified quake engine?

    i know that the engine in the original half life was but i thought source was built from the ground up
  • Deleted user 26 March 2009 17:38:39
    Anyway, finally Crytek realised if they wanted to make any real money they had to develop a cross-platform engine. Will make a change from all the bland-looking UE3 games.
  • Deleted user 26 March 2009 17:40:10
    kcorb: An engine isn't just one solid entity though. If they write absolutely everything from scratch, except the netcode which they take from an existing engine, does that make the new engine just a modded older one?
  • kcorb 26 Mar 2009 17:51:19 2,147 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Yep, Source is 3rd generation.

    I'm not saying the final version is exactly the same, they could have changed everything, which is unlikely and stupid anyway. But the engines are licensed and used as a base for a new engine, which flatly makes it the original version no matter how much of it is used.
  • Deleted user 26 March 2009 18:03:39
    kcorb wrote:
    But the engines are licensed and used as a base for a new engine, which flatly makes it the original version no matter how much of it is used.

    This is fundamentally flawed. There's no way of telling what parts of the engine they used from the old one and what parts they wrote entirely from scratch. If they just took something as simple as the netcode from the old engine, then they're patently not using the whole thing as a base. For example, the article regarding Dunia states that 2-3% of the engine was 'reused', not that they built the whole engine right on top of CryEngine 1 and that the 2-3% is all that remained untouched.
  • kcorb 26 Mar 2009 18:07:58 2,147 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Mayhaps you are misunderstanding? Ubisoft didn't put ten programmers in a room and tell them to make an engine. They put them in a room with CryEngine and created a new engine. There is no way of knowing exactly what they did without having access to both of those engines and I'm not paying to look. I'm just saying they used CryEngine, that's all. It was their base and they built off of it, even if they just used one brick.
  • Wastelander 26 Mar 2009 18:12:51 1,848 posts
    Seen 4 years ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Dominic Guay

    1) When licensing the Far Cry brand you purchased the Cry Engine and it seems logical that this powerful peace of technology will be the technical base of Far Cry 2 too? Is that correct?

    DG: No, I understand the reasoning but it is incorrect. The engine was licensed mostly for use on the console adaptations of the original Far Cry. On Far Cry 2, we had a mandate not only to build an ambitious sequel to Far Cry but also to build a new cutting edge in-house technology. We started building that new technology in 2005. Our engine is called Dunia and was built from the ground up to support the scope and goals of Far Cry 2.

    2) Was it necessary to reprogram or even add code to the engine? If so what parts were altered what kind of technical features were integrated into the engine? What were the reasons behind these alterations?

    DG: Well, Dunia was built from the ground up. It was developed during the last 3 years in our R&D effort for Far Cry 2. We had a few major goals in mind as we built the technology. First, we wanted to get rid of the concept of levels. Levels have been used since before the Pac Man days to manage progression and content and are, from a technical standpoint, a very safe way of managing things. However, FC2 is a truly open world game and we couldnt do with such a limitation anymore. A change of scale like that one changes a lot of thing in a technology.
  • Deleted user 26 March 2009 18:15:15
    I think you're the one misunderstanding. I'm talking about the following assertions:

    kcorb wrote:
    It was their base and they built off of it, even if they just used one brick.

    .. which flatly makes it the original version no matter how much of it is used.

    by pointing out that

    If they just took something as simple as the netcode from the old engine, then they're patently not using the whole thing as a base.

    To use an analogy, if I took a lightbulb from a Ferrari and put it into my Citroen, I wouldn't claim I'm driving a modified Enzo.
  • Deleted user 26 March 2009 18:22:51
    Or just look at Wastelander's post. Or read this. Teehee.
  • kcorb 26 Mar 2009 18:25:55 2,147 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Gremmi wrote:
    To use an analogy, if I took a lightbulb from a Ferrari and put it into my Citroen, I wouldn't claim I'm driving a modified Enzo.

    I understand what you're saying, but I'm saying they built the car around the light bulb :p
  • Deleted user 26 March 2009 18:26:36
    But they didn't.
  • kcorb 26 Mar 2009 18:32:15 2,147 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    As for the interview it really doesn't mean anything to me, other than that guy wants to say that the engine is completely new, and if that's the case, that's the case. But they had CryEngine, and they admitted to using it, less than 3% in fact. Without knowing the specifics about Dunia there is no way to know, unless I developed it.

    But you were talking about using a previous engine for a new engine and I think it is still fair to say that a new engine would be tied to a previous engine having used any of its code.
  • Slabbathepave 26 Mar 2009 18:58:25 488 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    3% eh? not 4?
  • Deleted user 26 March 2009 19:08:01
    kcorb wrote:
    But you were talking about using a previous engine for a new engine and I think it is still fair to say that a new engine would be tied to a previous engine having used any of its code.

    Saying it's tied to an engine and saying it's the base for the engine (to the extent where saying 'Y is a modded X engine' makes logical sense) are two entirely different things though.

    Goldsrc was ostensibly a modded Quake 1 engine.

    Source was a brand new engine which borrowed bits they didn't feel the need to rewrite from older engines.
  • UncleLou Moderator 26 Mar 2009 19:12:37 35,171 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    This is one of those threads where one person adopts a definition of a word that might not be wrong per se, but is so at odds with how everyone else sees it that you'll never agree.

    On a sidenote, how could Ubisoft use the engine, anyway, without a license, even for those 3%? Maybe some basic stuff Crytek did when they were still working for Ubi?
  • Deleted user 26 March 2009 19:25:25
    /beats up Lou
  • UncleLou Moderator 26 Mar 2009 19:33:27 35,171 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Ah, er, um. I kinda missed the part where they bought it. :p

    So, is the Cryengine 2 even based on the Cryengine 1 if Ubisoft bought all rights?
  • Deleted user 14 October 2009 21:43:00
    NEXT GEN ready.
  • Buran 15 Oct 2009 14:38:49 13 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    hiddenranbir wrote:
    No wonder so few people are using CryEngine2. Crytek are giving crap all support because they've already abandoned it for this new engine.

    Yah, this is the reason because NC SOFT is using CryEngine 1 in Aion, poor Crytek's support, really?

    And CryEngine 2 and 3 is the same thing in PC (but with new features), you could port any custom map in the Sanbox 2.0 editor to the new version in matter of minutes if you want.

    The reason behind the low adoption of CryEngine 2 in games are three: Unreal Engine 2 arrived a year before, CryEngine 2 license is a lot more expensive (over 1 million of $ compared with about 400.000 $ in UE3) and the fact that CE2 was not optimized towards console hardware.

    The CE2 supports deferred rendering, that makes possible to obtain higher framerrates with poor hardware, that fits perfectrly in the ctual console landscape: poor hardware.


    Another thing: "Next Gen Ready" parts in the vid are from PC builds.
  • Deleted user 25 November 2010 10:48:57
    Post deleted
  • Deleted user 25 November 2010 10:48:57
    Post deleted
  • Page

    of 3 First / Last

Log in or register to reply