Author Topic: Hypothetical FH3 engine discussion  (Read 7549 times)

Offline Kelmola

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.861
    • View Profile
Hypothetical FH3 engine discussion
« on: 08-06-2012, 13:06:25 »
So. Were FH team to decide to change engines in a few years. What should they mod?

CryEngine 3 SDK:
Pros: Optimized for current technology; destructible terrain; procedural animations; quite flexible due to being a SDK
Cons: Might have issues with vehicles; flight physics tricky; might have problems with realistic ballistics; lot of work due to being a SDK

ArmA II:
Pros: It's ArmA
Cons: It's ArmA

RO2:
Pros: Is already a WW2 tactical combined arms FPS, so no need to reinvent (recode) the wheel
Cons: Tanks need much more work; no aircraft; "unlock" system means everyone and their dog is running with MKb42

Offline Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.531
  • Gebalte? Anyone?
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical FH3 engine discussion
« Reply #1 on: 08-06-2012, 13:06:03 »
well, isn't ArmA III going to get released soon?
But arma II is good, I would definetly go for the arma option if it was my decision!
We could make Kubel Rally :D

 
Playing WoT with ingame nick: CroPanzer

Biiviz

  • Guest
Re: Hypothetical FH3 engine discussion
« Reply #2 on: 08-06-2012, 14:06:26 »
Are in-door fights smooth in ArmA2?

Offline Flippy Warbear

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6.921
  • Adequately docile
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical FH3 engine discussion
« Reply #3 on: 08-06-2012, 14:06:51 »
Are in-door fights smooth in ArmA2?

No. Indoors are fucking cumbersome in ArmA2. That game is definitely not designed with indoors fighting in mind.

Offline SiCaRiO

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.554
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical FH3 engine discussion
« Reply #4 on: 08-06-2012, 14:06:37 »
this guy from PCgamers tryed Arma III in the E3, he says its much more smooth than ArmaII, altrough  i have to see it first to judge.


Also, you should have said UT 3 engine, not RO2. And i think the best one would be Cryengine 3, its free as long as you dont charge for yoru product, easy to mod, modern,etc.

The cons I see is maps can only be 2x2 km max, But knowing most maps in FH2, i think they are tiny enought.

Offline Kelmola

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.861
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical FH3 engine discussion
« Reply #5 on: 08-06-2012, 14:06:28 »
2x2 km? Bullshoot.

CE3 can have 65.536x65.536 km maps (map can be defined even larger, but terrain beyond 2^16 meters won't appear and going beyond the limit crashes the game/editor), whereas in CE2 you could have 262144x262144 km (yes, you read that right, 2^18 kilometres squared, an area of 687 billion 187 million 476 thousand 736 square kilometres) maps.

Of course, having only 1/16777216th (or 1/2^24) of the theoretically possible mapsize means that the engine runs much smoother... :P

Offline Surfbird

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.101
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical FH3 engine discussion
« Reply #6 on: 08-06-2012, 15:06:29 »
I dont like Arma 2 engine for FH. Does not fit the gameplay, it's not smooth enough for being FH worthy. Arma 3 will kill my computer, and I think I'm not the only one with that issue. RO 2 is RO2. The firefights are comparable to FH2, but I'm afraid there will be quite a lot of enginge limitations and the lack of planes does not make me feel well about it.
CryEngine 3 probably has the bigges potential from my quite limited point of view, since I lack specific and detailed modding and engine knowledge.

Offline AfterDune

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • PR Developer
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical FH3 engine discussion
« Reply #7 on: 08-06-2012, 15:06:15 »
Don't think FH3 should be on ArmA (unless ArmA III is very different from ArmA II). It's not "smooth enough". I copied Surfbird here. Also ArmA in general is fairly complicated, where the controls in FH2 are easier to handle. If you're new to the game, you can hop in and play instantly.

CE3 looks amazing, but it doesn't come with networking, right? Also not so much documentation if I heard correct.

UDK sounds good. It has the looks, networking, documentation. Sounds like the best choice so far. I've seen BF2 weapons, vehicles and statics imported to UDK before. Even BF2 animations for those weapons. Looks the same, just a lot prettier :p.

Wouldn't go with modding another game. I'd go for an engine instead.



To be honest, I'd love to see a FH3 :).
« Last Edit: 08-06-2012, 15:06:00 by AfterDune »

Offline SiCaRiO

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.554
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical FH3 engine discussion
« Reply #8 on: 08-06-2012, 15:06:04 »
2x2 km? Bullshoot.

CE3 can have 65.536x65.536 km maps (map can be defined even larger, but terrain beyond 2^16 meters won't appear and going beyond the limit crashes the game/editor), whereas in CE2 you could have 262144x262144 km (yes, you read that right, 2^18 kilometres squared, an area of 687 billion 187 million 476 thousand 736 square kilometres) maps.

Of course, having only 1/16777216th (or 1/2^24) of the theoretically possible mapsize means that the engine runs much smoother... :P

yes i know, but thats "theoreticaly". i was saying a 2x2 map with constant detail, effects, particles,etc. And to be honest i espect FH3 to be a whole lot diferent than FH2, with bigger maps and long view distances.

CE3 looks amazing, but it doesn't come with networking, right? Also not so much documentation if I heard correct.


actually they have a forum were developers from CRYTEK and independent projects using CE3 share and post progress, tricks, guides, etc using the sdk . Thats where this video came from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KppTmsNFneg

Offline Alakazou

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.368
  • FHer from the beginning
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical FH3 engine discussion
« Reply #9 on: 09-06-2012, 01:06:17 »
So. Were FH team to decide to change engines in a few years. What should they mod?

CryEngine 3 SDK:
Pros: Optimized for current technology; destructible terrain; procedural animations; quite flexible due to being a SDK
Cons: Might have issues with vehicles; flight physics tricky; might have problems with realistic ballistics; lot of work due to being a SDK

ArmA II:
Pros: It's ArmA
Cons: It's ArmA

RO2:
Pros: Is already a WW2 tactical combined arms FPS, so no need to reinvent (recode) the wheel
Cons: Tanks need much more work; no aircraft; "unlock" system means everyone and their dog is running with MKb42

You forgot this for must of the engine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7yfISlGLNU

And I think the engine should support 128 players :)
« Last Edit: 09-06-2012, 01:06:51 by Alakazou »

Offline Dukat

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.041
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical FH3 engine discussion
« Reply #10 on: 09-06-2012, 01:06:05 »
Cry engine 3, ArmAs VR Engine and the Unreal 3 engine, that is all? IMHO none of those should be used.

The day will (hopefully) come when dice returns to WWII once more. The more modern combat shooters they will do, the more likely they could do a sidestep like a BF1944. I could be as vanilla as BF1942, as long as it got a late and updated variant of the frostbite engine and an editor. Then it would be perfect for FH to move on.

I guess only dice knows when that will happen.

I usually imagine my own sounds with it, like `tjunk, tupdieyupdiedee` aaa enemy spotted, ratatatataboom

Offline Surfbird

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.101
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical FH3 engine discussion
« Reply #11 on: 09-06-2012, 02:06:22 »
Is it gonna happen anyway ? Ea/Dice won't release it until it's totally outdated. So far a destructible terrain is still something new. They won't make the engine accessable for modding until it's totally outdated I guess. And even then they probably don't want to give the concurrent companies a basis to work with and make a better engine one day. I might be wrong, but I don't think they are going to give the Frostbite engine free for excessive modding anytime soon. Chapter of modding Battlefield games is probably closed in the future.

Offline AfterDune

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • PR Developer
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical FH3 engine discussion
« Reply #12 on: 09-06-2012, 14:06:51 »
Frostbite, not gonna happen. It's not freely available and even if they hand out modding tools, you'd still be modding a game, while what you want, is an engine. It may be harder at first, but opens up so many possibilities.

FH2 is beautiful, but still a mod. You want a standalone game. A game that can offer the same graphics and what not as other games do these days. And you can, if you use an engine that gets updated regularly. You can keep your game alive for so many years and still keep up with new technologies.

Offline Natty

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3.170
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical FH3 engine discussion
« Reply #13 on: 09-06-2012, 15:06:55 »
Agreed, as long as you're just tweaking someone else's design, you'll never be able to reach your true goal.

Sadly there are many examples of mod teams who decides to make a game and fail utterly...

The business/publishing side is just as much part of game development as making a nice looking rifle or an animation, but some tend to believe that just making the game "work" is all you need to do, the rest will "sort itself out".

Offline Kelmola

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.861
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical FH3 engine discussion
« Reply #14 on: 09-06-2012, 15:06:06 »
yes i know, but thats "theoreticaly". i was saying a 2x2 map with constant detail, effects, particles,etc. And to be honest i espect FH3 to be a whole lot diferent than FH2, with bigger maps and long view distances.
Don't know about CE3, but in CE2 MWLL has 4x4 and even 8x8 maps (I think some fanmaps are even larger) with detail, effects, particles, 1+ km visibility, and combined arms.