Questions on PR2

[Austucker]

Cryengine 3 is free to develop with now and saw you guys were using C4 a while back due to costs and other reasons...seems your very stuck on the engine and it may be way to late but...

The US Army has dropped millions on a cry engine based military sim and another company has videos on YouTube of them messing around with the idea.. A lot of which is looking good so I guess I'm asking if now that cry engine 3 is free would PR consider using it as it seems to be MUCH better than C4.. Nothing I've seen of C4 looks promising to be honest.. I play PR on BF2 and love it along with playing Arma with my guys at United Operations and would love to see the PR guys do somthing with a serious engine!

Anyone else think they should look into it?

[MaSSive]

Cry engine 3 is only a platform for developing so that would mean they would need to start from scratch. I dont think so but nice idea. There is a topic about that already...somewhere

[dtacs]

Lighting doesn't mean zilch in a game who's functionality relies solely on smooth gameplay. We haven't seen any in-game footage of PR2 so of course its premature to judge what it'll be like, but frankly if CE3 is superior I don't see (from an uneducated outsiders perspective) the reason why development shouldn't switch.

And from what I've looked at, C4 is pretty lackluster. Sure with the PR devs on the job it could be better than these videos, but if they're limited subsequently by the engine limitations themselves then we'll see PRBF2 all over again.

[rushn]

umm that video is graphics and that depends on the artist not really the engine

okus have you seen what V4 can do with physics and Buoyancy?

and its not going to be like BF2 because you can already have voxel terrain and a bunch of other things



notice how the barrel drains

physics




look at the water effects

[dtacs]

I'm referring to how the Refractor engine has limited PRBF2. Features such as scope-sway and other realistic changes aren't possible.

[Spush]

Guys gotta remember that PR2 is still very pre-alpha still, as far as we/I know. The Gods of PR2 will speak when they're ready.

[ShockUnitBlack]

Basically what Spush said. PR2 is a long way off; this is all a bit too hypothetical.

[RedAlertSF]

Yeah, well it's been in pre-alpha for two and a half years. Just saying, I guess something should happen. A step forward.

[dtacs]

Basically what Spush said. PR2 is a long way off; this is all a bit too hypothetical.

It isn't hypothetical since you can grasp how good an engine from demonstration videos like the ones above.

Judging by the quality of the engine - from what we've seen - PR2 mightn't be the savior of simulation FPS'.

[lukeyu2005]

This would mean that people would need computers that can run crysis 2.

Well i'm out.
And along with so many other die hard PR fans.

Stick with C4 engine.
I don't want to buy a new computer

[Spush]

And along with so many other die hard PR fans.

I doubt it.

[lukeyu2005]

I doubt it.

Never the less there are a few that won't make the switch

[Pvt.LHeureux]

I think C4 Engine is perfect. Good physics, voxel terrain, nice lightning. And not super uber graphics. But it's easy to change the textures and make it better in terms of graphics. All the videos you saw are with the default stuff. Look at the water how it's good.

I don't think CE3 would offer much more in engine limitation, we don't know.

[Hitperson]

bear in mind you are making assumptions from the tech demo, it's much more sensible to find videos of releases on the engine.

[dtacs]

Also, what do you mean it looks lackluster? You mean graphics? I don't know what else you can refer to from those videos. I thought you said lighting means zilch. Lighting is one of the major impacts that an engine has on graphics. There's nothing to stop you importing something from crysis into the engine (apart from the law of course), the textures aren't all of a sudden going to change.
Performance may be different granted since the code they use to render objects and such would be different, but at this point we don't know anyway.

No, I mean quality of the engine in reference to how a simulation game striving for a realistic setting will play out. Of course many of those videos are made by single-man teams without budget or timeframes, a total amateur job, but as I aforementioned it might not be that smooth. The intricacies of the engine are a mystery to me but from what I've seen on Youtube, it doesn't look like its that great.

Here's to hoping its not another two and a half years of not seeing anything.

[Arc_Shielder]

I know when Devs had said something that stuck to my mind. In this case I perfectly remember one Dev claiming that the team was looking into CE3 engine.

Ofc, it doesn't meant they're going to change. Just "looking" into it.

[Spush]

In this case I perfectly remember one Dev claiming that the team was looking into CE3 engine.

It has been stuck in my mind for a while too.

[lucky.BOY]

Seriously guys, i dont think any of us (maybe Spush excluded ) can tell wether C4 or CE3 would be better for PR2. I believe there are people on the team who uderstand this problematic and can make a competent decision. Furthermore there certainly was somebody working on PR2 in the past 2 years, and if they switch engines, that work would be lost, wouldn't it?

And IIRC, the CE3 is free only for non-commerical use, as in if the game is free, and I dont think PR2 will be a free game...

But seriously, more info on PR2 plox!