baptist_christian wrote:well a fully destructable environment would cause a HELL OF A LOT of lag when in multiplayer right? I mean there are hundreds of thousands or even millions of dynamic objects, and with only 1024 dynamic objects in basra there's a ton of lag.
Thats probly just because bf2 engine isn't designed for it... Beside, I don't lag in Basrah lol
A proper engine designed for huge interactive map wouldn't lag as long as you have the pc good enough to play it...
I've heard Op Flashpoint 2 will allow km wide map with huge firing range.
Re: What Engine would YOU choose?
Posted: 2008-07-22 09:32
by CareBear
op2 map is bigger than 1km
Re: What Engine would YOU choose?
Posted: 2008-07-22 09:42
by master of the templars
i would also say doom 3 engine, good modability (i think i just made a word ) lots of things possible. outdoor scenes and vehicles are possible also despite the common belief you can't.
Re: What Engine would YOU choose?
Posted: 2008-07-22 10:52
by markonymous
CareBear wrote:op2 map is bigger than 1km
op2 map would take 4 hours to drive across and 20 min to fly so its enormous.
Re: What Engine would YOU choose?
Posted: 2008-07-22 11:15
by Sir.Saul
Heroes of might and magic 3 engine...
Nah I hope the devs finish this to 1.00 then they can look at all their work and (I'm not saying copy it to frostbite engine) but at least they would have a complete overview of what to implant directly into it
Re: What Engine would YOU choose?
Posted: 2008-07-22 11:46
by Alex6714
I guess OF2 engine or Farcry2 engine.
Re: What Engine would YOU choose?
Posted: 2008-07-22 11:52
by =WFL= Sgt Bilko
The engines from IDSoftware (Q3 and onwards) have so far spawned of a vaste range of games like RtCW, W:ET, COD series, ET:QW and so on.
The two latest engines Tech4 (ET:QW and upcoming Wolfenstein) and Tech5 (upcoming title RAGE ) can handle both large environments and vehicles.
All IDS engines have so far proved to be highly modabale.
Two of the things I've always seen as a downer in BF2 engine are:
- The "stuttering" feeling when moving around. It's simply not fluid and this is where IDS engines excel.
- Indoor scenarios seems to be rare in BF2. I don't know if this is due to restrictions in engine or just not popular by devs. They always been a strong card in IDS engines.
I'm looking forward to see what OFP2 engine will deliver as well as the Frostbite engine.
Re: What Engine would YOU choose?
Posted: 2008-07-22 11:55
by Dr Rank
Operation Flashpoint 2 looks like its going to be the next big thing for realistic gaming, if they get it right:
yupp yupp, ofp2 looks realy great, hope it will have track-ir support, then it would be really a perfect engine to move on...
Re: What Engine would YOU choose?
Posted: 2008-07-22 13:43
by Feenan.
I just hope the PC version of OF2 dosnt lose all its quality because there bringing it out for the consoles.
Re: What Engine would YOU choose?
Posted: 2008-07-22 21:54
by cyberzomby
I just hope my machine can run this ! Also: OF1 was kinda slow combat wise. Thats what I like about PR. Its faster than the OF1 was. Ill try OF2 anyway though. keepin my fingers crossed on the system specs!
Re: What Engine would YOU choose?
Posted: 2008-09-07 00:46
by Chase Armitage
Just judging by the looks I'd go with Neon, Real Virtuality, Unreal 2.5> or Frostbite engine.
But you might want to make sure there is a way of implementing squad play, VOIP and a commander.
Actually I would take the current teamplay system and port it one-to-one as far as possible on any engine that might is going to be used.
Re: What Engine would YOU choose?
Posted: 2008-09-07 01:23
by torenico
[R-CON]Clypp wrote:Operation Flashpoint 2 looks promising as massive online a combined-arms game. If the game could be further PR'ed to recreate current experiences that would be nice. It is still to early in OFP2's development to know for sure what it will be like though.
If its a "Only by steam" i would not buy it.. if its a "Old Store", i would buy it
In my Opinion, big as BF2, theres almost NONE, source, its a fantastic Engine, but it doesnt allow Combined Arm battles like Kashan. PR Doesnt fit on Source engine.
On the Unreal, too, its a great Engine, but PR doesnt fit on it, i hear the Unreal Engine doesnt allow bigger battles.
My vote goes to Project Reality 2, a Operation Flahspoint 2 Modification ... sounds awesome!!!
Re: What Engine would YOU choose?
Posted: 2008-09-07 01:54
by ayjazz
Seeing that I'm used to the BF2 engine...I'd have to say the BF2 engine...with nothing hardcoded...
Realistically though, I would actually like to see PR on BF2142's modified engine opposed to the original BF2 engine. The assault pods could be modified into ejector seats, you have weapon sway, and of course, the best reason of all, and the main reason I'm one of the few who say, Bf2142>vBf2
NO INSTA-PRONE!!!!
Re: What Engine would YOU choose?
Posted: 2008-09-07 02:37
by DavidP
Don't say source! Oh god i'm sick and tired of the Fanboyism surrounding Valve, Half-Life2, and the Source Engine! It is a nice engine I admit that. But, it's not good for what PR is going for. Maps are too small, and it's too infantry oriented. Now the Engine I suggest might shock most of you. I think if the opportunity arises, the PR team should really consider the GTA Series engine! I know it does seem strange but keep in mind these points.
1. In all the games in the GTA series, what has been the main recurring thing? No not the Mob/gangs/criminal underworld. It's the sandbox type gameplay. Look they already have vehicles, weapons, "civilians," and many other things that would be desirable for what the PR team wants to do.
2. It's flexible. If you ever played the GTA:SA PC online mod in 06 you'll know what I'm talking about. The creator was able to allow up to 16 people to be able to play in one city stably using an engine from the late 90's. Ontop of that there were several other single-player mods released that had "Realistic-Like" weaponry.(In other words no cone of fire or pistol sniping)
3. It was designed from the ground up as a "Third-person" engine. But with abit of coding it could be turned into a perfect cradle for amazing FPS games. To tell you the truth, I had always wondered why Rockstar never released a First-Person game using the GTA3 engine. First-Person games immerse you in the game experience more.
Re: What Engine would YOU choose?
Posted: 2008-09-07 02:46
by .blend
Id wish for alot of opensource devs, that have nothing more to do, than to extend current os engines to PRs needs...it would be totally kick *** to have a freely codeable engine and having a successful game thats not based on capitalism.
Re: What Engine would YOU choose?
Posted: 2008-09-07 02:54
by torenico
GTA SA was not madded for Multiplayer, and in basic, it sucks. I know its funny, but killing someone its damn hard.
The hitbox is really weird, in MP i know. Theres a lot of hacks... not the best choice.
Im asking now... does OF2 include VOIP and Squad system like BF2?
BF2142 is a Modificated BF2, but its improved and awesome! you can move the Titan whit people inside whitout crashes, the Drones used as Ejectors, and that.
Re: What Engine would YOU choose?
Posted: 2008-09-07 03:00
by charliegrs
good god so many people are suggesting engines that would look great, but totally neuter the PR experience. say goodbye to real combined arms operations with engines like source. fighting in hallways and alleyways is not what pr is all about, its there, but when you have things like armor, and especially jets and helicopters, the map sizes in games like crysis and counterstrike just wont cut it.
the devs definitly chose the best engine for the job imo, and i think in the future the next best engine is going to be either ofp2 or arma2.