Project Reality Forums

how about crysis's own CryEngine 2..would be really cool seriously..like take some of ur time to go on moddb.com..and check out crysis mods and focus on 2 mods called Mech Warrior Living Legends (turning crysis into a battlemech game) or Light Spire (turning crysis into a fantasy RPG game)!!!..turning Crysis into a battlefield 2 kind of game with that kind of graphics and realism would be AWESOME!!

regards Andy

BattleField 3 is coming maybe this would be da best

addaco wrote:Devs have siad they would not want to make another mod again, because the only main difference is graphics, and they would hit the "hardcodedness wall". It owuld also make PR 1 less meaningul, as they would be jsut repeating it again.

However making an indie game on the C4 engine is a new aspect on PR, and I support the c4 engine for pr2

COme on dude .... now bf2 engine is sh**** u cant see anything from 500 metres and cant use camouflage because if u are on high settings u seeing grass and other sh*t but if some dude comes with everything LOW and starts see everyone thourgh grass

BattleField 3 engine would be 100x times better

frostbite engine might work because it has destructible enviroments much like pr's semi destructive envirometns

Devs should really create big red banner with information they selected C4 engine...

IMO it would be much nicer to have 64 players per side all duking it out than it would be having 12 per side and destructible walls. Both is fine though

Most engines aren't built for large scale battlegrounds and large numbers of players per team, current trends seem to be to reduce the number of players and substitute it with delicious eye-candy. This is the main reason that hl2 engines and crisis aren't good for a large scale battle. Also, many modern engines use up resources on very high detail textures and unique objects as they're on much smaller scale maps. The bf2 engine relies on many instance of objects as it saves memory.

~Ed

WilsonPL wrote:Devs should really create big red banner with information they selected C4 engine...

PR2 is currently in extremely early trial and error stages. We don't want to have huge announcements about it because we don't want to get people's hopes up.

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote:PR2 is currently in extremely early trial and error stages. We don't want to have huge announcements about it because we don't want to get people's hopes up.

THEY ARE ALREADY UP. THEY'RE SKY HIGH!!!!!

Ok

Well look like i have A lot to write

Source Engine

Num2
some one asked if you can have 64 players with source engine yes you can theoretically when not using steam the source engine can have as many players as possible

Num2
Some one said you can have large maps in source
have you played empires mod?
link Empires mod for Half-Life 2 - Mod DB

My Opinion on source
Source is great 4 fun and instant action ( that why we get super mods like insurgency take a look at it, pr is great at all but this sucks at all but excels in cqb link Insurgency mod for Half-Life 2 - Mod DB )
Source is like UT ugly cousin with the all the money
it can be tweaked massively but you need to tweak it to get any thing nice
it has nice textures and some nice physics but in practice they all short

Cry engine 2

Some one was crazy enough to suggest this actual a lot of ppl suggest it, i've been even told ingame oh ha bal blah cry engine

anyways the CryEngine 2 is nice it's fancy but not scalable and the licenses cost probably more then frostbite
Map sizes look big but actually falll short of what game engines like Eco and the arma2 engine

My Opinion CryEngine 2 was A beta for cry engine 3 witch is more scalable then 2 and works on console ect ect, it's nice and the mp is already sort of like bf2 but
- not every one can run it
- even if teh editor is sort of like bf2 editor and others it's take lots of reworking of objects and stats
- The look to the game would not fell nice on pr ( cry engine has a view distance but not like pr, in cry engine you can see 100% of the map but you get a blur at 2000 m or so ) and renders the models clean not dirty so streets would be brighter in cry then pr loosing the inurgency fell
- Just because it fits crysis those not means it fits all games

Arm2 Engine ( Virtual reality engine 3 )

This engine is amazing in scalability, graphics, view distance ( need mp balancing ) and amount of ppl per server ( fitting pr requirements of 64 vs 64 [ read it some where about pr2 ok so ] )
every aspect except for the single player bloo my mind even the demo was great

And plus in some sense Arma 2 is more realistic then pr, like every thing from inf fights to air combat

My Opinion
VR3 engine is a great candidate for pr2
just because the game that came with vr2 was bad those not mean the next version is

Eco Engine

I find that the Eco is really a different version of frostbite, they look pretty close but Eco looks better because it's meant for PC , all doh i dunno if it will be as good a it sounds i have yet to see

My Opinion

it might be good, it will allow to to recreate all pr maps so far
but i dunno yet

FrostBITE 2.0

Actually if u where to use Frostbite 1.0 or even 2.0 ( bad company 1 = 1.0 bad company 2 = 2.0 )
I saw the tools for Frostbite they work a lot better then bf2 editor but withhold all of it features and more

even Bad Company 1 was realistic, some of you are going to say bs but when you take zero damage because some one shoot you from 900m away with a sniper rifle in the plate armor, all you get is a controller ruble I'd say that's realistic
After bf2 when they made the sounds design, it sounds just like pr ( al be it that pr has a 10 riping out the ambient noises, i find frostbite odly enough put in all the upgrades that the pr did to the bf2 engine on the frostbite

plus Dice adverstises ur mod so i don't think they wouldn't wanna strike a deal but w\e

My opinion frostbite is perfect but if it costs you 300k forget about it

UT3

you can do a lot with it periode

Titanium Engine open source
dont know if this helps at this stage but i recently discovered that the titanium engine appears to be open source. it was used to make Hulk:ultimate destruction and Prototype.

I only point it out purly for the fact that its open source, and not for the quality of the engine itself (partly because i wouldnt fully recognise what PR is looking for in a game engine tbh) . however, it has great object collision stability, i have never seen it glitch at all in either game and i was and still am a fan of both games. however it appears to be greatly orientated in the direction of simgleplayer and 3p stuff. anways, if you want to see the games check them out on youtube, they arnt BF2 but it looks like it would be an interesting conversion if nothing else.

heres the website.
Titanium XNA Game Engine - Home

NuclearBanane wrote:Ok

Well look like i have A lot to write

Source Engine

Num2
some one asked if you can have 64 players with source engine yes you can theoretically when not using steam the source engine can have as many players as possible

Num2
Some one said you can have large maps in source
have you played empires mod?
link Empires mod for Half-Life 2 - Mod DB

My Opinion on source
Source is great 4 fun and instant action ( that why we get super mods like insurgency take a look at it, pr is great at all but this sucks at all but excels in cqb link Insurgency mod for Half-Life 2 - Mod DB )
Source is like UT ugly cousin with the all the money
it can be tweaked massively but you need to tweak it to get any thing nice
it has nice textures and some nice physics but in practice they all short

Cry engine 2

Some one was crazy enough to suggest this actual a lot of ppl suggest it, i've been even told ingame oh ha bal blah cry engine

anyways the CryEngine 2 is nice it's fancy but not scalable and the licenses cost probably more then frostbite
Map sizes look big but actually falll short of what game engines like Eco and the arma2 engine

My Opinion CryEngine 2 was A beta for cry engine 3 witch is more scalable then 2 and works on console ect ect, it's nice and the mp is already sort of like bf2 but
- not every one can run it
- even if teh editor is sort of like bf2 editor and others it's take lots of reworking of objects and stats
- The look to the game would not fell nice on pr ( cry engine has a view distance but not like pr, in cry engine you can see 100% of the map but you get a blur at 2000 m or so ) and renders the models clean not dirty so streets would be brighter in cry then pr loosing the inurgency fell
- Just because it fits crysis those not means it fits all games

Arm2 Engine ( Virtual reality engine 3 )

This engine is amazing in scalability, graphics, view distance ( need mp balancing ) and amount of ppl per server ( fitting pr requirements of 64 vs 64 [ read it some where about pr2 ok so ] )
every aspect except for the single player bloo my mind even the demo was great

And plus in some sense Arma 2 is more realistic then pr, like every thing from inf fights to air combat

My Opinion
VR3 engine is a great candidate for pr2
just because the game that came with vr2 was bad those not mean the next version is

Eco Engine

I find that the Eco is really a different version of frostbite, they look pretty close but Eco looks better because it's meant for PC , all doh i dunno if it will be as good a it sounds i have yet to see

My Opinion

it might be good, it will allow to to recreate all pr maps so far
but i dunno yet

FrostBITE 2.0

Actually if u where to use Frostbite 1.0 or even 2.0 ( bad company 1 = 1.0 bad company 2 = 2.0 )
I saw the tools for Frostbite they work a lot better then bf2 editor but withhold all of it features and more

even Bad Company 1 was realistic, some of you are going to say bs but when you take zero damage because some one shoot you from 900m away with a sniper rifle in the plate armor, all you get is a controller ruble I'd say that's realistic
After bf2 when they made the sounds design, it sounds just like pr ( al be it that pr has a 10 riping out the ambient noises, i find frostbite odly enough put in all the upgrades that the pr did to the bf2 engine on the frostbite

plus Dice adverstises ur mod so i don't think they wouldn't wanna strike a deal but w\e

My opinion frostbite is perfect but if it costs you 300k forget about it

UT3

you can do a lot with it periode

Mate, thats nice and all but they already announced that thell be using the engine they won from modb mod of the year contest. besides this was brought up by alot of others already.

KingLorre wrote:Mate, thats nice and all but they already announced that thell be using the engine they won from modb mod of the year contest. besides this was brought up by alot of others already.

did you read this thread?
they won a Torque engine, while for pr2 they are using C4 engine
or here PR2 R&D #2 - more wacky stuff - Project Reality Forums

Again we're still in the pre-production stages with PR2 (aka fooling around to learn the ins and outs of the C4 engine and of game development in general).

Yes they are not using the Torque engine, and here is more info on PR2 can be found here.

[url=https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr ... ion/64205-
pr2-faq.html]PR2 - FAQ[/url]

I would pay up front for PR2 but subscription is a deal breaker.

'[R-DEV wrote:Drav;887008']The source engine is terrible, a massive problem they had with insurgency was that they couldnt implement proper ballistics. Instead of a bullet taking a little time to reach its target it hits instantly. This means you dont lead targets and get laser style instant hits.

Couple this with no squad system, tiny maps and weapon sway but still with cone-fire deviation, and I fail to see why it is perfect.

Insurgency does some things really well, but the source engine lets it down....

Edit ost moved from another thread

I agree. Veteran G[arry's]Mod plane builder/wiremodder, and I hate the fact that the maps are so small and the speeds maxed at about 100 mph (though there are mods to remove the speedcap)

Source would work for something like Karkand, but not much bigger.

Hitscan is also a problem. Though some modders have implemented ballistics similar to BF2 in GMod, the maps are simply too small. But perhaps the source engine could be modded to incorporate bigger maps.

Oh, and one more thing: PR should be free to play, if not $10 or less - it already is, and though the DEVs work hard, it would be unfair to some of the players out there. Also, if you charge money for a game that drastically reduces the amount of people who will take it up as a long-time choice. Lastly, let us not forget why EA is so horrible - greed.

TF6049 wrote:I agree. Veteran G[arry's]Mod plane builder/wiremodder, and I hate the fact that the maps are so small and the speeds maxed at about 100 mph (though there are mods to remove the speedcap)

Source would work for something like Karkand, but not much bigger.

Hitscan is also a problem. Though some modders have implemented ballistics similar to BF2 in GMod, the maps are simply too small. But perhaps the source engine could be modded to incorporate bigger maps.

Oh, and one more thing: PR should be free to play, if not $10 or less - it already is, and though the DEVs work hard, it would be unfair to some of the players out there. Also, if you charge money for a game that drastically reduces the amount of people who will take it up as a long-time choice. Lastly, let us not forget why EA is so horrible - greed.

Part of the advantage of a pay-to-play is that you get more committed players, who are likely to stick with the game for a long time. Also changing from a mod to a retail game makes the targets audience much larger as they're not limited to a single game (bf2), and part of the revenue can be spent on marketing to get the game better known.

I don't think it's unfair on players, and I don't think you can take a moral high ground when they've been giving something for free for quite so long. I also imagine the minimum spec will go up and some people won't be able to run the game but I don't think that's unfair either. There has to be some progress, and with the new engine they can do basically anything provided it's a worthwhile venture.