Project Reality Forums

05grottim wrote:im not entirely sure but i think buying a full game engine would be well out of the communitys reach. Im pretty sure those things cost $000's

Its still worth a try, even if we dont reach it, we could use the cash else where for pr

Commercial engines cost incredible amounts of money, and with it comes various legal drawbacks which could stop the Devs from fully accessing things or just irritate them. Equally, modern engines are very complex, and may or may not be well supported. Also, I doubt the majority of the community would pay for an engine that some people will fuss about, especially since many of them can't seem to get over the concept that they might have to pay for something.

The C4 engine is very feature rich, and is being constantly developed. The Devs have access to all future versions of it and they can freely edited the source with no strings attached (apart from they can't redistribute it). It's one of the first engines to have voxel terrain with LOD and soon-to-be dynamic loading. Also the developer of the engine is giving his full support as well as the many members who have purchased the engine who are active on the forums. Overall it seems to be a much nicer community than the high cost commercial way which would inevitably require some-one "in the know" rather than just a hobbyist/modder who wants to expand.

Don't be fooled into thinking big shiney engines are the greatest thing since sliced bread. In reality they are probably more powerful and feature rich than the C4 engine, but £10,000 per license more powerful? I doubt it.

robert090993 wrote:Its still worth a try, even if we dont reach it, we could use the cash else where for pr

The devs have said this is as much an experiment as it is a project. So I think throwing money at them is more likely to make them feel pressured than supported.

I am just going to say that I would gladly pay $15.00USD/month to play PR2 (assuming that its awesome). I also would say that the ability for lots of people to play the game far outweighs graphical capacity and destructible environments. I would rather have a game with 100+ using the BF2 engine than a game with max 32 on the cry engine. However, I would like to multiple play styles like we have now, but with more options of each. IE: I would like to see maybe 4 maps with Kashan style (Armor, Air, support vehicles) play, as well as the other types. PR made armor play the most fun ive ever had in a shooter, and I hope they continue that tradition in future gameplay on whatever engine they choose.

Cry-Engine 3

shaping up to have the same quality of Cry-engine 2 but WAY more refined and optimised to allow more support for less powerful PCs

Fat Man Jim wrote:Cry-Engine 3

shaping up to have the same quality of Cry-engine 2 but WAY more refined and optimised to allow more support for less powerful PCs

Good to hear you'll be buying the license for them, since they can't.

ghoststorm11 wrote:I am just going to say that I would gladly pay $15.00USD/month to play PR2 (assuming that its awesome).

It's a looong way down the road. But if/when going commercial happens for PR2 and it's subscription based, it'll be much cheaper than that. More like $3.00USD a month or $30.00USD for a year.

Too early to be talking about this though.

Any chance of a linux port? maybe? please?

I forgot the name.....ARMA's Game engine would be good....(i know its probably impossible)....

Draakon wrote:Voila: Unreal Engine 3 Game Engine Unreal Engine 3 Free to Indies news - Mod DB

beat me to it

'[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

half life 2 is on source. half life 2 has the crossbow. the crossbow bolts take ages to hit target > i call BS.
also with the source engine we could see quite a lot of realistic gore.. anyone tried headshooting the zombs in left4dead2? rather interesting. explosions cause loss of limbs and shotties tear pieces off, i guess we couldnt be able to have 4km maps but tbh i wont miss them. it is by no means perfect, but even with deviation problems it would be better than bf2

"However while it may be free to develop and release a non-commercial game, should you wish to profit from your hard work the current UDK license states that 25% of all revenue earnt beyond $5,000 will be paid to Epic as your licensing cost. I consider this a small price to pay with no risk for developers who now have access to proven technology."

This is bad for a couple of reasons. a) I don't think the devs want to be giving away money that they spent on developing their own game, and equally this will make it more expensive for the players who would have to offset the extra cost (I believe the devs have said when(if) this game comes to fruition the cost to the player will be mainly for running/maintenance costs) b) This will also tie them down to licensing/legal mushy jargon.

It is free "to develop and release a non-commercial game" and once you go over $5000 in profit (how they will define this I don't know) 25% goes to them. What you get with it is a toolkit, but no access to the source and a mix of documentation. You can weigh up whether that's a better deal, or whether you want the engine with an open source for license holders and an active developer who supports and listens to his customers)

"I forgot the name.....ARMA's Game engine would be good....(i know its probably impossible)...."
Arma2's game engine is very expensive, and ARMA's game engine is fairly restrictive, still has bugs, and is getting dated.

"half life 2 is on source. half life 2 has the crossbow. the crossbow bolts take ages to hit target > i call BS.
also with the source engine we could see quite a lot of realistic gore.. anyone tried headshooting the zombs in left4dead2? rather interesting. explosions cause loss of limbs and shotties tear pieces off, i guess we couldnt be able to have 4km maps but tbh i wont miss them. it is by no means perfect, but even with deviation problems it would be better than bf2"

Yes, the crossbow does have bullet drop and does take time to hit the target, however it moves very slowly and would probably be quite a hack to get it implemented with 'bolts' moving at 800m/s with little to no network troubles. As for realistic gore, that can be done with particles very easily and the blood spatter can be achieved through decals or neat texturing. Tearing limbs off is fairly pointless, wastes network bandwidth and isn't exactly realistic (you're gonna need a big bullet to do that kind of damage, equally the griefers would love it as an excuse to blow up friendlies). The maps would be very limited in size, and as we all know size does matter (also, what then would set the game apart from every other fps?)

Although it's no longer the "I want feature x in the new game", it's turned into "This engine is the best because it has x in it". Commercial engines will tie them into licensing, and many of the engines are getting dated or no longer being developed. Stepping up from a mod to a full game is a brave and ambitious venture, and the shire amount of work that goes into making games is vast. So having a lot of documentation, and a active developer who you can ask questions in an invaluable resource.

People please think before you suggest yet another game engine that you think is the next best thing because of a cool feature, or because x game is good on it and therefore it's engine must be amazing. With an engine you do want features, but features that are relevant to the developers and not just relevant to the customers. "Gore" doesn't count as a feature, because almost any engine can do it in one form or another and "X graphics" does not count as a feature especially since when people say good graphics they don't really understand what's good about it... Good graphics is not paralax mapping or real time global illumination, these things can be used and still make a really ugly game, the graphical features give the potential to the developer and it's up to the developers use of that technology to make truly breath taking scenes. PR has shown that the 4 year old bf2 engine can have amazing graphics, and WoW has achieved amazing effects using just simple old texture mapping and textured drop-shadows.

Ed (and yes I have gone off on a bit of a tangent)

Draakon wrote:Who said that they will sell PR2?

The best non "official" statement https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr ... 2-faq.html

Draakon wrote:Who said that they will sell PR2?

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote:It's a looong way down the road. But if/when going commercial happens for PR2 and it's subscription based, it'll be much cheaper than that. More like $3.00USD a month or $30.00USD for a year.
Too early to be talking about this though.

This was something like 3 pages back as well

8. How much will it cost?
Right now we don't know. It will likely be sold via subscription, hopefully through Steam. Yes, Steam can suck, but it has a lot of great infrastructure for PC sales and distribution. It'll be something like $3 per month or $30 for a year subscription in advance. Again not definite, we'll figure that out over the coming months.

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr ... 2-faq.html

There you go

edit: http://www.udk.com/licensing
There's licensing on the engine, there's a 99$ fee for the agreement, equally even if it is only 3$ per month for each player to play, each player would pay $36 per year, $5000 / $36 = after 139 customers they begin paying royalties.

AquaticPenguin wrote:This was something like 3 pages back as well


https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr ... 2-faq.html

There you go

edit: Licensing - Epic UDK
There's licensing on the engine, there's a 99$ fee for the agreement, equally even if it is only 3$ per month for each player to play, each player would pay $36 per year, $5000 / $36 = after 139 customers they begin paying royalties.

wait they paln to have PR2 subscription based

....if an fps not an mmorpg

Fat Man Jim wrote:wait they paln to have PR2 subscription based

....if an fps not an mmorpg

Yes, but you would be getting the constant updating and patching that mmo's receive.

Jazz wrote:Yes, but you would be getting the constant updating and patching that mmo's receive.

And this is just their first ideas, they haven't as such planned this to happen. Also why can't a fps be subscription based? The cost they suggested isn't exactly high and it would be continually updated. Also subscription based has the benefit of more dedicated players, and it would keep a constant inflow of money for the devs to keep on with development.

You might want to check back through the pages of this thread, because most of the questions on subscription based have been answered.

personally i can suggest you to use something similar to the arma 2 engine,
there are 2-3 server with 90/100 players playing in a huge map and it doesn't give any sort of problems.

or if the arma 2 engine is to much for the PC of this comunity you can try it with arma1 or the old ofp engine( if you dont care to much about the graphic..)

The DEVs have already started developing PR2 on the C4 engine.

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr ... 2-faq.html