Project Reality Forums

One of the parts I always love about PR is the number of players... Having 10 players per team on assets and another 22 on the battlefield was always nice.. I don't think the vehicles and assets should be taken away because that's vital to PR - otherwise it would just be 'another first person shooter'... And having 32 people per team emphasises the importance of teamwork. I don't think an engine which couldn't handle 64 players or more should get very far.

One thing I would like to see would be some improved VOIP for talking between squads, it would be very useful if there was an engine where you could communicate effectively between Commander and squads and between transport choppers.. As well as having a local VOIP between the transport chopper and the troops its holding.

Hate to burst your bubble but BF2 is what PR 1.0 will be released on, Atrovenator

You guys should wait for the release of Operation Flashpoint 2 or Armed Assault 2. These engines are not limited in any way. You can have a working squad system, and you got voip ingame. You can have ultra big maps, such like 400x400km,and code your own missions. ARMA 1 is already amazing but Arma 2 will be simply godness.

What is the difference between PR and Arma?

Arent they almost the same game, but in 2 different Engines?

Arma got a only a few limitations and BF2 got alot. Arma is made for real combat enviroment.. Real waepons real assets etc... BF2 is just a shooter

This would be amazing,and this is a game engine believe it or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XsjA4lbXn8

Wicca wrote:What is the difference between PR and Arma?

Arent they almost the same game, but in 2 different Engines?

I think of PR as the happy medium of realism and teamwork between COD4 and ArmA

[R-DEV]Hitperson wrote:ogre is more suited to VR than massive games.

Nay!...well, and yea. In theory it suits to whatever you want to optimize it for
But yeah, most of the time people use it for VR, visualizations and other BusinessToBusiness stuff. There are a few commercial game titles on it though.

But the problem with Ogre is that it alone is not a game engine. Its a rendering engine. However there are quite a few open source addons for it such as physics engines, world tools, particle editors, networking plugins etc. etc. All that combined makes it more like a game engine. There are also some open source and commercial game engine projects available that wrap all the stuff together into one package. However those seem to be quite immature at the moment for PRs needs.
But ogre alone is very capable free multi purpose rendering engine.

Hotrod525 wrote:every thing is smaller, so that why that "look a little bit big" but infact its a 2M² map whit 1mm tanks on it.

making the map a bit bigger then 2m? lool. you kind of contradicted your self

anyway, I remember rhino mentioning the quake wars engine, i always tought it was really interesting, the whole engineer thing looked really cool (placing actual assets on the map)

that engine is probably the only thing that seems suitable if they were to switch.

CodeC.Seven wrote:You guys should wait for the release of Operation Flashpoint 2 or Armed Assault 2. These engines are not limited in any way. You can have a working squad system, and you got voip ingame. You can have ultra big maps, such like 400x400km,and code your own missions. ARMA 1 is already amazing but Arma 2 will be simply godness.

I agree with this, After seeing arma 2 game play it already looks like pr, You guys would really have allot less work on your hands than the bf2 engine as the ARMA2 engine really strives for realism, Even ARMA1 would be a better engine for PR than bf2. Not so much operation flashpoint 2 though.

nick20404 wrote:I agree with this, After seeing arma 2 game play it already looks like pr, You guys would really have allot less work on your hands than the bf2 engine as the ARMA2 engine really strives for realism, Even ARMA1 would be a better engine for PR than bf2. Not so much operation flashpoint 2 though.

ArmA 1 is hardly suitable for PR mainly because of lack of a large number of players support. The game is simply unstable with higher numbers of players and bots cannot achieve the same level of play as another human, and by the looks of things ArmA 2 will also be focusing less on a large number of players and more on better bots, though with the current track record of ArmA 1 and it's expansion, I'm not too excited to see what the ArmA development team has come up with.

Perhaps, as Wicca pointed out, the new Massive Action Game if it ever comes to PC and is at all modable, it certainly would have sufficient numbers of players to support all the really large battles and I'm interested to see how the MAG developers will figure out how to make an FPS stable and relatively lag free (see playable) with 256 players.

'[R-DEV wrote:fuzzhead;890621']Yeap agree with this statement. If anyone has experience with the source engine supporting 64+ players and LARGE (ie at least 2km) maps, please post about those experiences.

My only experiences with "larger" style Source Engine gameplay was with the empires mod, which supported 48 players and approx. 2km maps (but most of the map was not in play). The mod is very creative, but the gameplay was prety bad from when I played, I tried it for about 10 hours.

As a matter of fact, I cant think of ANY fps game with 64 player limit that runs STABLE in an open public environment OTHER than BF2. If anyone has experience with other games that run with 64 or more players on large maps, please post about them as were always looking for that next engine!

ArmA is an exception, but STABLE and ArmA arent exactly the right way to describe it Hopefully ArmA2 will be much better, but we are talking about released games here, not future stuff that has yet to be proven.

Edit ost moved from another thread

the quake engine and unreal engine games wouldnt work, they are small and designed for meatgrinder stuff. i think that much is obvious. BF2's engine, ARMA, and starsiege tribes engine are very large maps with 64 players.

but the ARMA2 engine is most likely the winner.

One of the biggest problems with combiend arms & realism is the scale has to be very large. So you need large maps and long view distances. And the foliage and detail has to render at long distances so you don't have a guy hidden in the bush but from more than 100m away he's lying out in the open. Then when you look at the size of the map, you need a lot of players to keep it interesting.

So an engine that supports 100+ concurrent players, minimum 16sq km maps (preferably larger), can draw grass and foliage at 1km view distance, has vehicle physics, ballistics capabilities, etc, etc... I am not awae of one that exists.

The Torque Game Engine "Advanced" (TGEA) that is a prize in ModDB MOTY 2008 is a fairly huge evolution over the TGE predecessor. That is based on the Tribes 2 Engine and the TGEA update adds in a new rendering engine and a new "ATLAS" terrain engine. It has a lot of promise, but I'd be very surprised of a $300 engine can outdo $20,000,000 in AAA title engine development.

What I could see is a game built on TGEA that supports a lot of the required functionality but ends up looking like World War II Online (Battleground Europe or whatever they are calling it now). Basically I mean a game that ends up making so many sacrifices to meet some requirements but it might end up looking 4 or 5 years out of date when it releases.

There are several open source engines out there, but stringing the rendering engines together with the networking libraries would be a lot of work, particularly given the PR pedigree is in modding / art / gameplay design (we don't have a lot of C / C++ depth on the team).

ArmA 2 looks VERY promising as a game and possibly modding platform. However I keep hearing 50+ players. That sucks because I had hoped they woud stretch it to 100+. And, quite frankly, if it's as clunky as ArmA 1 and sees as limited marketplace success as ArmA 1 then it will have very few players and a fairly mature realism modding community (WGL / ACE).

ArmA 1 v1.15 is actually MUCH better (just started to check it out again). But the quality of the game play on random servers is a bit like joining a BF2 pub server. The game itself is not fundamentally designed to encourage teamwork, so the quality of the general gameplay has not evolved as much as has been the case with PR.

OFP 2 may also be promising as a mod platform, but I have a feeling it's going to be a console focussed title with 16p for consoles and 32p for PC.

MAG for PC could be interesting. But I don't think that will materialize. It's from the Playstation developers who did the SOCOM series. And it's said to be PS3 exclusive and may incorporate some sort of pay to play feature (as well as a ranking / rpg element to it).

Crysis Wars looks fantastic visually, but only supports 32p.

Developing an engine from scratch - where your goal is to build a game on top of it - is well beyond the scope of the PR team or any sane person / group of individuals.

Good discussion... hopeing something we've overlooked comes out of it.

egg

I don't understand for what is this thread?
PR is for BF2 and i don't think that you can change BF2 Engine
unless devs planning to make PR for other game?

I personally don't like the Cryengine very much. I think it's badly coded and utterly inefficient. I like the Farcry 2 engine way more (forgot the name right now). It has nice graphics while not requiring a friggin cray to run it properly.

Lets just wait for the Frostbite engine on PC

Zerapup wrote:Lets just wait for the Frostbite engine on PC

Frostbite for PR might be good because of the huge map sizes that work with it. Plus the destructible world high detail at close up and far away and big view distance. If it was released for PC it would probably not be stable, but hey who knows

DannyIMK wrote:I don't understand for what is this thread?
PR is for BF2 and i don't think that you can change BF2 Engine
unless devs planning to make PR for other game?

its just for discussion on a new engine possibility, what engines look good and what we need in said engine for it to be worth moving.

gazzthompson wrote:its just for discussion on a new engine possibility, what engines look good and what we need in said engine for it to be worth moving.

so we could use Bad company, or wait for BF3 to come out?
everyone likes a good physics engine