Project Reality Forums

With concept art that good, the game HAS to be visually epic!


P.S. This is sarcasm.

so far its opposite- studios release tonns of art concepts and sometimes epic pre-rendered teasers and then it ends up with crappy/laggy realisation

Koroush47 wrote:I will say so far that the physics was nice.

Graphics, I think is still a WIP.

What? I still think you're missing the difference between what an engine supports and what people produce with it.

Graphically, the C4 engine can produce some outstanding effects. If the developers using it implement them...

Just to let everyone know, C4 already has the potential to look as good or better than any UE3 game out there already because of its amazing shader editor and dynamic lighting capability. The problem is that there aren't many AAA quality games or tech demos made on the engine yet, so you guys can't see it.

I would say the only big question mark area atm is networking (not to say thats a good or bad thing). BF2 is a tank when it comes to networking and that is one of the main reasons why PR is possible as is. Hopefully C4 will have a lot of focus placed on networking at some point in the future so that PR2 can reach its full potential.

The other thing which you all do not seem to grasp is that the reason WHY we went with the C4 engine, is because we get FULL access to the source code, and anything that is lacking we can implement, either by importing 3rd party libraries or doing it ourselves. That is what an engine is about.

And as for beauty, well as a coder let me say that Eric Lengyel's code is some of the most elegant I have ever seen. Its concise, efficient and robust. And again .... this is what you want out of a game engine.

We reviewed and looked at many engines ... and all them (except maybe Gamebryo ... which costs $$$$$) were severely lacking in comparison to C4. And there is no engine out there that undergoes the development rate of C4 ... not even some AAA ones.

[R-DEV]Masaq wrote:What? I still think you're missing the difference between what an engine supports and what people produce with it.

Graphically, the C4 engine can produce some outstanding effects. If the developers using it implement them...

I said the graphics are WIP.

The graphics right now are probably (nevermind they are 100 percent) just fillers.

I'm not denying that the C4 engine can produce great graphics, I just said its a WIP right now.

However, I do think that the engine makers should push the engine to it's maximum graphical capability to demonstrate to potential buyers the power of the engine.

Koroush47 wrote:However, I do think that the engine makers

Engine maker. Its a one man show, and he is pretty busy making the engine.

You know ... you consistently come across in this thread as remarkably uninformed. Do you not think it wise to do a little research first before airing opinions on a public forum ?

Koroush47 wrote:However, I do think that the engine makers should push the engine to it's maximum graphical capability to demonstrate to potential buyers the power of the engine.

There is a lot to game engines, not just the graphics but also the networking, interfacing, how objects are internally handled, how efficient the code is and how easy it is to modify. An indie developer wants something powerful, easy to use, with a fast workflow, with no strings-attached and a low price tag.

The demo isn't as bad as you imply. It shows off all the major features and runs at a decent framerate throughout (the water looks especially nice and swampy). It shows off all the tools available, and it is arguably better to have a dedicated developer working on the engine than working on a demo for all the people too lazy to read their forums.

The source + updates for life + a powerful engine is a bloody bargain for $350

Koroush47 wrote:I said the graphics are WIP.

The graphics right now are probably (nevermind they are 100 percent) just fillers.

I'm not denying that the C4 engine can produce great graphics, I just said its a WIP right now.

However, I do think that the engine makers should push the engine to it's maximum graphical capability to demonstrate to potential buyers the power of the engine.

YOu really have no clue do you?

Not to be rude, but for the first there are only ignorants who looks at what the graphics can look like in a screeny as that is up to the artist of the game.

People who buy such a engine and software will look at totally different things like how it handles different stuff, nothing will beat to have a look at the engines main core instead of some screenshots.

If you dont have absolutely any clue of such things work you should have done some research about the topic before you go out an critisise people who clearly have more experience with programming then you.

AquaticPenguin wrote:
The demo isn't as bad as you imply. It shows off all the major features and runs at a decent framerate throughout (the water looks especially nice and swampy). It shows off all the tools available, and it is arguably better to have a dedicated developer working on the engine than working on a demo for all the people too lazy to read their forums.

No no. Here I agree with Kourosh. The demo is undeniably rubbish when compared with similar engines tech demos. The difference is that C4 hasnt bothered to make one in a very long time. The power is there, hopefully we'll prove the doubters wrong

Will we get directional VoIP feature? I also preemptively suggest single channel speech, but multichannel radio.

What about being able to pre-select an army faction you intend to join before you actually get into a server so there is no team switching. It also lets you join the same side as your buddies. (y)

I don't know where else to put this. All the threads are bf2 or (now) ArmA 2.

That's because it's pre-alpha There really is no point in taking suggestions or answering questions yet.

[R-DEV]Drav wrote:No no. Here I agree with Kourosh. The demo is undeniably rubbish when compared with similar engines tech demos. The difference is that C4 hasnt bothered to make one in a very long time. The power is there, hopefully we'll prove the doubters wrong

In terms of how it actually looks it isn't the prettiest of demos. My point was that as a tech demo it does it's job - it shows off the various features such as the lighting and water/reflections whatnot, it may not look nice, but it shows the graphical features the engine has, and shows the tools that are available to the developer - which is arguably what you should be looking at if you're serious about buying an engine.

Companies such as Lockheed Martin use the C4 Engine to create “serious” games that serve more important purposes than entertainment.

I found that to be pretty cool and how can one guy make all that I wonder if he gets any help?

Zimmer wrote:YOu really have no clue do you?

Not to be rude, but for the first there are only ignorants who looks at what the graphics can look like in a screeny as that is up to the artist of the game.

People who buy such a engine and software will look at totally different things like how it handles different stuff, nothing will beat to have a look at the engines main core instead of some screenshots.

If you dont have absolutely any clue of such things work you should have done some research about the topic before you go out an critisise people who clearly have more experience with programming then you.

Not to be rude. but:
What are you rambling on about?

All I said was "The graphics are WIP" and everybody starts writing essays about how I'm uninformed and I'm ignorant?

Seriously, what are you guys on? How is saying that the graphics is a work in progress and that they will look better later criticizing* ANYBODY?

Do you guys even read before you post?

[R-DEV]Drav wrote:No no. Here I agree with Kourosh. The demo is undeniably rubbish when compared with similar engines tech demos. The difference is that C4 hasnt bothered to make one in a very long time. The power is there, hopefully we'll prove the doubters wrong

That is what I'm saying, and everyone thinks I'm saying: "C4 sux, use torque"

When I never said anything CLOSE to that.

doop-de-doo wrote: What about being able to pre-select an army faction you intend to join before you actually get into a server so there is no team switching. It also lets you join the same side as your buddies. (y)

This!!!!!

Do this!!

rushn wrote:Companies such as Lockheed Martin use the C4 Engine to create “serious” games that serve more important purposes than entertainment.

I found that to be pretty cool and how can one guy make all that I wonder if he gets any help?

Eric Lengyel, the creator of the C4 Engine, is undeniably beast. He writes all sorts of books on coding, and recently has earned his PHD (so its Doctor Lengyel now ).

Tofurkeymeister wrote:Eric Lengyel, the creator of the C4 Engine, is undeniably beast. He writes all sorts of books on coding, and recently has earned his PHD (so its Doctor Lengyel now ).

PHD in what?

Programming?

PHD in awesomeness he rages every day

anyway did they start working on C4 yet or are they still waiting for it to be done/finished/upgraded?