Project Reality Forums

Now, completely theoretically here, if the PR team decided "Hey, BF2 sux, let's choose a new game to mod with PR", what engine would you choose? Is it because of it's flexibility, certain features already present? Explain a bit why you would choose it. (Note, the "engine" can use all the features of the game present, such as if it is a mod of a popular game with these features already written into the mod; it can also be an engine soon to be used, such as FarCry 2's engine!)

NO, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, I'M NOT SAYING CHOOSE YOUR PICK SO WE CAN START WORK ON IT, FOR ALL THAT IS SANE, NO! IT'S JUST A QUESTION AND A DISCUSSION!

For my choice, I would have to go with Red Orchestra: Ostfront's 'Unreal' engine. With gun sway, ballistics, proper long-distance rendering, 3D gun sight models (including a scope that doesn't block out all nearby vision), decent vehicle physics and traction, and my personal favorite: a decent graphics engine that doesn't crawl you down to a lowly 30 FPS in the middle of a village with settings on medium, you have many options not offered by the Battlefield engine.

Downside to this is, to say the least, a bit disappointing. There are no functional air vehicles currently on RO. There are ambient planes that come in at random times during the map, but as far as I know no planes that you can hop into and begin flying. There might be a way to create them, but who knows how long it would take to get them stable?


Now remember, this is just for discussion only, to see what people think about a game engine's flexibility. You may proceed to spam FarCry 2, or some less obvious choices.

Frostbite engine (Battlefield Bad Company engine). I played BF BC and really enjoyed the battlefield in that engine.

Well FarCry2 engine is good, so is Frostbite.

In before lock

Post alerted for IBTL comment. -M

=Romagnolo= wrote:Frostbite engine (Battlefield Bad Company engine). I played BF BC and really enjoyed the battlefield in that engine.

are the maps big like BF2 or are they for small close quarters combat like call of duty or Half-life?

FrostBite.

Haven't played many other PC shooters, so I'm not sure what engine would be "better" than this one. Not many other games support infantry FPS combat and vehicles such as tanks and jets as well as PR from gameplay footage vids.

baptist_christian wrote:are the maps big like BF2 or are they for small close quarters combat like call of duty or Half-life?

Very big like BF2, and almost all is destructible. Ah, and the terrian can be deformed and trees go down like Crysis.

R.J.Travis wrote:In before lock

Useless post, for the love of god don't post if you're not in the discussion.

Like I said, just a discussion, not a topic to yell at DEV's the same thing that's been done a thousand times.


So it seems you all like the Frostbite engine from BF:BC, any games other than the Battlefield series stand out?

=Romagnolo= wrote:Very big like BF2, and almost all is destructible. Ah, and the terrian can be deformed and trees go down like Crysis.

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.

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.

Pacman engine


I would say frostbite

CryEngine

ArmA 2 or Operation Flashpoint 2 Engine without a doubt

Last week I played Frontlines. That game ran solid with eveything on high and looked great. The sound capabilities are also very good.

I havent play Battlefield:Bad Company though and frontlines is the newest FPS I played so Im going with that one.

Out of the engines Ive seen....the Doom3 engine looks best so I'll go with that

BF2 is best right now, but if bf3 comes out and is using the frostbite im sure that would be better.

Bf2 got the things that makes pr really good: vehicles, squads and a good voip.

Remember you can't just got for how good the engine look, or how good the fysics are.

SGT.JOKER wrote:Out of the engines Ive seen....the Doom3 engine looks best so I'll go with that

Roger that, an engine from the same people that made the Q3 engine which, from what I've heard, is extremely 'moddable'. Plus the decent graphics which don't require a proper beast of a system to run.

Either an RB26DETT or a 2JZ-GTE depending on what sort of application I'm after (Street of Drag).

Now for the engine you guys are talking about, I like the look of the Frostbite engine as far as general stats and details, but theres a good chance since its being released in a Battlefield Game (Bad Company) then its probably just as annoying as the BF2 engine is...from what I've heard about the BF2 one, its pretty ****.

Link to the Frostbite engine for all you interested people - Frostbite Engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ArmA's engine is good, if you mod it well.

Marine94 wrote:ArmA's engine is good, if you mod it well.

I think most of the people on here would prefer ArmA to PR if they had a PC which could run it well