Is Arma III gonna shape up?

[CyclonicTuna]

So I know that the BIS developers did a heck of job evolving the new engine Arma III is gonna run on (sorry I don't know the official name of the engine). But I am just curious as to how it is gonna shape up to the improved CryEngine 3 from Crytek.



I know I probably shouldn't be expecting the same thing from Bohemia purely based on the fact that the Arma III engine is being developed with a totally diffrent mindset and purpose. But as far as the techincal terms go I was curious when one would lay the finished Arma III engine and the CryEngine 3 next to each other how they would compare. What will be the strenghts and weaknesses of both Engines, how are they similair, and how do they differ from one another.

Also considdering that the military trainingsoftware Realtime Immersive (which has also been named quite a few times on these forums if I'm not mistaken) is build upon the CryEngine I was curious as to how the would compare.

So yeah, there's a question. Maybe the dev's could give us some more insight in the improvements that they have made. Or maybe someone who know's more of this stuff then I do

[Liquidpinky]

They seem to have lost the shitty blue filter, no doubt conveniently left out until final release. The very reason I am never buying another EA game as the art direction is shit.
So far the first two Crysis games have been pretty to look at and a complete yawnfest to play, number 3 probably wont live up either.
They can keep their clouds as compensation.

[maturin]

What is the point of this thread? You should worry about the game, not the engine, unless you're secretly the executive producer of some unnamed IP.

Because it looks like another Crytek fanboy come to post tech demo videos.

Cryengine is pretty. It has never given any indication of being able to do half of what RV can do, in terms of what is important (as opposed to eye candy) to large-scale military simulation. That's that. I'm not rising to RV's defence (it's clunky as hell), but I can't stand engine-tech wankery.

Also considdering that the military trainingsoftware Realtime Immersive

Last I checked the project was in limbo, and still had to outbid BI with nothing much to show for it. If the military is smart, they will go the functional, mature technology. There's a reason we still use M4s and A10s.

[Przemek_kondor]

There were 2 or more threads about this comparison IIRC

[ProfTournesol]

There were 2 or more threads about this comparison IIRC

Indeed.

[InstaGoat]

It´s not gonna compare. Crysis is and always was a rather bland, graphics heavy, linear shooter with GPU based physics so people can post youtube videos of blowing up 10.000 cars at once.

Arma 3 is an open world battlefield-sim, so the graphics are not gonna be as mindblowing. But with the new physX, I guess you can now blow up 10.000 cars at once too. On that note, I once sent an M1 into low orbit in OFP using three ammo boxes worth of satchel charges. I´ll have fun with that in A3 too when its out, and I actually buy it. Right now I´m not convinced. Unless the SP will be amazing and the game will be bug-free and tightly made on release, my immediate interests lie elsewhere.

But, I´ll hold back my opinions until I´ve tried the game at gamescom.

[NeuroFunker]

pointless thread. You comparing a hummer with ferrari. In our case, RV3 Engine is a hummer, and CryTec3 is ferrari. Good looking, fast driving, but no more or less...

[CyclonicTuna]

What is the point of this thread? You should worry about the game, not the engine, unless you're secretly the executive producer of some unnamed IP.

Because it looks like another Crytek fanboy come to post tech demo videos.

Cryengine is pretty. It has never given any indication of being able to do half of what RV can do, in terms of what is important (as opposed to eye candy) to large-scale military simulation. That's that. I'm not rising to RV's defence (it's clunky as hell), but I can't stand engine-tech wankery.


Last I checked the project was in limbo, and still had to outbid BI with nothing much to show for it. If the military is smart, they will go the functional, mature technology. There's a reason we still use M4s and A10s.

The reason for this thread is that I believe its good to always look around, because trying to learn from your own solutions never worked out for anyone. No company makes perfect software, and I am just curious how BI tackle's its problems, were things ar compromized and where things are expanded. I'm not a fanboy, I just came across this video and thought it would be a nice discussion starter.

[InstaGoat]

The reason for this thread is that I believe its good to always look around, because trying to learn from your own solutions never worked out for anyone. No company makes perfect software, and I am just curious how BI tackle's its problems, were things ar compromized and where things are expanded. I'm not a fanboy, I just came across this video and thought it would be a nice discussion starter.

Well, from my uneducated perspective, the whole arma thing is one big compromise at every corner. The original engine dates back from before 2000. The first game was released in 2001. (btw the original tech demo can be found here: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Poseidon it has really cool music, tanks and choppers.) We are now in 2012, and the basic engine is STILL being used. The reason why we had to wait so long for features like ragdoll and advanced physics was that the core was made in a time before both were fully developed in the gaming industry. I find it pretty miraculous that they´re actually able to still advance and improve the engine, though by now I imagine it´s a pretty big, chaotic behemoth on the inside.

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Real_Virtuality RV on the biki.

If the cryengine were to be developed in as many applications as RV, and for as long a time as RV, it would become similarily complex and capable. It´s rare that a company sticks with one platform for such a long time, however. Most invest tons of money into new, cleaner, streamlined platforms dedicated to fitting the current technology (plus some futureproofing). Instead, BI have chosen an evolutionary approach.

[metalcraze]

Note that this is techdemo. The game will look worse on release. Plus they cover the lackluster graphics (fog everywhere, very tight corridors, 2D trees) with "composite lens flares" also known as BF3 dirty glasses.

There's nothing stopping any dev from throwing in a lot of polygonal detail but will you agree to play ArmA3 with 100m viewdistance like it will be with Crysis3?

Also considdering that the military trainingsoftware Realtime Immersive (which has also been named quite a few times on these forums if I'm not mistaken) is build upon the CryEngine I was curious as to how the would compare.

To be a military training software a software needs to start being used by military first.
Apparently CryEngine is so unsuited for things RV does that that famous Dismounted Soldier contract fell through and DSTS devs went with worse looking VBS2 1.x instead. And since then RTI was silent like a fish. Maybe in a few years it will resurface in some niche app (CryEngine2 was already used in some IED training software)

If the cryengine were to be developed in as many applications as RV, and for as long a time as RV, it would become similarily complex and capable.

First CryEngine techdemo dates back to 2001.