What if CryEngine was used as Arma 3 future engine?

[Sniperdoc]

We can already do all of that with the engine ArmA 2 is using now.

Arma 2 is nowhere near the league of Cryengine 2...

Try shooting a tree into pieces. Oh... can't do that? Cryengine 2 can. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4sphyDhO5E
Try amassing 8000 barrels and letting physics take care of it... oh ya... Arma 2 can't. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0R9veCqr2U
Hell, the Arma 2 engine can't even do 64-bit. Oh... on top of that, it can't even load textures properly when maxed on a 32-bit machine.

To even compare Arma 2's engine to the Crytek Engine or to put it in the same league is just ridiculous. Mind you I'm not a fan of Crysis as they limited the "open-ended" game to a particular path when they didn't need to. But engine wise... that Cryengine is so far ahead of everything else it's not even funny.

The ONLY thing that Arma 2 engine has going for it is its AI system which is very commendable but due to it's complexity is highly bugged. Otherwise the engine is old and flawed and BIS continues to propagate it.

Let's leave the fanboy comments from the posts ok?

[DMarkwick]

So, it seems like my tree destroying mission involving 8000 balanced barrels might be in danger of not being realised with the ArmA2 editor? Damnation.

[Flash Thunder]

I don't care for better graphics All I want is for Arma 2 if possible to get som DAMN physics already its 2009!!

I want softbody physics and real physics on vehicles, that would make killing people and driving soooooo much better, and the game would be even BETTER!

Maybe a few more higher resolution textures and Parallex maps.

BIS PHYSICS PLEASE!

[DMarkwick]

To even compare Arma 2's engine to the Crytek Engine or to put it on the same league shows your inexperience with game technology.

The ONLY thing that Arma 2 engine has going for it is its AI system which is very commendable but due to it's complexity is highly bugged.

These two comments reveal your own ignorance on the matter. I'm not here to "defend" ArmA2's engine, but I do say that it's designed around different parameters from Crytek's. Horses for courses mate. No engine will be the right engine for ALL projects. You couldn't use Crytek's engine for ArmA2's tasks, therefore the issue of the Crytek engine awesomeness over ArmA2 is entirely irrelevant.

[Sniperdoc]

No engine will be the right engine for ALL projects. You couldn't use Crytek's engine for ArmA2's tasks, therefore the issue of the Crytek engine awesomeness over ArmA2 is entirely irrelevant.

Absolutely. And if you read who I was commenting do you'd have applied your statement towards that individual. It's apparent you didn't see what I was trying to state... pretty much what you're saying to me.

The OP already stated that Cryengine 3 could suit a game LIKE Arma. Not that it had to be used for Arma specifically.

Is it semantics... yes... but that's how we perceive things... isn't it?

Can we say 63 entities limit in CryEngine 3?

Can you back this up with fact or are you just projecting your perceptions on everyone?

Bohemia Interactive is a small company, they know and love the engine that they're using now (Forgot the name). There is absolutely no point in using the CryEngine 3, it's expensive it's something Bohemia isn't used to and we can already do alot with the engine we have, though it would be nice, it isn't necessary.

They may know the engine, but they sure can't get it working properly as most people on a 8GB system can attest to. Hell most people can't max the game out to get it to run smoothly... EVERYONE has to dumb down something on their settings to get the dang thing to run. Whether it's limiting the RAM, using some switches in command line, or running the game on an antiquated operating system. Vista has been out for how long? How many gamers are using 64-bit? Those that aren't are behind the times. Even businesses are moving towards 64-bit now. Come on... 32-bit Windows XP and 4GB of RAM??? BIS is old hat and they're trying to prolong their life. We've already passed 8GB and we're in the 12GB RAM on a desktop world... get with it BIS... jesus!

It's like those people that play Eve on a 1.4GHz Celeron and a GeForce 5600 with 1GB of RAM... people... you can't continue to play games on a 7 year old PC...!!! It's not going to happen.

[DMarkwick]

Absolutely. And if you read who I was commenting do you'd have applied your statement towards that individual. It's apparent you didn't see what I was trying to state... pretty much what you're saying to me.

It looks, to me, like you're replying to Fudgeblood, who's not saying anything like you seem to think he is. I don't believe semantics is the reason

If you wish to discuss Crytek's awesomeness over another engine based on that 8000 barrel demo vid, be aware that the demo vid is not recorded realtime. It's rendered frame by frame similar to a 3D app. It would be akin to pausing ArmA2's engine every single frame, allowing the graphics to render to it's full potential, then adding that frame to the end of an animation.

[Sniperdoc]

It looks, to me, like you're replying to Fudgeblood, who's not saying anything like you seem to think he is. I don't believe semantics is the reason

I don't know...

We can already do all of that with the engine ArmA 2 is using now.

Sounds pretty much like he's trying to state that Arma 2's engine is the same as CryEngine... which considering it's not at all the same, is furthest from the truth. And you were trying to tell me that:

These two comments reveal your own ignorance on the matter. I'm not here to "defend" ArmA2's engine, but I do say that it's designed around different parameters from Crytek's. Horses for courses mate. No engine will be the right engine for ALL projects. You couldn't use Crytek's engine for ArmA2's tasks, therefore the issue of the Crytek engine awesomeness over ArmA2 is entirely irrelevant.

I don't know... sounds pretty much what I was trying to say already...???

If you wish to discuss Crytek's awesomeness over another engine based on that 8000 barrel demo vid, be aware that the demo vid is not recorded realtime. It's rendered frame by frame similar to a 3D app. It would be akin to pausing ArmA2's engine every single frame, allowing the graphics to render to it's full potential, then adding that frame to the end of an animation.

Sure, just like all the OFP DR videos were done. I get it. But the matter at hand is still that CryEngine does most things better than the Arma 2 engine. Period. A majority of the issues in Arma 2 are limited to an antiquated engine programmed towards an antiquated OS.

I don't think that there is one game out there yet that uses real-time procedurals besides Crysis. Crytek (I believe) was the first to implement them and is still the only devgroup that is using them. Even the AI is highly impressive.

The fact that the CryEngine 3 is able to almost flawlessly present on a PC, XBOX and PS3 at the same time... that's an amazing feat if it truly works as it was represented.

[DMarkwick]

I don't know...

Sounds pretty much like he's trying to state that Arma 2's engine is the same as CryEngine... which considering it's not at all the same, is furthest from the truth.

Aah, I see where you've made a leap, when Fudgeblood said "We can already do all of that with the engine ArmA 2 is using now." he was responding to the statement "Fully destructible enviorments, Open world . easy create to mods"

I don't believe he was trying to say it was the same (your phrasing), only that it could do those things. Some of them maybe not as fine as Crytek (destruction models) but some of them better (open world). I believe he was saying the engine was suitable for the job. Personally, having tooled about with Crytek 2, I don't believe it has the open world technology necessary, which at least we seem to agree on there. It has a fine grained destruction and physics model, suitable for a strictly player-centric game, not one suitable for a genuine large area complex scenario.

Sure, just like all the OFP DR videos were done. I get it. But the matter at hand is still that CryEngine does most things better than the Arma 2 engine. Period. A majority of the issues in Arma 2 are limited to an antiquated engine programmed towards an antiquated OS.

As mentioned, it's strictly player-centric. "Most things"? I don't believe Crytek is tested with massive numbers of AI, all unscripted and acting cohesively, in a genuine open environment. I don't believe, from an architectural standpoint, that it even makes sense to talk about the Crytek engine processing units on the other side of the island fighting independent battles away from the player.

There might be reason for someone to say: "So what, if it's away from the player what's the point of processing it", but that's what ArmA2's engine is designed to do. That's why it looks like it does. That's why it performs as it does. Completely different from the requirements of Crytek-powered games.

Why do I harp on like this when you maintain we're saying the same thing? Because if Crytek's angine COULD do "most things" better than ArmA2's, there would be little reason not to recommend that engine. Which apparently for some reason you're not. You seem to be giving out a mixed message.

I don't think that there is one game out there yet that uses real-time procedurals besides Crysis. Crytek (I believe) was the first to implement them and is still the only devgroup that is using them. Even the AI is highly impressive.

Real time procedurals, like procedural textures? The very first Unreal engine used procedurals. And, ArmA2 engine now has capacity for using procedural textures I've recently read.

The fact that the CryEngine 3 is able to almost flawlessly present on a PC, XBOX and PS3 at the same time... that's an amazing feat if it truly works as it was represented.

Hmm. Yeah. You mean like how O was presented? Actually, I would believe most of Crytek's claims, they do seem to make a great product. I haven't really seen it put to great use, but I can see it's a great tool.

[AndresCL]

I don't know...

Sounds pretty much like he's trying to state that Arma 2's engine is the same as CryEngine... which considering it's not at all the same, is furthest from the truth. And you were trying to tell me that:

I don't know... sounds pretty much what I was trying to say already...???

Sure, just like all the OFP DR videos were done. I get it. But the matter at hand is still that CryEngine does most things better than the Arma 2 engine. Period. A majority of the issues in Arma 2 are limited to an antiquated engine programmed towards an antiquated OS.

I don't think that there is one game out there yet that uses real-time procedurals besides Crysis. Crytek (I believe) was the first to implement them and is still the only devgroup that is using them. Even the AI is highly impressive.

The fact that the CryEngine 3 is able to almost flawlessly present on a PC, XBOX and PS3 at the same time... that's an amazing feat if it truly works as it was represented.

You got to remember that the same engine that ran ArmA 1 also ran VBS2 (Virtual Reality Engine 2) and VBS2 was developed for several armies around the globe. Now, what do you think they care about most?

Besides, i dont think they care about running VBS2 on consoles, neither BIS of developing another engine exclusively for "civilian" audiences (gamers) and the competition is near to non-existent in the mil-sim FPS genre

Among other reasons, changing to other engine is cost and time consuming, pretty much useless

[banenwn]

Nah i like the arma engine just fine.I dont think a 300 man battle would run to well on the cry 3 engine.You guys dont realize that the cry engine have made rail shooters not open ended at all with very little activity going on screen at one time.I dont think theres a PC out there that could run arma 2 with a crytek engine especially in huge warzones.