What if CryEngine was used as Arma 3 future engine?

Wow have you seen the new cryEngine 3 engine? This could suit a game like Arma!

Fully destructible enviorments, Open world . easy create to mods and can convert your work into the consoles in "real time" and last but not least, looks downright Sexy

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/10/14/cryengine-3-released-box-of-tissues-not-included/

Fully destructible enviorments, Open world . easy create to mods

and can convert your work into the consoles in "real time"

Changing an engine isn't an easy task, you have to learn all the new scripting and coding and get used to working with it, not to mention is can costs thousands or even hundreds of thousands to buy a license.

And it's way too early to talk about ArmA 3, if there ever will be one. Let's wait for Operation Arrowhead shall we? ;)

Yeah Crytek is an awesome engine!

Arma was the first thing I thought of when I saw the last engine. Just think of the possibilities of a sandbox concept (like Arma) with a powerful engine like that.

That would be a dream come true.

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

No you cant, You cant even shoot and break through glass's in Arma 2 and their are next to no bullet Holes in buildings and fences. Not to mention how you cant even blow a hole in a building using a tank sums it up really.

The destructible enviornment in this new engine looks more dynamic and real as a posed to what we see in Arma 2 where buildings only get destroyed when you have taken over a town or something. Even the explosions on building in arma 2 look proper fake with no debris and objects flying all over the place like you see when a real building colapses.

Now why would we want that?

Changing an engine isn't an easy task, you have to learn all the new scripting and coding and get used to working with it, not to mention is can costs thousands or even hundreds of thousands to buy a license.

And it's way too early to talk about ArmA 3, if there ever will be one. Let's wait for Operation Arrowhead shall we? ;)

Did i say its easy? Arma 2 engine is buggy and this one looks solid and could be less buggier than arma 2 engine. Toss in the fact that it could potentially make Arma look alot better than it already is, i say its worth the punt and consider that it appears to be DEAD EASY to port to consoles is a plus sign too.

And anotehr thing, Arma 2 is known for its mod support, well cryEngine 3 is moddable and going to be released soon and so that means that many modders will be familier with modding stuff using the cryEngine 3 and will make a nice transition into modding stuff for Arma 3.

The possibilities are endless

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.

So are you going to pay the engine cost?

And are you going to teach BI team how to make a game from scratch in Cryengine?

What about optimization?

2000 AI fight in Cryengine, in Chearnarus.

How about no. There is basically no good reason whatsoever to start doing ArmA2 and VBS3 and so on to Cryengine3.

Is it me or you are missing the Arma 2 AI???

Cryengine 3, nahhh....

So are you going to pay the engine cost?

And are you going to teach BI team how to make a game from scratch in Cryengine?

What about optimization?

2000 AI fight in Cryengine, in Chearnarus.

How about no. There is basically no good reason whatsoever to start doing ArmA2 and VBS3 and so on to Cryengine3.

Am i a game developer? do own a games company? Are BI soo stubborn that they are not capable of learning something new?

optimization? im sure BI are smart enough to optimise the engine if need be. you sound as if BI are a bunch of thicko's who cant learn and adapt to anything new.

Money wise yea it MAY cost alot to licence the engine but at the same time could cost peanuts at the same time. Do you know how much it costs exactly to use cryengine 3?

Theirs only so much you can do from a what? 3-4 year old engine? Your telling me that BI should stick to their current engine forever?

RV3 engine is the 3 generation of the RV engine. It's nothing old, stil it has it's core fragmnets from the original Engine. But that the same way like the Unreal III engine, wich is infact very old too.

On the other hand Cryengine is very hardware demanding, and that is only with physic and grafics. With the AI, balistic and etc. functions you have in ArmA II you would need something better then NASA computer.

I think that in one interview someone from BI stated they like and enjoy making game, so they prefer to make theyr own tools and technology rather than buy license from others anb be only a game factory like others studios. - this is only what I remember so it's possible that it wasnt said that way.

Jonney, BIS is a very small company, they arn't like Ubisoft or Activision, they don't have a big team and lots of money.

They built their own engine, they know that engine well so they use it.

It's like giving, say, an Afghan soldier an M16, it may be better than his AK-47 but he dosn't know the gun, the gun may cost alot to mantain, and overall he's not going to be as efficient with it. Do you understand?

(....) Not to mention how you cant even blow a hole in a building using a tank sums it up really.

But you can destroy parts of the building and all of the building.

The destructible enviornment in this new engine looks more dynamic and real as a posed to what we see in Arma 2 where buildings only get destroyed when you have taken over a town or something.

What are you talking of? Not about Arma2 are you?

Destruction of buildings got NOTHING to do with "taken over a town or something."

Even the explosions on building in arma 2 look proper fake with no debris and objects flying all over the place like you see when a real building colapses.

What are you talking of? Not about Arma2 are you?

There is a lot of debris, explosions and smoke ...

Did i say its easy? Arma 2 engine is buggy and this one looks solid and could be less buggier than arma 2 engine.

I don't find Arma2 engine to be buggy. My friends and I can do community made multiplayer games for hours?

"Looks" solid - yeah, from afar. Cannot take this arguement for serious.

Codemasters DR look solid from afar too ...

Toss in the fact that it could potentially make Arma look alot better than it already is, i say its worth the punt and consider that it appears to be DEAD EASY to port to consoles is a plus sign too.

That's easily said. But you don't know how "easy" it indeed is.

And anotehr thing, Arma 2 is known for its mod support, well cryEngine 3 is moddable and going to be released soon and so that means that many modders will be familier with modding stuff using the cryEngine 3 and will make a nice transition into modding stuff for Arma 3.

The possibilities are endless

LOL - the seeming possibilities are always endless if you trust advertising.

This is quite an advertising!

At least (!) 33 % of the text is PURE quoting, the rest is helpless dramatization - without any deeper arguements just sayings. Do we believe advertisings?

Didn't Codemaster advertise Dragon Rising like hell? What's the outcome?

And, at last me :eek:, I can destroy buildings nicely in Arma2.

I can shoot windows, I can run over trees ... etc. etc.

You want to open another thread - like the DR-rising thread - with thousands of posts: One side believing the marketing shit from Codemasters the others not?

Sure you can have it, but there are better things to discuss than advertisings of competitors of BI.

And that's the most important thing:

You want BI to pay a direct competitor in the area of modable FPS.

Sorry - can you imagine BMW asking Mercedes to build an engine for them?

How much would that cost? :o

Jonney, BIS is a very small company, they arn't like Ubisoft or Activision, they don't have a big team and lots of money.

They built their own engine, they know that engine well so they use it.

It's like giving, say, an Afghan soldier an M16, it may be better than his AK-47 but he dosn't know the gun, the gun may cost alot to mantain, and overall he's not going to be as efficient with it. Do you understand?

While I'm not particularly convinced by Cryengine 3 myself, I find your way of defending the A2 engine a bit weird. Cryengine 3 is inferior because BIS is too poor and stupid to use it? Did you forget the technical comparison? We could argue that the A2 engine is crap because nobody else could make a proper game with it, not to mention its own makers releasing buggy games.

Am i a game developer? do own a games company? Are BI soo stubborn that they are not capable of learning something new?

optimization? im sure BI are smart enough to optimise the engine if need be. you sound as if BI are a bunch of thicko's who cant learn and adapt to anything new.

Money wise yea it MAY cost alot to licence the engine but at the same time could cost peanuts at the same time. Do you know how much it costs exactly to use cryengine 3?

Theirs only so much you can do from a what? 3-4 year old engine? Your telling me that BI should stick to their current engine forever?

I dont see how any of this is relevant, if and when arma 3 comes out im sure they would consider using a new engine because by the time arma 3 is even released the old engine would not be able to cut it amongst the new generation of games.

But even if they did decide for a new makeover and use another engine it would not be the cryengine due to mainly cost and other things such as licensing etc, your also talking as if this is around the corner ffs arma 2 just came out dont get to excited.

One thing everyone here seems to be forgetting is network consistency. As far as I am aware the RV3 engine is designed to deliver the same physics in both SP and MP environments. Every object and all destruction effects possible in single player are possible in multiplayer and are synchronized to all clients. For example in the CF-Arma2 battle last sunday there was a village (Kabanino) inside the AO. After about an hour of fighting, mortar bombardment etc. most buildings were half collapsed, some were just piles of rubble. Moving through there was awesomely atmospheric.

On the other hand I remember playing Crysis in single player and really enjoying the high-fidelity destructibility of pretty much everything - then you jump into multiplayer nothing is destructible at all. The whole environment is rock solid. I don't know how the new CryEngine 3 relates to CryEngine 2 in this respect, but you can be pretty sure there won't be the same kind of high-fidelity physics in MP as you see in SP.

Can we say 63 entities limit in CryEngine 3?

While I'm not particularly convinced by Cryengine 3 myself, I find your way of defending the A2 engine a bit weird. Cryengine 3 is inferior because BIS is too poor and stupid to use it? Did you forget the technical comparison? We could argue that the A2 engine is crap because nobody else could make a proper game with it, not to mention its own makers releasing buggy games.

You totally missed the point he was making.

You totally missed the point he was making.

Care to explain it to me then?

Crytek's engine is also a huge resource hog. That thing eats CPU cycles for breakfast.

As much as it is nice eye candy I'd rather have a game that works as well online as well as off without frying my CPU.

While I'm not particularly convinced by Cryengine 3 myself, I find your way of defending the A2 engine a bit weird. Cryengine 3 is inferior because BIS is too poor and stupid to use it? Did you forget the technical comparison? We could argue that the A2 engine is crap because nobody else could make a proper game with it, not to mention its own makers releasing buggy games.

Well, I've been thinking about the "next engine" too.. I kind of think/hope it will have to do something with the Carrier Command engine. So far we know very little about that title, aside from running on.. different engine. I haven't played the original but the concept is pretty much something like Warfare on numerous island (large scale war), therefore advanced AI, rendering and improving (-insert a limitation of virual reality engine here-) is required..

Pure speculation, since we know close to nothing about CC and absolutely nothing about a possible sequel to ArmA2..

One thing everyone here seems to be forgetting is network consistency. As far as I am aware the RV3 engine is designed to deliver the same physics in both SP and MP environments. Every object and all destruction effects possible in single player are possible in multiplayer and are synchronized to all clients. For example in the CF-Arma2 battle last sunday there was a village (Kabanino) inside the AO. After about an hour of fighting, mortar bombardment etc. most buildings were half collapsed, some were just piles of rubble. Moving through there was awesomely atmospheric.

On the other hand I remember playing Crysis in single player and really enjoying the high-fidelity destructibility of pretty much everything - then you jump into multiplayer nothing is destructible at all. The whole environment is rock solid. I don't know how the new CryEngine 3 relates to CryEngine 2 in this respect, but you can be pretty sure there won't be the same kind of high-fidelity physics in MP as you see in SP.

This is a good comparison.

It should also be noted that developers that create a unique product require features and capabilities that cannot be found in engines designed for mass produced shoebox games. So, they won't have the same advantages that amount to eye candy.

ArmA physics are pretty bad but it offers a very realistic environment and the ability to have large numbers of players (limited by hardware not software) ,also you will note that no other games offers a dynamic mission creation system that gives you random objectives just by dropping a module into the map.

CryEngine games have these wonderful physics and visuals but they aren't realistic physics, more cinematic, all Hollywood effects and games are limited in size and scope. Great environments that are fully interactive, but no substantive content.

World War II Online has terrible graphics but offers real physics and ballistics/penetration values and a persistent world that is 100 times larger than Chernarus and can hold a greater number of players.

BIS could switch engines but they would be limited by the engine. Currently the direction they are going with their own engine, eventually you will be able to create dynamic missions with a dynamic and infinite landmass created every time you start it up potentially you would never play the same objective or the same map twice. That's better than anything you can get out of CryEngine3.

CryEngine != Crysis

You aren't limited to how crysis looks or what it uses.

And I can max Crysis more easily than I can max Arma2. At least that game isn't blinding me if I have bloom on..

CryEngine != Crysis

You aren't limited to how crysis looks or what it uses.

And I can max Crysis more easily than I can max Arma2. At least that game isn't blinding me if I have bloom on..

Every engine is limited by what it is designed for.

Pointless topic imho, especailly if you have seen one of those latest interview with BIS. Although the question of 'selling their engine' was asked with a lot of humor, i think it shows how BIS feels about their 'baby'. Imho, although i do'nt know jack about engines and coding, i still think the engine still hasn't reashed puberty.

Imho the lack of competition in its genre has caused it still isn't a full grown boy/girl. Doesn't it makes you wonder that since OFP: dragon all of the sudden several years old features are getting implanted, even though the technic was availible in some way?

Yes, if find it very lame of BIS (they know :p ) but in the end of the day it is their call and (i hope) they msut have their reasons for it. There is just still a long way to go...even if that means taking a few steps backwards (optimizing the game isn't code work only ;) ).

DaSquade is spot on! i dont think the Arma 2 engine is past early stages of course its come along way but it can go a lot further but it has its restrictions becuase of the military etc. And since there is no real competition with Arma 2 anywhere there is no need for BIS to go all hardcore and bring this engine up to standards of todays world although we did see with the coming of OFP:DR BIS did take a step forward to match this threat and added some features which should of been in from the start. Now if OFP:DR was never to be would we be getting the features that we will see in Arrowhead? Who knows

By the time of Arma 3 if there is ever such a title im sure it will be a lot more advanced than arma 2