Ue3

[Hipocracy]

Applause for our facepalmers who palmed and explained nothing

And many thanks to Flogger23m who gives us a nice analysis here




I can tell you
The CryEngine2 is a hardware hungry beast. Almost no one can play a game with it in a resolution higher that 800x600, which is very sad cause most magic of the graphics is lost.

And yes, like you mentioned it can scale down, so from distance you have a low poly model and the closer you get it becomes more polys at a time.

Myself I'm pretty sure that a possible Killing Floors 2 will use the UE3 also. But if a currently unsure but possible RO3 will still use the UE3 is in the stars. Surely when the UE4 is available TWI will go for it! If it's not they might use the UE3 once more which might be outdated a bit by 2011/12.

Like I previously stated here in this thread. The CryEngines 1 & 2, they'd be awesome for a pacific war theatre shooter which includes Imperial Japan and (world police ) USA. But as RO is not the Japan's Eastern Front, cause it is Germany's Eastern one there is no need of jungles, is there?
But hehe, TWI, I want to go for USA as a Japanese Imperial Army soldier!
To be honest it would be nice to have some rumble in the jungle, but currently we're all waiting for a very nice RO2 coming quite soon.

Okay i can play crysis warhead at 1280X1024 at high shaders with 30-45 fps (other settings are a mix of high, medium, and low due to crappy ram) with a comp that cost me like 500$ so i have no idea where your its an unbelieveably hardware hungry beast is coming from, besides the cry engine 3 is going to come out soon which is a very optimized version of cry engine 2. Also cry engine 1 is what far cry ran on so... that is kinda irrelevant. Crysis was impossible to play with a OK comp 2 years ago, now if you even have a substandard rig ( 8800gt ) you can still play it with medium settings unless you have a a huge monitor or a single core CPU. playing it with object detail on high with less than 4 gigs of ram is kinda asking for super bad lag... although your points about the net code problems could be a valid reason not to use it, i see no reason why a engine with better visuals shouldn't be considered for future games.

 

[Flogger23m]

Thing is, UE3 looks much better performance wise. To get similar performance in Cryengine 2, you'll have to turn the graphics down a lot. Which would make it look inferior to UE3.

Crysis Warhead even slows down on my AMD 9950 quad core, GTX 260, and 4GB of RAM. I can run UT3 at a stable 50 frame rates, at a higher resolution with twice as much AA and AF.

Cryengine 3 will be an improvement, but don't epect it to run twice as good or anything.


In summary, UE3 is the better engine.

 

[Covington]

CryEngine 2 and 3

CryEngine 2 and 3

Anyone who has Crysis knows that it comes with the editor. You can also download mod tools. CryEngine isn't just for jungle maps it's just what Crysis and Crysis Warhead were. If you have Crysis and the Editor installed go to [url]http://www.crymod.com/filebase.php?fileid=2347&lim=0[/URL] and download Niveus a Medieval map. It's not World War II but it's not a jungle map. CryEngine 2 or 3 could handle World War II but it would eat up lower end machines and people would have to upgrade. Personally I don't think CryEngine would be a good engine for a game like HoS or near future games until computers and graphics cards lower prices.

 

[worluk]

Keep going guys, it's funny on what points you base an argument for a "better engine"

 

[Zennousha]

Okay i can play crysis warhead at 1280X1024 at high shaders with 30-45 fps (other settings are a mix of high, medium, and low due to crappy ram) with a comp that cost me like 500$ so i have no idea where your its an unbelieveably hardware hungry beast is coming from, besides the cry engine 3 is going to come out soon which is a very optimized version of cry engine 2. Also cry engine 1 is what far cry ran on so... that is kinda irrelevant. Crysis was impossible to play with a OK comp 2 years ago, now if you even have a substandard rig ( 8800gt ) you can still play it with medium settings unless you have a a huge monitor or a single core CPU. playing it with object detail on high with less than 4 gigs of ram is kinda asking for super bad lag... although your points about the net code problems could be a valid reason not to use it, i see no reason why a engine with better visuals shouldn't be considered for future games.

Because visuals don't make the game? Personally, all of the elements that make up the Unreal 3 Engine is just spectacular. Let's take a quick review.

- C++, which supports more OS
- Water and Soft body physics
- Destructible elements
- PhsyX
- EAX 5.0
- Better performance, not requiring people to go out and blow fortunes on their rigs

Throw onto the fact how well their shaders can really bring grittiness to environments, and the fact they're far more experienced with the Unreal engine, they can really assemble something top notch.

 

[ueber]

- C++, which supports more OS

The limiting factor when regarding a game is hardly the portability of the language.

I have no benefit at all of NetBSD having a C++ compiler since UT3 won't run on it.

 

[Zennousha]

No, it's not necessarily going to run on absolutely everything, but at least it's a nice gesture.