Wondering about the UE3 engine
- Thread starter Blunthex
- Start date
Yea, even DODS looks better than RO2 in my eyes.
I don't get why people hate on Source engine so much. Personally I think it's great.
Physics are awesome and probably some of the best in the industry.
Well that explains it. Free is good.
Source is not beyond dated though, you are completely wrong. If that's the case then Unreal 3 is VERY dated.
Yea, because when I shoot someone with a KAR98, having them fly 50 feet back is super awesome physics.
I prefer UE3 anyday.
So your reason why the engine can't be dated is because your 6-year old rig can run all the games using it?
I think you may have that backwards?
No, I don't think it's dated as they're still releasing games onto it, and they're updating it, quite literally, every week. I'm constantly downloading updates for my source games (actual Source-engine updates, I read changelogs).
It runs on my 6 year old computer because it is a well-established and brilliantly optimized engine, and I can squeeze better graphics out of the Source engine (because of this optimization) than any rival engine I've come across.
Maybe it's because of my low end rig, but Source is the prettiest engine I can run at the moment. Max settings and smooth 60 fps. Any other engine and I'm sitting at low-medium with 30 fps.
Say what you will, oh mighty power users, but as a PC gamer on a severe budget, I will always love Source.
Try working with Source. It's awful, and takes a LOT to get an okay result. There's also tons of limitations and quirks that make it easily one of the worst engines to work with.
Unreal engine 3.5 is flawed to all holy hell, and this game shows it, however, I still consider it to be leaps and bounds above most others.
Are some of the comments coming from some alternate universe or something? graphically speaking the unreal 3 engine is FAR more advanced than source. portal looks great because it simulates a largely empty, sterile environment made out of lots of simple geometry. it could not be more different than what you need for a game like ro. I will admit that most of valves source games have a very clean and elegant look, but part of the reason for that is because valve has smart people in charge of art who know that the source engine CANT compete with other modern engines when it comes to realism.
trying to run a 64 player game with huge detailed maps on source would be a complete disaster. I recall back when source came out somebody licensed it to try to make a mmog and it didnt go well.
trying to run a 64 player game with huge detailed maps on source would be a complete disaster. I recall back when source came out somebody licensed it to try to make a mmog and it didnt go well.
I do work with Source, and I love it.
My only complaint is that most the weapon scripting and all that takes place in lua, which I have never taken the time to learn.
Try working with a different engine, or try modeling your own props. You'll see why I have such disdain for the engine.
This is all true, but again, I'm biased as everything put out on the Source engine runs like butter on my puttering little machine, whereas I never get the same level of performance out of other engines. It may be the simplistic, but beautifully stylistic graphics. It probably is. But everything else looks like crap because I have to turn everything down compared to the elegant simplicity I get from Source.
Learn the history of Tripwire and you will know why they use the Unreal Engine and don't forget RO2 is using a heavily modified Unreal 3.5 engine.
I think the problem is they didn't get enough time to really work through the game one last time before release. I recall a poll that came out near the end of beta talking about whether the game should've been delayed a bit. I think this might've helped a bit, getting an extra week or two to work on the engine. UE3 has oddities, as pointed out by TWI in their post about the patch that dropped today. They have issues getting the patches down to manageable size.