Jump to content

Game Engines!


A.S

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's what I'd like to expect from future DCS engines - seamless terrain.

51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-)

100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-)

 

:: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky

tail# 44 or 444

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

New addition to the series of vids released by the Outerra dev team today, just popped up on my subs list:

 

FwtKHbl0pjs&hd=1

 

Notes/disclaimers:

 

Outerra is a terrain engine; the other parts you see in it like vehicles etc. are primarily for testing and demonstration to would-be licensees.

 

That means no point bitching about lack of realism in flight models or cockpits or so-forth.

 

I have, however, become something of a fan in watching the development of this engine and see a lot of positive things it is trying to achieve - and with what I believe is a very small number (a couple) of developers. Good stuff, and looking forward to some games that will make use of it in the future :)


Edited by topdog

[ i7 2600k 4.6GHz :: 16GB Mushkin Blackline LV :: EVGA GTX 1080ti 11GB ]

[ TM Warthog / Saitek Rudder :: Oculus Rift :: Obutto cockpit :: Acer HN274H 27" 120Hz :: 3D Vision Ready ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
I myself believe that it will be worth to think about CryEngine 3 (chosen by US Army Training System).

 

No, it will not be worth anything. It cannot handle flight simulation (draw distance too short).

 

Outerra is both a WIP and it would require too much work to integrate it into DCS.

 

The RoF engine is not suitabel for DCS either; again short draw distances by comparison.

 

Yes, the DCS engine is a little behind those in some features, but it doesn't matter: It is currently in active development.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CryEngine leaves a lot to be desired. The physics models it is capable of are very good, but it's limited in the number of physics models.

 

It has the eye candy, but it will be several generations of that engine before it can handle anything close to DCS or even ArmA.

 

In the end, simulators generally use an engine designed specifically for that simulator. They usually have no choice as not one engine can run every calculation for every possible instance for any type of simulator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CryEngine leaves a lot to be desired. The physics models it is capable of are very good, but it's limited in the number of physics models.

 

It has the eye candy, but it will be several generations of that engine before it can handle anything close to DCS or even ArmA.

 

In the end, simulators generally use an engine designed specifically for that simulator. They usually have no choice as not one engine can run every calculation for every possible instance for any type of simulator.

 

Give it 20 years when we will all have Intel Core Quantums.

If you aim for the sky, you will never hit the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CryEngine leaves a lot to be desired. The physics models it is capable of are very good, but it's limited in the number of physics models.

 

Is it just me, or cryengine 3 has a lot less physics features compared to cryengine 2. As I recall from crysis: you could pull roofs off, smash things etc. In crysis 2..weak physics effects, barely noticed them.

Spoiler

AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, MSI MEG X570 UNIFY (AM4, AMD X570, ATX), Noctua NH-DH14, EVGA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti XC3 ULTRA, Seasonic Focus PX (850W), Kingston HyperX 240GB, Samsung 970 EVO Plus (1000GB, M.2 2280), 32GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-3600 DIMM CL16, Cooler Master 932 HAF, Samsung Odyssey G5; 34", Win 10 X64 Pro, Track IR, TM Warthog, TM MFDs, Saitek Pro Flight Rudders

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Realistic aircraft in ARMA3??? I have see an Havoc...

 

In my opinion Bohemia can't be for the moment at the same level as ED in flight simulation.

 

Because DCS team have a real experience in simulator since Flanker (I think some SSI member are now in the ED team).

 

They use information from military source, as realistic as possible i think, but i think they can't use all for the public, but for the moment DCS KA-50 and A10C are the more realistics simulator for the public about modern Aircrafts.

 

So, a 3D engine take years and years to work correctly.

 

After that you can choose to make a new one, or update the first one.

 

I think update is a good choice because you can keep the good things you have make in the past and don't restart from 0.

 

So you can do the two at the same time, upgrading your engine and make a new one in the dark and announce a day at the community, hello! we have a new engine for you...

 

I'm dreaming... Or not... :D

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Make the reporting system great again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still don't know what you're talking about :)

It's 'easy' to have plenty of performance if you only need a draw-distance of 2km. Not to mention it lacks flight physics.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 GG

 

We can compare Arma and DCS simply

 

Arma have great details of littles objects, like in a classic fps, but take a plane in arma, and you see you have a circle of view around you, you have not a great visibility like in DCS.

 

DCS have clickable cockpit and realistic physics rules, for Arma3 i think this is the same as the 2, two click for start up, one click for lock, one click for shoot :D

 

In Arma you have not an accurate damage model, let see for the 3 but...

 

Arma as not the focus to be a flight simmulator, an infantry one, maybe yes, but with simple system for vehicles, for everybody can use it!


Edited by Pougatchev
  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Make the reporting system great again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or cryengine 3 has a lot less physics features compared to cryengine 2. As I recall from crysis: you could pull roofs off, smash things etc. In crysis 2..weak physics effects, barely noticed them.

 

They were supposed to be there with Crysis 2, and six months before the game released, those effects were in engine and working, but got pulled by EA, just like DX11 support.

 

The engine does have better physics, but there were upgrades such as dynamic mesh deformation and physics based destruction that again for some reason never made it in the final game but were confirmed to be there before release.

 


Edited by Pyroflash

If you aim for the sky, you will never hit the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...