Grass improvement

[Gryzor]

I´ve seen more quantity/quality of ground clutter especially on grass, so my question is what will be the performance it? graphics would improve on generall matters in CA?

[h00t74]

This brings up another good question, for those that played World War Two Online they will know what I am talking about. Are Trees and vegetation generated Client Side or Server side? The reason I ask is some issues in that other game was it was generated Client side so you thought you parked your tank behind a grove of bushes, but the other client saw you completely in the open because it was generated Client side.

[159th_Viper]

This brings up another good question, for those that played World War Two Online they will know what I am talking about. Are Trees and vegetation generated Client Side or Server side? The reason I ask is some issues in that other game was it was generated Client side so you thought you parked your tank behind a grove of bushes, but the other client saw you completely in the open because it was generated Client side.

 

Server forces scene settings onto client. Can however be circumvented by replacing relevant scene files in the client install so yes, it could be a problem: Your hidey-hole may not be too secure dependant on the client's install.

[Sethos]

They should just remove it, you know someone will smoke it all and then we have a huge controversy on our hands.

[WRAITH]

The grass and terrain in ARMAII is not bad what you all think

 

Watch

 

 

And FPS and quality is good

[Purg]

The problem with ARMAII grass and touches on the above is that you could be standing in what looks like a wheat field with absolutely no visibility and someone with their settings set to low or at a distance where the LOD is zero will see you simply standing there with no vegetation cover, right out it the open.

[Sethos]

The problem with ARMAII grass and touches on the above is that you could be standing in what looks like a wheat field with absolutely no visibility and someone with their settings set to low or at a distance where the LOD is zero will see you simply standing there with no vegetation cover, right out it the open.

 

Not any more, that was fixed a long time ago. Now you can also properly hide while going prone in grass etc.

[WRAITH]

Well watch http://youtu.be/hgw9DlIK8DY?hd=1

 

Cryengine more here http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1480392&postcount=5442

 

Awesome :smilewink::thumbup:

[Wolfie]

Lol, I doubt if we will get Crysis quality. Though Arma 2 does a good job on their terrain and bushes, grass, etc.

[Gisen]

Ugh, we don't want any cryengine shenanigans. It doesn't draw enemies more than a few hundred feet away until you zoom in on them. It looks pretty but its no use for realistic games.

[Sethos]

It looks pretty but its no use for realistic games.

 

You sure about that

 

http://www.rt-immersive.com/

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkDKjQr2ea8

 

Draw distances and whatnot aren't engine limitations in this case, they are developer made performance limitations.

[lubey]

Would the larger amount of ground clutter make less of a performance hit in CA because you're not flying past it at 300+ knots? So there is less to load?

[Gisen]

You sure about that

 

http://www.rt-immersive.com/

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkDKjQr2ea8

 

Draw distances and whatnot aren't engine limitations in this case, they are developer made performance limitations.

 

As I said, it looks pretty but the draw distance limitation in the engine stands. It can't and doesnt draw things as far as needed for a flight sim or even as far as arma. The whole thing is designed to pop things up.

[Sethos]

As I said, it looks pretty but the draw distance limitation in the engine stands. It can't and doesnt draw things as far as needed for a flight sim or even as far as arma. The whole thing is designed to pop things up.

 

Actually it's very much possible to create large draw distance for objects in the CryEngine, all down to settings / the developer choice / coding. So it can easily be used for a 'realistic game', as I also just showed you. No, it's not a flight simulator capable engine but that wasn't the point either. Even the upcoming Sniper Ghost Warrior 2 which will be using the engine has large vistas. When they do add small draw distances for objects and enemies it's a performance decision.

 

The engine is fully capable of being used for realistic ground based games.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Sethos

[Gisen]

You haven't demonstrated that. Show some video of it running with a large draw distance *With units visible in the distance*. In previous games using this family of engine if draws the background at a low lod but enemies are not drawn until within a certain range.

I simply don't believe it can draw large distances with enemies visible and remain playable unlike say, the engine used in Arma3, or DCS.

-Edit- If it's not capable of flight simulation then what on earth was the point of bringing it up? Waste of time.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Gisen

[Sethos]

You haven't demonstrated that. Show some video of it running with a large draw distance *With units visible in the distance*. In previous games using this family of engine if draws the background at a low lod but enemies are not drawn until within a certain range.

I simply don't believe it can draw large distances with enemies visible and remain playable unlike say, the engine used in Arma3, or DCS.

-Edit- If it's not capable of flight simulation then what on earth was the point of bringing it up? Waste of time.

 

Because we're arguing grass and you put forth a stupid argument that it "looks pretty but can't be used in realistic games" which I peeled down in a second linking to an Army destined game built on it, no backtracking now. And you can go check out the CryEngine 3 SDK and even its FAQ / Guide, you'll see plenty of options for object draw distances - I don't have the evidence burden here.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Sethos

[shagrat]

Because we're arguing grass and you put forth a stupid argument that it "looks pretty but can't be used in realistic games" which I peeled down in a second linking to an Army destined game built on it, no backtracking now. And you can go check out the CryEngine 3 SDK and even its FAQ / Guide, you'll see plenty of options for object draw distances - I don't have the evidence burden here.

I would agree with Gisen, the thread is not about grass, but about the impact and playability with more ground clutter rendered. Realistic games means: you can see far away things like in real life and still move with at least 15-20fps, everything else is useless.

The engine may be capable of drawing objects and terrain features in detail at large distances. When you mention the programmers limiting these things, even in their FPS Games to 'enhance' performance, I guess it is utterly useless in this thread, where we discuss utmost realistic flight sim.

 

If you could show a concept video on affordable standard PC Hardware, showing the performance we may go discuss further. Now it is just another eye-candy focussed FPS engine, designed for small maps with high detail, rather than a huge world of hundreds and thousands of square miles across, with realistic rendering from 40k ft down to ground level... just my oppinion, looking at the evidence.

[nemises]

why don't you wait and see....

..I mean, what do you think it is the Devs and beta testers actually do?...

[Sethos]

I would agree with Gisen, the thread is not about grass, but about the impact and playability with more ground clutter rendered. Realistic games means: you can see far away things like in real life and still move with at least 15-20fps, everything else is useless.

The engine may be capable of drawing objects and terrain features in detail at large distances. When you mention the programmers limiting these things, even in their FPS Games to 'enhance' performance, I guess it is utterly useless in this thread, where we discuss utmost realistic flight sim.

 

Why would you need to draw anything in detail at over large distances? No engine does that, it's called LOD switching and / or streaming, and pretty much every engine employs it today. Gisen was refering to the CryEngine in realistic games and drawing enemies, i.e not limited to flight simulators as he didn't mention that whatsoever. The CryEngine is perfectly capable of a lot of the feats required for a milsim game based around ground movement.

 

No engine today draws ground clutter at large distances anyway, the RV engine in ArmA / ToH will kill a modern CPU when you crank up the sliders and there is no vegetation rendering beyond 100m of the character zoned view. So the CryEngine can easily be modified to accommodate a lot of the required features in a game engine for a milsim game, it all comes down to the developer, just like every other engine.

 

So that odd perception of the engine only being good at looking pretty is so hollow, especially when someone has already build an army specific game around it - CryEngine is a great, versatile engine and I suggest people read up on it and not judge it based on playing Crysis.

 

I'd even bet with some TLC the engine could easily be a flight simulator, as it's also perfectly capable of large environments. Like it or not, the CryEngine is one of the most powerful, scaleable and versatile engines in the industry right now.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Sethos

[Wichid]

This isn't turning into another 'DCS should rebuild the game from scratch using another engine' thread is it...

[Nate--IRL--]

I'd even bet with some TLC the engine could easily be a flight simulator, as it's also perfectly capable of large environments. Like it or not, the CryEngine is one of the most powerful, scaleable and versatile engines in the industry right now.

 

Maybe - but it has to be shown it can handle a single contiguous map the size of The Black sea, with draw distances of ~150km. Until that is attempted the jury is out.

 

Nate

[Sethos]

This isn't turning into another 'DCS should rebuild the game from scratch using another engine' thread is it...

 

No, that wasn't the point of my argument at all - Just trying to debunk the usual CryEngine misconceptions based on people playing Crysis and that's it.

 

Also on stupid blanket statements like it can't do realistic games ( However this keeps turning into whichever direction people can to be 'right' - First it was realistic games, now it needs to be a flight sim that beats every other flight sim and in a minute it needs to cure cancer as well to not be a bad engine )

 

 

Maybe - but it has to be shown it can handle a single contiguous map the size of The Black sea, with draw distances of ~150km. Until that is attempted the jury is out.

 

Nate

 

How about a map 458 times larger than the earth's surface?

 

http://www.overclock3d.net/news/software/the_true_power_of_cryengine_2/1

 

Only problem would be the draw distance but that's one of the things that could easily be changed with said TLC.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Sethos

[159th_Falcon]

No, that wasn't the point of my argument at all - Just trying to debunk the usual CryEngine misconceptions based on people playing Crysis and that's it.

 

Also on stupid blanket statements like it can't do realistic games ( However this keeps turning into whichever direction people can to be 'right' - First it was realistic games, now it needs to be a flight sim that beats every other flight sim and in a minute it needs to cure cancer as well to not be a bad engine )

 

 

 

 

How about a map 458 times larger than the earth's surface?

 

http://www.overclock3d.net/news/software/the_true_power_of_cryengine_2/1

 

Only problem would be the draw distance but that's one of the things that could easily be changed with said TLC.

 

That's just the engine limitation, doesn't mean there's anything in the world today that could actually render it.............

Which would be useful for the purpose of playing........

 

Now THAT is what I call future proof... But I just wonder, what kind of super-computer, super-server-cluster monstrosity would render even half of that huge map?...

Do you feel better now? Safe in the knowledge that your machine never stood a chance against the might of the CryENGINE, or do you still have a bitter taste in your mouth becasue you 'high end gaming rig' just didn't cut it?

[Gisen]

Gisen was refering to the CryEngine in realistic games and drawing enemies, i.e not limited to flight simulators as he didn't mention that whatsoever.

...because it was implicit in the nature of a thread about flight simulators.

 

The CryEngine is perfectly capable of a lot of the feats required for a milsim game based around ground movement.

At short range. Not capable of realistic combined arms.

 

No engine today draws ground clutter at large distances anyway, the RV engine in ArmA / ToH will kill a modern CPU when you crank up the sliders

Wrong, my old X4 940 running at stock can handle arma2 at full (10k)view distance (in singleplayer it can even handle every setting except antialiasing on max)

 

and there is no vegetation rendering beyond 100m of the character zoned view.

Wrong again. Vegetation is rendered to the full distance, grass is drawn at a low lod/ blended in to terrain to give impression of grass at distance.

 

So the CryEngine can easily be modified to accommodate a lot of the required features in a game engine for a milsim game, it all comes down to the developer, just like every other engine.

 

So that odd perception of the engine only being good at looking pretty is so hollow, especially when someone has already build an army specific game around it - CryEngine is a great, versatile engine and I suggest people read up on it and not judge it based on playing Crysis.

They made an "army specific game" around doom back in the day...

I'd even bet with some TLC the engine could easily be a flight simulator, as it's also perfectly capable of large environments. Like it or not, the CryEngine is one of the most powerful, scaleable and versatile engines in the industry right now.

Nah. It just looks pretty at close range. It can't handle the view distance required for realistic combined arms sims while looking pretty.

Developers of engines make big claims. Without seeing this engine running at a suitable viewdistance then I can't believe you.

 

The cryengine isn't magic. It can't force GPUs to draw more triangles than they are capable of. It can't keep that complexity AND draw out to even 10km, let alone flight simulator distances.

[shagrat]

I do not say CryEngine can't be used to build a flight sim, just that it is not 'optimized' for the task. See, even my Commodore 64 had "Flight Sims" back in the 80ies. Although 64kB and a CPU today built into an alarm clock don't warrant great realism.

 

If ANY of the FPS engines out there is soooo cool for flight sims, why don't they pop up like mushrooms?

Take on Helicopters, tuned DOWN the detail level on the ground for performance reasons!

I doubt Bohemia Interactive did this needless.

 

This discussion sounds like trying to sell a Flowbee© to a professional hair stylist.

 

 

...and I never(!) saw a hair stylist use it :D