PDA

View Full Version : Game engine & physics



Pages : 1 [2]

Blade_hunter
7th Mar 2009, 18:43
Ah ! This is what I thought and even if it was said before (I don't remember where is the post but, I don't care anymore)
Thank you for the answer :)

AaronJ
7th Mar 2009, 19:36
Really I wouldn't worry about the tech. The TRU engine as a base is good but the dev team is also making significant upgrades to it. There's the DX3 dev team, plus a team of dedicated engineers just working on the engine and its tools, plus a team of engineers in Crystal making improvements. DX3 will not resemble TRU at all. The engine is fine but the gameplay and artistic direction set things apart.

And an SDK..? Pretty please? :(

K^2
7th Mar 2009, 22:06
Yeah, I'm curious as well. What engine would you have chosen, K^2?

CryEngine 2? UEngine 3? Tech 5?
Unreal 3 or Source. Source is a bit dated, but it is constantly upgraded, so it should be fine. Unreal Engine would probably be better for DX-feel, though. Also, it would put all 3 DX games on 3 different generations of Unreal engine.

Cry2 isn't bad, but I don't think it works quite as well with confined spaces. And I haven't really had much exposure to Tech 5. Though, Tech 4 had some very nice features that would be perfect for DX3. Id est, the scripted console windows. I don't know if that feature migrated to Tech 5. If it did, and the engine performs well, it might actually swing my choice to that one. But as I said, I never have seen it run, so I can't really talk about it.

Blade_hunter
7th Mar 2009, 22:21
For me U engine 3 was a perfect choice IMO, but I think the engine costs a lot and try to improve an "home made" engine is perhaps cheaper than use an other engine and they can reach satisfying results with....

HouseOfPain
7th Mar 2009, 22:25
For me U engine 3 was a perfect choice IMO, but I think the engine costs a lot and try to improve an "home made" engine is perhaps cheaper than use an other engine and they can reach satisfying results with....

I dislike the Unreal Engine on anything that isn't Epic's work; any company thus far that has used it can't seem to load textures fast enough. Mass Effect comes to mind pretty quickly where you would have a scene open up and it would take another 4 seconds for everything to pop in.

I'm glad they're using the CD engine, they know it, they've used it, it doesn't cost them to use it and it looks good.

Graphics are just gravy anyway, I'd rather them work on Gameplay.

K^2
7th Mar 2009, 22:26
Compared to overall dev costs? I don't think it would make a big dent in the game's budget. This is really an attempt to perfect house engine so that it can be licensed out. It's not the best choice for DX3 development. But it is far from the worst one, either, so I'm willing to wait and see how it turns out.

Edit:
HoP, problems with CD aren't in graphics. It's mostly physics that concern me. In a game like DX3, if you end up getting caught on an invisible corner of some object, or manage to clip through a box, it would be really bad. These kinds of things happened in TRU, where physics geometry is very simple. It worries me a bit with DX3, where physical geometry needs to be very complex for the gameplay.

Blade_hunter
7th Mar 2009, 22:38
The physics are very important IMO for a DX game but like you I prefer to wait

K^2
7th Mar 2009, 22:41
CD engine has the fundamentals for good physics. It's just a matter of tweaking it. I'd be perfectly confident in EM's ability to do that right, but since IW, where they started with a good physics engine and tweaked it into something that would give a good physicist nightmares, I'm a bit worried.

I really would like to have a chance to see their engine some time early, and have a chance to talk to people who are in charge of it. If there are problems with simulations, I probably would be able to spot their cause.

WhatsHisFace
7th Mar 2009, 22:49
The physics are very important IMO for a DX game but like you I prefer to wait

Deus Ex barely had physics at all, and Invisible War butchered the Havok or Karma engine. Whicher one it used. How can you say "physics are important for a Deus Ex game" after those two titles?

Blade_hunter
7th Mar 2009, 22:49
What do you think about the physics in Snowblind ?

I see Snowblind uses an Engine called GexOmen, but nothing about TRU

K^2
7th Mar 2009, 22:55
Deus Ex barely had physics at all, and Invisible War butchered the Havok or Karma engine. Whicher one it used. How can you say "physics are important for a Deus Ex game" after those two titles?
You misunderstand, a bit, what Physics in the game means.

Physics, in its root, is the study of change. Physics in a game engine is the entire system that governs the way the positions and states of various objects change. Biggest problem that the Physics engine must solve is what happens when two objects collide. Original Deus Ex had a good collision detection system and a solid, albeit very simple, response to it. Invisible War still had a pretty good detection system, but a butchered response system. Crystal Dynamics engine has problems with detecting collisions in he first place. If that isn't addressed, it will spell doom for entire concept of climbing on and around boxes and through ducts in DX3.

That'd be very bad for gameplay.

Edit: Never played Snowblind, so I don't think about Physics in it.

Jerion
8th Mar 2009, 03:12
Well it's good to know significant improvements have been made to CD then.