PDA

View Full Version : Possibility of CryEngine2 as an excellent choice in realistic WW2 flight simulator ?



zlin
12-01-2007, 11:45 AM
Hello,
can't get this out of my head for some reason.
Just by looking on what is possible with this CryEngine2, with realistic weather , day and night cycles, unbelievable lighting and dynamic soft shadows in real time , amazing details ,
physics , really huge hundreds of miles maps , the engine is abble to render 50x50 square kilometers of scenery without any loading, zoom in possibility to see almost pilots color of his eyes 8 miles away that could be used through the similar option to the binocular used with CryEngine2.
After seeing how the developers were creating huge maps on the fly with few mouse clicks using template for changing the landscape size and terrain is simply mindbogling idea.
Even thou this will highly likely never happen, I would love to know what you think about it.
Please share your opinion on how crazy or realistic could be CryEngine2 and WW2 flight sim in the near future.
Why Jeeps and boats ? fighter planes baby !!!
Pipe dream ?

TX-EcoDragon
12-01-2007, 01:17 PM
Yeah. . I've been skimming over and through the trees in Crysis choppers dreaming of the same thing. . .

Phas3e
12-01-2007, 03:18 PM
A couple of us were going to try it with ET:QW as an arcade type bf42 shooter, but with the game being a flop (here in NZ at least)we scrapped it.

We had a quick talk about Crysis maybe filling the spot.

Heres some sample renders of the models we made

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v164/Phas3e/190_spit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v164/Phas3e/supermarine_spit_mk1a.jpg

ElAurens
12-01-2007, 04:36 PM
It would make a great Pacific sim, as at least we know it could render good jungle textures.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LEXX_Luthor
12-01-2007, 04:55 PM
A 50km x 50km map is less than what we have in FB/PF. FB/PF Perfect Mode grafix offers 30km horizon distance.

The circular FB/PF maximum map area is pi * (30 * 30)kmkm = 2827kmkm

The square CryMap area is said above to be (50 x 50)kmkm = 2500kmkm

FB/PF offers a larger displayed game map than Cry2, unless, (1) the displayed CryMap can be vastly increased, or (2) the only CryFlyable is a ground support aircraft used primarily near treetop level such as, for a random example, the IL-2 Sturmovik.

zardozid
12-01-2007, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
A 50km x 50km map is less than what we have in FB/PF. FB/PF Perfect Mode grafix offers 30km horizon distance.

The circular FB/PF maximum map area is pi * (30 * 30)kmkm = 2827kmkm

The square CryMap area is said above to be (50 x 50)kmkm = 2500kmkm

FB/PF offers a larger displayed game map than Cry2, unless, (1) the displayed CryMap can be vastly increased, or (2) the only CryFlyable plane is a ground support aircraft used primarily near treetop level such as, say, the IL-2 Sturmovik, as a random example.

A map of this size could be used for "dogfighting" and short bombing/ground attack missions... <span class="ev_code_PINK">Air skirmishes</span> !

It would be fun if one could participate in air/ground/sea skirmishes...I can see it now (ground attacking airplanes, 1st person shooter, caves, PT Boats, air to air dogfights, tanks, jeeps, flame throwers, midget subs dropping off frog men to blow up fuel dumps, or parachute to safety and make your way back to "your" side of the island, ground crew...a multi-player game of conquer the island???)

the "crymap" would be wonderful for a "pacific" theme...

LEXX_Luthor
12-01-2007, 06:06 PM
50km sided square map displayed would be total disaster for the Pacific theater. When the Pacific weather was clear, it was very clear, and pilots could see for hundreds of kilometers from altitude. Granted, for....

(1) a PC, XBoX or SONY dogfight shooter game, or...

(2) as covered above concerning purely low altitude 'sturmovik' Army support operations...

...then yes, a 50km sided square of map displayed would work fine, and indeed, be far more than needed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

M_Gunz
12-01-2007, 06:17 PM
A map you can cross in 7 minutes or so at WWII combat speed, about 30x30 miles
might be okay for limited WWI airwar sim but really tight even for that.

zardozid
12-01-2007, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
50km sided square map displayed would be total disaster for the Pacific theater. When the Pacific weather was clear, it was very clear, and pilots could see for hundreds of kilometers from altitude. Granted, for....

(1) a PC, XBoX or SONY dogfight shooter game, or...

(2) as covered above concerning purely low altitude 'sturmovik' Army support operations...

...then yes, a 50km sided square of map displayed would work fine, and indeed, be far more than needed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Am I wrong in thinking that they could make the ocean "go on forever" (outside/beyond the island map)?

LEXX_Luthor
12-01-2007, 10:53 PM
Think about ships, more distant ship wakes, even more distant towering smoke plumes or more than one (1) solitary lone island which has to be smaller than the map size which would prevent modelling Guadacanal at 100km end to end. Volcanic plumes on the distant 200km horizon would be a Spanking new feature for WW2 Pacific theater, especially roundabout the Rabaul area.

zlin
12-02-2007, 06:09 AM
I strongly believe, that 50x50 kilometers map in CryEngine2 was just developer's size limited because there was no need for bigger map for originally first person shooter game.
Who on earth needs to run all 50 x 50 square kilometers terrain in FPS game ?
I don't need myself much of infantry involved , just focus on the planes for dogfights , bombers and terrain which majority of islands are already done with some changes to template converting the shape and size of the islands.
Now , with this neat new option to shoot any tree at any level , damaging any part of the building when hit by screaming fighter plane or bomber coud be simply amazing.
Explosions and debris flying is already as real as it could get with CryEngine2.
Just imagine goig down in your damaged plane to the very live jungle and wings starting cutting those smaller trees and then part of your wing will begun to be ripped apart by a bigger trees.
Physics with CryEngine2 are way beyond level we could all dream a long time ago.
I wish this could be done someday. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
People have been crying here for ages with possibility of more future details and I'm sure new B.O.B. will deliver nice treat but it still very limited on OpenGl structure.
I'm afraid that CryEngine2 and maybe soon CryEngine3 did moved PC games to the completely new level never before imaginable.

Genie-
12-02-2007, 07:08 AM
guys...

Every engine of AAA game is done SPECIFICALLY for the type of game you are playing. Not to go too deep into details.. but if you create FPS your priorities what you will implement (graphically and AI wise) are much much different then what you need in Air Combat Simulator.

So no, using Crytek engine is not a good idea.

Xiolablu3
12-02-2007, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
A 50km x 50km map is less than what we have in FB/PF. FB/PF Perfect Mode grafix offers 30km horizon distance.

The circular FB/PF maximum map area is pi * (30 * 30)kmkm = 2827kmkm

The square CryMap area is said above to be (50 x 50)kmkm = 2500kmkm

FB/PF offers a larger displayed game map than Cry2, unless, (1) the displayed CryMap can be vastly increased, or (2) the only CryFlyable is a ground support aircraft used primarily near treetop level such as, for a random example, the IL-2 Sturmovik.

Lexx beat me too it.

The sheer amount of graphics/data/stuff etc that a flight sim engine has to render is far beyond that of a first person shooter. You have to SEE nearly 50km never mind just have an island that big.

Its all to do with being high up, in a fps a lot of the ground is obscured, so the engine can almost forget about rendering it. The Z buffer works out what the person can see, and then just draws that part. In a flight sim he can see for miles and miles, and then the comp has to be working out what the AI planes are doing 1000 miles across the other side of the map.

I'm afraid its a totally different ballgame, and why you wont see totally realistic graphics in combat flight sims for quite a while AFTER FPS games get them.

Think about the system specs for MS FSX, and there is little to no action going on in that sim. IL2/SOW:BOB has to do all that AND work out all the gunnery, AI, and be capable of a lot of planes fighting at once, not just doing a few stunts on their own.

I am by no means a programming expert, but I would think it was common sense, once you think about it properly.

Think how much farther, and how many more objects you can see when you fly just 500metres high, compared to looking out the top floor window of your house.

Xiolablu3
12-02-2007, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by zlin:
I strongly believe, that 50x50 kilometers map in CryEngine2 was just developer's size limited because there was no need for bigger map for originally first person shooter game.
Who on earth needs to run all 50 x 50 square kilometers terrain in FPS game ?
I don't need myself much of infantry involved , just focus on the planes for dogfights , bombers and terrain which majority of islands are already done with some changes to template converting the shape and size of the islands.
Now , with this neat new option to shoot any tree at any level , damaging any part of the building when hit by screaming fighter plane or bomber coud be simply amazing.
Explosions and debris flying is already as real as it could get with CryEngine2.
Just imagine goig down in your damaged plane to the very live jungle and wings starting cutting those smaller trees and then part of your wing will begun to be ripped apart by a bigger trees.
Physics with CryEngine2 are way beyond level we could all dream a long time ago.
I wish this could be done someday. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
People have been crying here for ages with possibility of more future details and I'm sure new B.O.B. will deliver nice treat but it still very limited on OpenGl structure.
I'm afraid that CryEngine2 and maybe soon CryEngine3 did moved PC games to the completely new level never before imaginable.


Do you know the difference between OPengl and Direct X? All the Quake, Doom and ID stuff was written in Opengl, did that look 'limited'? Nope those games had the most stunning graphics of their time...

It has nothing to do with Opengl being 'limited'. Its all to do with the skill of the programmer. If the programmer is good enough, then Opengl could well look better than DirectX, as it did when Quake, Quake3, Doom3 etc were released.

Anyway, back to the discussion :-

I have a mid-range PC, Athlon 4200+ X2, 1.5gb ram, Geforce 7900GS, and Crysis only ran at around 30fps (minimum for smooth play) on medium settings. It needs a monster to run it on full settings. its slow even on my friends Core2Duo, 2gb and 8800GTS on high settings, 1024x768 no AA and thats not even very high, its high settings.

Crysis is right on the limit of being playable even on a very good PC with the very top end graphics card.


You cant really go anywhere, anyway. Try and it and you will be surprised that you are very limited to where you can actually go. You certainly cant roam around the island by any means.

Its all laid out so you THINK you can go anywhere, but you can't. You find mountains everywhere blocking you into the level that you cannot climb.

zlin
12-02-2007, 09:49 AM
Absolutely ! the game engine is done SPECIFICALLY each differently for FPS and flight sim but then question would be what older OpenGL structure is having extra that CryEngine2 could be missing or unable to render and pull out these days on DX9 or 10 ?
Microsoft flight sim add-ons from third party are beginning to make wonders with real weather , flying physics and much more on an engine that I think is still way less advanced than CryEngine2.
I thou do not want to mix apples with oranges http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Xiolablu3
12-02-2007, 09:51 AM
OPengl is being constantly developed by incredibly talented programmers like John Carmack all the time...

A good reason to use Opengl is that its portable to all operating systems, and a world standard.

You are not tied to Microsoft or windows as its open source.

HuninMunin
12-02-2007, 09:54 AM
You always have to keep in mind that the engine was intentional build to be "open ended" in terms of the graphics settings.
No current hardware could possible render the CryEngine in it's unlimited form.
It's a little bit like the IL-2 engine in that regard: it will still look great in years.

Xiolablu3
12-02-2007, 10:05 AM
OPengl 3.0 is apparantly due to be released very very soon :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL

zlin
12-02-2007, 10:17 AM
Thank you Xiolablu3 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
Wow, I completely missed OpenGL 3.0 news !!
Whatever future might bring, I hope for the best with WW2 flight sim development .

heywooood
12-02-2007, 10:20 AM
hmmm cry2 for WWII?....no.

but for a Vietnam Huey sim...with some Spads and whatnot?

Medevac missions and troop insertions, gunship strikes etc...whynot?

Xiolablu3
12-02-2007, 10:23 AM
Here is some older stuff about the history of Direct3d and Opengl. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Obviously thinkgs have changed now, but its interesting reading nonetheless :-

http://www.azillionmonkeys.com/windoze/OpenGLvsDirect3D.html


Basically, its all about the programmer. If hes good then he can write amazing stuff.effects in either D3D or Opengl. What I am trying toi say is that I really wouldnt worry about which a game is programmed in.

There are great games programmed in both. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

heywooood
12-02-2007, 10:39 AM
microskills wants you to think there is a difference so you will buy their O/S...

its all marketing - ie: Bullsh1t