[Ideas] PR Future Engine Ideas and Suggestions

[CodeRedFox]

PR Engine Ideas

So after the recent threads and post about changing engines, and the failed threads. This will be a place for you, the community to post your ideas and engine suggestions. We do care and do appreciate ideas and suggestions.

A few rules in place:

• NO one line responses like "Source is the best!". Your comment will be deleted and/or you will recieve a infraction.
• Suggestions must have links to the Engine in question.
• List of features that work for PR.
• Counter argument must have links and/or reasons why it may not work.
• Watch your attitude, this is a suggestion thread not a debate.

[waldo_ii]

The Dunia engine (Far Cry 2) would be great, if it weren't for the 16 player limit.

Edit :Post moved from another thread

[Drav]

The source engine is terrible, a massive problem they had with insurgency was that they couldnt implement proper ballistics. Instead of a bullet taking a little time to reach its target it hits instantly. This means you dont lead targets and get laser style instant hits.

Couple this with no squad system, tiny maps and weapon sway but still with cone-fire deviation, and I fail to see why it is perfect.

Insurgency does some things really well, but the source engine lets it down....

Edit :Post moved from another thread

[daranz]

Source can do projectiles, except that projectiles don't benefit from the whole lag compensation system that that Source features. Hitscan weapons are unlagged, and so you can have either that or laggy projectiles. Projectile weapons also require more CPU time. I dunno what specific problems the Insurgency team ran into, but I bet they had issues beyond that.

One of the major advantages that the Source engine has over BF2 is the fact that it can be more broadly modified. BF2 allows very little modification beyond adding new maps, models, vehicles and weapons. Source, on the other hand, can be made into a lot of things by modders.

Unfortunately, vehicles are notoriously unreliable online in Source. Eternal Silence uses custom tailored netcode to actually get their spaceship combat to work right in the newer versions, and it was glitchy and laggy in the old ones. Empires manages to use land vehicles, but it, too, sometimes has problems with physics and lag. But, hey, at least Empires has a squad system (not tied to VOIP, though).

Edit :Post moved from another thread

[Conman51]

Originally Posted by VRV

In the Source Engine can do so squads, voip by squad, commands, etc. Of course, we must work hard at it.

maybe too hard..at least w/ the bf2 engine there was something to start with..there were already flags and stuff, squad system already made, vehicles already coded...the PR mod has gone too far to switch to HL2..plus... i think bf2 was a bigger and more popular engine than the source engine at the time PR was starting off

Edit :Post moved from another thread

[[R-DEV]fuzzhead]

Can the Source engine handle AT LEAST 64 players? So far, I haven't seen any Source game with 64 players.

Yeap agree with this statement. If anyone has experience with the source engine supporting 64+ players and LARGE (ie at least 2km) maps, please post about those experiences.

My only experiences with "larger" style Source Engine gameplay was with the empires mod, which supported 48 players and approx. 2km maps (but most of the map was not in play). The mod is very creative, but the gameplay was prety bad from when I played, I tried it for about 10 hours.

As a matter of fact, I cant think of ANY fps game with 64 player limit that runs STABLE in an open public environment OTHER than BF2. If anyone has experience with other games that run with 64 or more players on large maps, please post about them as were always looking for that next engine!

ArmA is an exception, but STABLE and ArmA arent exactly the right way to describe it Hopefully ArmA2 will be much better, but we are talking about released games here, not future stuff that has yet to be proven.

Edit :Post moved from another thread

[Hotrod525]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]fuzzhead

Yeap agree with this statement. If anyone has experience with the source engine supporting 64+ players and LARGE (ie at least 2km) maps, please post about those experiences.

My only experiences with "larger" style Source Engine gameplay was with the empires mod, which supported 48 players and approx. 2km maps (but most of the map was not in play). The mod is very creative, but the gameplay was prety bad from when I played, I tried it for about 10 hours.

As a matter of fact, I cant think of ANY fps game with 64 player limit that runs STABLE in an open public environment OTHER than BF2. If anyone has experience with other games that run with 64 or more players on large maps, please post about them as were always looking for that next engine!

ArmA is an exception, but STABLE and ArmA arent exactly the right way to describe it Hopefully ArmA2 will be much better, but we are talking about released games here, not future stuff that has yet to be proven.

a mix of ARMA2 and OF2DR could be nice... the payer limit of Arma2, the map size of OP2DR, whit the nice effect of Dragon Rising... (realistic balistic, stabalised gun, thermal sight...) =D

BTW how much cost a license ? from UE3 by exemple... or any engine like that 250 - 300K ?

Edit :Post moved from another thread

[kf_reaper]

Originally Posted by Tartantyco

-Yes, Insurgency sucks and PR doesn't.

i dont know about that. haveing to set out to shoot showing all of your body sucks. being able to lean out is good!, not really being able to deploy an MG suck "changing mg to deployed mg does not really count on the fact you have to load it each time" oh ya PR we cant deploy the marksmen rifle ether. but you can in insurgency. the grenade launcher in PR don't have the best sight they really dont work that well. but in insurgency you have to use the sight just like the real thing like you use your iron sight on the rifle but you got to mesher up your angle for the range you want to hit. but even thow insurgency is only infantry combat. it get that better then PR. i really dont even bother playing as infantry in PR anymore ill drive/shot a tank or helo. + i end up geting better people in a tank or helo then if im in a dame infantry squad i get the @#$@ uber players.

and it is alot EZer to get your self killed or kills in insurgency you tend to live longer in PR in a fire fight.

don't get me wrong i like PR just the infantry part of it is not quite ware it could be.

Edit :Post moved from another thread

[eggman]

My guess is that ArmA 2 is not going to focus on large scale conflicts as much as their engine technology might allow. I think it's going to include a lot of focus on the AI and on a "story driven" campaign. I say that because ArmA 2 is also going to be released on consoles. Perhaps I am wrong... but I can't see 100+ players being practical for a console FPS. Also I've seen some stuff in interviews abou ArmA 2 that imply "less is more" because they have made the AI much smarter. I interpret this as "we're capping the # of players lower so the GPU, CPU and our pogrammers can focus on other things".

Also iirc, ArmA 2 is on a completely new engine whereas ArmA 1 was built on an evolved OFP engine. I believe ArmA 2 is "Game 2" .. which is what I think everyone hoped that ArmA 1 was going to be. On paper ArmA 2 looks outstanding, if they can manage to release a polished product it will potentially be amazing. But I'll be surprised if it's stable at 60+ players.

egg

Edit :Post moved from another thread

[STORM-Mama]

I completely agree with whoever said that they wished Valve had created the BF2 engine... They understand that people want to modify their games, always have. Judging from what have been said about the BF2-engine on these forums it ain't close to as mod-friendly as Valves engine.

Edit :Post moved from another thread