• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
vasduten1

Switch to UR4

176 posts in this topic

Guys, the Unreal4 engine is free to use.

 

You pay a royalty of 5% in gross sales after $3,000 is made.

 

 

You're not going to be able to sell this game in its current state, not even to niche gamers like us.

If you port over to UR4, and spend your limited dev time making THAT happen, you WILL see people lining up to play a massively multiplayer first person shooter on a scale nobody has ever seen and with actual lighting effects and the rest.

 

It's free, and you pay a royalty after $3,000 of gross sales. Then, it's a 5% royalty from gross sales.

Sounds doable for such a huge advancement in the life of this game. 

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/unreal-engine-4-is-now-free/

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/faq

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/blog/ue4-is-free

 

 

The thing is... it's been free to use since 2015.

 

We HAVE to start using a new engine.

Sure, it's keen that you've figured out how to modify the LOOK of terrain, as in the XMas patch... but really, the rest of the code is not known or manageable. 

You're driving a car without a steering wheel, and it's falling apart.

It's a 1984 Ford Escort with aluminum parts glued on to look like a modern car. By modern, I mean a 2005 car; not a 2017 car.

 

 

 

I've been playing a lot of PUBG lately, and coming back to WWIIOL is like a shock, every time.

The WWIIOL engine is not smooth, has crude textures and edges and the terrain is rock hard and buggy.

 

Lets get on with it.

 

I'll even toss $200 your way in a kickstarter to help, though it's a small amount. I'm willing to part with it for the CHANCE at seeing WWIIOL not suck and actually attract players who WILL pay a sub for this.

 

 

@saronin

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do kind of agree with you Vas. Current dev is akin to life support when a new life is ready and available.

CRS comment required. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's never easy to find stuff around here, but this has already been announced here.

 

UE4 does seem a good fit for the game, with the added bonus of having some very easy to work with components. This might just mean that they can open up for some kind of community work/contributions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, king4t said:

I know it's never easy to find stuff around here, but this has already been announced here.

Yep, this has been announced already. However, the answer to the question "How long will it take until we have UR4" is a resounding   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  

I do think It would breathe a new life into this game - to the point were we see a consistent population like we did back in the old days. I would also throw money at CRS to get this moving, but its noteworthy to remember the size of the team trying to push these things through is small and either way will take awhile. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rotsechs said:

I do kind of agree with you Vas. Current dev is akin to life support when a new life is ready and available.

CRS comment required. 

We won't get one.

They seem stuck in some situation that they can't shake, like a monkey who is only trapped because he refuses to let go of the fruit.

 

19 minutes ago, bmw2 said:

Yep, this has been announced already. However, the answer to the question "How long will it take until we have UR4" is a resounding   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  

I do think It would breathe a new life into this game - to the point were we see a consistent population like we did back in the old days. I would also throw money at CRS to get this moving, but its noteworthy to remember the size of the team trying to push these things through is small and either way will take awhile. 

Small team? All the more reason to stop using the crummy engine. Imagine all that could be done by this team if they didn't have to first kill a chicken or pig, drain it's blood into a copper bowl, grind up the owl's beak, add a pinch of spider eyes, then sprinkle with rosin powder from the Vorpal tree? Wait... maybe it's add the vorpal tree powder and THEN add owl's beak. Nobody FACKING KNOWS.

That's my whole point.

Nobody knows how to modify anything of import in this engine. It's not 2000 any more; you don't have to create an entire game engine to make this sort of stuff possible. They've figured out a way to remove hand cranks from cars, and add things like HEAT and WIPERS, but no... we'll keep shoving this jalopy along, thank you very much.

 

My patience with this engine is at an end.

After playing a current, one-time-purchase MMOFPS for a week, it's SO hard  to go back to this and have actual fun.

This is madness.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vasduten1 said:

Guys, the Unreal4 engine is free to use.

 

You pay a royalty of 5% in gross sales after $3,000 is made.

 

 

You're not going to be able to sell this game in its current state, not even to niche gamers like us.

If you port over to UR4, and spend your limited dev time making THAT happen, you WILL see people lining up to play a massively multiplayer first person shooter on a scale nobody has ever seen and with actual lighting effects and the rest.

 

It's free, and you pay a royalty after $3,000 of gross sales. Then, it's a 5% royalty from gross sales.

Sounds doable for such a huge advancement in the life of this game. 

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/unreal-engine-4-is-now-free/

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/faq

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/blog/ue4-is-free

 

 

The thing is... it's been free to use since 2015.

 

We HAVE to start using a new engine.

Sure, it's keen that you've figured out how to modify the LOOK of terrain, as in the XMas patch... but really, the rest of the code is not known or manageable. 

You're driving a car without a steering wheel, and it's falling apart.

It's a 1984 Ford Escort with aluminum parts glued on to look like a modern car. By modern, I mean a 2005 car; not a 2017 car.

 

 

 

I've been playing a lot of PUBG lately, and coming back to WWIIOL is like a shock, every time.

The WWIIOL engine is not smooth, has crude textures and edges and the terrain is rock hard and buggy.

 

Lets get on with it.

 

I'll even toss $200 your way in a kickstarter to help, though it's a small amount. I'm willing to part with it for the CHANCE at seeing WWIIOL not suck and actually attract players who WILL pay a sub for this.

 

 

@saronin

Unreal 4 is not the issue.  It's the terrain generation that is the problem.  Maybe use a procedural terrain generator that can be ported into Unreal 4 like World Creator.  That CRS would have to purchase.

http://www.world-creator.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, king4t said:

I know it's never easy to find stuff around here, but this has already been announced here.

 

UE4 does seem a good fit for the game, with the added bonus of having some very easy to work with components. This might just mean that they can open up for some kind of community work/contributions.

I do not agree that things such as skins or other gameplay stuff takes precedence over the bad mechanics, poor graphics and buggy/exploitable engine we have now. Not to mention going to a 64bit platform and the anti-cheat capabilities therein.

There is just NO reason good enough to keep pulling what little dev resources they have to plug holes in the crummy version we have now and NOT go for a new platform. 

 

Keep this monstrosity alive and running... but in the meantime put all hands on UR4 and let's get on with it already.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, saronin said:

Unreal 4 is not the issue.  It's the terrain generation that is the problem.  Maybe use a procedural terrain generator that can be ported into Unreal 4 like World Creator.  That CRS would have to purchase.

http://www.world-creator.com/

So what? Have a fundraiser and let's all get this to happen. 

How much could it be? $15,000?

That's nothing. 

Plenty of people here would toss money toward that and have said so already.

That's in addition to paying a sub.

 

What CRS is asking right now, to keep paying subs for this game as is is just too much.

Sure, Steam wasn't meant to solve all of our problems, but it was low-hanging fruit.

Did it get us more subscribers? I think not, based on in game populations currently.

 

I think most Steam players downloaded it, saw it and left. Nobody is willing to pay for even a month of this, where they can go buy any number of other titles as a one-time purchase fee and play elsewhere.

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pittpete said:

How do you know this isn't being done already?

Hmmmmmmmm-_-

...because it shows up at the very bottom of a dev note, and the things most talked about are audits and new additions to gear.

 

I think Steam, new gear, the HE KE audit are a waste of time if they are to be ported to a new and GOOD engine.

One that can be worked on and people from this century understand how to use.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If you port over to UR4, and spend your limited dev time making THAT happen

Not the same devs for models, moderate new features and UI and client/server code tweaks as for interfacing the database to a new game engine.

It's like comparing customization of a car, to radically revising the car's underlying technology. The former can be done by a small team of mechanics and craftspersons, the latter may be a major engineering project.

So you can't re-purpose the existing dev efforts toward a new engine. 

That's not to say that CRS isn't headed there. It's just that actually doing that work is likely to have to wait until the staff has gotten bigger. Then Dev Team One will continue the essential work that's ongoing now, which is critical to immediate marketing efforts, while Dev Team Two...with a different set of skills and experience...will implement the new engine.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving to UE4 would be an obvious improvement but the game still wouldn't be successful. This game has few players because of very poor decisions by the devs not because of engine limitations. I mean nothing in the engine forced them to remove squad missions or require six minutes to capture a simple depot. That's 100% dev just like the decision to spend untold man hours implementing board game mechanics rather than work on the FPS.

3 hours ago, vasduten1 said:

I've been playing a lot of PUBG lately, and coming back to WWIIOL is like a shock, every time.

Almost any modern FPS is going to feel refreshing after this one because in those games the FPS experience is the priority. PUBG in particular has a good mix of long and close range combat. There you can't track players by the sound of their footsteps from 100 meters away through walls, weapons appear in the center of your screen and don't have retarded levels of sway, and an automatic weapon kicks with some recoil rather than randomly flinging bullets out the barrel like a blunderbuss. Just those three things dramatically change infantry gameplay and none of them are due to WW2online's proprietary engine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Not the same devs for models, moderate new features and UI and client/server code tweaks as for interfacing the database to a new game engine.

It's like comparing customization of a car, to radically revising the car's underlying technology. The former can be done by a small team of mechanics and craftspersons, the latter may be a major engineering project.

So you can't re-purpose the existing dev efforts toward a new engine. 

That's not to say that CRS isn't headed there. It's just that actually doing that work is likely to have to wait until the staff has gotten bigger. Then Dev TEam One will continue the essential work that's ongoing now, which is critical to immediate marketing efforts, while Dev Team Two...with a different set of skills and experience...will implement the new engine.

Well, that is sad news.

 

It means that all of the efforts going on right now are not likely to be usable in a version 2.0 with a good 64bit engine running it.

 

 

I'm sorry to say this, but unless WWIIOL gets it's [censored] out of the 2001 coding sling and enters the present in terms of coding for gaming , they'll never keep enough players around to afford  anything but a long slow decline to a sad end.

It's so hard to play and enjoy for me right now. I'm still paying a sub, and really am pulling for the team, but I'm not encouraged at all.

 

If I paid a sub for the next year, ($179.88,) as I have off and on for the last sixteen plus years, I'm not sure I'll see a return in terms of a seriously fun online gaming experience. 

The thing is, I've spent well over $700 on this game already over the years.

I've given small amounts during drives where I'd spare whatever I could afford, too.

 

 

The game is blocky, rough, has very poor weapon performances currently and that gets SO old. I am glad that EI drop when hit now though. That's a vast improvement. 

It doesn't make it easier to swallow a game with low population and very poor HE/KE properties. I've been holding on for going on a year for these and sat through Steam waiting to see a game where my SMG didn't spray a 6-7ft cone at 25M and grenades that kill or maim when they detonate 4ft in front of an EI who is crouched. 

 

 

I went and paid $30 for a game recently and jump in to a good tactical fight every drop where even a stun grenade will cause enough disorientation in your foe that they're blind and all they hear is ringing. Grenades will clear half a room.

I aim and shoot and don't have to try and lob a rain of 9MM in a pattern around an opponent in the hopes that maybe I'll nick his head or torso with one or two. 

Even firing bursts with the SMGs in this game results in the random flyers dominating the grouping.  That's not how these weapons were at all and everyone knows this.

 

Now recently I read that the HE/KE audit, (my only reason for hanging in here,) is projected for later in 2018 and I'm exasperated. That's not good value at all.

$179.88/yr and the version currently being played just doesn't cut it.  Not by a long shot for that kind of money.  

 

Offering the market a game that offers a MMOFPS with as much WWII gear as can be modeled but does a very poor job of it for $179.88/yr isn't gonna work. You can't sell a 2005 car for new 2017 prices, no matter how much cash you need. Not enough people will buy in and the cycle repeats over and over again for additions to the current build, which looks like Minecraft compared to anything, and I mean ANYTHING built on UR4. 

Titles that ask a one time fee. 

 

I'm having a hard time justifying a sub for another year. I was thrilled to see the 109 get fixed, and news of the HE audit became news of the HE/KE audit, and then it's just been pushed back and pushed back. I don't doubt the sheer immensity of such an undertaking, but a year, then "later in 2018" for implementation? When the ground game is already something to be gamed because of quirks and inaccurate representations of weapons and accuracy or damage?

 

A bitter pill to swallow.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, david01 said:

Moving to UE4 would be an obvious improvement but the game still wouldn't be successful. This game has few players because of very poor decisions by the devs not because of engine limitations. I mean nothing in the engine forced them to remove squad missions or require six minutes to capture a simple depot. That's 100% dev just like the decision to spend untold man hours implementing board game mechanics rather than work on the FPS.

Almost any modern FPS is going to feel refreshing after this one because in those games the FPS experience is the priority. PUBG in particular has a good mix of long and close range combat. There you can't track players by the sound of their footsteps from 100 meters away through walls, weapons appear in the center of your screen and don't have retarded levels of sway, and an automatic weapon kicks with some recoil rather than randomly flinging bullets out the barrel like a blunderbuss. Just those three things dramatically change infantry gameplay and none of them are due to WW2online's proprietary engine. 

I understand that these are dev decisions, and do not deny their importance as factors affecting gameplay. 

Those kinds of decisions will always affect gameplay, but I'm only talking about the engine here and the possibilities of seeing it get an update. 

Things like stale scenery, lack of lighting effects, and granite tough terrain are indeed big detractors. The excuse has been that they don't know how to interact with or change the terrain coding. They have to work daily with a game that has one of the biggest components to implementing BETTER FPS gaming because the engine is almost inaccessible to them. When tanks or ATG rocking discussions come up, the solution is always in the engine, which can't be changed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, saronin said:

Unreal 4 is not the issue.  It's the terrain generation that is the problem.  Maybe use a procedural terrain generator that can be ported into Unreal 4 like World Creator.  That CRS would have to purchase.

http://www.world-creator.com/

I dont think Terrain generation is an "Issue" per say, they have digital sat terrain scans, that per voices of old, they could generate unlimited amounts of land.
Empty land is not terribly useful though, hell we have more contiguous 3d navigable land right now than probably any game in history?

Towns on the other hand, are probably time consuming cause you can tell someone made each one, by hand, and obviously tried to follow some semblance of the real thing even if on a condensed level. (and even made handmade booboos sometimes)
I don't think you are going to auto generate towns that are real in that.
Towns have code of some sort, they have function and interact with strat, they do stuff.

Somehow i don't think there is a magical bean for that?
I think a human being will always be needed for that

As far as U4 goes, you're talking about the renderer, one particular part.
And we don't actually know if it is wholly suitable or feasible, the reason they made Unity was out of shear necessity.
I am guessing there is not 50 guys whose area is the render engine.
So what do all these none 3d engine coding type persons do? Nothing? Fire them? Sell them to the foreign sex worker market?
 

Ok, so while Mr 3d Rendering Engine programmer type guy looks at whatever, nothing else happens, no fixes, no new vehicles no nothing whatsoever at all, 0 nada zip.
Yea, i see that going over about as well as a fart in a space suit.

player: Hey CRS why no infantry support vehicles
CRS: working on new renderer
player: oh?  the modeler and vehicle guys working on that too?
CRS: no of course not, they dont know how, they arent 3d engine programmers.
player: WTF? So WHY NO NEW TOYS!?!?!?!?!?!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

I dont think Terrain generation is an "Issue" per say, they have digital sat terrain scans, that per voices of old, they could generate unlimited amounts of land.
Empty land is not terribly useful though, hell we have more contiguous 3d navigable land right now than probably any game in history?

Towns on the other hand, are probably time consuming cause you can tell someone made each one, by hand, and obviously tried to follow some semblance of the real thing even if on a condensed level. (and even made handmade booboos sometimes)
I don't think you are going to auto generate towns that are real in that.
Towns have code of some sort, they have function and interact with strat, they do stuff.

Somehow i don't think there is a magical bean for that?
I think a human being will always be needed for that

As far as U4 goes, you're talking about the renderer, one particular part.
And we don't actually know if it is wholly suitable or feasible, the reason they made Unity was out of shear necessity.
I am guessing there is not 50 guys whose area is the render engine.
So what do all these none 3d engine coding type persons do? Nothing? Fire them? Sell them to the foreign sex worker market?
 

Ok, so while Mr 3d Rendering Engine programmer type guy looks at whatever, nothing else happens, no fixes, no new vehicles no nothing whatsoever at all, 0 nada zip.
Yea, i see that going over about as well as a fart in a space suit.

player: Hey CRS why no infantry support vehicles
CRS: working on new renderer
player: oh?  the modeler and vehicle guys working on that too?
CRS: no of course not, they dont know how, they arent 3d engine programmers.
player: WTF? So WHY NO NEW TOYS!?!?!?!?!?!

 

 

You can use world creator to import sat data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, vasduten1 said:

Well, that is sad news.

 

It means that all of the efforts going on right now are not likely to be usable in a version 2.0 with a good 64bit engine running it.

 

 

I'm sorry to say this, but unless WWIIOL gets it's [censored] out of the 2001 coding sling and enters the present in terms of coding for gaming , they'll never keep enough players around to afford  anything but a long slow decline to a sad end.

It's so hard to play and enjoy for me right now. I'm still paying a sub, and really am pulling for the team, but I'm not encouraged at all.

 

If I paid a sub for the next year, ($179.88,) as I have off and on for the last sixteen plus years, I'm not sure I'll see a return in terms of a seriously fun online gaming experience. 

The thing is, I've spent well over $700 on this game already over the years.

I've given small amounts during drives where I'd spare whatever I could afford, too.

 

 

The game is blocky, rough, has very poor weapon performances currently and that gets SO old. I am glad that EI drop when hit now though. That's a vast improvement. 

It doesn't make it easier to swallow a game with low population and very poor HE/KE properties. I've been holding on for going on a year for these and sat through Steam waiting to see a game where my SMG didn't spray a 6-7ft cone at 25M and grenades that kill or maim when they detonate 4ft in front of an EI who is crouched. 

 

 

I went and paid $30 for a game recently and jump in to a good tactical fight every drop where even a stun grenade will cause enough disorientation in your foe that they're blind and all they hear is ringing. Grenades will clear half a room.

I aim and shoot and don't have to try and lob a rain of 9MM in a pattern around an opponent in the hopes that maybe I'll nick his head or torso with one or two. 

Even firing bursts with the SMGs in this game results in the random flyers dominating the grouping.  That's not how these weapons were at all and everyone knows this.

 

Now recently I read that the HE/KE audit, (my only reason for hanging in here,) is projected for later in 2018 and I'm exasperated. That's not good value at all.

$179.88/yr and the version currently being played just doesn't cut it.  Not by a long shot for that kind of money.  

 

Offering the market a game that offers a MMOFPS with as much WWII gear as can be modeled but does a very poor job of it for $179.88/yr isn't gonna work. You can't sell a 2005 car for new 2017 prices, no matter how much cash you need. Not enough people will buy in and the cycle repeats over and over again for additions to the current build, which looks like Minecraft compared to anything, and I mean ANYTHING built on UR4. 

Titles that ask a one time fee. 

 

I'm having a hard time justifying a sub for another year. I was thrilled to see the 109 get fixed, and news of the HE audit became news of the HE/KE audit, and then it's just been pushed back and pushed back. I don't doubt the sheer immensity of such an undertaking, but a year, then "later in 2018" for implementation? When the ground game is already something to be gamed because of quirks and inaccurate representations of weapons and accuracy or damage?

 

A bitter pill to swallow.

 

 

 

 

I don't disagree with this but I view WWII Online in a different light than most games.  Very few games have done combined arms warfare and most have not done it well.  None have done it on this scale.  While the game engine is dated I always remind myself that nobody else to date as done what CRS did.  That and the squad interaction keeps me coming back.  Admittedly the snow did keep me away.  Can't play a game that gives me a headache. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, vasduten1 said:

It means that all of the efforts going on right now are not likely to be usable in a version 2.0 with a good 64bit engine running it.

Why not?
3d models are 3d models
So they can be re-used, they can even have detail increased.
heck usually you start with a high poly model, and reduce down to your target anyways.

The physics of how a thing works? Well that does not really change.
If it take XXX PSI of pressure to shove a 40mm round out the end of a gun tube, that doesn't change because you have a 64bit multithreaded client with a new rendering routine.
Just means you can run the sim easier, and maybe look a little nicer.

Textures don't suddenly cease to be useful, we have been told many times that the textures used are actually nicer than seen as the game compresses them.

None of those things are lost or wasted

 

36 minutes ago, vasduten1 said:

which looks like Minecraft compared to anything, and I mean ANYTHING built on UR4. 

Dude depending on what you are comparing to, we will probably always look like your vision of "Minecraft" Compared to any sandbox game.
There are huge differences in the design of the 2 very different game types.
Could we have better? sure, but there is a very finite limit on the better, as an MMO there are a lot of aspects to contend with.
And there are tricks of the trade that we as a playerbase simply will not allow because that isnt the kind of game we want.

When you lift out of Frankfurt in a FW 190 D9 and you fly west, hook past cherbourg and punch 30's into some allied LV, you want it to be a completely uninterrupted (except by enemy fighters) path from start to end, and you want every damned person you fly over to see you and know it was you, and you don't want to arrive and find you can't actually shoot them because they are in another instance either.
We want it all live now real time in the same world in the same instance with no loading zoning etc BS with as many people visible on screen as possible and the longest view distance feasible, and we'd like it delivered in at least 30 fps (ok fine some of us can only dream the 30fps but still)
There is cost/compromise involved in that, we have to trade something we can live without to get more of the thing we don't want to live without.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are asking for a WW2ol 2.0 game that is probably half or a third of starcitizen scope which currently has 300 devs and 170 million and after 5 years later haven't deliver the game.

Yet you expect 20ish devs on WW2ol with no budget magically port a 500k+ line game were 95% they haven't wrote to another engine they are not experience with ??.. you can't switch an engine on game like you do in a car, that's not how it works, the reason for not having a game similar to WW2ol 2.0 comes to money and time not anything else.

 

Anything similar to what you say can be consider science fiction... nothing can be done significantly on WW2ol for the next 3 years.

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, saronin said:

I don't disagree with this but I view WWII Online in a different light than most games.  Very few games have done combined arms warfare and most have not done it well.  None have done it on this scale.  While the game engine is dated I always remind myself that nobody else to date as done what CRS did.  That and the squad interaction keeps me coming back.  Admittedly the snow did keep me away.  Can't play a game that gives me a headache. 

It's still $179.88 a year, and no amount of Merlin51 ranting is going to change that.

Guys, that's a lot of money to ask for a game that may be the only one that does what it does but does so very poorly.

 

What about the HE/KE audits? I suppose some time later in 2018 means "soon", but I can't drop that kind of money so that MAYBE it won't suck as much some day.

It seems to me that I've been hanging on to the hope of a better game for around two years now.

I know they need the funds, but man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pbveteran said:

You are asking for a WW2ol 2.0 game that is probably half or a third of starcitizen scope which currently has 300 devs and 170 million and after 5 years later haven't deliver the game.

Yet you expect 20ish devs on WW2ol with no budget magically port a 500mil+ line game were 95% they haven't wrote to another engine they are not experience with ??.. you can't switch an engine on game like you do in a car, that's not how it works, the reason for not having a game similar to WW2ol 2.0 comes to money and time not anything else.

 

Anything similar to what you say can be consider science fiction... nothing can be done significantly on WW2ol for the next 3 years.

I don't expect they magically get this done immediately or with 20 volunteers.

 

I expect they make it a priority though, simply because it makes no sense to keep trying to nurse the old code along and for what? They don't know how to change the renderer.

They took over a game that had no user manual at all, and its most important core is just some phantom they can't really work with?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, saronin said:

You can use world creator to import sat data.

I know, but i don't think that is an issue here.
We have lots of ground now, i imagine more raw ground could be put in fairly quickly.
But we need our objective things put in, our towns etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

I know, but i don't think that is an issue here.
We have lots of ground now, i imagine more raw ground could be put in fairly quickly.
But we need our objective things put in, our towns etc.

I think towns can be procedurally generated too now. 

Edited by saronin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vasduten1

On the short term the only possibility is working on WW2ol you can actually make money here and players can play game.. there are many small things that would improve significantly the game.

Focusing just on unreal would not provide any results that could be enjoy by players and would be just bleeding money.

 

I think the current direction is the only viable direction.. I hope @XOOM is trying hard to build a 2nd team if I was him I would be contacting devs working on other WW2 titles like traction wars since that project is in lukewarm water for years and they are using Unreal(Edit Cryengine actually) and had nice 3d assets or modders on games like Redorchestra.

There are people with passion but they need to fight the right project to be passion with and of course they would expect a cut after release.

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.