• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Attention Soldiers Operation Fury Needs you!   02/20/2020

      Attention All Soldiers, Operation Fury needs you.  You need to choose a side and sign up.  
      For more intel on Operation Fury Please click HERE Please go to Special Event Forum (here), And sign up for allied or axis.
      This will be a CRS Lead event on both sides.  Xoom will be heading up the axis side and Heavy265 will be heading up the Allied side. This will be for bragging rights.
      Why are we asking players to sign up you ask. We are trying for a role play experience.   We want this to be a true realistic event.  
      So get up and sign up and let's make this the best event ever!!!!!!!!!!
      Give me your war cry, grrrrrrrrrrrrr
      Heavy265 **out**
sublimesw

Unreal 3 / 4 Engine?

98 posts in this topic

On 10/7/2018 at 9:40 AM, vasduten1 said:

...except Star Citizen is still in alpha.

 

It's not optimized yet, and it's still pretty amazing -bugs and all.

Only... they aren't asking for a monthly sub. 

There are other things about their pricing that I can't stand though, like paying to win with ship upgrades. If a player wants to spend an extra $225 and get much better ships with better loadouts. Blecch.

 

Still, it looks great, and even after a cursory going over for graphic card settings and forcing my computer to prioritize it's processing, it's playable and not as choppy.

Presumably WWIIOL would not sell subscriptions to an Alpha UE product, so I'm not sure where you are going with this.

 

Which of course begs the question, what WOULD the business model be, given that the modern gamer seems to freak out at the subscription concept.

 

Paying to get a Tiger might be the only way CRS can go given the current mores towards earned effort of the gaming market.

 

But, again, SC doesn't have it all working great in terms of vehicle/ship/inf interacting.  It's mostly one or two types, not all three.

 

And I guarantee you those planets won't have a tenth of the modeled interaction space WWIIOL does.

 

Which, again, points out the unique aspects of this game engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kilemall said:

 

 

But, again, SC doesn't have it all working great in terms of vehicle/ship/inf interacting.  It's mostly one or two types, not all three.

 

And I guarantee you those planets won't have a tenth of the modeled interaction space WWIIOL does.

 

Which, again, points out the unique aspects of this game engine.

Better check again.  As of 3.3 SC does in fact have vehicle/ship/inf interacting.  Unlike like WWIIOL you can actually exit a vehicle and become inf an then jump in another vehicle. You can load up a ground vehicle inside a ship and fly to a destination with a ship and then hop in and take off in the ground vehicle.

Modeled interaction space?  You mean the cookie cutter CPs and buildings that make up every town in game?  The only thing that gives each city a sense of uniqueness is that the buildings are of a different layout in different towns.  Otherwise it's the same art assets used over and over.  SC doesn't do that.  Each location is actually unique.  As for size,  SC makes WWIIOL look like a shoe box comparatively.  Multiple planets and moons to play on versus a half scale model of Europe. Heck the plots of land that SC is planning to allow players to make their own in the future are either 4 km x 4 km or 8 km x 8 km.  Larger than most WWIIOL towns.

Then there is the big issue.  SC raised 1 million dollars over the last 3 days alone.  It has raised 195 million dollars lifetime.  It has an HQ in LA and 4 development studios, one in Austin, TX, two in England, and another one in Germany.  Those studios are working full time to bring in the core technologies and content.  It has the capital.  It has the personnel.  It has the backers.  Citizencon in Dallas this year probably had more people attend in person than currently subscribe to WWIIOL.  WWIIOL has a volunteer team trying to sort through old code to make something happen to keep the game alive.

One is a young horse off and running that will probably grow up to be a thoroughbred some day.  The other is an old lame horse limping on a treadmill going nowhere.  There is no comparison.

I'll grant you that SC is still in very early access and has been for a long time.  It has taken some time to develop the core technologies and development tools the game is based on.  However, the game seems to have hit its development stride and is producing a new build every quarter.  This latest patch alone contains a planet with terrain larger than the entire WWIIOL map.  All of this in just one system modeled thus far.  There are bugs to be sure, but at least those bugs are known and are actively being addressed.  It is in alpha after all.

However, the resources brought to bear on the two projects are totally lop sided. WWIIOL is out of SC's league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree about your characterization of interaction.  I'm not talking about jumping in and out of vehicles, plenty of arena games do that already.  I'm talking about the frame of reference problem where ships that can shoot at inf that can shoot at ground vehicles that can shoot at ships and they are all on the same area.  SC planet and station fights will require this.

Jumping in and out of vehicles is not fighting.

Most of the time the play will be out in 'space', computationally a far simpler thing as all you have to do is manage displaying and calculating other ships' image and position accurately,  That's one frame of reference, operating at ship speed/distance.  Ships in SC are functionally equivalent to our planes, both in relative speeds and maneuver.  But mixed interaction is going to be very difficult and WWIIOL's engine already does it.

Yes, the art assets are reused in WWIIOL.  Price of no stutter/load.

I think Chris Roberts' isn't going to get it done, but that's another discussion level.  The relevant point here is that doing what WWIIOL does and SC is trying to do is not trivial and amenable to 'just switching to another engine' approaches, and does require a lot of resources to get the combined arms fidelity we have come to expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

I disagree about your characterization of interaction.  I'm not talking about jumping in and out of vehicles, plenty of arena games do that already.  I'm talking about the frame of reference problem where ships that can shoot at inf that can shoot at ground vehicles that can shoot at ships and they are all on the same area.  SC planet and station fights will require this.

Jumping in and out of vehicles is not fighting.

Most of the time the play will be out in 'space', computationally a far simpler thing as all you have to do is manage displaying and calculating other ships' image and position accurately,  That's one frame of reference, operating at ship speed/distance.  Ships in SC are functionally equivalent to our planes, both in relative speeds and maneuver.  But mixed interaction is going to be very difficult and WWIIOL's engine already does it.

Yes, the art assets are reused in WWIIOL.  Price of no stutter/load.

I think Chris Roberts' isn't going to get it done, but that's another discussion level.  The relevant point here is that doing what WWIIOL does and SC is trying to do is not trivial and amenable to 'just switching to another engine' approaches, and does require a lot of resources to get the combined arms fidelity we have come to expect.

Just yesterday I was personally involved in a battle on a planet involving ships, vehicles, and infantry.  It seems to me that the interplay between the three is now modeled given that I took part in the action.  What you are talking about isn't that difficult to model.  Many games do it already.  Many better than WWIIOL in fact.  Many games have much better hit feed back, ballistics, and graphics with a combined arms setting.  What WWIIOL has going for it in theory is scale and a persistent campaign.  But given the current game population, most PUBG servers are more populated than the scale map of Europe in WWIIOL so it's kind of a moot point to speak of scale anyway.   

If Chris Roberts meshes the servers and creates an MMO,  he will have done it on a massive scale with much better graphics and far more features than WWIIOL.  Persistence of objects for example being one of the biggest SC is attempting to achieve.  I can leave and object, say an unmanned ship, on a planet and it will stay in the persistent universe until it's destroyed or someone moves it again.  When is the last time you left an unmanned 88 in the field and came back the next day an manned it again in WWIIOL?  The fact is that WWIIOL has a much simpler world than SC in terms of that type of persistence.  Everything is either extremely time limited or has no type of unmanned persistence at all.  Again, there is no real comparison between what the two games are doing.  WWIIOL's aging engine just won't stack up if Chris Roberts pulls it off.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2018 at 5:48 PM, dropbear said:

The rendering of inf at 300+metres should be blurry. Perfect resolution IS  gamey..its not real life. I agree the vanilla LOD system unreal gives you are subpar, and Post Scriptum is a perfect example. No optimizations can fix that mess .

 

I agree, PS is a mess and the LOD system it uses with Unreal 4 is awful...but I think the perfect resolution we have in WWIIOL is way more realistic than in other games (except maybe ARMA is the only other game that renders distant players adequately). With normal, healthy vision (aided by glasses if necessary) in the real world (which all soldiers should theoretically have), it's easy to see distant enemies running back and forth by buildings or other terrain; this is why the old adage that cover is not concealment gets drilled into everyone's heads. Just because you're behind cover doesn't mean that I can't see you and don't know where you are. IMO, this is one of the things that WWIIOL does very right (obviously the ugly post processing filter should be off), even with its ancient engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, minky said:

WWIIOL's aging engine just won't stack up if Chris Roberts pulls it off.   

 

you used the word 'if'. just pointing that out as it's pretty impressive to consider what unity 1.0 managed to do 20 years ago.

Share this post


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

 

you used the word 'if'. just pointing that out as it's pretty impressive to consider what unity 1.0 managed to do 20 years ago.

If was used because it’s not done yet. It is on the road map as the final step for launch. As far as unity goes, what has it done lately to push any boundaries?  There are other games now operating in a combined arms environment now. Some with a much better dynamic for small unit tactics at the core FPS level.   You don’t see a lot people clamoring for cars that were built in 1999 either  

I noticed a lot of former WWII players actually struggle with Post Scriptum besause of the small unit dynamic. They have the inability to operate in a close small unit formation and consequently get their butts handed to them. They also struggle with the inability to get the Uber weapon they want when they want it.  The more realistic infantry weapon ratios are a problem for them. It’s funny because I thought a lot of WWIIOL players would take to it like a fish to water. I was wrong. I admit I had to make an adjustment as well.  I had to forget the tactics used in WWIIOL and revert to tactics I learned while in the real world military to be successful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a side point; a one-man tank crewman jumping out, becoming foot infantry for a while, then finding his own or someone else's empty tank and jumping back in to fight as a tanker...that was not included in the current engine deliberately, not because the engine architects and coders couldn't figure out how to do it.

This engine is for realistic simulation. Historically, a tank crew that exits the vehicle, in the general case, is irrelevant to further combat and the tank is out of the combat and effectively dead.

The games that provide that capability don't intend to be realistic. That's a key market differentiation, and one of the reasons why this game continues to survive.

Code mechanisms were discussed back in the old Design/Beta Forum, ten years ago or more, for the instances when it might be desirable for someone to leave a vehicle locally then come back to it...aircraft-, truck-, boat-, motorcycle- or bicycle-borne infantry, for instance. Or, crewmen of crew-manned guns, acting as infantry to defend their gun. Those always have been do-able at various levels of implementation. It's just a coder-resource prioritization decision.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, madrebel said:

lol - you thought ww2ol infantry players were good ... needed that pick me up. thx.

Well. I thought they were at least capable of a modicum of teamwork after playing this for nearly two decades. Turns out this game wasn’t as reliant on teamwork a everyone gave it credit for. 

Share this post


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

This engine is for realistic simulation. Historically, a tank crew that exits the vehicle, in the general case, is irrelevant to further combat and the tank is out of the combat and effectively dead.

The games that provide that capability don't intend to be realistic. That's a key market differentiation, and one of the reasons why this game continues to survive.

Given that I’ve had to fall back to U.S. military trained TTPs to play other newer games and be successful, whereas those same TTPs  were useless in this game, I’m going to go ahead and call complete BS on the realism statement. There is abou as much realism in a WWIIOL battle as a unicorn walking down the street shooting rainbows out of its butt. 

Not that it was a bad game in its day.  It’s just that others have far surpassed it in the realism department. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is that responsive to the idea of a one-man tank crew leaping out, grabbing a machine gun (or was it in the tank?), ramboing around to one-man-obliterate the local enemy force, then re-entering his tank and fighting on...?

I'm not proposing a defense of every realism decision CRS has made. I'm only addressing why the existing engine doesn't provide for tank crewmen or fighter pilots to leave their tank or fighter and fight as infantry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using Unreal also gives you access to professionals with training and experience with that engine.. building you engine from scratch takes a lot of time to have basic functionalities working and new employees have to learn the custom engine and most likely you will have to be building tools to speed the process.

Heroes and Generals build their own engine and this really had a bad impact on their game a lot of associated costs and having to implement technologies from scratch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jwilly said:

So is that responsive to the idea of a one-man tank crew leaping out, grabbing a machine gun (or was it in the tank?), ramboing around to one-man-obliterate the local enemy force, then re-entering his tank and fighting on...?

I'm not proposing a defense of every realism decision CRS has made. I'm only addressing why the existing engine doesn't provide for tank crewmen or fighter pilots to leave their tank or fighter and fight as infantry.

You and I both know that US Sherman crews were issued Thompsons and later Grease guns. Probably some .45s in the mix too. German crews were issued mp40s and Lugers. Although they weren’t loaded down with ammo they did have a limited ability to defend themselves if they bailed and presumably remembered to grab their weapon. Documented and historical. 

CRS did what they did because when the game was created there were no mobile spawns and they didn’t want players using tanks as disposable personal infantry transport to the battlefield. The same thing could have been accomplished by severely limiting the ammo of tank crews spawned with the vehicle.  It was poor a modeling decision that now makes the game engine look even more ancient than it is. 

Share this post


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

...US Sherman crews were issued Thompsons and later Grease guns. Probably some .45s in the mix too.

One SMG or carbine-class weapon per tank, for close defense use...not one per crewman.  The concept was not to arm the crew if they bailed out. A bailed tank crew presumably was at the edge of friendly territory, and had no need to be armed if they sensibly high-tailed it toward their own lines.

The tank commander generally had a personal sidearm.

Quote

German crews were issued mp40s and Lugers.

One SMG per tank, for close defense use...not one per crewman. As above, the concept was not to arm the crew if they bailed out.

The tank commander generally had a personal sidearm.

Quote

It was poor a modeling decision that now makes the game engine look even more ancient than it is. 

It was the right choice for a game that needed to differentiate itself from the competing Rambo shooters, and it made historical sense...unlike the unrealistic alternative that you're advocating.

Share this post


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

unlike the unrealistic alternative that you're advocating.

But bro - Brad Pitt did it in ....

Share this post


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

One SMG or carbine-class weapon per tank, for close defense use...not one per crewman.  The concept was not to arm the crew if they bailed out. A bailed tank crew presumably was at the edge of friendly territory, and had no need to be armed if they sensibly high-tailed it toward their own lines.

The tank commander generally had a personal sidearm.

One SMG per tank, for close defense use...not one per crewman. As above, the concept was not to arm the crew if they bailed out.

The tank commander generally had a personal sidearm.

It was the right choice for a game that needed to differentiate itself from the competing Rambo shooters, and it made historical sense...unlike the unrealistic alternative that you're advocating.

You’re right.  People getting in and out of vehicles was completely unrealistic. I feel sorry for all those WWII troops who had tanks manufactured around them and then were stuck there for life. I was on Rock Island Arsenal one time looking at a Sherman on display. The guys inside were like damn I wish they would have built a way for us to get out of these things when the war was over. 

Edited by minky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what you're doing - it's called the perfect fallacy. Look it up so in the future when you wish to split hairs you can save the internet some bandwidth as well as the time it take's people to drop down to your level ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, madrebel said:

what you're doing - it's called the perfect fallacy. Look it up so in the future when you wish to split hairs you can save the internet some bandwidth as well as the time it take's people to drop down to your level ...

The claim that  personel bailing from a tank in a combat zone with limited arms and ammo for use in self defense while moving away from the action is somehow “unrealistic” is patiently absurd and shall be treated as such.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats the fascination with exiting a vehicle?

If your vehicle is inoperable, go spawn another one and seek revenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, minky said:

The claim that  personel bailing from a tank in a combat zone with limited arms and ammo for use in self defense while moving away from the action is somehow “unrealistic” is patiently absurd and shall be treated as such.  

personel = not a word, personnel = a body of persons

patiently = patient in motion, the act of being patient. did you mean to say patently?

I now have no hope you can even understand logical fallacies - pity - perhaps you can still be amusing. Let's see ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is amusing is that people in these forums will defend every bad decision CRS has made and continues to make while the game population grows ever smaller. It’s unfortunate. This game had so much potential. Oh well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, minky said:

What is amusing is that people in these forums will defend every bad decision CRS has made and continues to make while the game population grows ever smaller. It’s unfortunate. This game had so much potential. Oh well. 

+1 ... To argue against bailing out of a tank is just plain simply stupid and more than a tank is an Anti-Tank Gun or truck... here comes a heavy tank let me stay  with my hands glue to the Gun and push it among enemy fire. :rolleyes:

To even show how brainless decision was in the past you couldn't move your mobile spawn and you were forced stay playing as a truck.. not doing nothing..

I really wonder who thought it would look great seeing an atg with a static crew moving across the battlefield even in 1999, you already had bones and rigging.

 

In this game we can't even simulated one of more famous tanks enagement when Michael Wittman destroyed an entire column of british vehicles, then got stuck inside Villers-Bocage and had to abandon his tank, his crew remove the tank hull lmg and equipped infantry weapons and made out of the town.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crew bailing would add to the realism and immersion, not take away from it. If you could mount and dismount weapons (like ATGs) then the crew could abandon the gun when under effective fire, take cover, and then remount the gun if still workable. All quite realistic and something normal people would do. I've never bought the argument that dismounting from vehicles or guns is a bad idea, and in fact, I find it one of the features that has aged the worst in WW2OL. Don't get me wrong, I support WW2OL and want to continue seeing it become more realistic (both mechanically and visually) but not everything this sim-light does is realistic. Squad, PS, and Arma all do many things much better in a variety of areas. 

To go back to topic, ever since I played Iron Front Liberation 1944 (a mod for the VBS 2 engine, or Arma 2 as it is known to most people) I've wanted/wished for a WW2OL that plays exactly like that but over an operational level. Combining the Mil-sim of Arma with an operational level campaign from WW2OL, that I'd like to see. And yes, you can dismount from your vehicle.

Note: I personally think WW2OL 2.0 should focus on a smaller area/operational level and away from the strategic, at least to begin with. A smaller, more high fidelity simulation would be much better than an overly large but unrealistic attempt to simulate everything (like RDP, naval campaigns, and so on). That being said, if it succeeds and there is enough player base, an expansion would be good. Does anyone else think that North Africa would make a good WW2OL operational theatre? Or a focused 1940's Battle of France, honestly our game simulates a battle that is so often overlooked for the later war 1944's battles and I like that.    

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.