…of the ShooterGame?
I don’t see anything different in the game that stock UE4 doesn’t provide. This game is actually quite simple to develop and far less complicated than a game like the Witcher 3.
i believe they have a custom lighting system and a few other things added into the engine, they used shooter game as a base for the game, but the ENGINE has be customized
Yes heavily customized unless you somehow think that using their own GI solution does not qualify as such. ShooterGame was used just to not start with a blank project and was pretty much gone after 5 days of coding. Just watch the stream… is there a particular reason you keep bashing these guys? In a UE4 forum no less where I thought it would be a given to at the very least show respect for the work of other fellow devs? I don’t get it.
I have equal shares in Unity and UE4 and know both engines quite well.
Ark is certainly not bad looking, but compared to The Forest is looks not that good, especially when you look at gameplay on youtube posted from users, not the developers.
About the multi-threading and optimization mentioned a few posts earlier: I am not sure, but if it comes to real next-gen graphics and to how much things you can squeeze in on screen, then it might be a drawback that UE4 is younger than Unity.
UE4 will catch up with multi-threading and optimization, for sure, but then Unity will also move forward. I wonder if there will a hardware requirements gap for ever - that is UE4 needs better hardware than Unity for about the same things.
The Forest (Unity 5)
?v=nxYnl-zKvYM
ARK user gameplay
v=sXYYtp8D90E
Is The forest multiplayer?
To be fair, in that video of Ark he appears to have all shadows/lighting turned off which obviously makes it look dated. But also take into consideration that Ark has a much larger view distance, more varied terrain, and much denser wildlife than The Forest. I’m pretty sure the world size of Ark is quite a bit larger as well, but can’t find any official stats for The Forest. Ark’s visual style is kind of ‘meh’, where The Forest does pretty well, but that’s not really the engines fault.
The Forest has also been in development at least a year longer, and not even that long ago looked and ran pretty badly. I remember watching a stream of it where the guy streaming (with a beast of a computer) was still dropping down to single digit FPS at points, and he and his co-op buddy couldn’t even see each-other on the server. 
So anyone figure out why it isnt working? lol i got a gtx 780 ti and it plays horribly on my pc
I have gtx 760 and it somewhat playable.
Settings are CRAAAZY and sometimes they are incorrect. I have decreased sky quality to 1/4, have everything on medium except post processing(High) and I believe world tile slider is inverted so keep it at epic.
Basically you have to tinker setting until it get playable
I haven’t looked into the game that much, but there are people playing it on the Oculus Rift + GTX 980 and apparently getting enough fps.
There was some tweaking done somewhere but I’m not sure what the deal is.
Quick way to get good FPS:
Use the Low Quality Sky (+20 FPS).
Turn the mesh LOD slider down (this was recently added, decent boost).
Turn resolution scaling down to like 1/4 (put anti-aliasing up to compensate).
They bought TrueSky from Simul - ://simul.co/truesky-ue4/ - I’m sorry but downloading a source-code from GitHub from another company and recompiling the engine after “adding the zipfile to the project” (See ://docs.simul.co/unrealengine/) doesn’t really qualify for me.
Grab the game, throw the executable in IDA and thanks to the supplied PDBs you can see all the automatically generated classes made from Blueprints - you can also find the original blueprints in the /content/ folder. If you have Hex-Rays you even get fully labeled source-code.
The missing respect might be because when you look at the game it doesn’t really look like veteran game-programmers made this. Executable “ShooterGame.exe” with PDBs in the binary folder (cheaters/hackers love that one!), the original uproject file of the example, the purchased assets from the marketplace in the content folder and their corresponding uasset files, missing/unconfigured LoDs that causes the framerate issues, playing a 108 MB 1080p movie loop in the background on the main cpu while loading the game-assets/levels.
Now don’t get me wrong, it’s a great game in the end and it surely shows that even without a lot programming skills you can deliver nice looking games with Unreal4 and get the job done which is great! But don’t try to sell me “Veteran Coding Skills” when you executed a bat-file to get the engine automatically altered and released the game based on an unreal4 example with full source-code based on blueprints while the executable has been compiled in fully debug mode with the linked pdb right next to it.
What made you think that a sky management/rendering system is their Global Illumination/GI solution?
Also going back a bit
I covered this in reddit when someone else claimed it a few weeks ago, and the game is obviously 99% C++, there is almost nothing done with blueprints. In fact if you want solid proof of this their Dev Kit is out now and they have exposed a whopping 4 of their c++ functions to blueprint, its literally unusable for most things until they support blueprints better.
I understand that you made the account to come and trash Ark for some reason, but you’d think you could stick to their steam forums if you want to spread misinformation. This is the last place on the web that is likely to accept it.
What made you think that a sky management/rendering system is their Global Illumination/GI solution?
[/QUOTE]
Does it matter? Their code screams of “amateurism”, it doesn’t matter what they say. I hope they keep working on it to make it better.
Yeah pretty sure the whole point of them patching twice a day and being in early access is working to make it better. I’m not going to express an opinion on a code base I haven’t seen in it’s entirety but out right lies are pretty silly when there is already enough to complain about with the game.
After running Ark-Evolved for a few minutes I was almost certain it had been made in blueprint(obviously, it might not have been), it just has that feel to it. I would guess that is one of the reasons that it runs so badly, it does not matter what settings you use, it just looks terrible and runs terrible, I know graphics are not that important, but the visuals just look terrible, blurred, jagged, horrible, and the game is terrible in my opinion, it has some horrible networking issues that cause rubber banding 99% of the time, it looks like “My first game” with UE4.
Truesky is not not a GI solution. It’s a sky/weather middleware that is also being used by Ubisoft if you can trust the info in their forums thread. Is everyone using a third party tool or marketplace content an amateur? You do realise that UE4 is a third party tool as well? According to your logic only amateurs are using UE4, true pros would create their own engine from scratch.
We all stand corrected.
Straight from the developers.
Source.
://steamcommunity/app/346110/discussions/0/615086038665412405/
Almost nothing done with blueprints ? Just the AI, spawning, inventories, structures, networking, buffs, projectiles, UI, gathering. The folder Content\PrimalEarth\CoreBlueprints consists of 1196 files. And again, in the PDB i could not find a single class that wasn’t automatically generated by a blueprint. You don’t seem to understand that blueprints are converted by the engine into C++ code - those are automatic generated classes. So of course the game is made of C++.
That’s exactly why we have this conversation. You cannot lie about the game being made by 99% custom C++ code when you release the evidence that it’s not so - the pdbs and the folder structure shows what’s true, it’s not denyable. If you want to proof me wrong then do it with facts, with evidence, not with another quote from the developer. I showed you facts that everyone can verify, you just give me ********. Proof me wrong instead.
No i’m not saying that at all. That would be totally wrong. There is nothing wrong with using blueprints or 3rd party plugins - those are great features of the engine. You are misinterpreting this.
I’m simply saying that the game was released with executables compiled in debug mode, linked to pdbs which are exposing the whole projects source-code so everyone can see that it’s mainly made out of blueprints and that the project is based on the ShooterGame example by Unreal. This is not incorrect, is it ?
im not an programmer but i do use c++ for some projects and i write all base functionality in c++ then use blueprints to manipulate it in-engine (children and such)
example:
i write up a base class for a projectile in c++ and use it as the parent class for a blueprint. then i make a ton of children blueprints based on this (i once had 33 blueprints based on a single custom class made in c++) whats to say thats not what they have hence all the number of blueprints?