That was good 
By the way I didn’t started this thread to create chaos knowingly. Many people here really suffered in the past with CE (Maximum and I for example ) I just wanted to make a fair point here that things may turn better for CE again.
Sorry if it looks otherwise. Gomen na sai
While I hope things get easier for CE users, no matter how much they change CE, I don’t think I will ever use it.
It got the same problems UDK had. Assets and a map that is made for a FPS, saying “You can do great things with this Engine! Here, have a tank!” and giving a wink. Most importantly it has no Blueprint-like system for someone who is really a beginner and don’t know how to code. Not to mention all the tutorials, experienced community that shares everything and staff members directly trying to help.
But then, maybe one day! 
^ There is flow graph in cryengine if you don’t know how to code. Except each time you hit Ctrl+G you get a different result if your flow graph is more than the basics like opening a door.
MaxDev to be fair flowgraph is not meant to replace everything. As you know well given you have a fair bit of experience in the engine. Just like if you don’t cache results in 3D for a network rendering job. Even the door entities by default are shipped with lua and use scriptbinds to execute the logic. On this forum you can also find engine devs for Epic stating the graphs in this engine are slow and between 10x-15x slower. Much like flowgraph in how it is handled.
Cryengine is joke, seriously, guys, there’s not much to discuss. Pipeline is broken, old and give feelings that you are dumb … Most sad, Crytek think that how it should be …
There seems to be the first twitch stream of Crytek today introducing the new Community manager Angela De Marco, answering questions.
Hoping it would come close to Epic’s streams. I’ll write again after the stream, making a little review.
http://www.cryengine.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=126&t=130984&p=1271068#p1271068
OK it was a Warface twitch primarily, and was heavily dragged by the internet speed. But it was good to talk new community manager and good to know that there would be further streams.
Well whatever
I prefer to watch the YouTube version, rather than Twitch, anyway. But good luck, CryEngine!
A) You build your own shaders in Unreal, that’s the point. Cry is great if you want their water shader. If you want to create your own or actually learn about how to go about it, Cry has nothing to offer. Parallax mapping is the same.
B) CryEngine only has Dynamic Lighting from it’s Sunlight, NO other lights. That’s a common misconception with CryEngine to say it has ‘Full Dynamic GI’. Unreal’s current DFGI, HFGI and LPV are much closer, and we get it from virtually any light type.
Still no scripting system, which is important in the modern dev age. Unreal has Blueprint, Frostbite has ‘Schematic’ (can’t remember what it’s called), Unity has it’s own C# integration.
Looks like a worthwhile update, though I’m still sticking rigidly to UE4 as always. Cry still looks very tied to FPS-based games and still built on a lot of their old tech and editor, and the tools haven’t ever been easy to use or intuitive. Plus I’m a huge UE Fanboy and spent years learning it, changing now would be pointless and offer me nothing. I advise the same to anybody else. Still, competition is healthy.
Even as a huge cryengine hater(personal reasons), i must say you are wrong, Cryengine has Flowgraph wich actually works better than Kismet ever did(though not even close to blueprints)
I’m talking about a quick start, using well optimized shaders is for a beginner much more easier than building your own one.
Of course it is much more better to have the possibilty to create your own shaders for your very own need! but especially for beginners it’s not that easy.
Like i wrote before, i’m also a UE4 fan and user, but claiming that UE4 has a better dynamic lighting sytsem than cryengine is absoulutly ********, sorry for that word 
All your mentioned features like DFGI, LPV etc… are working in some broken way but are absolutly not usable for creating a game “right now”.
And again, i’m not a cryengine fan but have you played Son ryse of rome ? have you seen kingdome come ? The lighting and GI solution looks absolutly amazing and is not performance heavy at all.
And for the GI System, they use a probe capture system, similar to Ubisofts The Divison lighting and GI System. So please, no matter if you like cryengine or not, saying that the UE4 dynamic light system works or look better is simply not true.
Simply have a look at the Shader, GI and lighting quality for a full game.
Actually you can enable a GI solution like previous versions by simply typing in e_GI=1 into the console or clicking the GI checkbox in the display tab of the rollup bar. Then using the global multiplier in the TOD panel to up the global ambient light across the entire level. It is not perfect but with the clip volumes and probe solution I must be honest that I am really happy with the results in CE for interior and exterior levels maintaining overall consistency in realism across the board.
Also to add to what vblanco has written I would separate the terms of graphing and scripting to separate entities. They both really do the same but are handled differently at least inside of CE with lua and flowgraph.
Like any software there will always be bugs and updates. Even Windows has updates constantly so leveraging a statement that it is broken completely carries little weight. As for asset importing and overall mechanics I have about 16 hours of video on Youtube going over working pipelines that import every type of asset from audio to animations files and simple geo to complex textures. I can say that at least in terms of Maya I have every single thing working on my end. In the engine the worst areas are network code and deprecated AI scripts/code still not cleaned out. Past that you can build a game for release and several teams are proving that from EaaS only releases.
Every engine has issues as I have said prior. Transitioning from interior to exterior in UE4 at decent framerates is still problematic (maintaining the stunning interior lightmapping realism). Also experimenting with some of the SSS solutions I have not been able to reach the same quality of CE. In the end every piece of software has its plus and minuses. It is better to admit the flaws and be true to the faults of the app. Past that I have praised the UE4 community and support. Being vocal on CE forums to mimic their approach and courtesy.
They have Flowgraph, its the CryEngine equivalent of blueprint. But as with all CryEngine equivalents its not very good.
They also have other interfaces for things like UI and vehicles. If you wish to extend the versatility of an item your best bet would be lua. Flowgraph is not meant for many things and its usage in mp is something they mention to avoid at all costs. Mainly due to the lack of having real serialization in the graphs unlike lua provides. Just like many of the terrain entities and water volumes they are all written in lua with the shipped examples.
While on the topic i wonder what the performance in regards to unrealscript and blueprint is. Kismet is there but in theory unrealscript was what was removed. Blueprint is 10x-15x slower than C. Does anyone know if Epic has answered the costs in relation to the old unrealscript format? I look at this solely from the perspective of Ce having lua which is not as heavy as flowgraph to use in the engine.
I’m not sure Lua could be faster then compiled Blueprints.
I was more getting at unrealscript and not really lua. If a tradeoff was made at all in terms of compiling the bytecode for blueprints and the speed of unrealscript. I have only seen the c++ tradeoff stated. The only reason i said lua there was in relation to the engines and similar systems. Not identical obviously. Mostly my question was based on the substantial reduction in speed regarding graphing and only using c code in ue4 dev. So since unrealscript is gone i wonder if the engineers ever commented on the speed of blueprint to unrealscript as well.
By broken, old, dumb pipeline, i mean it has to many unnecessary moves, such as Crytiff, Cryexport and etc … As example, vertex painting happen in max, not in engine, you know, it is time, it is important. To change something in texture, such as brightness, you once again need complete the procedure, such as Crytiff, which after the third times becomes boring, it discourages all desire to continue … CMD does not speed up this thing, you know… Its ok for 1,2 textures, deal with a large number of textures is simply impossible and etc. All this hinders you, stops you and leaves no chance to not change the engine. I’m not saying anything about documentation, that describes half the engine, the things that should be in the menu, but you have to look for them in the cvars… Engine exhausted itself, need complete rewrite from scratch, just updating does not help here…
I am brand new to game dev. Unreal is really easy to use and i am still learning. I tried cry engine i can tell it is getting better and better and i bet you one day it will be a great engine for us beginners but for now it is really confusing. but just look at cryengine graphics **** - YouTube
The problem is everyone get the same look on their levels and games when the graphics on cryengine are good and are LOCKED to that. You can’t go better or worse.
From ryse jungles to crysis 3 jungles, to umbra jungles to this dinosaur game jungles and any other games and any screens made by community, you can’t say each has it’s own look. They all look the same there’s so small variety. Because artist’s hands are handcuffed there.
I 100% agree with the feeling on an in-engine vertex painting solution. The cgfx pipeline is not ideal but I can see accurate results in Maya prior to export so it is not a complete dealbreaker. I also have a tutorial on that if you wish to check it out regarding blend layers in the engine.
As for the comments on textures I am not exactly sure your approach is correct in terms of your look. Seeing as how CE has been physically based for over a year now you should not be hopping back and forth due to subjective feelings on a texture accuracy. I don’t have this issue due to following pbs best practices and dialing in the spec color term in the material dependent on the material I want to create. The albedo map should be set properly externally and if need be at the end you can dial the diffuse multiplier from 255,255,255 down to a level you find appropriate for the finalized comp. I do suggest against this though to have accurate textures across the entire scene.
To comment back to Max Dev and the overall look you could state the same for UE4 as well. It mostly deals with the lighting solution. Using color grading or even TOD post processing as a post effect can minimize this look. One thing I will state is I wish they would open up some sort of toon shader to the build in order to accommodate more variety.
Of Course it is a good point about pbr, yeah, in fact problems in accuracy less, but also in fact nothing has changed much for cryengine, it has not become easier … Brightness / levels you change not only for albedo, also for gloss and even if you say that (change diff slider and etc), docs say otherwise, it must be 255, gloss must 255 to correctly work with normal alpha, you do not have here many manipulations … I talk overall mostly, even for change texture, not just adjust something, you still need to deal with plug-ins, etc…still will be boring process, it just nonsense… And if seriously, i dont feel pbr in cryengine, as i feel it in UE, as example…