This is not a religious forum, we don’t care what your gut feeling is saying if you don’t have any proof.
Absolutely. Care you should not for no proof I have. I simply worship, praying for it to be true.
FOR ARCHITECTURE REALITY UE or CE ?
UE for sure.
There needs to be a subforum for all the 3d engines debates, versus, and comparisons threads.
Looks like Crytek is getting ready to replace flowgraph with a more powerful system.
https://github.com/CRYTEK-CRYENGINE/CRYENGINE/commit/169e788130fadfb9e434374e087244560ab5e669
From what I have been able to gather about Schematyc is that it is node based, very powerful, and much more performant than Flowgraph.
It is basically an new system that hopefully will replace the aging flowgraph system.
Exactly this. Designers or potential designers, should stop looking at engine feature lists like they are the last stop on the train of looking for a platform to push out their idea.
Treat your idea with respect first, and dont try to shoehorn it into something.
Or, as was also pointed out, you have the FULL SOURCE. You can augment the engine to be what you need it to be.
Time and Effort.
Cheers.
Isn’t it true that CryEngine uses double precision? Or something? Like, Star Citizen, has this huge seamless universe we can’t really create using UE4. Or am I wrong?
All the Star Citizen changes are just for CIG, they aren’t in the engine outside of that. This includes things like double precision.
I was not aware multi-pass rendering on landscape would improve performance at all when you have multiple layers. I know the material layers are controlled via vertex. I thought they all had to be written into the shader. I do wish there were pen pressure capabilities as well. But as someone who used UDK’s landscape for multiple projects, I have to say I am much happier with the newer system. Remember, back in UDK you had to know your landscape vertex count ahead of time, and it would automatically assume the section and component size. This actually became a problem for one project I made for a client: the engine thought I wanted fewer, larger components, but I needed more components to run at a smaller size. The new engine lets you specify the exact section and component count and size you want, and access to changing components lets you make different shapes. Now, want an easy way to crash UDK? Scale the landscape. It was a bug that as far as I’m aware never got fixed. UE4 renders nicely with dynamic lighting without tanking the performance, but UDK used to have serious performance issues because all the dynamic lighting did not cache shadows. In a forward renderer, it added so much complexity to the scene that there was no benefit. UDK was basically a lightmass-only engine, and unlike UE4 it did not make a second lightmass UV set for you. In UDK, the lights only had one color. But UE4 can dish out a mean dynamic scene not because of GI, but because of the physically based reflections from the skylight (and GGX specular shading). I toggled my outdoor project between dynamic GI (the extremely unstable and ugly DFGI) and a plain version with a bottom hemisphere color and no GI, and they both looked practically the same. Is it real GI? No, but it looks almost the same, and it runs more than twice fast.
Game designers have been using these smoke and mirrors for decades. The end result is you can make an impressive-looking game run extremely fast. Nothing is ever “real” in a video game: at some point something needs to be faked for the sake of realtime performance. Consider how Super Mario Sunshine’s water was so widely heralded at the time: It was just a texture. JUST a texture that fades in and out in the distance. It was just a custom mipmap texture that was black at the lowest and highest LODs with a little turbulent sprinkle in the middle. Add a little refraction, and in some rare cases scene capture reflections, color ramp the area beneath the water by depth, and presto! Amazing water on a console that had 500th the memory of my current PC. We have better tools now. UE4 is just a tool the same way a paintbrush is a tool. In the right hands it can produce the Sistine Chapel, or in the wrong hands it can produce the Ecce Homo. I agree the tool should be sharpened and made better: if multipass rendering runs faster than per-pixel or per-vertex blending, then I would like to see UE4 support a new shader domain in the material editor that can support multipass rendering for landscape (possibly using layer blends). But if you use the tools you have the way they were designed, you will be amazed with what you can do. This is not an excuse to inhibit innovation: many people just choose to blame the engine first, not themselves.
For everyone with a GTX 780, you’ll be happy to know that forward rendering is coming to the engine. The current state of forward rendering boosted framerates from 45 to 105 on an old ATI Radeon 5800 series card. Lo and behold, the performance benefit out of a GTX 960 was only 2 frames per second, because of the aforementioned architecture issue! Old cards can’t handle deferred shading as well as the newer ones do! If you have a problem running deferred shading in Unreal, just wait for the forward renderer to come out, or buy a new graphics card that was actually designed to handle what you want it to do. It’s not the engine’s fault that the Shader Model 5 version of your project doesn’t run in 1080p 60 fps on your laptop.
When you say rendering I’m assuming you mean graphics. Well it is common knowledge that CryEngine has the best graphics in the industry, but UnrealEngine is close second. The trade-off is community and documentation. Personally I’d rather have the best of both worlds which is why I think Unreal is a wiser choice especially for an indie.
IMO, for indie who want create AAA quality game with few member and not lot money, cryengine is more suitable.
Why? because everything almost there, from acceptable dynamic GI, water, cloud, ToD system, hair/cloth physics, so Indie can focus in creating their game itself not to worry about adding new tools.
almost indie/AAA of UE4 built their own system to achieve it.
but still UE4 is good for indie too and other people who want learning or making game because support of community and tutorial is everywhere and UE4 is offer powerful tools too.
I don’t understand where you get this from; there is a guy making a game by himself in UE4(Lost Soul Aside), is there a person like that in CE?
One good reason not to use CE. Crytek is on it’s deathbed yet again with staff not being paid for months again. Recent glassdoor reviews all mention it and I am seeing this issue pop up over and over again in forums etc.
Will it survive? If not good luck as a lone indie fixing bugs in that engine.
Sad to hear, but the writing has been on the wall for a while and fair play they bought themselves some time with the Amazon deal but it was always going to be very tough going.
I can’t see anyone outside Unity and Epic succeeding in the mainstream engine market at this point, without a megabucks parent company funding it (Lumberyard).
it is because many user have use UE4, so many game will be out. but I not talking about the game, in that post I talking about engine tools.
in game making, game is depend on developer skill and creativity, its doesn’t matter what engine we use.
but yeah, I only use ue4, so I don’t about other engine, but I believe many skilled people can create game similar like that even in other engine like unity, lumberyard, stingray.
@jaran, haha I agree with you, that why for now learning ue4 or u5 is more safer for future rather than other engine.
but I still hope long life for CE, CE is a beast engine, with it as UE4 competitor, UE4 dev will push their limit to improve ue4, we know competition is the best way to growing up. I believe this is why that sclupting software is so long to take new version, don’t have any strong competitor, so the dev itself is enjoying stay safe on their bed without worrying losing their customer.
talking about competitor, I read in internet, unity will add octance in their engine.
I’m not so sure that is true. The reviews I’ve read recently that have said that are anonymous and theres no way to prove that they actually worked there.
If it is true then it would be a very sad to see a AAA engine go under.
I think UE4 and CE are the only two AAA engines available to us indies. Unity is a mess and I don’t take anything they say seriously. really … dont be fooled by unity’s PR… everything unity promises in the far distance future… we all hear about this tech coming to unity but we’ve never actually seen any of it at AAA standard that can be used in a real production. Unity cant even bake lightmaps properly. Have you seen their volumetric light attempt in adam video… shameful … again no way near usable for games.
lumberyard = Edited from failed to progressing very fast. Will probably leave others behind within 2 years
stingray = failed
Frostbite = I can only dream!
Autodesk should buy CE instead of stingray :rolleyes:
I don’t think UE needs a competitor, they’re only real competition is themselves. They’re pushing a ton of updates I’ve never even thought of. They’s been in the game engine business a lot longer than most and know what they’re doing.
why? with competitor,
first, team will push their limit to keep their customer not going to another product.
second, team will get motivated from how their competitor challenging.
third, team can get inspired tools/tech from competitor.
fourth, team will offer their best services for their customer to make their costumer not going away to another product
fifth, team will continue to improve by many mean. ( i hope my english for this one is correct 
)
if team doesn’t have any competitor, its so bad, less motivation, less inspiration, need more RnD to know what customer need. market will be “quiet” and didn’t have any “lust” to do this, do that 
like us too, sometime we get inspiration, motivation from another product (games) so we can create more more game, what happen if no one creating RPG game, how we can get ideas or motivation?
just my opinion