Off Topic Discussion

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Post a new topicPost a reply
Previous topic | Next topic 

User avatar   Database Support Database SupportMember since: 30.09.2008, 02:17Posts: 5501Location: British Columbia Likes: 171
 

 Post Topic: Re: The Cryengine 3 / UDK debate - What should I Use?
PostPosted 16.07.2011, 06:02 
Quote by iniside:
Quote by Benji385:
I am going to evaluate the Cryengine 3. I know what the UDK is capable because i used it for about a year or so.

If rayfan is right just modifying XML files to create a different weapon or a weapon mod I think i will be going with the cryengine.

However I would not rule out UDK for future projects.


Well if you are going to use let's call it stock weapons.. then yeah. It might be just modifying XML files. But try to do something diffrent. You will have recode from scrach. Because XML barerly contains exactly what is XML meant for. Raw data, that is parsed with C++. You want to make aoe spells. Have fun. Code it in C++ and add XML file to describe spell data. Want it to have some special behavior. Back to C++ and code it.
Oh I don't say it's bad. Look at SC2 Editor. You can do almost everything in XML. But don;t get fooled by it. It must have been coded in C++ earlier, to make it work.

If you are not skilled programmer. It gonna be nightmaer, if you want something diffrent than another machine gun, other standard behavior weapon.

Pretty wrong there. All the different weapons, actually ITEMS in general share one lua script. The weapons themselves are completely coded in XML and don't each have their own separate lua and C++ files. Ammo is even based off of the same lua file that weapons are based off of.

You claim that if you want a certain event or effect to take place when you fire your weapon you will have to hard-code new C++ and lua files. That's completely wrong. You can, for example, insert a short one or two line XML segment into your custom ammo script that makes it play a certain flowgraph. Believe it or not it's extremely efficient and it's how Crytek does everything.

I'd probably suggest doing a lot more research on the subject before making extremely false claims.

User avatar   Experienced Modder Experienced ModderMember since: 01.07.2011, 21:28Posts: 436 Likes: 0
 

 Post Topic: Re: The Cryengine 3 / UDK debate - What should I Use?
PostPosted 16.07.2011, 06:12 
If your environments are going to consist of twisted steel and broken concrete use UDK, if your game is going to have beauty use CE2/3.

XDDDD
User avatar   Uber Modder Uber ModderMember since: 27.02.2009, 12:51Posts: 1542 Likes: 56
 

 Post Topic: Re: The Cryengine 3 / UDK debate - What should I Use?
PostPosted 16.07.2011, 08:50 
Quote by RayFan9876:
Quote by iniside:
Quote by Benji385:
I am going to evaluate the Cryengine 3. I know what the UDK is capable because i used it for about a year or so.

If rayfan is right just modifying XML files to create a different weapon or a weapon mod I think i will be going with the cryengine.

However I would not rule out UDK for future projects.


Well if you are going to use let's call it stock weapons.. then yeah. It might be just modifying XML files. But try to do something diffrent. You will have recode from scrach. Because XML barerly contains exactly what is XML meant for. Raw data, that is parsed with C++. You want to make aoe spells. Have fun. Code it in C++ and add XML file to describe spell data. Want it to have some special behavior. Back to C++ and code it.
Oh I don't say it's bad. Look at SC2 Editor. You can do almost everything in XML. But don;t get fooled by it. It must have been coded in C++ earlier, to make it work.

If you are not skilled programmer. It gonna be nightmaer, if you want something diffrent than another machine gun, other standard behavior weapon.

Pretty wrong there. All the different weapons, actually ITEMS in general share one lua script. The weapons themselves are completely coded in XML and don't each have their own separate lua and C++ files. Ammo is even based off of the same lua file that weapons are based off of.

You claim that if you want a certain event or effect to take place when you fire your weapon you will have to hard-code new C++ and lua files. That's completely wrong. You can, for example, insert a short one or two line XML segment into your custom ammo script that makes it play a certain flowgraph. Believe it or not it's extremely efficient and it's how Crytek does everything.

I'd probably suggest doing a lot more research on the subject before making extremely false claims.

Ok. Tell me how do I make Channeled AoE spell without coding some behaviors in C++ first.
Or Channeled spell, that incease it's dmg over time and damage enemies around selected target ?

I really checked weapon XML files. And you can't convice me, that i can make everything by using them.
I also checked C++ in Crysis. I've SEEN code to parse XML, AND for weapons.
As well as for special items. Like binoculars.
And I still beleieve you don;t get the point of what I have said.
Editing XML file MIGHT be easy. And it;s easy. But let's say you want to change base behavior for weapons. You have to edit every XML file. It's tedious, and for bigger project simply innefficient.
With Object Oriente Programing, you barerly have to edit base class.
But If you never worked on bigger project then I can understrand OOP is just magic word to scare people ;p.

Edit::
Back to XML. XML files MUST be prased. Parsing XML with essentialy PARSED language(LUA). Is extremly inneficient task. Parser is made with C++. As well as specific weapon behavior. Like tracing,reloading. Game must know what to do with XML file. And if want to add new function (like channeling time for spell), you must add it code first and then you can make XML that will utilize new functionality.

I presonally still believe it's bad solution. It's might be designer friendly, but it's nightmare to maintain on bigger projects..
User avatar   Beginner BeginnerMember since: 30.04.2011, 19:02Posts: 58 Likes: 0
 

 Post Topic: Re: The Cryengine 3 / UDK debate - What should I Use?
PostPosted 16.07.2011, 10:40 
I am a hard choice! Why? Because If CE3 will not support 32-bit, told us to new feel then ah!?
  Trainee TraineeMember since: 02.05.2011, 15:08Posts: 102 Likes: 3
 

 Post Topic: Re: The Cryengine 3 / UDK debate - What should I Use?
PostPosted 16.07.2011, 11:38 
Quote by iniside:
Edit::
Back to XML. XML files MUST be prased. Parsing XML with essentialy PARSED language(LUA). Is extremly inneficient task. Parser is made with C++. As well as specific weapon behavior. Like tracing,reloading. Game must know what to do with XML file. And if want to add new function (like channeling time for spell), you must add it code first and then you can make XML that will utilize new functionality.

I presonally still believe it's bad solution. It's might be designer friendly, but it's nightmare to maintain on bigger projects..


Well, seeing you are talking about "spells" I'd say you are aiming for somehow different game than original Crysis. With the indie SDK you have the possibility to code your own backbone in C++ and decide how YOU will parse the XMLs and what will they support. Or you can decide to define weapons via LUA tables even. Using a game that has weapons from 20th century (which all share common params) as a base for "spell" game, where every spell has its own unique effects may not be the most clever thing to do. Instead, wait for the CDK and develop your own game framework that suits your needs and define your own way of extending your item system. I am going to do that..
User avatar   Skilled Modder Skilled ModderMember since: 15.04.2008, 13:25Posts: 759Location: Russia, Moskow Likes: 34
 

 Post Topic: Re: The Cryengine 3 / UDK debate - What should I Use?
PostPosted 16.07.2011, 17:05 
Quote:
Ok. Tell me how do I make Channeled AoE spell without coding some behaviors in C++ first.
Or Channeled spell, that incease it's dmg over time and damage enemies around selected target ?

Particle editor allow particles have physics, impact damage/damage radius, cast secondary particles and so on. Im not sure, but looks like Xigmatek made this effects only via proper use of particle editor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FADRXNEyXas


Last edited by Lex4art on 16.07.2011, 21:50, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar   Community Rep Community RepMember since: 14.12.2009, 17:10Posts: 1222Location: Cheshire, UK Likes: 67
 

 Post Topic: Re: The Cryengine 3 / UDK debate - What should I Use?
PostPosted 16.07.2011, 18:02 
I have used both engines quite extensively (UDK moreso then CryENGINE as my University focussed on UDK and didn't use CryENGINE at all) and while I have concluded that both engines have their pro's and con's along with their own unique limitations I would not say that one has greater versatility or is more complex!

I do agree that the choice of engine would depend heavily on the type of project being attempted and that often its possible to judge which engine would be better suited based on what it needs to create; CryENGINE 2 had C++ access, I would say its safe to say that CDK will too. With Source Code access the options and possibilities are fairly limitless within the fixed limitations of the engine.

Only fan boys will say one is ultimately better than the other. I would just do some personal research to avoid biased opinion and make my decision from there.


Image

No support via PM, please use the forums
User avatar   Skilled Modder Skilled ModderMember since: 15.04.2008, 13:25Posts: 759Location: Russia, Moskow Likes: 34
 

 Post Topic: Re: The Cryengine 3 / UDK debate - What should I Use?
PostPosted 16.07.2011, 18:32 
Quote:
Only fan boys will say one is ultimately better than the other. I would just do some personal research to avoid biased opinion and make my decision from there.

Well, engines created on some core technologies/concepts. Fanboys belive that their favorite engines can be expanded via plug-ins and modules forever - but its not possible physically. For me UDK - dinosaur, that have legacy starts from UE-1 (1998) concepts. With some fresh technologies (physX, Apex, etc) its trying to look not so old - but core concepts from 1998year (like "engine must have specialization" or "lightmaps is main lighting tech" and so on) makes a lot of limits.

To be honest, Cryengine have same legacy - core concepts starts from FarCry-1 (2004) - so, it can be called "mammont" compare to "dinosaur UDK" XD. But for now its best solution that i can have for my indie project.
User avatar   Uber Modder Uber ModderMember since: 27.02.2009, 12:51Posts: 1542 Likes: 56
 

 Post Topic: Re: The Cryengine 3 / UDK debate - What should I Use?
PostPosted 16.07.2011, 18:36 
Quote by Lex4art:
Quote:
Ok. Tell me how do I make Channeled AoE spell without coding some behaviors in C++ first.
Or Channeled spell, that incease it's dmg over time and damage enemies around selected target ?

Particle editor allow particles have physics,imapct damage/damage radius, cast secondary particles and so on. Im not sure, but looks like Xigmatek made this effects only via proper use of particle editor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FADRXNEyXas

Cool. I have nice graphic effect!

What's about game logic then ?
User avatar   Uber Modder Uber ModderMember since: 07.11.2007, 18:21Posts: 1295 Likes: 74
 

 Post Topic: Re: The Cryengine 3 / UDK debate - What should I Use?
PostPosted 16.07.2011, 21:57 
Quote by iniside:
~all of inside's posts in this thread~


Some of this you've got to be kidding. You think Unreal is amazing and advantageous because of unrealscript? My school picked up working with Unreal 3 when UT3 was released. Documentation of U3 was non-existent then and would still be today if they didn't have UDK enticing not the entry level mod teams but actual studios using it as a free demo. I'll waive that it's not really documented anymore, so lets take a look at what you're arguing.

Unrealscript being better than c++ or java? I dont believe you quite understand what you're working with. Unreal 3 is written with C++. Unrealscript is the high level access to the API. Unrealscript is to C++ as LUA+XML is to C++. You can just as easily extend scripts in LUA as you do in Unrealscript. As far as I'm aware, there's not an oop based system that doesn't allow it. The weapons of Crysis relied on physics to send the rounds from muzzle to target. The nanosuit dealt with non-ranged combat. This is designed on purpose. Your argument is null aside from the fact that Crytek didn't program a fully modular weapon system you can extend from so you've got to do it yourself.

Code being commented and named smartly? Ignoring that quip of yours that if you're a programmer it shouldn't matter, you haven't taken a look at what the CE3 SDK package will look like. It could be documented both inside and outside the code or it couldn't. Crysis 1 code wasn't meant to be open sourced, so why should it be like so? It's entirely possible that code documentation (not the free game coming from Korea) could be part of what's taking the CE3SDK such a time to get released.

How to make an AOE effect without making an API? Why don't you approach that problem as a modder and not a programmer? That's essentially what you're asking. Area sphere linked to a disabled proximity trigger and a spell-weapon with LUA and flowgraph should do the trick. Default parameters would be stored in an XML, LUA script would keep track of current spell stats such as increased range, and the flowgraph would move or attach the area sphere when neccessary, enable the proximity trigger to set off damage to all entities inside the sphere for the spell duration, and make the casting player invulnerable to the damage by adding health before the damage removes it. In this case, CE3 has the advantage because it allows you to seamlessly work between your scripting language and visual scripting method. In U3, it'd have to be done in one or the either.

Channeled effect? Unlike a water hose in real life, there's not a continuous contiguous flow of anything in programming. A channeled effect in code is nothing more than a timer fed into an if i > x function. Once again, this is just a case of you not knowing how to code anything from scratch and not having anything instantly-extensible to leech off of.

Parsing? At least with LUA/XML there are resources available to tell you what went wrong if you're either a bad programmer that doesn't know what to do or you mistyped something. Granted it's been 3 years since I've done this, but if you made a parsing mistake with your unrealscript, it'd fail silently or fail to load. You had no way of knowing what was wrong or where it was wrong. You had to work one line at a time just to verify where or what the problem was.

The benefit of having unrealscript or lua is entirely reliant on having an API from C++. Nothing more, nothing less.
User avatar   Skilled Modder Skilled ModderMember since: 15.04.2008, 13:25Posts: 759Location: Russia, Moskow Likes: 34
 

 Post Topic: Re: The Cryengine 3 / UDK debate - What should I Use?
PostPosted 16.07.2011, 22:01 
Quote:
What's about game logic then ?

Im waiting for august CDK relese to see that XD
User avatar   Skilled Modder Skilled ModderMember since: 15.04.2008, 13:25Posts: 759Location: Russia, Moskow Likes: 34
 

 Post Topic: Re: The Cryengine 3 / UDK debate - What should I Use?
PostPosted 16.07.2011, 22:06 
i cant delete wrong post here :(
User avatar   Uber Modder Uber ModderMember since: 27.02.2009, 12:51Posts: 1542 Likes: 56
 

 Post Topic: Re: The Cryengine 3 / UDK debate - What should I Use?
PostPosted 16.07.2011, 22:37 
Quote:
Ignoring that quip of yours that if you're a programmer it shouldn't matter

No. It actually really matter. Of course if you remember what code do after two month without touching it, and without comments, and so on... good for ya.

Quote:
Why don't you approach that problem as a modder and not a programmer?

Because in fact.. I'm programmer. And I'm alawyas looking at bigger picture, to do not do the same thing twice.

Quote:
That's essentially what you're asking. Area sphere linked to a disabled proximity trigger and a spell-weapon with LUA and flowgraph should do the trick. Default parameters would be stored in an XML, LUA script would keep track of current spell stats such as increased range, and the flowgraph would move or attach the area sphere when neccessary, enable the proximity trigger to set off damage to all entities inside the sphere for the spell duration, and make the casting player invulnerable to the damage by adding health before the damage removes it. In this case, CE3 has the advantage because it allows you to seamlessly work between your scripting language and visual scripting method. In U3, it'd have to be done in one or the either.

After reading that to half, i stop. To much hassle. to much repitive tasks. I can just code generic spell template, some generic and more specialized behavior, and then reuse them, without repeating everything again and again for every new spell.
You's apporach may work... For single-person, single-map project. And even then.. i would spen 80% of my time desiging system, to make it maintanable, extendeable, and easy to understrand.

Quote:
Parsing? At least with LUA/XML there are resources available to tell you what went wrong if you're either a bad programmer that doesn't know what to do or you mistyped something. Granted it's been 3 years since I've done this, but if you made a parsing mistake with your unrealscript, it'd fail silently or fail to load. You had no way of knowing what was wrong or where it was wrong. You had to work one line at a time just to verify where or what the problem was.
?
W00t are ya takin about ?
I just said, that parsin XML with parsed language is innefficient. What are you telling now has completlty no connection to what I have been talking about...

Quote:
Channeled effect? Unlike a water hose in real life, there's not a continuous contiguous flow of anything in programming. A channeled effect in code is nothing more than a timer fed into an if i > x function. Once again, this is just a case of you not knowing how to code anything from scratch and not having anything instantly-extensible to leech off of.

Of course. But I still want to make as generic as possible.
Quote:
Unrealscript being better than c++ or java?

For game logic programming ? Yes.
Just like C# + ASP .NET is better for web programming than raw C++. I don't say you can't make website using C++. I just tell it's gonna be tedious task.

Quote:
Unrealscript is the high level access to the API.

Essentialy UnrealScript is separate language running on virtual machine with access to Unreal API.


Nonless, you should read my post carefully, before you start answering on them. Because half of what have wrote have no connection with what I have wrote ;p.