Other Game Engines

Hi to everyone.

Did you see outerra graphic engine? It's made by Bratislavian guys and they are doing it to be compatible with a lot of stuff. So i think this could be comaptible with DCS engine too.

It's OpenGL 3.3 (now, in the future OpenGL 4.4 too). Don´t know about licenses but may be is cheapper than MS directx.

Linux and Mac people are a big comunity and a big source of income...... :music_whistling:

What do you think?

Best regards.

It's nice to have more ways of development, but I am not sure Linux has even 1-2% of Windows market ;]

It's nice to have more ways of development, but I am not sure Linux has even 1-2% of Windows market ;]

Humm... Give them a very nice combat simulator (like TFTS) and will see.

;)

It is not. ED has no plans to use it at this time, at least AFAIK.

So i think this could be comaptible with DCS engine too.

Pity it has a lot of promise as a graphics engine, that said I haven't seen much of its water simulation

Where are the towns, cities, power lines, rail ways, etc?

And how about weather, time of day, seasons ...

ED/TFC have a very good engine, why should they scrap it for something else that may cost more.... or coast more time to make it into something that they can work with.

The terrain in DCS is OK for flight SIM. Do more with AI units and mission editor instead! That seams all to have been covered in DCS A-10C :D :D :D

Terrain is average... especially resolution of terrain tiles is hmmm not good. Many cities villages are only bitmap and mountains are too angular. However it can be understandable :)

It's not really a graphics engine... it's an everything engine. My understanding is it renders, does physics, literally everything. 'Planetary Rendering Engine.'

It's also still in Alpha. Though what they have achieved in two years is pretty cool.

The problem with Linux people is that they expect most of their stuff for free... and to be open source. There are some, like me, that are willing to pay for good programs, especially to support the developers and to say, 'hey guys! there's a market here!'. Not really sure about Mac though.

I agree though. The scalability of the engine ED uses is amazing (it's an in-house engine, correct?)!

What we are seeing in DCS:BS is also 2 years old, hopefully we will see some great improvements to the terrain textures in A10C. And even if we don't, it will be hidden by their grass... hey, maybe that's why they did that! :unsure:

But anywyas, Outerra looks, pardon my language, ****ing amazing. And reading through their dev blogs the stuff that they are doing with it is incredible! I'm really excited for what it is going to bring to the table, and can't wait to get my hands on their demo. I look forward to any games that will be on it.

ED/TFC have a very good engine,

Cof cof cof

The problem with Linux people is that they expect most of their stuff for free... and to be open source. There are some, like me, that are willing to pay for good programs, especially to support the developers and to say, 'hey guys! there's a market here!'.

This is a bit offtopic, so maybe we shouldn't prolong the debate too far, but I'd like to point out that you are wrong. Linux people (like me) are used to "stuff for free" and "open source" specifically because it's right there. For normal productivity there is no need for "payware". (The production value of the software included in the Debian library was, f.ex, evaluated to be in the area of 40 billion dollars.)

The problem is rather that most people who are "Linux people" aren't necessarily "gamers". They purchase and play games to the same extent as windows people do, but since the market share of the platform is smaller, the "fraction who purchase games" on Linux isn't that valuable compared to the same fraction of windows users. Especially considering that the typical Linux gamer will have purchased a Cedega license or similar and can therefore run many windows games on their Linux platform. (There is a small portion of the "windows game market" where people actually run the game on Linux and/or Mac instead of Windows.)

In the end it comes down to two things:

1) Recouping the investment of developing a product, port or other application.

2) Being reasonably certain of doing the above even before the work has started.

There are similar concerns regarding using Outerra or similar stuff in ED products instead of in-house stuff:

1) Are the gains of the change worth the development time and reduction in in-house skill? Remember that using someone else's code might seem practical, but it also means that your own employees do not "know" the code, which might cause complications that are not obvious on the outside.

2) Would the change cost more or less than to develop the existing in-house codebase?

3) If yes on the above, does it translate to enough increased sales to be worth it?

4) If yes, how certain is this risk analysis?

There's also the question "what do we do when/if the developers of Outerra go bust and we are stuck with external software integrated that we cannot update?"

Sadly, sometimes (I'd venture to say "often") developers have to pass up on things that might be good or nice (be it an Outerra engine or a Linux port, or MegaAwesomeFeatureX) simply because it does, in the end of the day, have to have a high probability of paying for itself.

For normal productivity there is no need for "payware". (The production value of the software included in the Debian library was, f.ex, evaluated to be in the area of 40 billion dollars.)

evaluated by who? Murdock? I'm sure it includes the support cost.:music_whistling:

There's also the question "what do we do when/if the developers of Outerra go bust and we are stuck with external software integrated that we cannot update?"

http://dvice.com/archives/2010/05/us-air-force-ge.php

:D

A market research institute that was looking into the larger mainstream support for Linux by vendors like IBM, Dell etc. (Basically, why do they spend so much money developing open source software? The conclusion was: because while they spend 20-30 million dollars to get their specific changes onto the system, they don't have to spend anything on the 40 billion dollars production value they get free access to through the platform.) And "support cost"? Production value has nothing to do with support costs.

But like I said: Linux is not the topic of the thread. If you want to debate the relative merits and complexities of operating systems we can open a different thread someplace. ;)

Unigine Graphics engine.

This apparently a new graphics world engine that is coming soon. For sale to game and or flight sim devs. Check it out.

ED has already invested in EDGE

:surprise:

This is not whether Ed has invested or not this is a look at things to come. Maybe some other flight simm will be using this engine and that would be something worth looking at. As far as Edge goes where is Their proof of concept. Have not seen any EDGE concept vids and that is supposedly something that has been in the works for YEARS.

We must put on the table the authentic engine capabilities, not all are good fps and amazzing graphics that for a RPG, arcade and first person shooter to conform. There you can see that physical play, and how much capacity the engine modification is to be used for serious military simulator.

VBS2, Steel Beast Pro and ED use their own engines because they can modify these without having to depend on others. EDGE that has not had a technical demo does not mean it is bad, on the contrary, not centered to be sold as a product but expecific military simulator. The latter may limit the "spread" for commercial purposes, but allows a wider field of work in ways that would not be viable for commercial programs focused on FPS or arcades.

EDGE goes his way and we hope this offers many improvements over the old engine, possibly with many capabilities that we do not see on a Frostbite, Outterra or CryEngine.

I hope I get to see EDGE because I have a limited lifespan.

It is somewhat frustrating seeing all these other engines come out. Engines that very well may have not even been a thought when EDGE was first announced. Yet here they are Cryengine and all the others and we have not even seen a proof of concept. Makes me think how everybody thought the Nazi's where close to an Atomic weapon and when the war was over all they found was a building with a hole in the ground.

This is not whether Ed has invested or not this is a look at things to come. Maybe some other flight simm will be using this engine and that would be something worth looking at. As far as Edge goes where is Their proof of concept. Have not seen any EDGE concept vids and that is supposedly something that has been in the works for YEARS.

Well you posted it originally in DCSW forum, i assumed you were trying to promote it to them.

Engines take years to make and years to advance.

Well you posted it originally in DCSW forum, i assumed you were trying to promote it to them.

Forgive my posting etiquette, was not sure where to post it. But it was moved appropriately.

Engines take years to make and years to advance.

I am sure that this engine is probably still in dev status. At least they have something to show.