|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pete B
Dogs of War Gaming
Zero-Day
144
   |
Posted - 2014.04.25 19:25:00 -
[1] - Quote
I know that dust is FAR from being the game it was hoped to be and I kinda feel like one of the biggest reason is the simple fact that the engine the game runs on is far too resource hungry and it shows due to the unreasonable lag (compared to other game engines)
If you look at basically ANY game thats used the unreal engine, its always ran like a turd if it wasn't heavily optimized, and even then, once you get to the point of optimizing it well, its no longer the same engine and could constitute as another engine entirely (see CryEngine turning into Dunia Engine), and EVEN THEN, the engine will probably still run like a turd due to the base of it being ****.
What I'm saying is CCP should consider trying to find an engine from a truly PS3 dedicated team, e.g. SCE Santa Monica. Once game in particular that stands out and has especial relevance is Starhawk. This game can handle 32 players just like Dust but unlike Dust, it has (semi) barren maps, reason being is players bring in their own structures, which is limited to 64 (if I guess right), and even then, each single player is allowed to be in a vehicle. Best yet, during no-action play, the game feels smooth and I would guess at around 40 -50 FPS, during action it averages at around 30, which is WAY more than what dust can offer.
The developers of dust should seriously consider using a game engine from a well developed studio or to (in the background) develop their own 'from scratch' engine. |
Pete B
Dogs of War Gaming
Zero-Day
145
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 22:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
C Saunders wrote:JIMvc2 wrote:The UR3 does a great job when a OB arrives from space to ground. Unlike other game engines that developers tweak and change = bad. The engine of Starhawk is soo effin smooth that I get Zero Lag. On the other hand, Dust 514 on my Vizio 75 Inch LED Smart TV at 120+ HZ = Dust runs at 60 FPS. Im not sure what Starhawk your playing. It can have some SERIOUS framerate drops at times. For example. Go splitscreen online, 32 players, large map and choas in a small area. The game plays like microsoft powerpoint.
Well thats an extreme case.
Thats the probably the equivalents of an entire matches vehicles on in the (what I think is) the caldari research facility in a PC match.
Thats just taking stress testing to an extreme. For the most part, starhawk runs silky smooth with exceptions of slight (but still playable) frame drops when real action occurs. Unlike Dust where the game is bordering playable most of the time and during PC or certain maps the game DOES become a slideshow. |
Pete B
Dogs of War Gaming
Zero-Day
145
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 22:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
Galvan Nized wrote:C Saunders wrote:JIMvc2 wrote:The UR3 does a great job when a OB arrives from space to ground. Unlike other game engines that developers tweak and change = bad. The engine of Starhawk is soo effin smooth that I get Zero Lag. On the other hand, Dust 514 on my Vizio 75 Inch LED Smart TV at 120+ HZ = Dust runs at 60 FPS. Im not sure what Starhawk your playing. It can have some SERIOUS framerate drops at times. For example. Go splitscreen online, 32 players, large map and choas in a small area. The game plays like microsoft powerpoint. Man I loved Starhawk beta, then tried the game and realized that they had no intention of actually balancing the game. Hear it got better but first impressions ruined it for me, and apparently most of the players.
It got better yeah, the addons add basically nothing but are useful to get into any matches. The issue at the minute is that the casual/average/normal players are now playing other games and only the 'true' players play now, so you will almost always get stacked against clan members or put into a game filled with AFK players with one or two normal players, the actual fun games coming up once in a while.
Kinda wish added an addon patch for the horde mode to compensate for the shitfest the actual multiplayer is now. |
Pete B
Dogs of War Gaming
Zero-Day
145
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 04:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
I'm not a coder nor software designer, but I'm pretty sure that theres a difference between an engine (something that runs something else) and a framework (the base structure) or technology (assets or knowledge).
The carbon engine in the contexts we are talking about MAY be linked to other aspects of the game during normal running (networking encryption/standards, weapon/vehicle mechanics; RPM is sometimes linked to FPS, ect), but for the MOST part, we are talking about the graphics which is almost certainly not linked to other running parts.
In this context we aren't talking about about the game mechanics but rather the in-game aesthetics more or less.
If you are complaining about the fact that someone mentioned the carbon engine as a graphical engine then you can't blame them can you, as the technology framework it is embedded within is called CARBON. At this point people know the Trinity Graphics Engine as the carbon engine. Saying TGE is uneeded when people know what you are talking about and you are just trying to be snooty. Whats the point of language may I ask you? By saying carbon engine and that person knowing what is meant (you obviously did) then has language achieved its purpose? |
|
|
| |
|