Unigine 2

Discussion in 'Ember & The Unreal Engine' started by benoit, Aug 8, 2016.

  1. benoit

    benoit New Member

    I am not expert, but I think an engine like Unigine might be more fitting the needs for the game. Like for example generating a complete planet or even several. Also, unlike other engines, I've read that it's made to be more flexible and customizable. Look at the things they show for their sdk2... pretty impressive. Unreal engine is great, but I don't think it is well suited for vast open world games.
    Just to mention to the devs, even though I guess they should already know it.
    Also, it is interesting to read this from the devs of Dual universe who explain why they chose to switch from unreal engine.
  2. Zarkopafilis

    Zarkopafilis Member

    I'd say I'm annoyed by the greatest game engine showdown of all time
  3. benoit

    benoit New Member

    Those are super awesome 100 square miles. No doubt that UE4 is great, super realistic, and simple to work with.
    But, 100 square miles are not enough to make a planet. I remember that firefall was about re-conquering the planet, not reconquering maps!
    I haven't read anything about that yet, but to me, that game should be in a whole planet.
  4. Mizogin

    Mizogin New Member

    Ember will never have a map the size of the planet, lol :D We might see different planets, but only a small chunk of each of them will be avaiable for us, and this chunks will probably be smaller than 100 square miles.
  5. NanoTechnician

    NanoTechnician Emberite - THMPR - Deepscanner

    The places will contain "pockets of terraforming" that players open up in undiscovered areas of map. Current idea is that planet has toxic atmosphere; you must build terraformers to open up pockets where you can mine freely.

    You then support it as it goes back to a processing facility to get its resources.
    benoit likes this.
  6. benoit

    benoit New Member

    I am going of topic now, but having a whole planet would make things more interesting to me.
    So then the aim of that game will not be to control the planet, get it back? That was supposed to be the aim in firefall, but there is nothing like that, to the exception of few missions.
    I don't care if the planet or planets are procedurally generated, I would be fine with one rather than several maps. To give time to the devs to engineer the planet, only a portion of it could be accessible before releasing the rest (continent?).
    To my opinion, the devs should look big. We know it's possible to generate planets, even though it could be made much smaller than earth. Then have exploration missions to go activate shields to open "pockets of terraforming", this would require to craft stuff to reactivate or to build the place to open the world. I personally think that the stuff should be built by the gamers, and they should be rewarded for doing such things (maybe simply called commender of the base and stats about how many things he built, commanded, etc). Then there would be people specialising in engineering/construction while others more on the fighting, etc. Then like it was supposed to be for firefall, having some bad guys (like aliens putting that gas to convert the planet? then we would cure it...) or wild life attacking these positions, to end up with a very dynamic environment. That way, the controlled area will be proportional to the amount of players and difficulty. In firefall, there are supposed to be attacks and places taken, but it rarely happens, and there are too few and too many people to actually end up loosing them. They endded up putting the interesting things in missions that separates you from the crowd, and that people do 100 times to get some stupid weapons... Some places could be harder to get, either because of stronger bad guys or wild life, but certainly not to an extend that requires levelling! The places will have different resources and will have to be controlled to be able to harvest from there. These things should also rely more on grouping of gamers to perform the tasks in the openworld than some stupid missions out of the crowd.
    Anyway, this is just a small part of what I wished see from firefall, and having "small" maps makes it much less interesting. I don't mind scarifying a bit of graphics quality over a much bigger environment. And bigger environment is important for richer experience which should not be super repetitive like firefall... I just hate doing the same thing all over again, doing the same mission just to get xp or for collecting some stupid objects... I just want to feel I am doing something useful in the game.
    NanoTechnician likes this.
  7. Mishkin

    Mishkin Gatestrider

    Amen !
    benoit likes this.
  8. DeyjaVou

    DeyjaVou Emberite

    I mean that's basically what's going to happen, but we need to start small-scale because of the size of the team, and the budget they're working with. Once we get up past a certain point we can consider larger maps. I also doubt there will be quests or missions, it'll mostly be combat or excavation.
  9. Krhys

    Krhys Player One

    Now this, well, you can't argue against this... UE4 gets my vote, no competition!
    NanoTechnician likes this.
  10. Kouyioue

    Kouyioue Active Member

    Never know about other engines unless they're tried out at some point :)
    I use changyou genesis, it's completely open source but nonexistant because its website poof'd xD
  11. Btabc

    Btabc Active Member

    I always wondered, looking at this do the pictures he use of the different materials (rocks and such), is that all the terrain is, or are they 3D models with that wrapped on them (I believe it's called mesh? I could be wrong)?! (if it's explained sorry I have no sound atm... broken). This basically solves my dilemma of if I should EVEN look at UE4 or not... thank you for this example!!! :)
  12. NanoTechnician

    NanoTechnician Emberite - THMPR - Deepscanner

    I suspect the procedural part would be similar to this branch diagram. Zone 1,2 & 3 are stable parts of the worlds that you can travel through, and the generated missions are where you go to and possibly invite others to join into, so the worlds are really quite large but diagrammatically quite small.


    The biggest issue (I've found) with shard type maps (like max 50 common ground FF player maps) is the amount of network server activity required to update each player's activity in relation to each other. I know, for example the Forgelight engine uses client side detection than relying on server activity to do it, a little bit of load sharing which gives seamless player activity.

    Yes, PS2 is a PvP environment, but it shows the power of a engine that can handle thousands of players at any one time on the same map. The scalability of UE4 would be my concern, but I feel that with continued development of the engine that these keystone developments will no longer be an issue.
  13. NoahDVS

    NoahDVS Deepscanner

  14. Btabc

    Btabc Active Member

  15. Zarkopafilis

    Zarkopafilis Member

    @NanoTechnician UE4 has indeed got some scalability issues. Especially with big maps (for example, level stream works properly , as well as seamless travel etc but there is some floating point issues because the metric on the engine is 1cm per unit). There are numerous discussions requesting support of origin rebasing that solves most of the problems. The other good thing in the engine is LODs and the ability to merge actors together. Good use of that can significantly lower the minimum specs required to run the game as well as give strong hardware the possibility to crack all the setting up to EPIC (aka ultra high), removing some fog of war (that is used to limit drawing cycles on faraway objects), as well as always view objects on their full LOD (level of detail), not on some low poly variant. The list goes on.....This thing would kinda be similar to optimization for mobile. If you got further technical questions for unreal better post on the forums, the answerhub, or better, join unreal slackers :) (link: http://join.unrealslackers.org/)
    NanoTechnician likes this.
  16. benoit

    benoit New Member

    Just because I am impressed by this, here is the page of their latest update. Check out the water physics videos... Pretty impressive. Also, check the paragraph about rounded earth :)

    Besides from that, I don't think they have support vulkan yet, but at least they support stereoscopic and vr. Of course, they support linux (sorry windows fans, but I avoid windows as much as possible).

    Anyway, UE4 is fine for me, I just don't want to evolve in small space :p
  17. Zarkopafilis

    Zarkopafilis Member

    How could you not have come across epic's demo for vulkan on the galaxy s7? Anyway, windows will be the ssstandard gaming platform for another 10 years for sure
    benoit likes this.
  18. benoit

    benoit New Member

    I have seen it, but I am not interested in phone games... Again, UE is great for "standard" fps and not so big scale (100 miles square is big, not not enough for me :).
    What to choose will depend on what the devs wants to do. Maps or planet, which engine is easier to work with (again, no experience in that)? Obviously they want to start with maps, for which UE would be fine and probably super beautiful. The problem is that if they want to expand but are stuck because of technical problems in the engine... that would be a pity.
    And windows as being the main gaming platform for a while, that's for sure. Drivers are still shit on linux, compared to windows. And that is amplified by the crappy ports made by some companies who basically translate dx into opengl without optimization. I still have good hopes though, and most of the engines are cross platforms. They should just think about not using DX. Vulkan would be king though, especially for something at such big scale!
  19. Zarkopafilis

    Zarkopafilis Member

    Don't get offended but I don't think your knowledge is enough to critique unreal engine's scalability. You seem to misunderstand how mobile and desktop are connected

Share This Page