Convert Planetside 2 to Unreal Engine 3

Is this a joke? lol. It would take YEARS to convert the game, and then optimize it AGAIN. Forgelight will be optimized as time goes on. This game was built from the ground up around this engine, and this engine was built for this game. Shaddup. In a year or two this game will be easy to run. When Crysis came out, people didn't tell Crytek to change the engine, ffs...

Do you have any idea what it would take to change the engine? They'd have to convert all the assets, somehow convert the maps, etc... jesus you really are clueless.

I posted my Dxdiag, my computer is probably nicer than the majority of people playing this game.

And this game is not even NEARLY the best game out for PC.

Planetside appears to have the biggest fanboys in the history of FPS because Forgelight can't even begin to compete with Frostbite or Crytech engines. Not to mention Unreal 4 which is being released soon.

looooooooooooool

The sad thing is that I think he's actually serious.

God, I'm being trolled, aren't I? theres no way a human being is this ********.

Ok, lets start...

For one, Forgelight is capable of supporting massive battles. UE3 would explode when put under the pressure that planetside2 produces. UE3 is designed for what.. 64 players?.. thats one team on a midsized battle. its just not something the engine is designed to do

Forgelight makes cuts where they need to be in order to run the damn scale that it needs to.. Now yes, the game is far from perfect. The glaring balance issues and draw distance are a few that I can name... performance on high end computers (probably ******* saying they have high end computers, in reality) when my year old 700$ piece o 'crap runs this game on max settings video capping easily.

But
A: its not something that warrants something as.. ludicrous as an engine migration.
B: I sincerely doubt the UE3 engine would even run this game worth half a crap

Comparing BF3, 32 maybe even 64 max on the server to PS2...

Lol...........

When BF3 allows a few hundred players to play together on a single map, then we'll talk about what Sony should do. The largest maps BF3 currently support is 64 vs 64, and the maps aren't nearly as large as Planetside 2's.

You are joking right?

The amount of players on the server is relevant to latency. The fact that the textures and models look terrible compares to Crytech or Frostbite has nothing to do with how many players are on screen.

Honestly, there's a reason why BF3 was designed with 32 v 32, and at max 64 v 64 in mind. Much like most FPS shooter games. If you think the engine could support much larger battles without issues, wouldn't you think Dice would've loved to make a jump to 128 v 128? Because you know they just would love to say they have something CoD doesn't have.

It's not 64vs64, i think it's 64 in total so 32vs32.

The only argument anyone can make to say that Forgelight is necessary to have large amounts of players on screen would be to say that most people's pcs couldn't handle this many people on screen in a game using the Crytech 3 Engine.

But you can't claim an ugly game with really ugly textures is photo realistic because lots of people play it.

Not that Forgelight's dated graphics even matter to my point in this thread.

Since day one of beta there have been dramatic optimization issues, and the Developers barely even acknowledge that a problem exists. I doubt it will get any better.

Uh, the amount of players on the server is also all about computer power. Latency has nothing to do with FPS or the number of players on the screen. The fact that the models aren't Crysis quality is because... it has to show several hundred of them at once? I play with all the settings maxed and run at about ~50fps in large battles, and while my computer is significantly better than yours, it is far from top of the line.

Anyways ladies, you won't win any argument with this guy. It's the gaming equivalent of a laz-y boy general, he has no idea what coding is, how it works, or how games are produced. Apparently knowing the name of a few gaming engines makes you an expert on what is feasible or possible now. Who'd have thunk it!

...err. I would direct you to the PSA at the top of this very forum? The one where the dev talks about optimization and performance? The sticky? You know, those things forums have for important information?

No they've modded servers capable of 64 v 64 now.

i5 2500k @ stock
8gb ram
670 gtx graphics card

i get 45-70fps in the big battles and 140+ elsewhere. I have never seen the game dip below 44/43 when watching the fps monitor when i was perfomance tuning the game.

Maybe it's time you reinstalled your operating system, looking at that mess of a desktop shows numerous broken links to incorrectly uninstalled games and lots of update and download services that no doubt have left things running in the background leaching your computers resources.

If Battlefield 3 rendered 500 players on a single server, the game might run really poorly, but it would still be more detailed and higher quality than Planetside is at this point.

I like how you can do a quick glance at the posts on the forums right now and find several threads explaining the fact that the game currently doesn't use all of your computer's CPU.

The game's engine is broken and doesn't work right. Suddenly when I say it the problems don't exist I guess.

Do us all a favor and hit your computer with an axe so your stupid posts don't kill any more of our brain cells.

Except the server might explode, but hey as long as everybody stands still, we may all be able to enjoy the shiny pretty graphics like what people in MMO's do.