Convert Planetside 2 to Unreal Engine 3

I have activity (some maxed out) on 6 out of 8 cores when I am in game. This game multithreads nicely, it's not the issue of it being geared too much towards single core.

Press Alt F in game, will show you which one bottlenecks your system. CPU or GPU (or both). I am usually green on both, haven't had a tiniest slowdown. Built this PC for 1k 1 year ago, so I'm not running anything unreasonably expensive. They might not be optimized for AMD, don't know I have i7 can't confirm any AMD problems.

CoD doesnt use UE3

also a game engine isnt just graphics, graphics are just a portion of what a game engine does - i doubt UE3 could do any of the stuff that forgelight can with the number of players and with lighting

I would like to disagree. And saying that it runs horrible for almost everyone has no basis in reality. Just because people complain in the forums that it runs horrible for them does not mean it does for the majority.

I know 6 people personally who consider themselves PC gamers with rigs capable of running modern games who cannot run this game at an acceptable fps, or without major render distance problems.

I know 0 people who have not had that problem.

Anecdotal? Sure. But I suspect pretty strongly that lots of people are having problems. It is not a well optimized piece of software, I don't think anybody is seriously going to argue otherwise.

Obviously UE3 isn't the solution, the solution is months of iterative testing and thorough QA. But Sony decided against that.

You must be some kind of troll...
Your desktop has .class files, suggesting you do some kind of programming, or have some knowledge of computing.
However, your post is absolute lunacy and idiocy combined.

For me its opposite, none of my friends have run into any or very few problems. I'm not saying it couldn't be optimized better but thats not unique to this game.

Firstly I will state that this is my understanding of how these engines work from the last hour or research. RPG games using the unreal engine that to not use an aiming system for projectiles (in other words you need to point a crosshair at something) can not be used in this arguement as they likely just calculate the effect the shot will have on the target and animate it afterwards.

Next you need to consider the seamless nature the Forgelightlight engine offers. Tera does seem to be seamless to a large extent but still usses instance dungeon systems which is understandable for an RPG game. The key feature that makes torchlight the engine for planetside is the fact that you can jump betweem server shards (Hexes ingame) without even noticing it happend or sitting through a loading screen.

The next thing you need to look at is scale. I spent the 2nd half of this hour watching videos from these two games. Even if "Planetside 2 doesnt have as many people in one place as most people like to pretend" its still a hell of a lot more than ive seen in either of these games. If you can find me game footage of a game using the Unreal engine with a higher player density than say around the crown then I am mistaken on this point and its yours.

Graphics you can bring into account but this honestly isnt such a giant factor in my opinion. If graphics are what makes a game, why do people play anything under the top line? Minecraft for example. (Yes there are texture packs, but it still is nowhere near this level in terms of lighting, particle effects, ect.)

Have you tried doing optimization on your own side?

Unpark your cores
Try the ultra graphics change to get higher fps. (This does wonders eventhough it doesnt make any sense, worked for me as well as 4 others in the outfit)
Graphics driver updates as well as everything else.

I run
i5 4470 (Runs at roughly 30% after doing what I stated above
8g ram
630 GT Card GDDR 5 Version

I get 50 fps on the crown and 70 everywher else. (Compare the two cards, yours is better.)

i5 2500k
32G of ram
6850 Radeon card

I get ~70 FPS in PS2 (~55 in heavy battles) at 1080p/

Frostbite 2 is probably one of the best engines at the moment.
Would be interessting to see how it handles such big battles like PS2 has

This entire thread:

You are just trolling.

BF3? Really? This is a joke right?

1. The map scale compared to BF3 isn't even in the same dimension.
2. The number of units compared to BF3 isn't even in the same dimension.
3. The amount of rendering going on in a fight compared to BF3 isn't even in the same dimension. *See point 2*

Your inital post as well as those that followed are all inheretly flawed. You are expecting two games to perform the same when everything about them is different. The only similarities are both are shooters both have different untis in-game. Outside of that, the similarities pretty much end.

PS2 uses more CPU cycles because it is performing more calculations than BF3. The same reason FSX is more CPU intensive than World of Warplanes.

All of you expecting a game the size of PS2 to perform just like the much smaller BF3 just because of an engine-change are nonsensical clowns.

One thing I think everyone needs to know is that if you have any HUD programs (like Steam, Raptr or Xfire to name a few) then turn off the HUD display for them, infact don't use steam at all for this game.

In all my games I played, I all of a sudden got low FPS and I didn't understand why, but after turning off Raptr's and Xfire's HUDs my FPS skyrocketed and I could increase my graphic settings alot

I like your effort, however your entire ''Engine'' Research is based on nothing.

You have been watching videos of those 2 games? Well engines do not reflect their possibilities by looking at the visual components of a game.
Seamless is PS2 Nowhere near, you should look at the texture stretching and polygon crossing. It's generated for the most part.. Then painted by the textures afterwards, creating huge texture stretching. It's nowhere near seamless.

As for your aiming system, that's all scripting, UE3 can be scripted to have any aiming system you want it to have. It's an engine, not a terminal. Engines can be modified without limits. The only thing that's limited is the Stability, that's why new engines are created for better realtime processing.

About your jump-to-sections without loading, that's entirely wrong, because jumping from continents, deaths and sometimes travel takes loading. You can also easily add more servers to 1 game section, it's possible with almost every engine as long as you add a backbone and the decent scripts to them..

Again, I like your effort, but your research had no effect as it's based on more opinions than facts.

I stand corrected.

I mainly looked into the types of genres that use which engines and for what types of gameplay and the player load which that engine needs to handle.

What was meant with seamless was the actual transition between locations on the server and not so much the graphical aspect. In retrospect, seamless might have been the wrong term to use there. I know there is loading in planetside but not much compared to the scale of the map.

Someone with technical knowledge (such as yourself it seems) could likely better point out why a certain engine is prefered for a certain type of game and if this is even if what OP suggested would be plausible.

From what I understand, new engines are created for better realtime processing? The question therfore is can the Unreal Engine keep up while demanding less from the client. Also, to what extent would you need to modify the coding to even make this change?

o7

OP doesn't have a slighest clue on what he is talking about.

This thread HAHAHAHAHAHAH......I'm not sure if i should cry, laugh or do both at the same time.

The attempt to convert game engine currently employed in Planetside 2.

Well yeah, I do agree when looking at it from this new post Thank you for the clarification.

Well the UE3 engine, is already done for, they have a UE4 engine..
In it's own genre, as you clearly explained properly, it has it's upgrades to satisfy present demands, but ofcourse, it wouldn't be used for MMO games since it demands too much of your pc to handle 32 player, let alone 3200.

I didn't want to come in here but... OK.

You're asking about the extent of change involved in "switching" engines?

You asked for an informed opinion so here's my resume: I was a programmer in the industry for 8 years before the overtime did me in. In that time I shipped games on the PS2, PSP, PS3, Xbox, Xbox 360, Wii, and PC, often on several of those simultaneously. I was Director of Gameplay Programming at Atari/Shiny, where part of my job was to hire and teach the new programmers.

The answer to your question is that one does not simply walk into a new engine. A game engine is the fundamental framework of technology that all else is built on and around. Everything from the file formats of your data (models and such) on up is wrapped up in your engine. It's a lot like asking to convert to another universe. That's not a "switch" so much as it is a do-over in many important respects.