Convert Planetside 2 to Unreal Engine 3

Actually I believe CoD uses the IW engine that is based on the iTech3 engine.

UE4 comes out soon.

At any rate, this discussion is pointless. Porting a game to a new engine isn't as easy as OP thinks it is. And it's not free either.

Hey, That's what I have been implying..

stop necromancing dead threads this was dead 6 months ago...let it die

Sorry but although your CPU is pretty good your graphic card is sorely lacking. The 560Ti is a last generation card, and a mid-range card at that; your trying to play a next generation engine powered game on a last generation powered graphic card. How well it plays games that use last generation engines, or older, has not baring on this discussion and shows how little experience you actually have of IT.

I bet the OP is real embarrassed now from all the way back in December.

Your dumb.

Do you even understand the complexity of creating a brand new engine that can offer the current level of graphics and support 3000 Players?

Forglight is a MMO engine, Not single player. Think about it.

Also 4890s running Cry3 on maxed at a solid 60fps is BS. Those card are terrible. You would be lucky to pull 30Fps on Crysis 1,

I'm amazed your able to even run planetside 2.

Wow they could just make it multiplayer dude. COD already has multiplayer...

Why is this thread still here and alive? Forgelight is a BA engine but still needs severe optimizing, Unreal is a good engine too but doesn't fit in this type of game.

Imagine PS2s engine on a 1km square map. with 16 players. Hardly complex is it. Or comparable.

This thread ended in 2012.

Please do not necromance dead threads.

Wow, the AC130 mission in COD was easily 1km.... And there were WAY more than 16 enemies in it. Have you even played call of duty....

COD uses the IW Engine.

Furthermore, it also is not the "distance of render" but the "quality of render" and "quantity of render" that matters. If I have a cube that consists of 8 vertices, it will take the same amount of processing power to render whether it is rendered 3m from the camera, or 3000m from the camera, if the draw distance is extended to 3000m. Different engines, however, would have a harder of time rendering 2 million of these identical cubes. Those that are optimized would only draw the most visible cubes, while UE may actually draw the hidden cubes and overdraw them.

Additionally, the player and all models on the AC130 model are low-poly compared to standard assets, as they do not need shadow rendering.

Air-based levels are historically large because the quality of the ground is diminished in many cases, due to air combat taking place so high. The following map is almost one hundred square kilometers. Distance of render is high.


Quality of render is not. All the buildings in the flyby above are basically cardboard boxes. While they look great 1km up, if you had a first person shooter on the streets of this Washington DC, the environment would be less complex than aim_akcolt from CS 1.6. There's no trees, no cars, no actual depth to the ground level. Unreal Engine is superior at drawing high quality of render, but has difficulty with the quantity of render that typically is required of it.

Holy sht this game is full of idiots.

This game looks terribly outdated, to me it looks actually worse then UT3.

And stop pretending that planetside got "THOUSANDS OF PLAYERS AT THE SAME TIME" you know it's not true. At the hottest fight at the crown you'll get about 150 players or something, max, which will result in 20-30 fps on my machine that I consider barely playable, and it's not with all my setting maxed, while even at maxed settings, it's still worse then UT3.

However BF3's frostbite engine is better then shtty forgelight in any possible way you can imagine, it can hold 32x32 matches atleast, or 64x64 - can't remember, with ease. I don't like bf3, really. But it's engine is so good it's impossible to argue with that. In those fights where my fps drops to 20 on my machine, while I had to cut all the settings, frostbite engine wouldn't fall below 60 fps. Never. Plus you actually have destructable objects in BF3. Ofc it's not possible in a MMO shooter, but I notice that it should actually put even more pressure on your machine.

"PS2 has lots of players" is just a stupid excuse. This game would be better at frostbite or unreal engine, it;s undiscussable. And they can hold your 150 max players more then fine, while forgelight can't hold fps above 60 at little skrimishes.

Staged/Scripted mission with AI. Same as all of the COD single player stuff. Its terrible. No open world.

What point are you trying to make here?

Wow, if you play multiplayer though then BOTH the player in the air and the guy on the ground are on the same map, so what aboutc that.

Just face it dude UE3 is just the superior technology that all games should be based off of. Call of duty, Crysis, BF3, all run & look way better than PS2 on UE3.... with lower requirements....

How can you even fathom that PS2 would be better on frostbite or even UT eNgine. Neither support the level of players PS2 has.

UT3 Engine, MMO's Global Agender / APB both terrible MMOFPS's and not even close to the size of PS2.

You are comparing a Motobike to a car. Your argument is terrible.

That's what LoDs are for.

AI

Artificial Intelligence

Idiot.

Not Real players. Understand the difference then type something that makes sense other than this **** your posting.

Yeah, that just means that COD is more DEMANDING because it has entire PLAYERS who are being controlled by your CPU and your CPU alone, while in PS2 all other players are human. That's the reason that multiplayer games will always be less demanding, its just common logic.