Convert Planetside 2 to Unreal Engine 3

That looks HORRIBLE. Atrocious. Are you SERIOUSLY comparing this garbage to ANY modern games?

I'm on Jaegar and I see 100v100 (at least) fights all the time

Depends if they interact with each other.

I am curious Journmand, are you a coder or even a dabbler in the arts of Coding / Modding / Developing for Videogames?

Unreal 3 is a great game for small scale projects, or if your working on something like borderlands (instances INSTANCES INSTANCES)... UDK 3 does not support MMO Scale qualities, it requires heavy modification of that engine in itself, do you remember Huxley? It was a MMOFPS that ran on the UDK (UT3 engine at the time) with Persistent characters... it did not last long and was no longer supported before the end of development.

If planetside 2 went that way, they would require a lot of coding to be reworked for the game itself, models wouldn't be an issue because they could just export their 3ds Max models into FBX format and import them through UDK with minor collision tweeks, animations aren't an issue either because Maya exports them with the FBX as well (save the hassles)

where things really kick you in the balls though, is the unreal scripting and kismet for the world, UDK does not support MMO sized worlds like planetside does... hell battlefield doesnt even come close to it... if you had that big of a world in UDK it would all be rendering at once with all the players and give people heart attacks on their computers (crashing from memory leaks more often then not)

I know this because we tried to create a mmofps in our college classes, it was more troublesome than we had hoped and scrapped the project and just turned towards a singleplayer game.

good lord this post is fail...

Crysis was also unplayable for most and to this day still is for many. Software can only do so much, like you said there is no magic patch that will improve performance by ten-fold. At the end of the day sometimes you just need to take the plunge and upgrade your hardware. Or we can keep complaining, Sony will give in and the next planetside will be some generic console trash like Crysis 2.

We have a huge responsibility here. F2P games are the future of the PC gaming industry. This is the first F2P game of its kind because it has production values that match even AAA titles. We don't want to give Sony, or other publishers that are closely watching PS2, the notion that F2P games should strive to be accessible to every low end PC out there for the sake of marketability and making everyone happy.

I wonder if SOE would consider leveragng the use of Gaikai, another Sony asset. Gaikai is a cloud-based gaming service...perhaps the solution may be doing even more on serverside.

You keep using that word but I don't think you know what it means in relation to a game engine.

this

Simply put, as this has come up more then a few times, the Unreal 3 engine is both out of date and far insufficent to handle the scale that planetside is. Let me ask you this? Why is it that for Unreal games there is a Hard limit of how many people can play in Multiplayer? Is it because of Balance or because you get to a point that the engine just can't handle the dataloads?
What is the largest size of any map in any Unreal 3 Shooter? I can promise you that it would pale in comparision to the size of a contenent of planetside.

Truth is, Planetside is going to be intensive for what it does. With the console generation lasting as long as it has, many have gotten use to the fact that many games could run on hardware that was getting more and more out of date. That being said, the dev team has come in long strides in making optimizations for players to get better performance. It's also kind of hard to complain about the physics of planetside when it is doing more calculations in a large fight then you would see in a full game of say Gears of War.

Really it's about what a game engine is designed to do, and Unreal is not Designed to handle anything close to what Planetside does.

Oh? So, you're saying they're doing nothing to fix the problems the game has? Funny, I seem to recall a few patches that fixed bugs since the game goes out.

Perhaps that wasn't Smedley's ANSWER to planetside problems, but his ANSWER to what they're planning on for the next 3 years. 2 completely different subjects. This may come as a shock, but game companies can do more then 1 thing at a time. And I'd hazard a guess that the same crew in charge of fixing bugs, optimizing the game, taking care of problems, etc are NOT the same guys working on the 3 year plan. But not to you; you believe there's...what? Only 2 people working at SOE? That they do EVERYTHING? Have you ever been to Sony's web page? They have their fingers in many pies; gaming is just 1 small part. I'm pretty sure the guys who are involved in making stereo systems aren't working on the game, for instance.

As far as adding mobs and naval battles; it's to my understanding the 'mobs' are a special event, not persistant mobs that we hunt for skin and leather and ears. Or dragons guarding treasure troves. Unless you have more information that something like the 'Lair of the Froglock King' is going to be implemented, you are doing nothing more then what you always do. Looking for the worst possible permutation of what he said so you can justify your belief that your hatred of the game for not being exactly what you want it to be is justified.

Stop looking at the negatives only. Sure, bring them up, but stop obsessing about them to the elimination of all else. When you concentrate ONLY on the negatives, you're going to be angry and sad. When you shrug, accept the negatives for what they are and move on to enjoy the positives, you don't get angry. Instead, you might have <GASP!> fun! I know, who would EVER have thought FUN was a goal in a game...

current planetside 2 engine doesnt accelerate hardware maximum. openworld? mmo? fps? no matter at purpose this game engine is low cpu gpu usage with low fps!! well proven unreal engine would X100000 time better. cryengine is another good option for openworld fps like entropia universe. the game run smooth with thousand monsters on the field. vehicles work perfect graphic was beautiful

OH HEEEEEEELL NO
It's like you have not played any multiplayer with Unreal Engine 3, the netcode is horrible.

More Options in the graphics settings would help, such as being able to turn shadows off completely would add frames for lower end computers. The render quality option does absolutely nothing, as my frames stay exactly the same regardless of what I have it set at.

If they added options to turn off some of the system and gpu hogging elements such as shadows, particles, flora and effects, mid to low end computers would show a dramatic increase in FPS.

I have a EVGA GTX 690 which I control with EVGA Precision X, but my CPU is getting tired (old) and I notice when involved in large scale battles with 200+ players involved my FPS is slowed quite a bit, like down to 10-15 FPS, even though My CPU is only running at 60% (+/-). I have 8 GB RAM and it runs at 35% (+/-) Removing all those shadows from every moving element woul make a HUGE difference, I have seen this difference on other games.

I know the game looks fantastic with everything maxed out, but I simply cant play the game in large battles with everything turned up. I would rather have a much lower graphics quality and a much higher FPS than vice-versa. playing at 12 fps is unbearable...

net code is to do with the server, nothing to do with the engine...

Actually it does have everything to do with it. The engine has to communicate with the server, otherwise, well nothing would happen and you wouldn't have an online game.
Look, OP had a point, the game has bugs. We all know it there are no games that don't have bugs. His suggestion for fixing the problem was ridiculous, but it's not worth 6 pages of rage.

Throw out an unfinished engine for one that is not built for MMOFPSs. Smart.

You think they aren't going to finish this engine, you're crazy. Proper optimization takes years.

Let's queue up for a 16v16 tech plant fight yo.

Please. No damn way are we turning this into a generic multiplayer shooter, the large playercount battles are the only thing PS2 has going for it. There's a reason that Forgelight is being used.

They keep saying the Forgelight engine is "revolutionary in technology" yet it currently is total garbage.

What BF3 has that PS2 Doesnt:

-better visuals
-stable fps even on 64 player servers
-less lag
-more guns
-way better sound design and technology
-better gameplay features such as actually setting up LMG bipod, prone, etc.
-blood
-better art

Even with the BF3 blue tint, I think it's better.

THe only thing PS2 has is scale, but once you get over the "oooh ahhh" factor, number of players doesn't really matter.