Dayz --- My experience (opinion) so far...

[Knocturnal 1]

First, I must ask, why the Arma 2 engine? Arma 2 engine is one of, if not, the least optimized engine to see daylight in years... Mediocre graphics that require much power yet makes poor use of hardware. I truly dislike the engine due to its general feel, movement feels clunky, and simply strange, and there are plenty of glitches that were left untouched by Bohemia. Keybindings interference, thus requires to have a whole keyboard mapped out for simple tasks and actions that can all be combined in a few keys (Ex. Use/Interact combined with vaulting over objects.)  Arma 3 engine would have been much preferred. Even CryEngine could have been an alternative, though may have resulted in a smaller map size (Ex. Farcry 3).

 

DayZ has potential, there is no doubt about it. The standalone is underdeveloped, though, this was not kept secret upon release. I hope to see this game progress in the right direction, and see it reach the developers intended goal.

[ryzoh 44]

lets make a deal, you pay for the use of CryEngine and dean hall and his team build dayz on CryEngine

 

IF you are not doing that then

 

uninstalling the game is a option.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

And second? Or was that it?

[DemonGroover 8836]

Please provide an engine which can create land the size that the Real Virtuality engine can?  Without loading screens.  And of course we are talking a large MMO as well.

 

You can not compare a small map such as Battlefield for example to an area like Chernarus+ of over 225Km²

 

Insofar as mediocre graphics? I completely disagree,  For me the RV engine produces the most realistic graphics in any game (compare to Skyrim for instance)

Edited December 29, 2013 by DemonGroover

[fathairybeast 246]

Politics/copyright probably has something to do with it.  Bohemia Interactive is sort of "sponsoring" the project... in a way.  I doubt they'd be able to do much with a game engine they don't own.  In order for Rocket to build on top of a completely different engine he would have to gain support from the company that owned it and begin from scratch.

 

As for arma 2 vs. arma 3 engine.  I'm not sure but I have my suspicions.  Dayz mod had already been built on top of the arma 2 engine when work on a standalone went underway.  Also, arma 3 was still in development when the work for SA began.  It probably seemed easier to go with what they had vs. waiting for (or starting with) an incomplete engine.

[DemonGroover 8836]

Anyone seen this comparison? Chernarus of course isnt as big as Altis but i think this gives an indication of what the RV engine can do.  Very underrated.

 

[Knocturnal 1]

I think it`s funny some responded with offense.

 

Apart from its possible map size, it remains that it's the most poorly optimized engine out there. There was significant work done to Arma 3's engine, and I would have thought that the standalone version could have waited to run on Bohemia's latest engine. Where DayZ currently stands (standalone), it's barely playable, aside from the glitches and connection issues, control setting are not all functional (Ex. disabling mouse acceleration), and it can barely run on my PC on normal settings. Where I run Arma 3 at max settings...

[PoebusApolloHC 24]

The unfortunate truth is that Rocket had to use the Arma II engine as his base for Standalone since he was picked up and aided by Bohemia in this project. That being said, Standalone will continue to be developed and optimized as best as the team can accomplish. It will be years down the road that another DayZ title is created either by Rocket and his team or by another company utilizing another, better engine. We have to stick with what we've got this time around with Standalone's current engine, but have hope for the future.

[Bakercompany86 347]

Am I the only one who doesn't see a problem with the engine?  Also, are you an expert programmer who has a copy of the engine sourcecode to dissect and inspect for errors?  If you answered "no" to either part of that last question, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Sometimes it's not the engine, but the instruction set fed to the engine.  All things can be ironed out over time.

 

Plus didn't I read that one of the reasons it took so long to get progress on SA is because they rewrote the engine from the ground up to better suit the SA?

 

Also you have no idea how much it costs to license CryEngine, or any other engine for that matter.  (Hint, we're talking millions probably).

 

Getting real sick of these game engine complaint threads.

[Chauz 166]

With all these pro developers  and their ideas we have on the forum, I would have thought they banded together and made their own Super Mega Cool Zombie Survival the Game by now. 

[PoebusApolloHC 24]

Getting real sick of these game engine complaint threads.

People continue to bring it up because they see other games with large worlds, great graphics, and tons of interaction with that environment, and wonder, "how much better would Standalone be if it could have this engine as it's base?" It's the unanswered questions that will never have answers that bother them.

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

The bottom line is that as a programmer you're not gonna pick something that you don't already know how to work with, unless it is completely unfit for your project.

 

It does NOT just boil down to the engine choice, not only is this an insult to every programmers out there but this is like a musician complaining that his instrument isn't good enough for his music.

 

That's beginner modder talk "we need a better engine", since modders rarely get full source code access they are usually bound by whether their engine of choice support this or that feature.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Lady Kyrah

[maliceubx 73]

Please provide an engine which can create land the size that the Real Virtuality engine can?  Without loading screens.  And of course we are talking a large MMO as well.

 

You can not compare a small map such as Battlefield for example to an area like Chernarus+ of over 225Km²

 

Insofar as mediocre graphics? I completely disagree,  For me the RV engine produces the most realistic graphics in any game (compare to Skyrim for instance)

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Not to rain on your parade here but there are plenty of engines out there that support a large map size with comparable (ish) graphics which run multitudes better than the RV engine. Just Cause 2's Avalanche engine not only manages to maintain 923 km² of diverse terrain but the recent multiplayer mod has pushed 1,000 players simultaneously while remaining stable. Not to mention the engine itself supports things the RV engine does not currently such as a working physics engine in a low latency environment.

 

Say what you will to defend the choice but the truth is BI didn't want to invest the amount of money necessary to license a more capable engine and Rocket did what he could to make his dream happen with the tools he had, so much respect to him for that... Although given the proper tools I think this game would currently be a year ahead development wise compared to where it is now if he hadn't had to deal with a clunky server architecture, engine and practically having to reinvent the wheel so-to-speak through RV.

 

Also to those saying BI doesn't have money... it's kind of a weird thing to say. DayZ mod alone was responsible for between 500-700,000 sales at between 10-30 dollars per. Now Standalone just pulled 600,000 and quickly climbing.  1.2 million sales for something that cost them a fraction of what a AAA title would cost, I'm sure the level of profitability is not bad.

Edited December 29, 2013 by CDriVe1335

[Bakercompany86 347]

People continue to bring it up because they see other games with large worlds, great graphics, and tons of interaction with that environment, and wonder, "how much better would Standalone be if it could have this engine as it's base?" It's the unanswered questions that will never have answers that bother them.

 

 

Like Skyrim?  From Bethesda?  Who have multi-million dollar production budgets and massive development teams of programmers who have been experienced with the same game engine for years?  As opposed to a small team of guys who spawned from developing a mod.  

It's essential to put things into perspective.  Unless any of the forum-goers are closet millionaires and want to donate a massive amount of money to BI for the development of DayZ SA, I think they're doing a damn fine job with what they have.  And it's getting better as time goes on (hence the whole "This is an unfinished Alpha") message we all read.

 

 

Also as Lady Kyrah mentioned above, it's better for programmers to go with an engine they are experienced with as opposed to learning a new one from the ground up.  They're programmers, they can modify the engine as they need.

[Knocturnal 1]

I know there's a difference between licensing a Bohemia vs Crytek engine, and I understand this game is also a mod, thus, I do believe there are SDK's for the CryEngine, such that Blood Dragon was developed on. I don't hate the current engine because it doesn't provide something amazing for the DayZ game, but simply because it always has and likely always will be a poorly optimized engine. The game is great, and there's so much that hasn't even been added yet. I have faith that this game will see better days.