so when is the move to the new engine?

[rybo 171]

Correct me if im wrong, but when you take something and change it around and add more on top of it, its not "new", its improved, modified...

Calling it a new engine is not correct, its a reworked engine, based on RV.

 

Its like buying a car at a dealership, going home and doing a ton of custom modification to it.

Its not a "new" car, its a modified car.

Close but wrong. Both these "Cars" are coming from the factory. Just because a car was made last year doesn't mean that the same model this year isn't "New".

 

But you are correct in that it's "New", "Old" shit lulz...

 

So in the end tomato's tamato's it's the all the same really.

Edited July 7, 2014 by RyBo

[infiltrator 275]

Well, they are adding it bit by bit, but once they change the RENDER it will dramatically change how the game looks in a single patch.

 

While it won't be a new engine, a lot of laimans will think that it indeed is what a "new engine" represents.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Infiltrator

[ld-airgrafix 403]

But thats the thing, they arent replacing everything....

Remember Dean is not a very PR savy person, he has never been very good at explaining things to the public. Hes a programmer, he thinks in code.

He only calls it a new engine, to hype it and to please the masses imho.

 

If they where to export ALL current assests, buy a brand spanking new engine (frostbyte, cryengine, unreal, etc.) and then import everything into it, we can all it new.

But this is not new, its a heavily modified version of RV, so modified it will be given its own name, Enfusion.

 

They are doing exactly what they did with Take On Helicopters, just on a much bigger scale.

 

Dont get me wrong, its gonna be awsome to get the improvements they are talking about, but calling it a new engine is rubbish, its a modified engine.

This is just like Apple releasing an IOS update and calling it new. Its "just" an upgrade of the current tech.

Well we can all at least agree it was something that was needed. The game was going nowhere with the old engine.

However what happens when "enfusion" becomes a standalone engine, available for purchase, is it still "not new"?

[TiggyPooh 134]

Well we can all at least agree it was something that was needed. The game was going nowhere with the old engine.

However what happens when "enfusion" becomes a standalone engine, available for purchase, is it still "not new"?

 

Your guess is a good as anyone's if it will be for sale.

 

If they decide to give it a name then it is a NEW Engine, now you can argue at what percent of improved/changed/added code an engine is a new one, but once you give it its own name then it is a New engine and for the sake of sanity mention that it is based off the old one.

[byrgesen 1341]

 

A stage coach and a car are both based on the wheel.

You would say a stage coach and a car are the same, or say a car is an improved version of a stage coach or both are improved versions of the wheel.

That's ok and I respect your opinion.   :P

 

But i was refering to a specific car :) Not just cars in general hehe.

I get your point though mate, still think its sad people want to call something new, which isnt new at all :)

 

Close but wrong. Both these "Cars" are coming from the factory. Just because a car was made last year doesn't mean that the same model this year isn't "New".

 

But you are correct in that it's "New", "Old" shit lulz...

 

So in the end tomato's tamato's it's the all the same really.

 

Alright maybe cars was a bad choice of comparison :)

Because they are actually changing fundamental parts of the vehicle, from year to year, which isnt the case with DayZ.

 

The base engine is gonna be the same, they will however get new psychics, new renderer, new mechanics and new models.

But things like inventory, the way you pick up loot, the way the guns shoot, the way it simulates bullets, file extensions and so on and so on, will not change to anything new.

And thats is the core of the engine.

 

Like the quote i got from Wiki clearly states that psyshics and the renderer isnt actually part of the core engine :)

 

Well we can all at least agree it was something that was needed. The game was going nowhere with the old engine.
However what happens when "enfusion" becomes a standalone engine, available for purchase, is it still "not new"?

 

We can agree its something we need, but it is also something we have been told would be developed since the very beginning of development last year :)

 

In my world it will never be new, it will always be a branch of the RV engine, an updated and modified version of it, to fit a specific need.

And i doubt BI will ever release it for sale, they havent done that before and some of the RV technology is still owned by BI Simulations, which makes a GIANT amount of money on military contracts around the world.

Dont think they want theyre software in the hands of anyone else tbh :) Could be wrong but i really doubt it hehe.

 

 

Your guess is a good as anyone's if it will be for sale.

 

If they decide to give it a name then it is a NEW Engine, now you can argue at what percent of improved/changed/added code an engine is a new one, but once you give it its own name then it is a New engine and for the sake of sanity mention that it is based off the old one.

 

 

So by that logic, when Warz changed name to Survivor Stories, it became a new game? :D

Im sorry but i cant agree, that slapping a new name on something makes it new.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Byrgesen

[TiggyPooh 134]

Ok let me explain it from my experience.

 

I write some code for a helicopter in 2006.

Then I start making some improvements to the code and some more.

At some stage during these improvements I notice that the new code has hardly if anything in common with the original code.

Now I have the option to call it version 9.0 or give it a whole new name.

 

The same would have happened at BI, they would have taken the old ARMA 2 engine and used that as a base. More and more new code was added as old code was removed to achieve things they wanted to introduce into the game mechanics and physics.

Now at some point one of the programmers would have made a joke saying this new code has nothing left in common with the old code.

That is the spark it takes to make the decision to give it a new name and call it a new engine and I don't think this is a marketing idea.

More so that this new engine has nothing or hardly anything left in common with the old one.

[foxdie_01 121]

Ok let me explain it from my experience.

 

I write some code for a helicopter in 2006.

Then I start making some improvements to the code and some more.

At some stage during these improvements I notice that the new code has hardly if anything in common with the original code.

Now I have the option to call it version 9.0 or give it a whole new name.

 

The same would have happened at BI, they would have taken the old ARMA 2 engine and used that as a base. More and more new code was added as old code was removed to achieve things they wanted to introduce into the game mechanics and physics.

Now at some point one of the programmers would have made a joke saying this new code has nothing left in common with the old code.

That is the spark it takes to make the decision to give it a new name and call it a new engine and I don't think this is a marketing idea.

More so that this new engine has nothing or hardly anything left in common with the old one.

Surely the moment you changed the core code from its original your technically working on "infusion" even if you haven't decided to call it that at that point. Hence why SA has always been running "infusion".

EDIT: and to add, if they weren't interested in the marketing, they would have said "we've decided to call our modified engine "infusion" which we are continuing to modify further" rather than "DAYZ IS MOVING TO A NEW ENGINE!!!!111" [initiate PR]

Edited July 7, 2014 by foxdie_01

[byrgesen 1341]

Ok let me explain it from my experience.

 

I write some code for a helicopter in 2006.

Then I start making some improvements to the code and some more.

At some stage during these improvements I notice that the new code has hardly if anything in common with the original code.

Now I have the option to call it version 9.0 or give it a whole new name.

 

The same would have happened at BI, they would have taken the old ARMA 2 engine and used that as a base. More and more new code was added as old code was removed to achieve things they wanted to introduce into the game mechanics and physics.

Now at some point one of the programmers would have made a joke saying this new code has nothing left in common with the old code.

That is the spark it takes to make the decision to give it a new name and call it a new engine and I don't think this is a marketing idea.

More so that this new engine has nothing or hardly anything left in common with the old one.

 

But the thing is it will always have something in common with the RV engine :)

The fundamental engine isnt gonna change, they are just adding more and better stuff on top of it, like a new psychics system and a new renderer, and of course making the engine handle the things it needs to handle better. Like when they made the network bubble last year.

 

But the way it handles models and configs, will not change. Neither will the file extension, nor the way it handles the PBO files :)

So i understand what you are saying, but its not so far from the "old engine", at least not far enough for me to actually call it new.

 

If you want to call it new, be my guest :) I just refuse to call something new, when its an improved version of something else hehe.

[terminal_boy 860]

Beta.

[byrgesen 1341]

Surely the moment you changed the core code from its original your technically working on "infusion" even if you haven't decided to call it that at that point. Hence why SA has always been running "infusion".

EDIT: and to add, if they weren't interested in the marketing, they would have said "we've decided to call our modified engine "infusion" which we are continuing to modify further" rather than "DAYZ IS MOVING TO A NEW ENGINE!!!!111" [initiate PR]

 

Exactly my point aswell :)

Have some beans good sir hehe  :beans:  :beans:

[Mos1ey 6301]

Isn't that how you make new engines?

 

No, that's how you modify an existing engine.

[TiggyPooh 134]

No, that's how you modify an existing engine.

 

If that is the case then give it a version number and not a new name!

[irl-calibre 744]

This old brush has had 3 heads and five handles..

[TiggyPooh 134]

Yeah seriously, if they haven't created a new engine then it doesn't really deserve to have a new name.

 

I will take back everything I previously said and call this a pure marketing strategy.

 

 

It's now a zebra:

 

[smoq2 221]

Well, they are adding it bit by bit, but once they change the RENDER it will dramatically change how the game looks in a single patch.

 

While it won't be a new engine, a lot of laimans will think that it indeed is what a "new engine" represents.

 

I'm not exactly sure on renderer development practices (I only did work on AI or management systems), but taking note of the Devs' fondness of an iterative approach, I would expect the change to come in increments - e.g. one patch for shadows, one for edge smoothing, one for ambient occlusion, one for dynamic light sources, etc.

Edited July 7, 2014 by retro19

[frosti 2165]

Yeah seriously, if they haven't created a new engine then it doesn't really deserve to have a new name.

 

I will take back everything I previously said and call this a pure marketing strategy.

 

 

It's now a zebra:

 

 

This perfectly explains the new engine that we are getting. And it's 64 bit! Yay!

[sloasdaylight 129]

This old brush has had 3 heads and five handles..

 

Exactly. This whole conversation about the engine DayZ runs on, whatever you want to call it: Infusion, ARMA 2.5, ARMA 3.-5, ToH 2, Dean'sMod, whatever, reminds me of the Ship of Thesus. Replace the deck planks, replace the main mast, replace the jib, replace the rudder, replace the keel and exterior planking, etc. etc. until you have a new ship, but is it still Thesus' original ship, or something completely new?

 

Frankly I don't really care whether you draw the distinction between a new engine being something that started from a blank file, or something that was an existing engine that had every (or nearly every) part of it rewritten and original code removed from it, so long as it works the way it ought to.

[SFRGaming 718]

I think we can all agree that the dev's should have been a bit more clear from the start.

[hells high 676]

 

you're welcome

 

"the plan is to replace it as modules as we go along"

 

You don't just rip chunks out of the Quake 1 engine and stick bits of Cryengine 3 in there. Its being rewritten as they go, it doesn't mean they are going to port assets to anything else. Look at Half Life 2 and compare it to, say, Titanfall or even Portal 2. All Source engine games but the latter have been so heavily modified that Titanfall wasn't even shown as a "source game" and Portal 2 is running on a version that Valve have been struggling with the idea of renaming as it features huge advancements in how things are handled and probably bears very little resemblance to the original HL2 was released with.

 

People struggle with how game engines work sometimes, just look at the backlash to hearing the new Battlefront would run on Frostbite. "Oh so its going to have lens flares and blue tint, lame."

Edited July 7, 2014 by Hells High

[OrLoK 16185]

hello there

 

Enfusion.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[SFRGaming 718]

hello there

 

Enfusion.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

Wot?

 

10900 posts? GG

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

I really wish gamers would shake off this misconception that developers make things better by restarting "from scratch", the only people i know who do that are beginner programmers that get overwhelmed by their own project and are unable to do iterative changes to it.

 

If you have problems in your program you fix them, you do not toss out all the GOOD stuff you wrote just because there is a few bad ones. Ask banks if they prefer new untested and unstable  code to code that work and has been debugged for years.

Edited July 31, 2014 by Lady Kyrah

[Mancomb 131]

So, to sum it all up:

 

- Dean says DayZ will be on a new engine eventually

- They start with the original engine (whatever that might have been at the start)

- They modify the engine slightly here and there over time

- Eventually, after enough modification, the engine they're currently using will morph into something new

- DayZ is now running on a "new" engine

 

 

Borrowing from the "new car" argument above: just like when you purchase a car and then proceed to modify it by replacing parts here and there, from the wheel rims to the body panels, when you replace everything, you're changing and replacing everything EXCEPT the frame that it's all attached to and supported by; the car may look, sound and even feel radically different from what you originally started with, but at it's core it's still the same car. Stock cars are a good example of this: they're still the same make and model of car that someone can buy at a dealership, it's just been HEAVILY modified to become a race car. The same can be said for this game engine: after all is said and done, it will likely look, sound and feel like something completely new and different, but at the core it's still the same engine. The exception to both of these example is if you were to replace even the frame of the car, at which point it really isn't the same car anymore, because absolutely nothing is original; the same can be said for the game engine. You can start with one engine, but if you completely modify and replace everything in it, at that point it ceases to be the original and has become something entirely new, because nothing of the original is left. For it to be an "upgrade" or "modification", there still needs to be something left of the original product, and I think that is what the case will be for the game engine: it WILL be heavily modified, but at the core I think it will still be the same engine.

[Zyryanoff 227]

Dean "No"

Interviewer "is this starting over from scratch?"

Few companies (as staff) openly admit that some of the work was done in vain. :D

Do you remember what Dr. House is always said? ;)

[RagedDrew 209]

hello there

 

Enfusion.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

 

hello there

 

Infusion.

 

Rgds

 

Rage