Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[zuluknob]

oh yay! a multiplayer map editor.... sigh.. now, admittedly minecraft is a bit like that, but it has a player char that can directly interact with the enviorment. being able to import your own models, edit the script, place models and roads is an editor not a game.
Before you start with the  "but minecraft doesn't do what this engine will be able to do in 10 years" crap. I do know...  I wonder how many of you are actually people who would play anteworld sometimes...

[deathevor]

The problem that I see with developing a GAME is that:

You like Minecraft and I don't.
I like Sims and you don't.

So I'm up to have a game, but asking devs to start to focus on it will only make them busy and force to go one way.
And that's what I'm afraid of.

So even I want a flight sim with all Interfaces and Logic (as main thing), I still understand that it is better just to ask for tools to create them myself (3rd Party).
As the logic here is following:

- If Devs will choose a Minecraft, I probably will no longer be interested in it.
- If it will be a strategy game, the same thing.
- If they will choose the Flight, Race sim - I'll stay, but again in this directions there could be wrong ways for me. As if they'll do one island (like Flight did), I probably
won't be very happy.
- BUT if they will keep making new tools and features, this will lead to 3rd Parties creating different games from it (Minecraft type, Flight sim and others)
And those groups (companies, fans or others)  will do this more fanatically and more accurately, specializing on certain game type.

Google is a good example - always liked the way they used users to massively develop a content (and create games) by providing easy to use tools (Google earth and many others).
Even it didn't suppose to, but as a result you can find many games based on it
Driving - http://geoquake.jp/en/webgame/DrivingSimulatorPerspective/
Flight sim - http://www.gefs-online.com//


All above is taking in account that Anteworld supposed to be a game, and Outerra is the engine I'm looking for.
The truth is, that purchasing it, I actually wasn't interested in "trading" game, and always looked at Aneworld as an Outerra Engine (demo).


What I do support in your post is to keep Outerra growing (as a team and financially l as well).
But in here I see it as not through a game, but through engine capabilities and clever monetisation. (As Google mentioned above)


Personally, we (users) also can support Outerra (apart from paying for alpha) team in this by (re)publishing their achievements, creating content and helping this world this world to grow and attracting new users.
The same way a year ago I found Outerra just because somebody posted a video and tagged it as Flight Sim. Bought it straight away and never regret.



P.S> Damn would be good to be able to buy and send Outerra as a gift - My lazy 3D modeller is a miser.
Want to buy him Outerra (as additional present for finishing job), as he always spare money for such things
He is still a good guy

[zuluknob]

1. i suggest you read their description of the game they want to make and see cameni's comment in this thread about not making a flight sim. they stated over a year ago what the game anteworld would be(roughly). if another company decided to pick up the engine to use in their flight sim that would be cool but this engine is a long way from being marketable for that purpose. a long way...

2. i'm not that bothered about minecraft as it is so limited in scope and i do play and test sims...just not flight sims where you fly from a to b. I just want them to spend some time on the game (anteworld) itself rather than just the outerra engine side of things. still develop the engine but some work on a game would be a good idea not just for me/us but for them also as i have previously explained.

3. I wish people here would have a look out there to see what else is being developed and see just how close to loosing the market outerra is becoming. Even the military side of things(i have a friend who makes simulations for the m.o.d.). i cant say for sure yet (until i get my mitts on the sdk)but it looks like unreal4 engine may have the capability to create huge landscapes(expansive vistas they have called it). given the things that are being talked about with star citizen(cryengine3) and elite(inhouse engine), procedural planets are about take off again. 

4. i am a gameplay tester which means i need a game to test. atm this is a editor. if being able to walk/drive/fly around in an engine was called a game then cryengine and unreal engine would be called a games.

5. so this isn't me crying "where is my game boo hoo" i have plenty of other things to test, this is me saying they need to get some gameplay going for their sakes. or loose out to other companies as this engine has been very public for quite some time and it wouldn't take long for the majors to add in (if they aren't already)what is unique-ish in outerra(realworld data has been used before just not to outerras resolution or mapsize). So my previous suggestion as far as the anteworld games goes is that they flesh out one island and some gameplay(not editing) so they can have something to show potential investors. once they have more money coming in they can hire others and have two dev teams. one for the engine and one for the game. then maybe in a few years a company will pick it up and make you a flight sim of your dreams.

[atazs]

5. so this isn't me crying "where is my game boo hoo" i have plenty of other things to test, this is me saying they need to get some gameplay going for their sakes. or loose out to other companies as this engine has been very public for quite some time and it wouldn't take long for the majors to add in (if they aren't already)what is unique-ish in outerra(realworld data has been used before just not to outerras resolution or mapsize). So my previous suggestion as far as the anteworld games goes is that they flesh out one island and some gameplay(not editing) so they can have something to show potential investors. once they have more money coming in they can hire others and have two dev teams. one for the engine and one for the game. then maybe in a few years a company will pick it up and make you a flight sim of your dreams.

This

[deathevor]

is
 

[zuluknob]

SPARTA!

[deathevor]

[Jagerbomber]

SPARTA!

*CAKETOWN!

[new2lw]

I don't know if "Star Citizen" is comparable to Outerra or Infinity (I-Novae), since it is using CryEngine 3, so they perhaps don't have to work as much on the tech itself as is the case here and with I-Novae.
Also, I don't think travel between planets and the landing part, will be seamless in "Star Citizen", which does not mean it is going to be a bad game, but I guess there are engine limitations with Cryengine in this regard, which make these procedural engines (Outerra, I-Novae) all the more interesting.
I would like to think there is a lot of pioneering and experimentation with regard to the tech going on here.

That's what's been said, they want seamless transitions from space to planet.  But it may not be in on release...  They said they have tricks for cryengines level size limit.  I'm excited for the potential of Star Citizen.

I came from Star Citizen to these forums because you guys were nicely linked by examples of terrain that could work for full planets.  Looks like you guys are doing a good job so far.  Don't get roped into having to do things the way investors say you have to, I agree with other that say that crowd funding is the way to go and you should move that direction as soon as possible.

Keep up the good work

[SpaceFlight]

I don't know if "Star Citizen" is comparable to Outerra or Infinity (I-Novae), since it is using CryEngine 3, so they perhaps don't have to work as much on the tech itself as is the case here and with I-Novae.
Also, I don't think travel between planets and the landing part, will be seamless in "Star Citizen", which does not mean it is going to be a bad game, but I guess there are engine limitations with Cryengine in this regard, which make these procedural engines (Outerra, I-Novae) all the more interesting.
I would like to think there is a lot of pioneering and experimentation with regard to the tech going on here.

That's what's been said, they want seamless transitions from space to planet.  But it may not be in on release...  They said they have tricks for cryengines level size limit.  I'm excited for the potential of Star Citizen.

I sure am interested to see how they are going to pull that off in Cryengine3. I pledged for Star Citizen, but I am more interested in what will become of I-Novae at this point, mainly because they are building it from the ground up with seamless transitions from space to planet surface in mind.
2013/14 seems to be a good time for space sim fans.

[zuluknob]

should be easy enough as they are working closely with the cryengine devs

[PRiME]

I think once we see some basic network MP code that lets people place objects and build things together then we will be able to call it a world builder sim game a little bit more. 

I wanna get into making a tank MMO but atm really would like some MP system in place and also more functions on vehicles, we getting close however. Also where are those 3d trees already lol.


Also a endless (figure of speech) space sim with this engine could work, the way to do it is have many star systems on a map and have the void in between be travel-able via warp speed, create a special effect and have a system that generates the space when disengaged. Basically it instances the space region where you drop out of warp so you don't get the floating point limit issue. Star Citizen is going to work this way, so no unlimited space. Only unlimited space game I know about is Infinity and that's a LONG way from getting done.

[zuluknob]

elite frontier did it ages ago.

[atazs]

Bump. Cameni can we get some update on this please? At least something about a simple multiplayer?

[cameni]

What should I say apart from what I said already here earlier in this thread ...
We are doing what we can, and we are well aware of the problems. But developing a game and the engine (and especially engine that's different) isn't comparable effort-wise to someone using an existing engine to develop a game.

There are people here who apparently believe that something like OT or Infinity can be quickly redone in CryEngine or Unity, and that we just gave them an idea and now everybody is going to do it. Well, anything is possible, but you might ask for example the RealTime Immersive how is the scaling up of the CryEngine going for them. There are streaming/paging engines that can handle the globe but can't scale down to the ground level (like FSX), and there are ones that are great with levels a few km large, but do not scale well to larger areas (except in their marketing materials) and can essentially forget about the whole globe. Why are these companies efforting with these technologies that basically only scale as fast as the hardware does? Because it's still less risky and cheaper for them than developing new technologies that would require all new tools and new content and new skills etc. At least until someone else develops the new tech and proves it in the field.

You seem to agree with this:

5. so this isn't me crying "where is my game boo hoo" i have plenty of other things to test, this is me saying they need to get some gameplay going for their sakes. or loose out to other companies as this engine has been very public for quite some time and it wouldn't take long for the majors to add in (if they aren't already)what is unique-ish in outerra(realworld data has been used before just not to outerras resolution or mapsize). So my previous suggestion as far as the anteworld games goes is that they flesh out one island and some gameplay(not editing) so they can have something to show potential investors. once they have more money coming in they can hire others and have two dev teams. one for the engine and one for the game. then maybe in a few years a company will pick it up and make you a flight sim of your dreams.

This

This: "realworld data has been used before just not to outerras resolution or mapsize". Yeah. Because scaling things up must be trivial, even when it wasn't designed that way. That's why Arma 3 world size is 4 times that of Arma 2 at the same resolution and the same amount of artists and designers. And in BF you can now fly a jet faster than a hot air balloon without having to circle permanently in order to avoid running off the map, right?

... flesh out one island and some gameplay(not editing) so they can have something to show potential investors. once they have more money coming in ...

One island or the whole world doesn't make a difference with the procedural tech. Plus we are already working with other companies in order to get money coming in and expanding. But guess what the problem is - the engine needs more work to support everything needed for the sim/game development. And that's what we are doing - the technology is being actively developed in cooperation and with interoperability with external data sources and tools in mind, and ultimately it will benefit the gamers here as well.
We could hack together a quick monolithic game to raise the interest, but what good it would be if it could not be used by anyone else, without the whole toolchain that is required when using an engine. Unfortunately there's a lot of stuff to implement in a procedural engine, since it has to replace lot of what otherwise would be work of artists (which is both a disadvantage and an advantage).


But with all that said, we still want to satisfy our supporters here. And multiplayer is high on the list (even though it's not required by our licensees, as they will be using their own networking, suitable for their projects - it differs case by case). We already outlined here how to plug it into OT, but there's a couple of things that need to be done before it. A small one is fixing the random permutator to work the same way on Nvidia and ATI cards - there's a slight difference at the moment between the generated terrain and tree positions. But mainly preparing the internal structure so that object data can be efficiently replicated across the clients on global scale.