Has the game engine been decided for the next game?

AHAHA, yo have many things to learn, the UE4 can do more and more than the rF2 engine, just you need to implement the good physics datas. All depend of what you do, it's maths and physics code, wrong code, wrong physics. I can assure than the UE4 can do more than the rF2. The UE4 like all the 3D engines execute the code, bad code, bad things. The problem is it's ISI who has implemented the physics code in the ISImotor game engine, maybe Kunos, s397 and Reiza are not as good to implement the physics data code . Maybe ask to ISI to code the physics in the UE4 , cause all the glory for the physics code in AMS or rF2 is going to Image Space Incorporated. And respect for Kunos they create themself the physics, they have not used the ISI physics. Maybe s397 and Reiza fear to create themself the physics, cause ISI will not be behind them .

Triple screen support ? you have to code it.
VR ? you have to code it.
Do You want something ? You have to code it, the only limitiation is your imaginaton.

Look at this:

It's the perfect example, the physics depend of the code, and cleary , the code implemented by UE4ARch team is not as good as the ISI physics code (of course they are not Sim racing developpers). Bad code = bad physics, good code = good physics.

Edit: the "disagree" fucntion is a code implemented, do you like it ?

 

Comparing UE4 & isiMotor 2.5 engines...lol. Pretty sure neither will be used for AMS2. I am just waiting for the day Reiza drops the info on us all.

 

Code vs Code, and you can't prove that you can't put all the ISI codes into UE4, cause if you are a good programmer, you can do it, you will have the rF2 (ISI) physics with the UE4 graphics and possibilities, but it's not as simple, it's pretty hard.

The UE4 is far better, it's sure, but if the game it's bad, the fault is due to the programer, not the engine.

There is no good weapon, there are only good users.

I wait too for the announce, cause maybe it's better for Reiza to not create themself the physics code, they could be worst than Kunos, so maybe they have to use the rF2 (ISI) codes....

 

From the comments by UE4 developers:
- Yes, the Car moves along the spline and acceleration is handled by blueprints. Regards!

So much about marketing videos!


People have large misconception about development process.
Yes, you can start making your game today and build a drivable car in a day
Introduction to Vehicles | v4.2 | Unreal Engine - YouTube

But you will encounter daunting tasks just to implement something as simple as triple screen support . And Kunos has more than a decade of a game development experience?

Remember that gMotor is in development for 25 years and specialized in car racing simulation used by professional teams.
And yes, UE4 looks stunning but I personally find RF2 art style without unnecessary effects more realistic and pleased to drive.

And yes, CryEngine looks even better than UE4

 

Do we know if it has any deal-breaking physics or integration complications?

 

Unreal and CryEngine has its roots in First Person Shooters and as far as I know ACC is rare racing (if Rocket League is racing game) and surely the first serious racing sim game build with UE.
There are also Gravel and MotoGP but I haven't heard of any CryEngine racing title?

Of course, if Reiza choose CryEngine they will encounter small million of problems learning new engine and first time implementing already proven RF stuff, but if CryTek chose to support them or find it interesting to break into new territories it would be really interesting.

All of this is hypothetical, but implementation of the new UI is surely much easier in those engines.

 

If you are suggesting Reiza be the guinea-pig to see if CryEngine will work as a racing simulator, no thank you. They are too small, and we don't want to lose what we already have with AMS, which is a polished and balanced implementation of a well-established racing sim that is NOT experimental.

My experience with ACC is that as soon as you crank up the graphics to acceptable-for-racing levels (shadows and tree branches/vegetation not popping-in late and ruining the immersion and your concentration and enough detail to see what you need to see on opponent vehicles), it runs at about the same frame rate as rF2. There is no silver bullet out there yet that I am aware of.

 

Dont forget rF2 code base has been implemented into the Amazon Lumberyard graphic engine. When Reiza said some time ago "a new option appeared" I didnt understand at first, later then with the announcement of the partnership for the Grand Tour game it made some sense.
All speculation tho

 

I can't think of any reason why they would drop the experience gathered from developing the rf2 package to start from maybe under zero with a different engine. Except they started already with it

 

Guys...Project Cars 1&2 are on cryengine...and it isn't a FPS only engine, it was built as sandbox engine. Also keep in mind the Lumberjack engine (Amazon's version of cryengine) has been used for racing games too. PC isn't a simulator but it looks great...

 

EUREKA!

Didn't know that!
Grand Tour game using rFactor physics? - Latest Formula 1, Motorsport, and Sim Racing News

So that third party is definitely Amazon!

 

What is the point of ur post exactly? Sim titles need to put their own physics engines into these graphics 3rd parties because their physics part are not good for simulation. PC born from rFactor, ACC is using Kunos physics, not default UE4.

 

Ops, mine was a reply for Marc but smartphone didn't loaded your and other guys posts.
Basically I was pointing to a possible fusion between cryengine graphic and AMS phisycs so Reiza wouldn't be a guinea pig at all...imo of course.

 

Thanks for that useful info!

 

One thing that people ignore (or are not aware because they never dealt with physics) but if you enable the rF1 tire model in rF2 (it's there but restricted to the AI) you basically got a rF1 with rain, rejoin, AI with defense line and 64bit. You dont need to use the advanced physics features in rF2, porting a car from rF1 works straight away, you only need the tgm because that's what the player use.
So if the rest of the code is still similar and Reiza could add the features they developed for AMS would be pretty great and maybe save them some time on development

 

Interesting point...my only concerns are related to graphic engine itself, it lacks some basic features and needs to be polished/tweaked/optimized...but is that worth the extra work?
Btw the idea isn't bad at all, maybe Reiza and S397 could work on it togheter while maintaining different phisycs engines...but I think Reiza will move for something different...would be great if vulkan based and with Linux support too...

 

I'm all for that, and if it includes the rF2 Virtual Reality option, then I'm sold & it'd be my racing sim for years to come.

 

Give up of the Linux dream, most wheel drivers dont work there.
Well the Amazon engine have a lot of things, if the code base is the same minus tire model then I guess it's good for anyone else that license this combo.
rF2 main issues (IMO) are caused by the high refresh rate of the tyre model, if u remove that from the equation the amount of issues drop quite a lot. (And S397 is trying to fix it anyway, a century late but better late than never lol). The AI wet tire issue is easy to fix, u just need to feed them with the weather data, sure may look like "cheating" but u can use that only to help, they wouldn't use it 100%, would only feed some random tire strategy choice algorithm
The extra good side: Reiza would be able to sell it on consoles (Grand Tour game is not on PC) without needing to dumb down anything. Well... I believe consoles are capable of rF1 physics on all cars at least

 

But just like the problem with all the rF2 people asking to have the best content from AMS ported over to rF2 as DLC, what would S397 gain by giving/selling Reiza the best features of rF2? The two have to figure-out a path of co-operation that ultimately doesn't cannibalize or sink each of their own businesses. Except Reiza is the more dependent half, because they are not developing either physics or graphics in-house.

In the end, though, I would rather be a clever integrator of other engines...carefully cherry-picking the best of what is available and proven, than developing from scratch.

 

Nobody is going to give anything. Is it necessary to explain what you gain by selling? If you dont someone else will and that studio is still going to compete with you.
Sure everyone has their own way of doing business but think... strategy... think...
Of course this is all speculation.