Cryengine 3 and the Red engine

[sushkis2]

I think Cryengine 3 sucks. That's not because it looks bad, but it's really poorly optimized. My PC albeit a bit old already, and it wasn't built with the latest parts when I assembled it, but I was shocked when it actually ran Skyrim and Far Cry 3 on maximum settings (except the DX11 setting). But then I tried Crysis 2, and it barely ran on low settings. That was quite a while ago, but now with all the latest nvidia patches, that are supposed to improve the performance, I tried Mechwarrior online, and it barely ran on low settings. Why is this engine so hyped, when other, maybe less complex engines, but with the same potential like the Unreal engine 3 or Source are less kind of "in your face" when it comes to the games that use them? I also had a problem with Witcher 2, maybe because there were as many switches as in a cockpit of a Boeing, and I just gave up because you couldn't switch them while in game, which would usually be with a bad console port. But then again, I didn't like the game altogether, probably because at the time when I tried it, I was playing Dark souls (altogether for about 200 hours), and The Witcher 2's combat and all of the other mechanics just fell flat in comparison to Dark souls. (please don't try explaining why Witcher 2 is good).

So, what do you people feel about these engines? Are there maybe any software tricks to get Cryengine 3 running smoothly? My configuration is Core i3 3.06 GHz, Gigabyte Nvidia GTS250 1gb, and 4 gig of ram and Windows 8.

 

[shrekfan246]

Funny enough, the CryEngine 3 was a lot better optimized than the CryEngine 2 they used for Crysis. Crysis 2 actually ran astonishingly well on my laptop with DX 11, Hi-Res textures and everything except tesselation ramped all the way up.

Never really seen any hype for it, though... I seem to be the only person who actually thought Crysis 2 was better than the first game.

EDIT: To actually be of a little help though, the GTS 250 is a DirectX 10 graphics card.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Cryengine 3 isn't poorly optimized, it just the most graphically intense engine there is. No matter how much you optimize you can't make a much more graphically intense engine run on the same number of cycles as a less graphically intense engine. People like Cryengine 3 because it is the prettyist engine around and does really cool thing graphically. (these are the same people who 'say screw the computing requirements, our customers have money!').

If you want it to run smoother, you probably need to upgrade your computer. More RAM, a CPU with more cores, etc. The guys who make the Cryengine are aiming for the audience who has the most up to date computers and technology.

Personally, I like Unreal 3 but that's just because it has an excellent interface and set of tools. (Does Cryenigne 3 still require you to store your data on there servers? That was always super shady of them.)

 

[Soviet Heavy]

The Red engine is actually cobbled together from a number of different developers to build the engine.

 

[sushkis2]

EDIT: To actually be of a little help though, the GTS 250 is a DirectX 10 graphics card.

Yea, I'm kind of aware of it being DX10, but It always kind of struck me as redundant, because pretty much all the games that I've tried seem to only have a choice between DX9 and 11, thereby leaving the former the only choice. Maybe it's only useful for all the design tools like Maya or Photoshop and such.

If you want it to run smoother, you probably need to upgrade your computer. More RAM, a CPU with more cores, etc. The guys who make the Cryengine are aiming for the audience who has the most up to date computers and technology.

Personally, I like Unreal 3 but that's just because it has an excellent interface and set of tools. (Does Cryenigne 3 still require you to store your data on there servers? That was always super shady of them.)

I've recently tried both Hawken - a MMOFPS on Unreal engine 3, and Mechwarrior Online - a MMOFPS on the Cryengine. Hawken runs perfectly, just as any other Unreal 3 game, and Mechwarrior, even on low was lagging. I've tried it on high, and it was barely playable, but that isn't the point, the point is, that the game (for me) looks a bit worse in comparison to Hawken, the trees look cheap and many textures look pretty bad, but then, it's still a beta, and a pretty early one, and it probably is more of a problem with my processor, because it's 15 on 15, whereas in Hawken, the most I've seen is 8 on 8.

I was thinking about getting a new processor, but I realized that my PC is overall a bit worn out, and until an absolutely groundbreaking game which renders my PC obsolete is made ( I'm thinking of Star Citizen or the next Fallout), I will wring out the most use out of this machine with all the steam sales I can get. Then I will leave it for my dad to play his stupid ass World of Tanks...

 

[SilkySkyKitten]

Strange, since in my experience Cryengine 3 is incredibly well optimized. I can run Crysis 2 and Nexuiz just fine on my laptop while many games on the Unreal Engine 3 (for example) can be quite iffy and not run smoothly at all. They're perfectly playable, but UE3 games just don't like my system while Cryengine 3 loves it.

 

[Twilight_guy]

If you want it to run smoother, you probably need to upgrade your computer. More RAM, a CPU with more cores, etc. The guys who make the Cryengine are aiming for the audience who has the most up to date computers and technology.

Personally, I like Unreal 3 but that's just because it has an excellent interface and set of tools. (Does Cryenigne 3 still require you to store your data on there servers? That was always super shady of them.)

I've recently tried both Hawken - a MMOFPS on Unreal engine 3, and Mechwarrior Online - a MMOFPS on the Cryengine. Hawken runs perfectly, just as any other Unreal 3 game, and Mechwarrior, even on low was lagging. I've tried it on high, and it was barely playable, but that isn't the point, the point is, that the game (for me) looks a bit worse in comparison to Hawken, the trees look cheap and many textures look pretty bad, but then, it's still a beta, and a pretty early one, and it probably is more of a problem with my processor, because it's 15 on 15, whereas in Hawken, the most I've seen is 8 on 8.

I was thinking about getting a new processor, but I realized that my PC is overall a bit worn out, and until an absolutely groundbreaking game which renders my PC obsolete is made ( I'm thinking of Star Citizen or the next Fallout), I will wring out the most use out of this machine with all the steam sales I can get. Then I will leave it for my dad to play his stupid ass World of Tanks...

Okay. I understand enough about both engines to know that the Cryengine is doing more under the hood. Whether or not it looks good is entirely a different thing though. Super ultra realistic lighting and shadows isn't going to help much if you have a crappy model after-all. One engine is doing more calculations then the other and requires more processing power. (also Unreal uses Speed Trees and Speed Trees are cool).

I wouldn't bother to get a PC that can run the Cryengine faithfully either. It's just too dang expensive to get the parts and those parts are going to be worth half as much in 6 months anyways.

 

[janjotat]

Based on the amount CryEngine does it is very well optimized RedEngine has wierd drops in fps time to time and doesn't look as pretty.

I present to you Unreal Engine 4 the best looking engine ever, and it seems to be well optimized considering that it even exists on modern hardware.