Euphoria-style engine for future versions of CM

[SlapHappy]

I've been watching some videos showing early testing of the Euphoria engine on YouTube.

Since those videos have been made, the engine has been used in many recent games like GTA4, the new Indiana Jones and Backbreaker football.

Does anyone know how well that engine might scale to something with the scale and detail level of Combat mission. Is it only useful for small third person games with a limited amount of action and on-screen components?

The potential for destructible environments that don't require crude, unconvincing animations seem a natural fit for a simulation game like CM. Is licensing such an engine most likely well outside the $$$$ range for Battlefront? I personally don't think they'd ever license some one else's engine, but thought I'd ask.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Survey says....

[panzermartin]

Whose grass mod are you smoking?

Its BFC man. Handbuilt since 1999.

[LongLeftFlank]

Whose grass mod are you smoking?

OK, this gave me the best laugh I've had in weeks. Except there's nobody I could explain it to who would understand....

[Mord]

LMFAO! That was funny.

Mord.

[Alan8325]

Euphoria is designed to animate "ragdoll" objects in games to allow the objects to interact more believably with other physics objects than would be possible with canned animations. It uses lots of processor power to good effect in first-person shooter games, but in games like CM I think that processor power can be used to better effect in other areas, like more detailed LOS, better vehicle physics, munition physics, explosion effects, AI, etc.

With unlimited processor power it would be cool though!

[theFightingSeabee]

Whose grass mod are you smoking?

LOL!!!

That cracked me up! Now that's a mod I'd like to see. Maybe for CM:Northern California.

[Battlefront.com]

Heh... I also thought that was funny

As others have already said, it's not for us. Two primary problems:

1. It's designed for FPS games. Huge difference between that and what we're doing.

2. I doubt we survive licensing and reengineering costs. Even if the license fees were low (I doubt it) the reengineering would still be problematic.

Technology engines, like Quake and Unreal, offer similar types of games an excellent base to work from. This allows the developers to concentrating on atmosphere, weapons, character development, and unique angles to give the games something new to offer. But it's a very poor way to make a ground breaking FPS game. No matter how good a technology engine is, it can't really be made to do much more than the original designers intended. And the original designers of FPS type game engines never intended them to work for a game like Combat Mission.

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

Technology engines, like Quake and Unreal, offer similar types of games an excellent base to work from. This allows the developers to concentrating on atmosphere, weapons, character development, and unique angles to give the games something new to offer. But it's a very poor way to make a ground breaking FPS game.

Well "GTA-IV" was the first Rockstar game to use this engine, and "Red Dead Redemption" is the second. Judge for yourself if this is is a very poor way to make a ground breaking FPS!

There are lots of game engines out there and one might even be suited to the sorts of games BFC make (which the Euphoria engine clearly is not) but I think for a small outfit like BFC the license costs and man-hours required to do all the title-specific models and art for it would be prohibitive.

[EDIT]

A quick search in google came up with this free RTS engine. Well I know CM:SF is technically not a RTS but this engine is the closest to the style of game BFC is known for.

Spring Engine

P.S. - Before anyone thinks I've lost my marbles, I don't seriously think BFC would go for an engine. I just wanted to defend GTA-IV and RDR against Steve's suggestion that games made using the engine were somehow inferior to games made without it.

[womble]

Well "GTA-IV" was the first Rockstar game to use this engine, and "Red Dead Redemption" is the second. Judge for yourself if this is is a very poor way to make a ground breaking FPS!

[snip]

P.S. - Before anyone thinks I've lost my marbles, I don't seriously think BFC would go for an engine. I just wanted to defend GTA-IV and RDR against Steve's suggestion that games made using the engine were somehow inferior to games made without it.

Citing the first two examples of games built upon an engine doesn't really show that basing things on an engine doesn't limit the builders' creativity. If games based on Euphoria continue to be new and fresh (i.e. RDR and GTA4 haven't exhausted the possibilities) then a new paradigm of game design might have been born

[mike_the_wino]

P.S. - Before anyone thinks I've lost my marbles,...

Too late.

Ali-Baba, that was superb.

[SlapHappy]

Citing the first two examples of games built upon an engine doesn't really show that basing things on an engine doesn't limit the builders' creativity. If games based on Euphoria continue to be new and fresh (i.e. RDR and GTA4 haven't exhausted the possibilities) then a new paradigm of game design might have been born

Thanks Steiner and Womble.

It's my understanding that Euphoria is a physics sub-engine primarily. It can be combined with a number of other systems to create a game that doesn't rely on preset (and limited) animations. I don't doubt that a game like CM might be too large in scale to implement with it, but the possibilities are still pretty fascinating if you ask me. As Steve himself said, animations are a particularly troublesome to implement and it seems like you can never have enough of them. Which is sort of why I brought the whole topic up in the first place.

BTW, Backbreaker football is not a FPS, but rather than a sports simulation. So there is one example of a non-shooter game. Actually, all sports are simply an example of real-world physics in action.

[Lanzfeld]

I have to say that watching a grenade go off in a crowd in GTA4 and then thinking of arty strikes in CM:N it would be off the charts outstanding!!! We would wear out the replay button.

[Mord]

You just gave Dudley Do Wrong a coronary with that statement...don't you know 3D wargames are only supposed to played from level five or higher?! That's how REAL, TRUE, wargame guys do it!

See, in the Valley Of The Uncanny Douchebag two dimensional Nato symbols are the height of realism...the explosions you talk about aren't abstract enough for minds stuck in their basement, playing on hexes, from 1972...You know, graphics have absolutely no place in a real war game...unless of course one was gonna run off at the mouth for 14 pages about a tripod being better than a bipod, on a limey machine gun, which you can OBVIOUSLY see from the TRUE wargamer's height of level five or higher...a topic sure to secure one's virginity for another 20 years...

I would've included a wicked killer screen shot but my print screen button was knocked out because I lost a die role to a 2 4 anti tank gun...

Mord.

[noxnoctum]

Maybe for CM:Northern California.

Ahahahahahha !

[Battlefront.com]

Womble summed up my point very well. I'm not saying great, even perhaps fantastic games, aren't possible from someone else's engine. In fact, I'm saying that given enough development resources (IIRC the last GTA game had a $50,000,000 budget) you can do excellent things with it. But as Womble said, who knows what limitations the GTA designers ran into that either they could not get around or they had to spend big bucks to reengineer. If it were their own engine things might be different, perhaps being worse.

Steve

[Ryujin]

I think you guys are getting a bit ahead of yourselves... BFC needs a physics engine integrated before you could even think about something like euphoria (which would be pretty awesome). Then there's fun process of getting euphoria and you're physics engine integrated. Of course when you're a big name studio like rockstar, I'm sure the NaturalMotion folks were bending over backwards to make it work for them.

GTA and RDR actually don't push the full features of euphoria, mostly realism and environmental stuff that would feel out of character for a more arcade game. They went for more stable character movement (probably a good gameplay choice in this case) and more flying ragdolls. If you realy wanted to you could always have euphoria running on your character. Trying to run round surface like a pipe or running full tilt into a shin high wall would have interesting effects. You could also have very interesting persistent injury effects to your character (walking after being shot would be challenging or near impossible. Not good for a game where you take in lead like a pencil factory). Lots of potential, but would take getting used to a character that reacted and moved like that. Also takes a bit more work to keep it fulid, GTA had some issues with odd behavior and running full animation through it would take a bit of work to perfect.

There's some GTA mods that let you do more with the euphoria and turn it on at will. It's not really meant for that use in GTA, but it does make for some funny youtube videos...

A cheaper and easier alternative is to take something like endorphin and generate a ton of animations with it. No physics engine needed, you run endorphin (a program with the same physics based animation as euphoria) and you can set up and capture animations (and make them pretty quickly, I've played around with the endorphin learning edition). No as much environmental interaction, but less CPU needed in game and no need for the whole game world to have physics.

Anyway, it would be nice to see a basic physics engine at some point in CM, just it doesn't seem likely as it'd be a notable jump in CPU use (and CMSF isn't multi-core friendly) and would require some reworking of things like buildings (IE less abstraction, no paper thin walls, etc). Seeing as CMx2 didn't start with physics support, it may be a bit hard to go back and add it.

[riptides]

Processors, especially graphic, are really getting cheaper and stronger. Now about those CPU's, heck what to develope on or fork?

[Dietrich]

graphics have absolutely no place in a real war game...unless of course one was gonna run off at the mouth for 14 pages about a tripod being better than a bipod, on a limey machine gun, which you can OBVIOUSLY see from the TRUE wargamer's height of level five or higher...a topic sure to secure one's virginity for another 20 years...

Forsooth? I have never -- not once in my entire life -- discussed the mount of a certain belt-fed automatic weapon (let alone vis-à-vis a different sort of mount for the same weapon), yet my virginity has been secure longer than that... =/

...CM:Northern California.

Actually, such would have a surprising amount in common with the pseudo-low-intensity COIN ops that are all the rage these days. Trekking for hours through hilly, forested terrain with intent to confront unkempt, bearded middle-aged guys with poorly maintained B-class automatic weapons in their hands and sundry toxic substances in their bloodstreams...

[Ron]

...unless of course one was gonna run off at the mouth for 14 pages about a tripod being better than a bipod, on a limey machine gun, which you can OBVIOUSLY see from the TRUE wargamer's height of level five or higher...a topic sure to secure one's virginity for another 20 years...

Let us not forget the multi-page addendum stipulating the correct hand positions while moving, firing, setting up etc. The animations would in all likelihood never be seen from a TRUE wargamer's perspective of level 5 or higher, but imagine the outcry and teeth gnashing, and the subsequent questioning of the developer's integrity if it wasn't modelled correctly.

[Mord]

...and the correct buttons on the uniform which would be worn by the crew...The Valley Of The Uncanny Douchebag is full of many hypocritical mysteries.

Mord.

[Bergerbitz]

I have seen that Valley and, yae, the buttons were Most Gnarly...

...wait, what is this thread about?

[theFightingSeabee]

...wait, what is this thread about?

A physics engine for CM.

While Steve says it can't be now, there's no telling what will happen in the future. 20 years from now... immersive virtual reality worlds. We'll be soaking wet, crouched on a hilltop with a paper map, a pencil, and a notepad and screaming over the radio trying to coordinate an ambush. And Steve will still be declining requests: "I've been saying this for years, BFC has no plans to make a 'Liberty in Thailand' mod!"

[Blackcat]

You just gave Dudley Do Wrong a coronary with that statement...don't you know 3D wargames are only supposed to played from level five or higher?! That's how REAL, TRUE, wargame guys do it!

See, in the Valley Of The Uncanny Douchebag two dimensional Nato symbols are the height of realism...the explosions you talk about aren't abstract enough for minds stuck in their basement, playing on hexes, from 1972...You know, graphics have absolutely no place in a real war game...unless of course one was gonna run off at the mouth for 14 pages about a tripod being better than a bipod, on a limey machine gun, which you can OBVIOUSLY see from the TRUE wargamer's height of level five or higher...a topic sure to secure one's virginity for another 20 years...

I would've included a wicked killer screen shot but my print screen button was knocked out because I lost a die role to a 2 4 anti tank gun...

Mord.

Post of the month Mr. Mord, if not of the year. Thank you.