Edited by Master Windu, 24 February 2008 - 08:58 PM.
Tell me, what do you see..
#22
Posted 25 February 2008 - 11:42 AM
#24
Posted 26 February 2008 - 12:21 AM
I don't really know what your problems with SAGE are, but know that programming an engine is not...easy.
Einstein: "We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
#26
Posted 26 February 2008 - 10:53 AM
Well of course, I wouldn't build a completely new engine from scratch if I were EA, if I could use perfectly fine bits from what I already had
I don't really know what your problems with SAGE are, but know that programming an engine is not...easy.
SAGE is dated, inefficient and has always been behind the times. If I were EALA, I'd use that Unreal 3 license I have sitting around and drop SAGE completely. Why use SAGE, when I have an extremely robust, totally next-generation middleware solution sat right in front of me? Ok, so the developers are familiar with SAGE - they'll get used to the new engine. It's just being held onto for stubborness, because the majority of the RTS team have likely ever actually worked with anything else.
I'm also a games programmer by trade - I work with bleeding edge at an engine level
#27
Posted 26 February 2008 - 11:25 AM
Dain: Arr Nertea: yarrrr Dain: haharrrr Nertea: graaawwwr Dain: oaaaaaaaarr Nertea: .... honk?
#28
Posted 26 February 2008 - 02:45 PM
#29
Posted 26 February 2008 - 06:25 PM
Unreal 3 for an RTS? Y'sure?
unreal is a very flexible engine. games like harry potter and splinter cell have been made with it, and endwar (which is an rts) is also being developed on it.
in fact, i myself am working with unreal at school
Einstein: "We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
#30
Posted 27 February 2008 - 02:34 PM
Engines which just handle visuals are called graphics engines (Physics engines are physics engines, sound engines are sound engines).
#31
Posted 27 February 2008 - 03:15 PM
so, car engines are for cars then?
anyways, there are a few things that IMO are good about SAGE... I personally don't know about what certain engies' advantages is, but I have a clue... which goes around the fact that some handle things better, some can do the impossible possible, ect...
But, if they would've switched to Unreal... they could make the game itself (in-game) very similiar as before, aye?
The 4th Age version 0.8 has been released: Link
#32
Posted 29 February 2008 - 01:46 AM
If they switched to Unreal, the only difference you'd notice is the marked improvement of the visuals and the performance. Moddability would also potentially be stupendously improved if they let loose an UnrealScript / UnrealEd based toolset like most moddable Unreal tools do.
#34
Posted 02 March 2008 - 08:46 PM
#36
Posted 02 March 2008 - 11:36 PM
limited to specific games in fact, because there are many hardcoded elements in the games made with it (likehow you can't enable CaH for new factions in BFME 2). every game uses a slightly different version of the engine with modifications in it's core.and SAGE is RTS limited?
anyone mind this topic being moved to the developer's corner?
Einstein: "We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
#38
Posted 04 March 2008 - 02:06 AM
#40
Posted 17 March 2008 - 09:09 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if EA bought an Unreal 3 license solely for the purpose of studying it and with no intention of using it. They would then take what they learned from Unreal3 and use it to make their own newer engine, which I'm speculating is this new RNA engine, a combination of SAGE and what they learned from Unreal3.
I doubt that enormously. EALA's FPS games are built using Unreal (Medal of Honour, Tiberium) , and I doubt they decided to 'study it' when they could use it. 'Features' from one engine would not likely carry over happily into the other. I expect RNA really is just SAGE under a different name to differentiate it from it's older versions.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users