Forged Alliance Forever

Re: FAF - post-mortem.

2019-08-23T16:42:13+02:00

They got lost in the last 7 years.

Statistics: Posted by Uveso — 23 Aug 2019, 16:42

Re: FAF - post-mortem.

2019-08-23T01:38:53+02:00

Why can't I read the documents?

Statistics: Posted by creativename — 23 Aug 2019, 01:38

Re: FAF - post-mortem.

2016-09-27T11:57:03+02:00

I think the Ashes engine is very good in some areas. It's the only RTS engine I know of that takes full use of my CPU. There's no lag or slowdown at all and the AI is extremely smart in comparison to other RTS games. Some people have technical issues with the engine while others like myself have nearly had no issues. That said I think it's not a viable engine for Forged Alliance. I think so many things that make Forged Alliance unique aren't possible in the Ashes engine.

Statistics: Posted by Professor — 27 Sep 2016, 11:57

Re: FAF - post-mortem.

2016-09-27T04:22:28+02:00

tatsu wrote:
SpoCk0nd0pe wrote:What about the Ashes engine? Dunno how their license works but it seems like the perfect engine for a SupCom game

why does everybody keep suggesting that.

Because it is the game engine with the best multi threading implementation I know of. To make a reboot of SupCom worthwhile, I think the engine should be fully multi-threaded at it's core renderer and game logic functions to overcome current limitations.

I didn't know about their technical problems.

Statistics: Posted by SpoCk0nd0pe — 27 Sep 2016, 04:22

Re: FAF - post-mortem.

2016-09-20T18:52:11+02:00

I don't think Unity would be a good engine for something intensive like mimicing Moho.

Also, the reason I ask about the vault stuff is because I would like some newer maps and to see what new mods are out, without needing to do it through FAF (Because I like to play over steam with friends rather than on FAF patches)

Statistics: Posted by Tanksy — 20 Sep 2016, 18:52

Re: FAF - post-mortem.

2016-09-20T11:57:09+02:00

quick note these guys are morons for naming their engine nitrous. they obviously don't want anyone to be interested. good luck googleing news or anything other than their own website about nitrous being used. seriously try googling it.

Statistics: Posted by tatsu — 20 Sep 2016, 11:57

Re: FAF - post-mortem.

2016-09-20T11:50:58+02:00

Vanguard wrote:
I am not sure, why bargaining with Stardock for a license similiar to to the conditions of Unreal would be that unreal *pun intended*. The engine is more or less paid by being used in AOS. Apart from support, which would come at a seperate cost, I´m sure, the 5% deal doesn´t sound too far off. It´s all a matter of negotations.

that's the way WE see it.

you're free to believe. and I'm willing to try. but my experience makes me bet that they'll see it COMPLETELY differently.

Statistics: Posted by tatsu — 20 Sep 2016, 11:50

Re: FAF - post-mortem.

2016-09-20T11:51:35+02:00

I am not sure, why bargaining with Stardock for a license similiar to to the conditions of Unreal would be that unreal *pun intended*. The engine is more or less paid by being used in AOS and their other products. Apart from support, which would come at a seperate cost, I´m sure, the 5% deal doesn´t sound too far off. It´s all a matter of negotations.

Statistics: Posted by Vanguard — 20 Sep 2016, 11:43

Re: FAF - post-mortem.

2016-09-20T11:33:44+02:00

Vanguard wrote:
It´s all a question of grabbing the correct license model. For example, the Unreal 4 Engine "only" demands 5% of gross revenue -> https://www.unrealengine.com/custom-licensing. It does not come with a big initial investment and you can start coding right away. If we´d get a similiar deal for the Ashes engine, that´d be out of the way.

However, without a publisher or business model behind it, the enterprise is pretty futile. Sadly. I work in the video games industry since about a year, but we don´t do RTS, otherwise I´d long pitched the project to our management.

no it's not.

are your trying to compare unreal to ashes engine?

unreal is something we can afford. unreal is a business model built with that intention. they make it pay. they have a long-term implantation in the scene of selling engines. people know their name. Hundreds of thousands of games are developed with their engine. with that setup it's good odds that a bunch of these will turn into hits and bring them back big cuts.

Ashes on the other hand is not a reputed engine. it is not noteworthyly up for sale and use in development. Stardock is not a popular engine maker. it is not an engine maker short.

so entertaining your theory even further : they'd have a single client ; us.

to make that pay off somehow they'd have to make the price extremely high. not busting your bubble it's just math/economy.

Statistics: Posted by tatsu — 20 Sep 2016, 11:33

Re: FAF - post-mortem.

2016-09-20T11:28:13+02:00

tatsu wrote:
SpoCk0nd0pe wrote:What about the Ashes engine? Dunno how their license works but it seems like the perfect engine for a SupCom game

why does everybody keep suggesting that.

that's such a stupid idea.

where in the hell would we ever get the money to purchase a subscription or one time deal to that?

It´s all a question of grabbing the correct license model. For example, the Unreal 4 Engine "only" demands 5% of gross revenue -> https://www.unrealengine.com/custom-licensing. It does not come with a big initial investment and you can start coding right away. If we´d get a similiar deal for the Ashes engine, that´d be out of the way.

With the rest of your assessment, I agree completely.

Without a publisher or business model behind it, the enterprise is pretty futile. Sadly. I started working in the video games industry about a year ago, but we don´t do RTS, otherwise I´d long pitched the project to our management.

Statistics: Posted by Vanguard — 20 Sep 2016, 11:28

Re: FAF - post-mortem.

2016-09-27T12:25:42+02:00

SpoCk0nd0pe wrote:
What about the Ashes engine? Dunno how their license works but it seems like the perfect engine for a SupCom game

why does everybody keep suggesting that.

that's such a stupid idea.

where in the hell would we ever get the money to purchase a subscription or one time deal to that? considering how hard Ashes are crashing right now the price-tag's gotta be up in the millions. worse overall if it's a subscription.

either way apart from good graphics integration (and wow does it fail to show) the engine is pretty much worthless for a FAF clone.

all the things I complained were not up to "FAF standards" about the way stuff behaved in game were things the devs had every intention of doing : if they had the means. if they had the money. (and trust me it's not a question of choice they'd die for that since it's stuff that is so basic that not having them is game-breaking the engine simply isn't compatible)

so if a studio with millions and millions in dollars of backing didn't manage to bend that engine the right way (anything other than units that slide across the ground re-dubbed "hover units"; no collision boxes units merge through one another; no units that can share terrain types; no gameplay factoring of the actual simulation of the goddamn freaking projectiles (which right now are nothing other than sprites which can't miss and can't really be dodged especially since they go through terrain); reaction times for units that are unfathomably longer than FA no air dynamics no navy as of yet ect ect ect...)

.....then how could we with just a couple noob devs and no cash ????

Statistics: Posted by tatsu — 20 Sep 2016, 11:24

Re: FAF - post-mortem.

2016-09-20T09:51:02+02:00

I can Unity ... let me help you proof of concept ... I can do maps or physics or anything except path finding thanks

Statistics: Posted by nine2 — 20 Sep 2016, 09:51

Re: FAF - post-mortem.

2016-09-20T09:42:15+02:00

tatsu wrote:
pip wrote:....

i agree.

I agree with the above SO MUCH but good god is optimization and stability underrated. it actually matters so much. when it's really lacking then that's all people ever complain about.

and I for one am one of the most if not the most die-hard fan of GW and nomads but I'd take stability and optimization any day over those and I only partially know/understand stability and optimization's true worth.

It's way easier to keep a stable code when you are removing all the features that could make it unstable , and don't care about third party code

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 20 Sep 2016, 09:42

Re: FAF - post-mortem.

2016-09-20T07:47:14+02:00

SpoCk0nd0pe wrote:
Ze_PilOt wrote:On a related topic, I've made another document :

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p0U ... sp=sharing

- I often read that it's too much work/impossible. I've read the same things about making FAF
- A single guy made a commercial RTS in a year, without reusing assets.
- The tech is not as fancy as it was some years ago.

I would like to see how far I can go in a decent amount of time (let's see if I can get a proof of concept before the 1 november

What about the Ashes engine? Dunno how their license works but it seems like the perfect engine for a SupCom game

Feel free to ask : http://www.oxidegames.com/nitrous/

I don't have a dime to spend on that, and I'm not sure it can do everything the moho engine can do easily.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 20 Sep 2016, 07:47

Re: FAF - post-mortem.

2016-09-20T02:18:06+02:00

Ze_PilOt wrote:
On a related topic, I've made another document :

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p0U ... sp=sharing

- I often read that it's too much work/impossible. I've read the same things about making FAF
- A single guy made a commercial RTS in a year, without reusing assets.
- The tech is not as fancy as it was some years ago.

I would like to see how far I can go in a decent amount of time (let's see if I can get a proof of concept before the 1 november

What about the Ashes engine? Dunno how their license works but it seems like the perfect engine for a SupCom game

Statistics: Posted by SpoCk0nd0pe — 20 Sep 2016, 02:18