BeamNG on RAGE

You* said somewhere, that this beamng can work on source engine. If so, is it posiible to work it with RAGE? To mod GTA IV and get the BeamNG car destructions?

//edit i wrote something strange instead of You

 

Tdev have said , that it can be implemented in any engine i think ....

 

BeamNG itself yes, but not CryEngine. It'd use Rage as a graphics engine, so the same graphics as GTA IV, but the physics would be top notch. I know for sure you can't use the vehicles in the game as is, my guess would be that you can have universal mods that work for anything BeamNG. I also don't know if the AI system of GTA IV would be thrashed, as I believe it is a part of the physics engine. But I also believe BeamNG will have its own.

So in the end, I'd find it not being worth it.

 

CryEngine one hundred better than "Rage"
Why:
-Rage is very fps eater and have a wired "dot" render (you can see this when you change settings or map loading or something like that)
-Rage isn't that Relastic.

CryEngine is very smooth and free of bugs.
CryEngine is free x)

and many other things...

 

Nothing you said is relevant besides the last point.
As for the OP, it's true that BNG can be merged with any engine (that uses C++ I believe), but RAGE is Rockstar's own in-house engine as far as I'm aware, and it hasn't and probably won't be available for licensing any time soon.

 

No, its the crappy design artists at Rockstar. 75k+ polies for a car that isn't even very detailed. 20k polies for a Burger Shot burger on a roof. So don't make false statements such as that, look into thing before you go off ranting about them. I used to mod GTA IV, and it wasn't even funny how bad it was.

 

I imported the Admiral and Blender said about 75k. It was the messiest mesh ever, a ton of double and 100% unneeded faces. I'd bet you could get a good 30-50 fps increase if you fix all the useless crap it has to be quite honest.

 

how can you be sure that the importer isn't just hella bugged?
With that amount of polies it would run even worse, so don't take the poly count there as a fact.

EDIT: is it possible that you imported all LODs/collision mesh with the model itself? that would explain that

 

I have enough crashes on GTA4 already. :3

 

It's not hella bugged first of all. Second of all, I didn't import LODs and collision, just the mesh itself. But, most mods are worse, IIRC 90% of the mods are 100k + polies. I've only seen 2 authors that make their mods IMPROVE performance by properly exporting and having a decent mesh.

 

still seems very unlikely to me.

 

You should've at least imported some vehicles into another modelling program before you could state it's not your importer. Although I do agree that Rockstar makes a *BIG* mess of their models, something must be wrong with your importer. I remember when GTA just came out on PC, before my pc could run it, and before import/export scripts were available, me and a friend used a DirectX mesh-ripper tool to see if we'd be able to import models into Zmodeler. Although all the models were deformed(ie if a car was moving and going around a bend while grabbing the mesh, the front and rear end would be bent around the corner ), I did succeed importing a badly bent Schafter and I think Minivan mesh. Those combined, including all shadow/collsion meshes, the meshes were only about 20-40k polys. And that's not because the tool we used would not grab the complete mesh, because it did, with the normal wireframe.
Perhaps you imported the Admiral twice, accidently

I remember in San Andreas, the Jester car, which is probably the most high detailed model in that game, exterior wise, had an absolute massive ammount of polygons in the rounded front end... Even with how badly the SA models are messed up, that car had less than 3500 polygons. SA cars are usually around 2000 polys or less. The avarage of a GTA IV vehicle is 30.000 polygons... Still way too much for the little detail they use, but I'd imagine the modeled panelgaps and working suspension all the cars have, make the polycount quite a bit higher...

And yes, all their cars do have a ton of non-connecting vertexes, vertexes that aren't symmetrical left and right, gaps between wheelarch out and insides, collision bugs(Open the Rancher files some day, just for fun. The entire right front and right rear fender collision meshes are upside down, often causing the car to crash into a curb as if it were a concrete wall), etcetera, etcetera.

Fun fact: GTA San Andreas's Gant Bridge had 16000 polygons including LODs, characters had 2000, NPC's had 1600.

 

Its quite interesting to read about how awful things that are made by these big name companies actually are...

This is the big problem with the way jobs work, everyone only cares about that piece of paper that says you graduated college and not your actual skill level. I passed with high grades in many subjects that i couldnt tell you the slightest thing about, and many people are the same way. What makes companies think that people wont do the same with college classes? Or makes you better then the guy whos been doing it as a hobby for many many years? I bet you anything the guy who does it as a hobby and genuinely enjoys it will be much better and much more educated on the matter than anyone who went to college for it, doesnt really care for it, and only views it as work.

 

*sorry about the wall of text below *

I agree with you that people that do this as a hobby are often just as educated as people who graduated in game design, but that's not really the way it works in the Game industry. The problem here is that when the people who are now making GTA V(for example), were in college when games didn't or hardly existed yet. Sam and Dan houser(Rockstar presidents) are like 40 years old now.

Games that use complex models have only existed for what, 15 years max I'd say. 3d modelling studies have only been around for, what, less than 10 years? The people who work in the game industry at this moment are often the people who started doing this as a hobby and got very good at it, before games got very popular and before you could take courses on making games. The thing is, for example with Rockstar, they've been working with almost the same team/devs since GTA 3(they said that themselves). That means all their skill in modelling comes from making actual games, not by teaching themselves before they got the job. Often they're tied to a strict deadline. Just look at GTA SA, I believe that game had 150 odd vehicles, all were made in what, 3 years(not even counting in how early all cars were completed before release), and not by more than 10 people afaik. Thus every car was rushed.

Only since a few years people with actual graduations on this subject are flooding into the industry, whereas previously people taught themselves via hobbys. I'm actually following a game architecture and design study in the Netherlands, and our college is currently the best on this subject in the whole of Europe. However, even our school only exists for about 7 years or so, and as far as I have heard it was (one of) the first with a complete course around Game Design around here.

So even though what you're saying is true for nearly all industries, the problem here is that 90% of the 3d artists in the game industry have only taught themselves to model *while* having the job, *while* working on games, rather than by graduating in game design, and only the other 10% are just flooding in who have actually just graduated... And those who have just graduated usually don't immediately get a job at AAA game studios like Rockstar or EA.

I also think that nearly everyone who goes to college for this views it as a hobby, rather than just work. At least that's the way I see things.



As to stay on topic... I'd say that BeamNG is much better off using Cryengine3 rather than RAGE. For one, RAGE is very crash-happy. Use carmods in GTA IV, for example, and you're gonna crash multiplayer lobbies within 10 to 20 minutes. Not saying that'll still happen if you rebuild the entire physics engine within RAGE, but I am saying RAGE seems a lot harder to modify without the engine bugging out.

Secondly, Cryengine3 has much more realistic lighting, although a bit dramatic at times. Not saying RAGE doesn't have realistic lighting, but CE3 seems to be designed to have one of the most realistic lighting engines out there, RAGE was designed more like a "omg so shineyyy, so pretty"-lighting engine with the sole purpose of making GTA IV/RDR/Max Payne 3 etcetera look pretty, not to be immensely realistic in graphics.

And lastly: RAGE is the absolute worst optimised engine ever. It doesn't even have anti-aliasing, maxed out I get about 20fps less than in BF3... I don't think it would be a good idea to use a CPU-intensive physics engine and stick it in an engine that, without that physics engine, is already *very* CPU-dependent, an engine that gets 60 fps on one PC, whereas CE3 gets over 100fps on the same pc...

 

EFLC was optimized a small bit, as it looks better and I get 10-20 better FPS in the same test during benchmarks.

 

The PC version of Max Payne 3 is very good. I run it at max (1080p) with normal tessalation and get 60fps on my 560 Ti overclocked. GTA IV's version of rage is not the best in terms of graphics options, performance and stability but I do love GTA IV.

 

The main issue imho is not the education or being self taught, its more about the individual artist's work ethic, attention to detail and most importantly, experience.

I've defitively seen some gnarly ingame models in published titles, stuff that would make you cringe.