Hello,
But the CryENGINE incorporates no hydrodynamics in Cryphysics, so it wouldnt ease the work of the developers at all to enhance the realism of the simulation, only the game effects.
The true "added value" is the sum of all the data environment, the models of the ships, the hydrodynamic simulation, and most important the creativity and skills of the development team. The game engine (http://www.quest3d.nl/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page) is only second to that, as it could be "(un)easily" replaced.
I can imagine Quest3D (http://www.3d-test.com/interviews/quest3d_1.htm) will eventually go over to DX10 ?
Regards,
Luc
It supports C++ programming and that sort of stuff. And if you take a look at the Crysis it has a very strong physics engine, probably one of the strongest so far in the game development history. When it comes to Quest3D i know that they are using some Newton physics stuff...
The CryEngine is not only graphics, its a lot of stuff really and you don't necessary have to end up with a graphic intense game. I bet that the water shaders in DX10 doesn't require a lot more than the water shaders in DX9. Light blooming and motion blur is a lot more resource demanding effects. Crysis also have dynamical shadows that is rendered when objects cast shadows. This is usually very CPU intense.
Crysis is a very CPU, GPU and RAM intense game.
I was mostly thinking about the water shading and the physics and especially the editor which players of the game can use to add objects in a simple way. I see add-on development as the 2nd most important feature for Ship Simulator right after physics and realism based on hydrodynamics, ship stability, simulation and that sort of stuff.
CryEngine vs Quest3D can really be a interesting discussion.
EDIT:
COLLADA looks very interesting. Will this be the tool that makes us able to get own add-ons into this game without the subscription stuff?
More about COLLADA and the Newton http://www.quest3d.com/index.php?id=203 (http://www.quest3d.com/index.php?id=203)
