Crysis 2 Engine Enlists with the U.S. Army for New Military Simulator - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DrBreen;30096508]Lockheed Martin also has a license for CryEngine 3 Haha, up yours Unreal engine. [editline]28th May 2011[/editline] was checking, and apparently the Dubai police has a licence too :o[/QUOTE] Lockheed martin also just bought the world's first quantum computer

[QUOTE=garrynohome;30087663]EDIT: Oh look you actually changed it to add something to the post instead of a quote and nothing else. If they're going for a realistic military shooter frostbite is a more capable engine. You can try and paint it as fanboyism but you've given no legitimate evidence to support your claim. Put evidence, use facts. Don't just act like you understand how game development works and call everyone who denies it a fanboy.[/QUOTE] The fuck evidence do you have? You've never played the BF3 engine, you've seen a few videos and that's it, that doesn't say shit.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30100109]The fuck evidence do you have? You've never played the BF3 engine, you've seen a few videos and that's it, that doesn't say shit.[/QUOTE] Are you a retard? BF:BC1, 1943, BC2 and MOH:MP used Frostbite you numb nuts. BF3 uses Frosbite 2.0, which is the latest frostbite engine, you see that "2.0"? that means that there were other versions before it, such as Forstbite 1.0 and 1.5, so we do have evidence, those 4 games are evidence of frostbite's capabilites, though MOH isn't as good of an example as it doesnt have as much destruction. I don't get why you think that you'd have to play BF3 to have seen frostbite in action, although you're probably some 12 year old cod fanboy for all I know.

Frostbite 1 was Bad Company, 1.5 Bad Company 2

I thought they would do something like this: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV3j2Yxv7jY&feature=player_embedded[/media]

[QUOTE=garrynohome;30087233]Wouldn't Frostbite 2 had been a better choice? Or is DICE keeping that for themselves only.[/QUOTE] you're dumb, frostbite 2 supports way smaller environments and is much harder to mod than cryengine 3 that's just the way it is, cryengine is much better suited for their needs [editline]28th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=MacD11;30094293]Die if you think cod is the best game out there, do that.[/QUOTE] the joke your head

Quite a funding considering the company has less than ten employees.

Can't wait. I wonder if it'll have multiplayer. :v:

[QUOTE=Kecske;30101380]Quite a funding considering the company has less than ten employees.[/QUOTE] Shhh.....

Jeep Repair simulator 2011 I'd buy it.

[QUOTE=geoface;30100173]Are you a retard? BF:BC1, 1943, BC2 and MOH:MP used Frostbite you numb nuts. BF3 uses Frosbite 2.0, which is the latest frostbite engine, you see that "2.0"? that means that there were other versions before it, such as Forstbite 1.0 and 1.5, so we do have evidence, those 4 games are evidence of frostbite's capabilites, though MOH isn't as good of an example as it doesnt have as much destruction. I don't get why you think that you'd have to play BF3 to have seen frostbite in action, although you're probably some 12 year old cod fanboy for all I know.[/QUOTE] Those games all look nothing compared to Cryengine, so uh...Hm

[QUOTE=SoaringScout;30094653]Because Crytek wanted Crysis 2 to run on consoles[/QUOTE] ftfy

[quote]exclusive gaming experience that goes well beyond Crysis 2 or [b]Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.[/b][/quote] The fuck? Call of Duty: Modernwarfare 3 isn't going to be exclusive, it's going to be pretty much the same as the others.

[QUOTE=JgcxCub;30087562]It's a good idea but, but, for fuck's sake, do they need to use CoD [I]every time they're alluding to a game?[/I][/QUOTE] yep

It's so Fox news will understand that they are referring to murder simulators and not board games or angry birds.

[QUOTE=Jaehead;30104073]ftfy[/QUOTE] Not this again.

[QUOTE=Tark;30094852]What happened to VBS2? I thought there was a whole kit dedicated to U.S. Army assets, and as far as I know VBS2 is way more extensible, with more simulator-based features already implemented than CryEngine 2. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afRvINpy7bw&feature=related[/media] Note that that is a 4-part demonstration.[/QUOTE] There isn't only one army group that makes uses of simulations. VBS2 is still more widely used in the army because it has so much direct support as far as I remember.

Looks like Arma's got competition.

Jesus christ when news are talking about simulators they honestly should fuck off with the comparision of Call of Duty and Modern Warfare franchises you frigging clueless morons. Why ArmA is never mentioned?

[QUOTE=Raiskauskone V2;30109776]Jesus christ when news are talking about simulators they honestly should fuck off with the comparision of Call of Duty and Modern Warfare franchises you frigging clueless morons. Why ArmA is never mentioned?[/QUOTE] Because, you know, MW2 was clearly the most realistic military simulator to ever grace the gaming industry with its presence.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;30095062]I know this is awesome and all, but...Fucking $57M of our tax money for that shit? Are they fucking serious? I'm pretty sure damn paintball or airsoft is more efficient than that. Not an expert, but a live fire exercise involving paintball or airsoft in a real simulated combat zone is more efficient than this.[/QUOTE] Yes the price is ridiculously steep but you aren't seeing the big picture. Live training scenarios, while being more effective, are limited in scope and are costly every single time they have to be worked up and conducted. This once they pay for it, is very flexible and allows them to drum up large scale scenarios and work everything from small unit tactics to multiple unit maneuvers and planning without having to pay a dime (aside from electricity bills of course) after they have bought the technology. It's not meant to, nor will it ever, replace live training scenarios. To give a practical example, let's say a bunch of officers want to play war games to sharpen their critical thinking. Back in the 90s this was done on a sheet of paper etc with "what if" scenarios. Now they can actually build that "what if" scenario in a 3d environment and play it out instead of just moving markers on a board and saying "well if i did that, this would probably happen".

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;30087265] just like what Ubisoft did with MW2.[/QUOTE] Sorry, what?

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;30114622] This once they pay for it, is very flexible and allows them to drum up large scale scenarios and work everything from small unit tactics to multiple unit maneuvers and planning without having to pay a dime (aside from electricity bills of course) after they have bought the technology. It's not meant to, nor will it ever, replace live training scenarios. [/QUOTE] The ability for them to create any environment on the planet is a crucial thing as well I would guess, its hinted at in the article. Surely running around a virtual version of where you will be going is an advantage that software like this will give to them.

[QUOTE=Jsm;30114801]The ability for them to create any environment on the planet is a crucial thing as well I would guess, its hinted at in the article. Surely running around a virtual version of where you will be going is an advantage that software like this will give to them.[/QUOTE] You should see some of the screenshots of the terrains recreated only for military in VBS2. One of the screenshots I saw was an entire Iraqi city, another was somewhere like a section of Brisbane in Australia. Which also makes me think damn you'd need a NASA computer to play comfortably in that shit. And those take a fair while to build. If Cryengine 2 is more flexible, then they will definitely beat out VBS2 and will be snatching up contracts all over the globe.

I want to play that game.