About Game Engine

Hello guys, I have a question relating to a matter that I’m completely layman.

I know very little, in fact, nothing about the gaming companies with their productions and also the universe around on it. But I would take a question relating to the game engineering. For example, some games/programs produced by Valve Corporation, recently the engineering Source Engine, have a great graphic performance and physical performance, using little computer resources, you can have a good performance without requiring much of your machine, and in addition have good acceptance of all operating systems, making it possible to run on either with a great quality, related to this, I wonder if changing the engineering of Rust, he improved enough? Or is this a matter of time and wait for the game to develop more the current engine?

Thanks!

ps; I used google translator, if anything was confusing, I will try to explain again.

I think i read on reddit about that,Garry sais its because source wont support 200 players.

Rust is using the Unity engine. I do agree that the Source engine runs very well, I don’t believe he would have been able to achieve the scale of rust with it. IMO Rust runs well for such a scale game. The freezes caused by the building loading is quite annoying though.

It is possible the exchange of a “game engine” to the other? Or it affects the whole structure of the game, having to remake it?

Seriously, unity is the shit right now.

It works on almost every os/device. I think they did a great choice choosing unity for the game development, there is a good community, a lot of assets/documentation and you can (almost) always do stuff “easily” from scratch, the interface is great and I find it nice for big maps. Have a look at their gallery : https://unity3d.com/showcase/gallery

And no, you’d basically have to remake the whole game.

You can’t just switch engines.

They were designed for very different applications anyway. BSP based games are VERY different in a technical standpoint from games where 3D mesh/modelling dominates the game’s environment.

Source wasn’t designed for open-world games. It’s good for linear games like Half Life and FPS maps like Team Fortress 2’s. That’s why Source performs well. It’s optimized for maps created for Valve’s games.

The size limitation of the source engine is what will hold it back. As others have suggested it comes down to the bones here. You’ll nottlice in half life 2 there were load points not far from each other since the maps had to be broken up to maintain the story and path flow. Source isn’t capable of a map anywhere near the size of the road in rust.

I wonder what the cry engine was capable of in terms of players and size. That would have made for a orgasmic visual experience.

Agreed… Source is around a decade old and despite any optimizations and updates they made to the engine, it’s still dated and limited to small map sizes, which is why it runs decently.

It runs decently because it’s a 10 year old engine that any computer today can run maxed out.

It runs decently because it’s designed for limited map sizes.

Ever notice how Half-Life 2 has those loading messages every few minutes?

Try playing Rust in the Source engine and it’d be a completely unplayable nightmare… I doubt you’d even be able to code it to show players outside of the map area you’re currently on.

Left For Dead 2, Portal 1 & 2, Half-Life 2, Day of Defeat, Counter-Strike all use very small playing areas with low player counts per server… Team Fortress 2 can have some “Large” maps, but still nothing near what Rust requires.

source is outdated and IMHO far from what should be used

even today is a GREAT engine but wouldn’t feel right.

I’ve tested various engines for game development and Unity was by far the most easy to use one. Also, the resulting game is portable to all machines without greater effort. You can even run it inside the browser. An additional plus point is that Unity recognizes the biggest variety of 3D model files, so you’re not restrained by your choice of modeling program. There are alternatives like the CryEngine or the Unreal3Engine, but I tried them out and the minimum system requirements for the compiled game are, compared to a similar game in Unity, much higher.

Yeah, the thing about Source is that you can’t do big maps. Not that it will choke on them, not that things will run slow… you literally CANNOT do a big map. It won’t let you. You’d run out of BSP planes ages before the map was even somewhat large-ish.

So Source isn’t even remotely a choice.
As far as game engines go, Unity is pretty damn good, and more importantly flexible. That said, it’s not necessarily designed for large games - given that it’s built-in coordinate system only gives you enough accuracy out to 10km away from origin. That said, you can always plug in your own coordinate system if you’re dedicated enough and have your game logic use the custom coordinate system instead of Unity’s (and use various tricks like floating-origin and whatnot which is actually very common in large-scale games), which just goes to show how flexible Unity is.
They could have picked other engines, like perhaps license the ArmA engine for their game, although the ArmA engine is so susceptible to cheats it’s not even funny, not to mention how bug-ridden it is, so I’m honestly glad they went with Unity.

i love people that make unity out to be a horrible engine because of all of the school project and what not that use it, same story with gamemaker

well, it is more than answered now… thanks all for the info!