91 replies to this topic

[JarkkoL]

Money. If the game project is interesting for me (jrpg f.e.), then moral satisfaction is enough. All business is based on idea to be the first one against competitors.

I can tell you right now that you wont be able to monetize a single algorithm. You should either:
1) Have your implementation as part of some graphics middleware you license to AAA developers. Anyway, you told you got no access to console devkits, and most AAA developers wont be interested if you got no console port. Not many AAA developers develop for open platforms only and saying that "porting is a breeze" will not cut it, comes across as very unprofessional and shows you got no clue.
2) Indirectly monetize the algorithm by gaining reputation and publishing well written article of your algorithm, for example by trying to get it in GPU Pro or such if it's truly something good. Then use the reputation to advertise your consulting services, use it for negotiating better salary, etc. This would probably be your best bet.


Cheers, Jarkko

[IvicaKolic]

@IvicaKolic

Engine design today is just awful (not just Crytek, but every mayor player including Carmak and the rest)

Really ? Just that ? Don't you think this is easy to say, and maybe just a little bit pretentious ?
Whatever are your skills/experience, that's not a thing to say, sorry

OK, I admit, I deserve that - that was too harsh.

EDIT: I've deleted the post because it was too long and repetitive (and kind of annoying).

This summed it up:

2001: GTA 3 engine: - can dynamically load geometry, textures, sounds,... everithing
2011: Tech 5 engine: - can dynamically load only textures (and not all textures but only world textures)
2011: Cryengine 3: - can't dynamically load anything

Unreal Engine 3 - great engine because of a superb dynamic loading system and other stuff. If only lighting would be done better - it would be perfect.

EDIT: I think that Tech6 will be something really impressive, but Tech5 is just a stepping stone.

[Syranide]

I agree with everything you've said.

But consider MMO game that will last 10 years.
Will you really buy an engine that will bi obsolete in a year?
Also, if you expose scripting and ability to create new objects to the players (even if only 1% of players contributes) your game will be unmatchable.
No development team will be able to take your game on because you have as many developers as players.
If you are like Crytek and the rest and have engine that has only 10 different object types then that game will become boring very quickly - won't last for 10 years.

For example - if I in my game build a Space Ship building station.
Everyone can come there - compose a ship to their like to the very detail (interior/exterior/terminals, pack it up with their friends and fly from one planet to another - fight - explore - discover/script new technology...
They can even make it look like Enterprise from Star Trek - and nobody can't sue us because it is p2p MMO - we don't have control over the game - in fact every client can host their own instance of the game with just a few players - or milion players if you like.
This game will clearly be more fun than lets say EVE ONLINE (that has maybe 2% of the features)...

I'll leave you to think about that...


OK - I'm going to bed now.
It was nice discussing things with you all.

First off, you assume that more freedom is a better game, I really don't agree with that. Goals is what makes a game fun, just like Minecraft is fun for a while, as you explore and build your base... but once that wears off and you don't have any clear motivation to play on, you stop playing it. Although this really is something for another discussion.

And really, what you say is very nice... but EVE Online runs its own engine, WoW runs its own engine... and both have had it's fair share of scaling issues and concerns. From the sounds of it you are suggesting that your engine would simply scale perfectly out-of-the-box, in all areas, performance, networking, etc. And at the same time be as efficient as can be on a server.

OK, I admit, I deserve that - that was too harsh.

EDIT: I've deleted the post because it was too long and repetitive (and kind of annoying).

This summed it up:

2001: GTA 3 engine: - can dynamically load geometry, textures, sounds,... everithing
2011: Tech 5 engine: - can dynamically load only textures (and not all textures but only world textures)
2011: Cryengine 3: - can't dynamically load anything

Unreal Engine 3 - great engine because of a superb dynamic loading system and other stuff. If only lighting would be done better - it would be perfect.

EDIT: I think that Tech6 will be something really impressive, but Tech5 is just a stepping stone.

The more I hear you explain your engine, the more I realize that it isn't an engine or API, it's a middleware, that is exactly what it is. Comparing it to highly specialized game engines doesn't make sense. There are lots of good middleware out there, UE3 being the cream of the crop. Why doesn't everyone use UE3? Because it's not all red roses, a middleware puts you in a jet-fight from day one, but that's all it will ever be. If you try to branch off too much it's simply more efficient to just implement what you need from scratch.

Middleware allows most people to do really amazing things, if you have the experience and knowledge, building a capable engine is far from an impossible task... especially not if you have an older codebase that can be scavanged. Reusing a middlware solution is not always the best answer.

Also, again, it is very easy to say that you support dynamic loading of textures, the world, etc, etc, etc. However, as always, if you are generic about it, performance will suffer. You don't just smack a dynamic loading system on a game and be done with it, to have it perform requires a lot of optimizations and care. Putting data in the right order, prioritizing the right things to load first, etc, etc. It's very easy to replicate what is being done today in a generic way, but to keep the performance at peak, during high stress can be tremendously hard. It's like those database benchmarks with 1 thread... they are pointless. Same here, building a game that can run well on 2-year old computers and also look stunning on new computers, perform well at 100% CPU usage and accommodate real world loads. That is the hard thing.

[EJH]

Threads like this really make me question whether GD.net has the most subtle trolls in history:

- OP: "How do I get emails of AAA developers to use my algorithm despite the fact than I cannot show a demo, video, screenshot, or a even provide single numerical comparison. Oh and they have to sign an NDA."

- Guy later in thread: "My engine is superior to Crysis 2 yet I have never released a single game with it nor can I provide a demo. To prove my engine's superiority here is screenshot of some buttons and text rendered on a couple of planes."

Can't say this isn't entertaining though.

[IvicaKolic]

Threads like this really make me question whether GD.net has the most subtle trolls in history:

- OP: "How do I get emails of AAA developers to use my algorithm despite the fact than I cannot show a demo, video, screenshot, or a even provide single numerical comparison. Oh and they have to sign an NDA."

- Guy later in thread: "My engine is superior to Crysis 2 yet I have never released a single game with it nor can I provide a demo. To prove my engine's superiority here is screenshot of some buttons and text rendered on a couple of planes."

Can't say this isn't entertaining though.

After all being said and done, I do feel like an idiot...
Should have waited a few more months, make a decent video presentation of some features and explain how they are achieved vs how they would have been achieved with other engines and stuff like that.
My behavior has no excuse...

[bwhiting]

nothing wrong with getting excited about something you have produced.

its just as easy to shoot something down aggressively that you know next to nothing about as it is to big something up without some backup to hand.

it may just turn out that these guys are extremely talented and really onto something, may even be 10 times better programmers/developers than oneself, maybe better than those who work on cryengine even... just because cryengine has been worked on by a crack team for a long time doesn't automatically make it the best there is either... I have had the "pleasure" of extending work from big US agencies with massive budgets and all the big clients..and while the work looks stunning the code looks like week old chunder and was horrible to work with..so yes they have big budgets and big teams and 25 years experience... but I bet there are 1st year graduates that can produce better systems...

or they could just be chatting bull, hard to tell with out some evidence, but im an advocate of innocent until proven otherwise

[way2lazy2care]

It is true what everything above has been said.
I did tried the same thing with my shadow mapping algorithm (CSSM) and got the same response...
I've pitched idea to Crytek and instead of showing interest for the algorithm, Cevat Yerly replied with the yob offer (witch I ended up declining because working on technology that is more inferior than my home projects for mire 4.5K euros a month would probably drove me insane - it would be a waste of my time).

you declined to work at the company thatmade the Crysis series ?
im pretty shure they have very sophisticated thechnology.
i would have accepted.

I do admit they have done some amazing work with the shaders. It is most impressive, but everything else is just average (somethings even below average)...
Engine design today is just awful (not just Crytek, but every mayor player including Carmak and the rest). Engines are very limited and most of the development goes into graphic efects which in my opinion shouldn't even be part of the engine.

Who cares where their engine is now? You should have looked at it as an opportunity to make their engine better. If you couldn't make the engine any better, what would be the point of hiring you? and 4.5k euros per month is a pretty solid salary. That's like $73,000/year.

[Syranide]

nothing wrong with getting excited about something you have produced.

its just as easy to shoot something down aggressively that you know next to nothing about as it is to big something up without some backup to hand.

it may just turn out that these guys are extremely talented and really onto something, may even be 10 times better programmers/developers than oneself, maybe better than those who work on cryengine even... just because cryengine has been worked on by a crack team for a long time doesn't automatically make it the best there is either... I have had the "pleasure" of extending work from big US agencies with massive budgets and all the big clients..and while the work looks stunning the code looks like week old chunder and was horrible to work with..so yes they have big budgets and big teams and 25 years experience... but I bet there are 1st year graduates that can produce better systems...

or they could just be chatting bull, hard to tell with out some evidence, but im an advocate of innocent until proven otherwise

Definately agree with you.

However, one should be very careful with complaining on how code looks... a lot of people seem to have the notion that the code is more important than the result, and that ugly or suboptimal code is inherently bad. The purpose of code is to achieve a goal, and if you achieve that goal, regardless of how the code looks... then you've done your job. If the goal also includes being maintainable for many years, then the code should meet a higher standard... or at the very least, the structure should be well designed.

If your job is to implement a game, then what matters is the end result and how fast you get there, if you can get there faster using all kinds of hacks then I don't see the issue. However, if you hack it so badly that it's breaks constantly or that it suddenly starts becoming a nightmare to continue coding then you've hacked too much. If you spend most your time polishing code, adding comments, refactoring without actually beneftting the goal, then you should stop doing that.

My point being, hacky code is not inherently bad as long as it is stable and the coders don't become overly bogged down by working on it... working with hacky code will likely be slower than working with clean code, but you have to remember, it is also slower to write clean code than write hacky code. So obviously, depending on the importance and use of various functions, you have to balance between hacky and clean code... you don't want to hack the core of an application, but hacking smaller parts can be really useful. It allows faster iterations, and I've found that over-engineering most functionality is often counter-productive, it is faster and more flexible to just rewrite them when the need arises.

Hacky code is always going to be hacky code, but it serves a very real purpose in real projects.

[CodeLord]

Threads like this really make me question whether GD.net has the most subtle trolls in history:

- OP: "How do I get emails of AAA developers to use my algorithm despite the fact than I cannot show a demo, video, screenshot, or a even provide single numerical comparison. Oh and they have to sign an NDA."

- Guy later in thread: "My engine is superior to Crysis 2 yet I have never released a single game with it nor can I provide a demo. To prove my engine's superiority here is screenshot of some buttons and text rendered on a couple of planes."

Can't say this isn't entertaining though.

Very well said!

Generally I think the more you learn, and the more knowledge you have, you stop bragging about things you have done.

[IvicaKolic]

It is true what everything above has been said.
I did tried the same thing with my shadow mapping algorithm (CSSM) and got the same response...
I've pitched idea to Crytek and instead of showing interest for the algorithm, Cevat Yerly replied with the yob offer (witch I ended up declining because working on technology that is more inferior than my home projects for mire 4.5K euros a month would probably drove me insane - it would be a waste of my time).

you declined to work at the company thatmade the Crysis series ?
im pretty shure they have very sophisticated thechnology.
i would have accepted.

I do admit they have done some amazing work with the shaders. It is most impressive, but everything else is just average (somethings even below average)...
Engine design today is just awful (not just Crytek, but every mayor player including Carmak and the rest). Engines are very limited and most of the development goes into graphic efects which in my opinion shouldn't even be part of the engine.

Who cares where their engine is now? You should have looked at it as an opportunity to make their engine better. If you couldn't make the engine any better, what would be the point of hiring you? and 4.5k euros per month is a pretty solid salary. That's like $73,000/year.

It is not really about the money. I can make money any time and I'm sure most of the people here are great experts that get along just fine (we are game developers damn it -the best damn class of programers

It is more about passion!

One guy that interviewed my at Crytek was so burned out - he couldn't even look at games any more. I didn't want that happen to me. To me, game development was enjoyment.

[IvicaKolic]

But lets be honest.
Who here was anoyed when Cevat Yerli started bashing every other gamedev company by saying that Cryengine 3 is the only engine that can run Crysis 2.
I was very puzzled with this - I've tried to find what exact part of Crysis 2 is not doable with other engines - and no matter how I've tried I couldn't find it.
I mean, if you ignore graphic (those post-process effects are everywhere today - only more toned down) you end up with game that hasn't got more complex gameplay (or world) than 13 year old Half Life. OK, maybe it has damage system - but remember, so did Half Life (you could break those boxes piece by piece - very impressive at the time).
They've just accomplished something that has been done 13 years ago - and he was so arrogant to say that no other engine can do that. Only significant improvement was graphic - quite frankly, Crysis 1 was way more impressive.
OK - I know that Cryengine 3 is much more than Crysis 2, but that was just insulting to everyone specially because others have more advanced engines (maybe not in graphic department but all-in-all). Maybe it was all marketing stunt... maybe bashing other developers is a good marketing strategy - just look at "Unlimited details" conspiracy - they are saying that are better than others (no one buys that) but they still managed to get some kind of funding.

That is why I've said that Cryengine 3 is extremely impressive in graphic department but it is below average in other things (ie. no dynamic loading). Quite frankly, I've expected that people will agree. Mea culpa.

[Jason Z]

MJP
>Let me ask you this: just what exactly do you think it is that you're going to gain by keeping your technique a secret?

Money. If the game project is interesting for me (jrpg f.e.), then moral satisfaction is enough. All business is based on idea to be the first one against competitors.

Jason Z
>Nothing against the O.P., but I honestly can't see why so many people are posting on this thread (I guess I just did it too ). There is nothing presented here - absolutely nothing. I read about 6 or 7 of the posts, and I don't even know what the original post is asking for? Do you want something or are you trying to share something or are you trying to keep it secret???
I don't want to be negative, but I just don't see the point to this thread.

Read first post: "Could someone describe how to contact with developers if their public e-mails are never read (for sure) or not available at all? Is such technology (dx9 requires at least) may be interesting or it doesn't matter (for consoles especially)? What is the time period before official game release date, when developers are unable to modify the engine code any more?"
From the posts here it seems everybody trying to find out what the technique is and how it works by confusing me, don't you think?

Don't get me wrong friend - I am all about helping you get the info that you need. But it seems like several very well respected community members have given you advice, and you are ignoring it. If you can't get them to check out your algorithm from your emails, why not put together a demo and show it off at GDC or Siggraph (which is going on right now by the way...).

People are trying to help you, but you don't want their answers for some reason. Of all the people in the world, I think the people on this forum are less likely to be trying to 'steal' your algorithm. A very large percentage of the people on this website are hobbyists (myself included), and they just want to see what you have done out of curiosity. If you don't want to share it - that's fine.

[dummynull]

Threads like this really make me question whether GD.net has the most subtle trolls in history:

- OP: "How do I get emails of AAA developers to use my algorithm despite the fact than I cannot show a demo, video, screenshot, or a even provide single numerical comparison. Oh and they have to sign an NDA."

- Guy later in thread: "My engine is superior to Crysis 2 yet I have never released a single game with it nor can I provide a demo. To prove my engine's superiority here is screenshot of some buttons and text rendered on a couple of planes."

Can't say this isn't entertaining though.

This is not funny. I'm registered again here recently to post absolutely anonymously without any chance to track my work, because, as i told, it's publicily known, but only few guys know what is behind that PC game. I can't show video or screenshots without pointing indirectly where to search for. Ok, i understood, that at least screenshots and videos from separate demo must to be created for safety, but it's not the reason to laugh. I have work to do instead of spending time for middleware development, advertisement and sale (and i'm bad in everything money related).
About Crysis 2, Unreal 3 - they are unrealistic in all demos and screenshots i seen, at least because of wrong post processing, bad variables and texture factors for shading, ugly ssao.

Jason Z
Ok, i'll try now to find any suitable screenshot, publish it here in nearest time

[Katie]

"absolutely anonymously without any chance to track my work"

You are james bond and I claim my five pounds?

[MJP]

Let me make this clear for you:

I am a professional graphics programmer. I have not asked once about your actual technique, because I don't care. The idea that I would want to "steal" your technique is so ridiculous that I don't even need to address it. I'm simply trying to help you out, because you seem very misguided. But I think I've made my point already and others (including at least one other professional graphics programmer) have further emphasized that point, so I don't think I need to say anything further.

[dummynull]

Image removed.

Edited by dummynull, 11 August 2011 - 03:18 AM.

[David Neubelt]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
here is the technology applied with some other of my work. If this is not interesting for AAA developers, they are idiots.

What am I looking at? Can you post before/after highlighting your technique?

[Digitalfragment]

here is the technology applied with some other of my work. If this is not interesting for AAA developers, they are idiots.

Not really interested in the AO at all after seeing those as far as quality is concerned. For any interest, it would have to be proven to be faster than most other AO implementions and have zero impact on artist workflow/pipeline. Also, you're not likely to get an interest from other developers by your attidude.

[TiagoCosta]

Have you heard about the"Not Invented here" syndrome?

In programming, it is also common to refer to the NIH (No Invented Here) Syndrome as the tendency towards reinventing the wheel (reimplementing something that is already available) based on the belief that in-house developments are inherently better suited, more secure or more controlled than existing implementations.

Basically most professional developers wont even want to use your technique(s) because they didn't invented it

Anyway, as David said, you should try to explain each of those images you posted

[dummynull]

SCREENSHOT REMOVED

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

David Neubelt
If you don't know what look at, then you don't need AO at all, nothing to talking about.


Digitalfragment
>Not really interested in the AO at all after seeing those as far as quality is concerned. For any interest, it would have to be proven to be faster than most other AO implementions and have zero impact on artist workflow/pipeline. Also, you're not likely to get an interest from other developers by your attidude
Why should i proove here something? I told that already, it's faster, it's not ssao.


Digitalfragment
>Have you heard about the"Not Invented here" syndrome?
No, but thanks, now i know how stupid developers are. It's all about money, graphics is first attraction for gamers, if the company doen't like to use modern hi-tech things, it's doomed and only casual gaming is the last chance to live. You think otherwise? Proove then, why almost all developers spending most of the budged for graphics (hq models and textures included)?

>Anyway, as David said, you should try to explain each of those images you posted.
What to explain if nobody see it? It's final result of all effects applied. There are many games where you can see "default" graphics without ao. Are you searching for the black lines on the edges like in Crysis or what? Have a look at the car and buildings here http://www.youtube.c...h?v=fxpOdLyBqE8 may be CryEngine is your favorite, but it sucks against my screenshots (SCREENSHOTS REMOVED).

If it's really sooo hard to find out where lighting is, look under the balcony of the right-center image, the walls darkened by nearest trees (right-to, left borrom images), the huge wall and ground on the right-bottom image. Changes on cars noone can see, who asking "where to look at". It's very fun for me to listen about my incompetence, ha-ha.