Maintenance for the week of December 15:
· [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
[Discussion]Upgrade engine and graphic ?
-
Dagobert✭nafensoriel wrote: »nafensoriel wrote: »
Which unreal engine You're talking about. Unreal engine 4 was released in 2014.
Ahh yes. Add a number and it suddenly is a new engine. It's totally not like going from Creation Engine 1.0 to Creation Engine 2.0.
Unreal is older than CE/Gamebryo. People just like facts that only support their world view.
That's not how it works. Unreal Engine gets constantly major upgrades, while lot of active live game engines only get carefully thought out minor upgrades step by step so they don't brake it and players revolt. Just because UE4 was released in 2014, it's way more advanced since then. They constantly add stuff, overhaul something if it is needed. That's true for most engines that you can download now for free(UE, CE, LY, Unity). It doesn't need to have a 4+ number version to feel like it's better. It's like with mmo "live services" you have now a lot more content with DLCs for ESO than in 2014. In this age UE5 would only happen if there is some major hardware advancement, with which the current software wont be compatible, they have to rethink it and build it up from the basics to be optimized, and because of that have to throw out the whole previous engine.1 -
FierceSam✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Source is Half Life's graphics engine. Havok is a physics engine, which ESO already uses. If you want a prettier ESO, they'd need to replace the Hero engine they use, and that would be a huge effort.
Might as well just start developing ESO 2.
I see little reason to believe the ESO (original) franchise is dead or dying.
It's a perfectly good game that ought to have it's engine rewritten for optimization and better net-code, to put the players database back into for continued play.
We keep getting 'Free Week' playthroughs where new players flood into the servers, get a look at the poor performance and disconnects with a tonne of lag and stuff that doesn't work, and then they flee, knowing the game isn't worth buying/subbing.
A new engine and optimization would retain a lot of vets, and keep many of those lookey-lous who walk away after a look at the crap workings of the existing game now.
What’s your source for the numbers?
I would imagine exactly the opposite. I can see that free play weeks, alongside heavily discounted content probably bring in a significant number of new players, certainly enough to balance those who are leaving (for whatever reasons). If they weren’t successful marketing wouldn’t insist on having them.
I don’t see any mileage in ZOS doing any behind the scenes work that isn’t focussed on massively improving server and game performance. They don’t have the team, the will or the capability to do more.0 -
richo262✭✭✭✭✭
✭Salix_alba wrote: »I thought vulkan was more for vr? I mean nms switched to it for that didn't they?
Vulkan is not VR specific, it is a competitor to direct x. It is open source, so can be used on any platform, whereas DX is Microsoft locked. Vulkan has proven to be superior in both performance and output more often than not, but its draw back is many devs consider it more difficult to work with than DX.
No guarantee but it would be likely that ESO would see performance and graphical improvements if it did adopt Vulkan. Given ESO is coming to Stadia, which runs on a Linux back end and has nothing to do with MS, I suspect ZOS has already done something with Vulkan, or Stadia is using DXVK to convert system calls.0 -
nafensoriel✭✭✭✭✭nafensoriel wrote: »nafensoriel wrote: »
Which unreal engine You're talking about. Unreal engine 4 was released in 2014.
Ahh yes. Add a number and it suddenly is a new engine. It's totally not like going from Creation Engine 1.0 to Creation Engine 2.0.
Unreal is older than CE/Gamebryo. People just like facts that only support their world view.
That's not how it works. Unreal Engine gets constantly major upgrades, while lot of active live game engines only get carefully thought out minor upgrades step by step so they don't brake it and players revolt. Just because UE4 was released in 2014, it's way more advanced since then. They constantly add stuff, overhaul something if it is needed. That's true for most engines that you can download now for free(UE, CE, LY, Unity). It doesn't need to have a 4+ number version to feel like it's better. It's like with mmo "live services" you have now a lot more content with DLCs for ESO than in 2014. In this age UE5 would only happen if there is some major hardware advancement, with which the current software wont be compatible, they have to rethink it and build it up from the basics to be optimized, and because of that have to throw out the whole previous engine.
According to the idiots who constantly lambast Bethesda for their engine choice its exactly how it apparently works.
The reality remains that the complaints about engines are entirely and utterly pointless especially in regards to ESO.
They have updated the engine.. regularly. They have improved performance.. regularly(true their current problems are.. let's say fun). They have also added features.. regularly.
People just like to pretend things like the lighting patch didn't happen because it supports the youtube driven narrative that UE4 is "the best" and "everything would be better if everything was made with UE4.
Additionally, the UE1>2>3>4 brand isn't really miles different from how the netimmerse>gamebryo>CE1>CE2 transitions took place with nearly equal levels of technological additions to their respective platforms.
UE4 has not become "more advanced" its plugins and bolt-ons have become more advanced. That's generally how modern engines work. No one completely does in house crap for most things anymore because someone else is doing it better and it costs too damn much to do it yourself. You won't see "UE5" not because major technology expansions are not happening but because programming has moved on from that. We, by nature, now modularize the ever-living crap out of EVERYTHING we can so, in the future, we can easily replace things even when we no longer know how the original code works anymore.
No "major" revision will occur until a new novel approach to parallelism occurs. Say when someone figures out how to split a control thread without breaking everything for a real-time application.0 -
nafensoriel✭✭✭✭✭Salix_alba wrote: »I thought vulkan was more for vr? I mean nms switched to it for that didn't they?
Vulkan is not VR specific, it is a competitor to direct x. It is open source, so can be used on any platform, whereas DX is Microsoft locked. Vulkan has proven to be superior in both performance and output more often than not, but its draw back is many devs consider it more difficult to work with than DX.
No guarantee but it would be likely that ESO would see performance and graphical improvements if it did adopt Vulkan. Given ESO is coming to Stadia, which runs on a Linux back end and has nothing to do with MS, I suspect ZOS has already done something with Vulkan, or Stadia is using DXVK to convert system calls.
Vulkan is only superior because, as someone previously stated in this thread, you have to do everything yourself. This means lower overhead. I wouldn't say Vulkan is superior to work with unless you have a very veteran team and some really novel thinkers.
Trying to bash through Vulkan without the right people in place would be a nightmare. There are massive Cost/Time benefits to using a closed source system with history and tools in place.0 -
richo262✭✭✭✭✭
✭nafensoriel wrote: »Salix_alba wrote: »I thought vulkan was more for vr? I mean nms switched to it for that didn't they?
Vulkan is not VR specific, it is a competitor to direct x. It is open source, so can be used on any platform, whereas DX is Microsoft locked. Vulkan has proven to be superior in both performance and output more often than not, but its draw back is many devs consider it more difficult to work with than DX.
No guarantee but it would be likely that ESO would see performance and graphical improvements if it did adopt Vulkan. Given ESO is coming to Stadia, which runs on a Linux back end and has nothing to do with MS, I suspect ZOS has already done something with Vulkan, or Stadia is using DXVK to convert system calls.
Vulkan is only superior because, as someone previously stated in this thread, you have to do everything yourself. This means lower overhead. I wouldn't say Vulkan is superior to work with unless you have a very veteran team and some really novel thinkers.
Trying to bash through Vulkan without the right people in place would be a nightmare. There are massive Cost/Time benefits to using a closed source system with history and tools in place.
That is pretty much what I said. It is better, but not used because it is more difficult to work with. I wouldn't say Vulkan is superior to work with either, because I didn't. I also wasn't expecting ZOS to hire a team to do it simply to give us PC users Vulkan for the sake of it, I said there may be a potential for it to come given ESO is on Stadia, which runs on Linux and would require a Linux compatible alternative to DX, or at least a tool to convert DX system calls.0