Apologies in advance if this I has already been answered or is obvious but I haven’t played the game since before Xmas nor can I bring myself to boot the game back up. I’m genuinely curious as to the game engines capabilities with regards world physics. There is/was a video outlining the differences between the original earlier games and the same games played into portal. eg doors that don’t get destroyed. Lessincremental damage to items, some structures that can no longer be damaged or destroyed. Concrete walls no longer being incrementally destroyed, less ground deformation etc. Plus I remember larger calibre weapons penetrating walls allowing you to get kills if you guessed where someone was hiding. So is this game engine less capable of modelling physics or is it purely a design decision for whatever reason?

@LordVader666 this game is less limited by the engine and more by lack of staff, budget, time and will (will by the decision makers, not the creatives)

mate you know that they working and updating on the Frostbyte engine?This engine has nothing to do with the original Engine used for Battlefield: Bad CompanyThis is the fourth or fifth version of this engine (if not a higher version, EA & DICE are silence about it)Or do you think that the Unreal engine is the same engine like it was in 1998? No they are working on it and Unreal Engine version 5 has nothing in common with the origin but the name.The same is with the ID Tech engine they are constantly developing and upgrading itThe difference is that EA don’t licence the Frostbyte Engine to third party Developers and due to the fluctuation in staff, there is many new blood which needs to learn working with this Engine from the scratch.So there is no third party feedback from Indi Developers other Studios or Modder which creating documentation, examples or tutorial videos.If I remember right, I have read that the Frostbyte Engine is a very complex engine and if you know what you are doing it works fantastic and as I said before too much new blood will complicate things (as we see with BF2042 and some other games)They need a dedicated studio which only Develop and Evolve this engine. Including Documentation, Examples, tutorials and personal that will support other studios creating games. (Like nVidia and AMD which sending out People to the Developers to support them for a good implementation of their hardware)BF2042 is not a bad game and not as bad as the reviews are saying. Most of them a disappointed fans that this game is something complete different what they are got used to.I like BF2042 because it reminds me of BF2 with his huge maps and the Unlock system. And some gadgets like the Sentry gun are an homage to BF2142.

@CountSero Yes, the anti-material rounds still do damage to vehicles, but it is so miniscule it is just a waste of ammo, the regeneration of vehicle health is faster than the damage inflicted after factoring in both individual round reload times and magazine changes. Unless a vehicle is already near 'death', don't waste your time.

@CountSero Having correct physics may result in buildings not getting destroyed, because the projectile just goes through the wall, and leaves a hole, but doesn't take down the whole facade, like the current mechanics do.Currently the damage mechanics in BF2042 are pretty messed up, imho worse than in other titles..50 cal shots from the NTW-50 kill instantly. The same round from a vehicle barely scratch a soldier.Lis Rocket doesn't kill a soldier anymore, unless its a head shot, but does more damage to a vehicle than the NTW-50 round.Event if the engine could use better physics, with all these exceptions if would still feel wrong.

@LordVader666 The engine is still cabable of such thingThe engine is still able to do this but with 128 players and pure DX12 support the game is more demanding on the hardware. Many players with older systems have enormous problems and with the patch 1.1.0 the general performance became much worse ( I suspect here that DICE used an old branch of the game because many old bugs which were already fixed are back again.)You can still kill players behind the wall with a tank, AA, jeep or a rocket if you know where the opponent is. I was killed several times this way. But not shooting thru with high calibre LMGsThe destruction at the perimeter was taken back a bit (an impact of a tank grenade still creates a crater but not so deep that you could stand in it as it was in some previous ones. Walls also can be destroyed but not on every building)But I think this is better for the game flow because there is already less cover and I would say more destruction would be counterproductive hereFore an Example on Hourglass you can totally destroy the entire side of mud huts so that there is almost no cover left. In Breakthru this creates an imbalance for the defenders.So overall it was more a design decision and unfortunately a little bit of bad optimization.Also, you need to consider that every particle and destruction will need CPU power, also every destruction need to be synchronized with 128p in AoW conquest which is demanding on Hardware and Network.On the one hand, I think it's good that DICE has dared to take the step and cut off old strands like DX11 but on the other hand, they apparently it seems that they have too little experience with DX12, which is reflected in a modest optimization.Of course, this is all speculation on my part but I have this impression after about 430+ hours of playtime.

Game engine limitations? | EA Forums

11 Replies

UP_Hawxxeye
Legend
4 years ago
@LordVader666 this game is less limited by the engine and more by lack of staff, budget, time and will (will by the decision makers, not the creatives)
CountSero
4 years ago
@LordVader666 The engine is still cabable of such thing

The engine is still able to do this but with 128 players and pure DX12 support the game is more demanding on the hardware. Many players with older systems have enormous problems and with the patch 1.1.0 the general performance became much worse ( I suspect here that DICE used an old branch of the game because many old bugs which were already fixed are back again.)

You can still kill players behind the wall with a tank, AA, jeep or a rocket if you know where the opponent is. I was killed several times this way. But not shooting thru with high calibre LMGs

The destruction at the perimeter was taken back a bit (an impact of a tank grenade still creates a crater but not so deep that you could stand in it as it was in some previous ones. Walls also can be destroyed but not on every building)

But I think this is better for the game flow because there is already less cover and I would say more destruction would be counterproductive here

Fore an Example on Hourglass you can totally destroy the entire side of mud huts so that there is almost no cover left. In Breakthru this creates an imbalance for the defenders.

So overall it was more a design decision and unfortunately a little bit of bad optimization.

Also, you need to consider that every particle and destruction will need CPU power, also every destruction need to be synchronized with 128p in AoW conquest which is demanding on Hardware and Network.

On the one hand, I think it's good that DICE has dared to take the step and cut off old strands like DX11 but on the other hand, they apparently it seems that they have too little experience with DX12, which is reflected in a modest optimization.

Of course, this is all speculation on my part but I have this impression after about 430+ hours of playtime.
emerson1975
4 years ago
@CountSeroThe game engine at its core is a 15 year old engine and it’s showing it’s age.
Just ask BioWare what they thought about the engine, they had to hack dev tools to get stuff to work lol.
Theres many other engines out there that do it better
CountSero
4 years ago
mate you know that they working and updating on the Frostbyte engine?
This engine has nothing to do with the original Engine used for Battlefield: Bad Company
This is the fourth or fifth version of this engine (if not a higher version, EA & DICE are silence about it)
Or do you think that the Unreal engine is the same engine like it was in 1998? No they are working on it and Unreal Engine version 5 has nothing in common with the origin but the name.
The same is with the ID Tech engine they are constantly developing and upgrading it
The difference is that EA don’t licence the Frostbyte Engine to third party Developers and due to the fluctuation in staff, there is many new blood which needs to learn working with this Engine from the scratch.
So there is no third party feedback from Indi Developers other Studios or Modder which creating documentation, examples or tutorial videos.
If I remember right, I have read that the Frostbyte Engine is a very complex engine and if you know what you are doing it works fantastic and as I said before too much new blood will complicate things (as we see with BF2042 and some other games)
They need a dedicated studio which only Develop and Evolve this engine. Including Documentation, Examples, tutorials and personal that will support other studios creating games. (Like nVidia and AMD which sending out People to the Developers to support them for a good implementation of their hardware)
BF2042 is not a bad game and not as bad as the reviews are saying. Most of them a disappointed fans that this game is something complete different what they are got used to.
I like BF2042 because it reminds me of BF2 with his huge maps and the Unlock system. And some gadgets like the Sentry gun are an homage to BF2142.
emerson1975
4 years ago
@CountSero At its core it’s still just a frostbite engine that was not particularly great when it first came out.
BioWare stated many times when working with the engine that it was “poorly documented and hacked together,
CountSero
4 years ago
@emerson1975 Yeah, the name is still a Frostbyte engine and yes, it is a complex engine but it is not the engine from Bad Company anymore. (As Unreal Engine ist not the Unreal Engine back from 1998...)

Yeah, i know what BioWare has stated but Poor Documentation and Structure don't say that this is a bad engine. It shows a problem of bad management and the fluctuation in employees which causes such problems. If you give the developers the freedom to create a documentation and tutorials then the next generation of developers have much easier task to work with it.

But the problem there is that EA give the DICE enough time or money for a good development for an engine.

Also, that EA has given the Order to use the Frostbyte for every game was a bad decision.

And after Mass Effect: Andromeda and Anthem they should pull the plug because at this point the development of additional feature needed for RPGs games has pulled to many resources from DICE or other studios which where more needed for the development of the games.

Also, after Mass Effect Andromeda people left BioWare and they lost track of many things and then things getting worse.

The same problem had DICE with BF 1 and BF V (to many resources bound for different EA projects instead of their own)

So, the engine itself is OK but complex and to make good games with it, you need time and capable people. So, EA made the wrong decision and didn’t build a good structure to handle all projects with the Frostbyte engine.
kregora
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago
@CountSero Having correct physics may result in buildings not getting destroyed, because the projectile just goes through the wall, and leaves a hole, but doesn't take down the whole facade, like the current mechanics do.
Currently the damage mechanics in BF2042 are pretty messed up, imho worse than in other titles.
.50 cal shots from the NTW-50 kill instantly. The same round from a vehicle barely scratch a soldier.
Lis Rocket doesn't kill a soldier anymore, unless its a head shot, but does more damage to a vehicle than the NTW-50 round.
Event if the engine could use better physics, with all these exceptions if would still feel wrong.
CountSero
4 years ago
@kregora
but that’s not the problem of the engine it is Cleary a design decision by DICE here because we already know that the engine is capable of it

The Nerf of the NTW was short after release of the game, you could kill a vehicle with around 3-4 shots.

Now this gun is only good for one shot players (I don’t know if the anti-material bullets are still good against vehicles)

I mentioned this in another thread, that DICE needs to learn again how to Balance.
CloverDeuce
Seasoned Ace
4 years ago
@CountSero Yes, the anti-material rounds still do damage to vehicles, but it is so miniscule it is just a waste of ammo, the regeneration of vehicle health is faster than the damage inflicted after factoring in both individual round reload times and magazine changes. Unless a vehicle is already near 'death', don't waste your time.
edgecrusherO0
4 years ago
@LordVader666 That's a lot of CPU power to calculate/track all those things, and with bigger maps + higher player counts that all eat up a considerable amount of CPU bandwidth - plus the apparently super-rushed development of 2042 - it's not surprising that they'd be cut. Even if current-gen consoles have much beefier CPU's with reasonable clock speeds, there are still hard limits to build around (see: the removal of Breakthrough 128p because even consoles struggled to keep playable framerates with 120+ players/vehicles all fighting over a single flag capture) and these features were likely cut as they were viewed as non-critical.

Though who knows, the 18 months spent updating Frostbite for this might have killed some of this functionality and requires that it be rebuilt.