Papa6 Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 I found out why GRAW has so many problems. 1) Diesel. this is an old game engine that was used by GRIN to develop a military sim for swedish military forces years ago. kinda like trying to make GRAW with the OFP engine and saying it's an advanced engine. Diesel is a 6 year old engine...read this * note also that the article is about this new engine dated aug 2000! 2)Grin. Grin never developed a PC Game before. but the games WAS going to go to Red Storm Entertainment(RSE) but Grin won because it under bid RSE. the lowest bid doesn't always mean the goods will be the best. So Ubi france went with GRIN *Note: Why the hell do you take a game franchise away from the originators? 3)The game code. the game code is so faulty that GRAW can never be fixed completely. RSE had never built a PC game either but, they DID get with the community and listened 4)But it is true UBISOFT cares nothing of the PC crowd as posted numerous times here. I can see they are focused on Consoles. they go to european developers who weren't EVEN knowledgeable of the original storyline or gameplay of GR. GR is an RSE baby. They made it. keep it with those who made it so it stays right as it should. Be honest, tell us you are new and we would help. RSE actually listened to the community and that is why they got GR1 right. the community helped RSE get GR going and RSE made a great game. But Grin is using an old outdated engine to make a Pc game that essentially was broken from release. c'mon why didn't GRIN supply standalone server files at release? they had the engine, and all they needed was to code the game net code GR's community is the largest aside from Dungeons and Dragons but D&D has been around years longer though. so there's a serious following because of that reason. GR received such a hardcore and large group of faithful. I know of a person who witnessed the system requirements that originally were set to about a 1.4Ghx processor an hour later got pulled and changed to an AMD 2.2GHZ etc... Why does a "diesel" engine search on google or ask show no reference to GRIN if Grin tells us this is there own designed engine? why is there no or little information on the engine? I want to know more about Grin's Diesel engine? but I DID find , just now a small entry this the beginning of the Diesel Engine a 6 year old game engine which was also used for a "high tech racing game" ballistix. Wow...I'm not happy with this. so the whole issue with GRAW,GRIN is not the patches. Those prior patches weren't even patches on a technical level but just content. I believe GRIN can't even fix GRAW because it can't be fixed. the first "TRUE" patch on a technical level is 1.35. But the same netcode disconnects still exist. I honestly think Grin was in no way up for the task of doing a GR title. That's what i know and some would hopefully be happy to know this as well and will see why GRAW is in such bad shape -Papa6 P.S. this is alot of heavy info but I'm not bashing GRIN but the whole GRAW scenario. it was a failure before development bu tI like to research and find things out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockeystick Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 2)Grin. Grin never developed a PC Game before. but the games WAS going to go to Red Storm Entertainment(RSE) but Grin won because it under bid RSE. the lowest bid doesn't always mean the goods will be the best. So Ubi france went with GRIN *Note: Why the hell do you take a game franchise away from the originators? Since RSE made the X360 version we would only (if we where lucky) get a port for PC. Or, we wouldn't get anything since RSE obviously couldn't make GR2 for both PC and Xbox. I think TIME was the main factor here, not developer. I would actually not care if Blizzard or Avalanche made the game, as long as the PC version was not a port. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sui317 Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 no offence but i think most of us asked for a GR game with an updated old GR engine, if that was not the old R6 engine, what does age have to do with it ?? i think grin did tell they were kinda new to this, as you can see from their homepage no big list of games, just a few, no hiding their origin there ubi chose grin, maybe pure for financial reasons, maybe because they had issues with RSE in light of GR2 it is all backward enginering and speculation, i know this may sound hard but i think most things you ask are known and if unknown, search and find clues last but not least, give grin a break, though they choose to do GRAW they are new to our standards, and even those are variable i know some points of criticisme are more than valid, but i can sum some up for [GR] that were never fixed and known from the start every game has its flaws, every development team has their limitations try to let it rest and enjoy what we have it is far better than GR2 once there was a great game warcraft, then starcraft, then warcraft 2 and it got all messed up with warcraft 3 and WOW if you ask me it is just some personal issues, and hype who screams out loud what if the game rocked, everyone was happy and no one had a bad word about it ? but still you found the flaws, would they be like this ? or would you speak like i do ? who knows, they might have learned and gotten green light from ubi to make graw 2 more like we dream of, maybe it will be like GR2, but it can't be worse than GR2 and in that light, graw still beats GR2 (all GR2 comments are GR2 PC related as i don 't know the console version) no hard feelings papa6, just venting my mind aswell, not ment personally because i like your posts as you never know what mood you are in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa6 Posted December 14, 2006 Author Share Posted December 14, 2006 But they couldn't even get GR2 to work for the PC and scrapped it to make GRAW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannik Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 1) Wait, so a six year old interview shocks you because it talks about a game engine that is six years old? Did you know that Rainbow Six: Lockdown's engine is (gasp) eight years old! Rainbow Six: Vegas' engine is also eight years old! 2) GRIN would be shocked, shocked to hear that their prior PC games don't exist. 3) Where did you get your analysis of the source code from? I'm sure that since it was never released, you're commenting on someone else's fractured opinion. 4) GRIN didn't create GR1, so they clearly have no clue on what GRAW should have been. Well, gee, neither did you create GR1, so by your own logic, you've got no clue on how GRAW should have been. Playing with silly assumptions is fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sui317 Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 yeah but that was ubi and RSE, this is a ubi / GRIN game all we can do is play or not play the game, ask our questions and hope GRAW2 will not be much like GR2 i think the deep answeres about politics and game design will not be answered as that might be where they make money and lose any customers or idea's to EA or who ever.... that does not mean you, i and many more would like to know the secrets behind GRAW and the whole GR series and not forget R6 series word is though that R6 vegas does not fall short like LD but i have not played it yet, maybe i will not play it at all who knows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZJJ Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 But they couldn't even get GR2 to work for the PC and scrapped it to make GRAW GR2 wasn't scrapped because they couldn't get it to work! It was actually quite close to being finished when I saw it in action. Wow, the assumptions are flying today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa6 Posted December 14, 2006 Author Share Posted December 14, 2006 Grin had told us that the game engine was high tech. but GR was high tech in 2001. so how do you define high tech sui317? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sui317 Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 high tech, is that what is maintained and improved up to the standards of the day and of tomorrow, take a F16 fighterplane, it is way old, but still most are high tech, because they get updated and revised with all the latest things available or many game engines out there that evolve, they grow that what grows can be high tech, again planes, all planes are based upon the same principle of flight, which is more than a hundred years old but flight can still be high tech, it is the way you let things evole, and we have little to complain evolution is demanding, so is GRAW it evolved beyond most pc's capabilities of yesterday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa6 Posted December 14, 2006 Author Share Posted December 14, 2006 (edited) high tech, is that what is maintained and improved up to the standards of the day and of tomorrow, take a F16 fighterplane, it is way old, but still most are high tech, because they get updated and revised with all the latest things available or many game engines out there that evolve, they grow that what grows can be high tech, again planes, all planes are based upon the same principle of flight, which is more than a hundred years old but flight can still be high tech, it is the way you let things evole, and we have little to complain evolution is demanding, so is GRAW it evolved beyond most pc's capabilities of yesterday then i have a question, why is it that people here with rigs in SLI and dual 7950's get only 30FPS? on a game engine that is 6 years old? I guess the whole thing goes back to why did ubi france hire out GRAW to Grin, never built a Pc game against RSE who is proven?...the almighty $$$ Edited December 14, 2006 by Papa6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sui317 Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 what if graw runs 200 fps in 5 years time ? or just 60 fps in 5 years time ? how would you see that ?? is it because the game is heavy or because it is way beyond the capabilities of current systems ? the 30 fps you are talking about are probably not graw related but more a miss management in drivers and OS, memory or other things cause i can get 30 if i am lucky with an ati X1600 but if you ask me, ubi went for the bucks, most people go for the quick buck, or maybe RSE had different opinions about graw than ubi who knows ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PwntUpRage Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 (edited) I think part of what Papa is trying to say is: Can this engine handle what Grin is trying to throw at it? Graw is a graphically and gameplay intense game. Is this actually an old engine which was not meant to do what its doing, hence the netcode problems? Edited December 14, 2006 by PwntUpRage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost9 Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 then i have a question, why is it that people here with rigs in SLI and dual 7950's get only 30FPS? on a game engine that is 6 years old? I guess the whole thing goes back to why did ubi france hire out GRAW to Grin, never built a Pc game against RSE who is proven?...the almighty $$$ do you have any idea what you're talking about? The 30fps thing can be influenced by many things such as how they have their system set up etc etc. It's much more than this engine is 6 years old it should run at 100 fps. more than just the engine is involved with fps. RSE is proven? Proven they can make both good and bad games. Look at lockdown. that was god awful on the pc. the multiplayer was rediculously bad. What is your love affair with RSE? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannik Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 then i have a question, why is it that people here with rigs in SLI and dual 7950's get only 30FPS? on a game engine that is 6 years old? For the same reason that Splinter Cell: Double Agent, using an eight year old engine, won't even run on my current video card, although eight years ago, the engine didn't even require a 3d renderer. I guess the whole thing goes back to why did ubi france hire out GRAW to Grin, never built a Pc game against RSE who is proven? GRIN had created and released several PC titles prior to GRAW. Most of them were commercial-grade simulators for police and military use, sort of like VBS1. They also had at least two retail PC games released prior to GRAW. Ballistics and Bandits - Phoenix Rising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa6 Posted December 14, 2006 Author Share Posted December 14, 2006 what if graw runs 200 fps in 5 years time ? or just 60 fps in 5 years time ? how would you see that ?? is it because the game is heavy or because it is way beyond the capabilities of current systems ? the 30 fps you are talking about are probably not graw related but more a miss management in drivers and OS, memory or other things cause i can get 30 if i am lucky with an ati X1600 but if you ask me, ubi went for the bucks, most people go for the quick buck, or maybe RSE had different opinions about graw than ubi who knows ? I think UBI bought up RSE before GRAW. But the bolded area you stated above is due that GRAW's engine will be so obsolete it will be like running GR1 on a 4 core system and an nvidia card of the future. overkill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattiasWiking Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 high tech, is that what is maintained and improved up to the standards of the day and of tomorrow, take a F16 fighterplane, it is way old, but still most are high tech, because they get updated and revised with all the latest things available or many game engines out there that evolve, they grow that what grows can be high tech, again planes, all planes are based upon the same principle of flight, which is more than a hundred years old but flight can still be high tech, it is the way you let things evole, and we have little to complain evolution is demanding, so is GRAW it evolved beyond most pc's capabilities of yesterday then i have a question, why is it that people here with rigs in SLI and dual 7950's get only 30FPS? on a game engine that is 6 years old? I guess the whole thing goes back to why did ubi france hire out GRAW to Grin, never built a Pc game against RSE who is proven?...the almighty $$$ I seldom post replys in this kind of threads, but I would like you to think about something. Volvo, which is a swedish car company, created their first car around 1930(might have been earlier) their car was named volvo. Today they still sell volvo cars. Do you think they haven't improved their cars since then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 But they couldn't even get GR2 to work for the PC and scrapped it to make GRAW Papa, step back from the keyboard mate, it's clearly malfunctioning today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa6 Posted December 14, 2006 Author Share Posted December 14, 2006 you swedes make nice cars. matter of fact, they dropped a volvo off a high carage and it landed nose first. it started and ran. are you saying we should try that with GRAW? \\Sarcasm\\ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sui317 Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 in which perception ?? the 200 fps or 60 fps ? cause most praise gr1 engine as it now runs like 200 or what fps how much does it run on a pentium 450 mhz and voodoo 2/3 of its day ? i don't see the obsolete issue you see with diesel it does things no other engine does in a game, and makes cards outdated because the tech is not there to make AA work for instance that is a hardware issue if you ask me, thus the engine is too hitech for the hardware.... but this is open for debate we will never finish .... as it can be pro or con depending your expectations and desires high tech, is that what is maintained and improved up to the standards of the day and of tomorrow, take a F16 fighterplane, it is way old, but still most are high tech, because they get updated and revised with all the latest things available or many game engines out there that evolve, they grow that what grows can be high tech, again planes, all planes are based upon the same principle of flight, which is more than a hundred years old but flight can still be high tech, it is the way you let things evole, and we have little to complain evolution is demanding, so is GRAW it evolved beyond most pc's capabilities of yesterday then i have a question, why is it that people here with rigs in SLI and dual 7950's get only 30FPS? on a game engine that is 6 years old? I guess the whole thing goes back to why did ubi france hire out GRAW to Grin, never built a Pc game against RSE who is proven?...the almighty $$$ I seldom post replys in this kind of threads, but I would like you to think about something. Volvo, which is a swedish car company, created their first car around 1930(might have been earlier) their car was named volvo. Today they still sell volvo cars. Do you think they haven't improved their cars since then? and still use petrol, or diesel engines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa6 Posted December 14, 2006 Author Share Posted December 14, 2006 I can't speak for everyone as everyone has their point of view. but we do know that GR1's engine was good. so why not build upon that? to mean why not advance that engine like Grin does with theirs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MVTalon Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 Its my opinion that expectations were set too high...set to an unrealistic level,. I base this on recent expieriance. I have a new PC coming this week and have spent the last couple of weeks going over my game collection ,what to load in and what to pack away. What became apparent very early on was that not one game in my collection came out of the box ready to go ,EVERY single game was flawed in some way .Every single game required further development and patching .Some requiring literaly years to get rite. I fully agree that GR:AW was not what the coop community expected to see but that in itself does not make it a bad game. Like every game some like it and some don't, some critisize the game in a constructive manner while others seem to have made it there lifes work to convince the rest of us that the game is junk. Myself I like the game for what it is NOT for what others expected it to be. It does not and likely as not ever will replace [GR] on my computer but plays very well beside it. I do have to add that before I spend my money on GR:AW 2 I will be looking to see some or all the remaining flaws in GR:AW corrected....within reason nothing is perfect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sui317 Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 (edited) because someone will have prevented that i can see RSE objecting to it for one reason or another, i can see grin objecting to that suggestion, as they would have to learn the engine and that takes lots of time (too much to produce before we would have ran away) and they had an engine they knew well as it was their own, maybe ubi did not want that for one reason or the other (they might have wanted to split GR series from the R6 series, so to devide options broaden the market and creating diversity) Edited December 14, 2006 by sui317 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa6 Posted December 14, 2006 Author Share Posted December 14, 2006 The GR Series was already a split from R6. R6 was always CQB where as GR was tactical based and set on face to face confrontation or battlefield environment. but the similarities were that they both used .rsb and .env files and .sht and .map files as well as .qob if memory serves which worked well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZJJ Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 I can't speak for everyone as everyone has their point of view. but we do know that GR1's engine was good. so why not build upon that? to mean why not advance that engine like Grin does with theirs? The RSE and the Deisel engines are proprietary. Not sure RSE would have let GRIN use their engine and not sure GRIN would have wanted to since they have their own. I'm sure if RSE developed the PC version, they would have built upon their own engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa6 Posted December 14, 2006 Author Share Posted December 14, 2006 I can't speak for everyone as everyone has their point of view. but we do know that GR1's engine was good. so why not build upon that? to mean why not advance that engine like Grin does with theirs? The RSE and the Deisel engines are proprietary. Not sure RSE would have let GRIN use their engine and not sure GRIN would have wanted to since they have their own. I'm sure if RSE developed the PC version, they would have built upon their own engine. thanks ZJJ, that's what I'm saying. why not RSE use their own from step 1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.