Tell me the truth, the community the truth.

[sui317]

i thought but correct me if i am wrong, on the same engine

might be diff versions

i think not much different like the diesel engine was used for ballistic and graw

or the unreal engine for.... you name it

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?

cause ubi wanted grin as developer (for what ever reason)

and not RSE thus no RSE engine but diesel

[Papa6]

maybe that could be a problem. phyics engine, game engine and diesel for ballistics.

[sui317]

that is evolution,

i don't see the objection for the engine once being used for ballistic

unreal has many different uses... cry engine has different uses, half life engine has different uses

and physics, well be happy it is in, because that might be the future in all sorts of realisme and uses, that is hi tech !

(could be used to calculate bullit trajectory or wind, or what ever other

that would unload the CPU and GPU and make a game more playable)

[Dannik]

maybe that could be a problem. phyics engine, game engine and diesel for ballistics.

Ballistics was a game GRIN made, using their Diesel (Diesal? I've seen both spellings) engine. It does not refer to firearms trajectory calculations, but a retail software product.

[CrowmanUK]

Maybe its the hardware developers fault? If a typical game takes 2 or 3 years to develop, how many generations of graphics card does that take it through, and if the devs dont take advantage of the latest knobs and whistles offerings their release is going to look outdated on release, it looks to me like GRIN made Graw right on the edge of the tech, so as consumers catch up in the 12 months after it was released it'll play better, its a hard choice, do you make your game future proofed but a ###### to run on current hardware or do you make it run on the majority of machines but not look as good as some of its competitors. I had a rant the other day about Graw 2 and things coming out too quick and mentioned the ZX Spectrum, now when that came out the games were crap, but after a few years developing stuff for that platform the games were improved beyond belief because the devs had a set machine to make the games for so only by improved programming techniques could they make these improvements. Now with the hardware being improved many times a year, is this making programmers sloppy? Why bother spending time tweaking code to run on machine X when machine Y will be the benchmark machine in 6 months time and the game will run great on that. I'm not a programmer and cant answer that question but its something to think about other than is GRIN's engine 6 years old or not.

Bloody hell, didnt mean to go on that long. Whoops

Edited December 14, 2006 by CrowmanUK

[Papa6]

Also crowman, i hear alot that when a new pixel shader tech comes out devs don't use it until it's feasible or reasonable to use in terms of demand. have devs even used pixel shader 3.0 support?

[Dannik]

have devs even used pixel shader 3.0 support?

Splinter Cell: Double Agent and Rainbow Six: Vegas are two titles that utilise Pixel Shader 3.0 technology, which I believe is due to the engine used, the latest Unreal build.

[CrowmanUK]

And very nice they are too

[Rpghard]

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.

[Papa6]

they went back afterwards and added these things. that is harder after the final product is done but easier to do from the start rather than afterward

[Rocky]

And very nice they are too

My name is Crowman and I have Vegas already!!!

Damn you Crowman, I'll be hunting you down on a server this weekend!

[CrowmanUK]

LMAO, in your dreams mate

[GRiN_Bumbi]

1) Diesel is a 6 year old engine...

2) Grin never developed a PC Game before.

1. Diesel is old, but is constantly built upon and changed down to core mechanics when needed. Old doesn't always mean outdated.

2. Grin has made Bandits and Ballistics before GRAW which are both PC games.

Now the rest and the long versions of these answers are nested in questions about time, money, game design and buisness relationships which I will not talk about for a lot of good reasons.

[Papa6]

we do realize money DOES make the world go around. that it seems UBISOFT is geared up for consoles and there are less and less PC titles that attract ones attention. as for your #2 point in your post, the website says and bo said in the 2000 article that ballistix itself was a console game built on the diesel engine.

added: i was wrong and self corrected myself

Edited December 14, 2006 by Papa6

[Cangaroo.TNT]

Now the rest and the long versions of these answers are nested in questions about time, money, game design and buisness relationships which I will not talk about for a lot of good reasons.

###### right! This whole topic is preposterous and someone is getting too big for his briches.

[Pritzl]

Papa, as noted numerous times by others in this thread, the diesel engine may be 6 years old but I doubt anything is the same apart from the name. Code re-use is standard in software development or would you develop a new engine for every new game?

[CrowmanUK]

Just out of interest Bumbi, how much of a pain in the ###### was GRAW to make with the hardware evolving at such a fast rate? Did you ever get so far down the line then a new piece of hardware allowed you to do a new piece of eye candy that you had rewrite parts of the game to include it?

[Papa6]

just from common sense, eventually it would have to stop as the game would never release.

[KRP 56]

It was actually quite close to being finished when I saw it in action.

Then UBI should do us a favor and have Blackfoot studios finish it up and release it. It's bound to be better than GRAW.

[ZJJ]

It was actually quite close to being finished when I saw it in action.

Then UBI should do us a favor and have Blackfoot studios finish it up and release it.

That would be AWESOME!

[Rocky]

It was actually quite close to being finished when I saw it in action.

Then UBI should do us a favor and have Blackfoot studios finish it up and release it.

That would be AWESOME!

I know we are getting OT a little, but if GR2 was as close to being finished as I heard, it would have been great to have seen it is a free unsupported download, like Iron Wrath.

[CrowmanUK]

Yeah, one of those unpredictable presents that totally throw you off track, that would be nice.

[Dannik]

it would have been great to have seen it is a free unsupported download, like Iron Wrath.

There's a couple of major differences that would keep Ubisoft from doing this. First, Iron Wrath being an expansion back, it was entirely useless to anyone who had not purchased Raven Shield. The problem with this is tied to the second reason: Ubisoft would end up competing with itself. GR2PC released for free, when it's a commercial title for the Xbox?

What is more plausibe, would be precisely what has been suggested here: Pass the code on to another development house, to be released as a budget title down the road. After all, the cost of the existing code has already been eaten, so it may make a hint of sense to try to actually recoup some of those costs.

Most likely, however, is Ubisoft will hope people forget GR2PC ever existed, and we know Ubisoft is good at stone walling.

[Brettzies]

About GR2:

It was the first game I played on my x360. I had to play it. I HAD TO KNOW. It wasn't that bad. Graphics were good, totally reminded me of [GR] with slightly better graphics. You can even play first person with no weapon view. Sound = AMAZING! Especially in 5.1 Continuing the madness I bought Summit Strike. Much much better single player missions and weapon options even though there were less missions. All in all, I think they should have just released it for PC. Modders would have just put it back to normal. The only real difference is the better graphics, 4 man team, no commands or real map, no soul switching... I guess a lot of negatives, but the essence was still there.

About GRAW and this thread:

I know how Papa6 feels. But I'm not sure what would make him or anyone else feeling like that happy. It sounds like you want an apology or for GRiN to say they've been lying about everything or something. Admit to something? I don't think that's going to happen, or is really necessary. While GRAW PC isn't the sequel to GR that everyone wanted, it's a pretty good game in its own right. It does bring a lot of systems to their knees, maybe not the best scalling game engine by a long shot, but it also looks really nice on good systems. It's a mixed bag for sure, but what's done is done.

I know how you and others feel, so I'm not saying to not speak out or anything. It's good to vent about your frustrations with like minded people, but I also know there is no Supreme Court of Gaming Justice and if anyone were to be held accountable, it would be UBi and not GRIN.

[Papa6]

no apologies. I wish RSE would've had the project. lemme backtrack on something I said. I misquoted what I learned.

GR2 was working, it was just about complete and it was rock solid and looked good. so much was being said and no tape recorder makes everything hard to digest in one sitting. but from my best recollection, i understood my source as saying UBI pulled the plug on GR2 to go on to GRAW. kind of a bummer really. RSE was almost complete and bingo!, the project got cancelled the best i recall. I'm glad there was some light shed on the topic as I have always wanted to know..just what happened?

I've had the pleasure of speaking to Serellan in the past and it bums me out to hear this. Serellan and Co. seem like a great group of gents. but i do understand and anyone here that was there during the Beta of GR might be able to shed some light on how well RSE listened to the community and made GR the game it was.

I see my gaming days coming to a close and that is a bummer as I don't see many if any games that impress me. Most are halo, BF2/2142 and COD2/3 FPS's or racing games. I might be coming to a inner conclusion with myself something better will interest me and move on. I'm liking the sound of Linux, mostly Suse and would love to see gaming traverse that line as Linux has compilers already in with the OS. so if money is an issue, then the savings would be great as the tools are free. but i guess migration would be the single biggest issue.

I know ID Software makes OPENGL games for linux and perhaps I'm reaching by saying that linux will be a gaming platform someday.

But anyway, GRAW has just been both a disappointment and some pleasure and my swinging from happiness to displeasure is basically frustration from having some fun being ruined by technical issues and bugs ruining an otherwise fun time.

@Grin, you say that the diesel engine evolves. that's understandable but at some point even big devs who use the Quake engine for example, drop the old engine and build better enhanced engine for newer games. sometimes evolution stops and a fresh new start for a new beginning is inevitable. Please understand that the original GR community was loyal, huge and strong. RSE took the initiative and had people or groups of people help sort out alot of things to add , fix and remove that made GR great. GR set the bar VERY high in terms of tactical gameplay.

Good night all!