Well lets say that you crash into a rock or a builidng or a rail the idea is for it to break into small buildings and cause destruction and damage your car and I also want The cryengine3 engine back in and some water physics.
That'd be a cool feature in fact an AMAZING feature, but this would require LOTS of PC power. And when (if at all) it is implemented it won't any time soon. But as I said I'd love to have this feature and agree.
AFAIK It's planned, but PC hardware needs to catch up first. Every day I get more and more of the vibe that the devs are playing the long game here.
The BeamNG engine is truly next generation... Current PC hardware is not capable of bringing it to its full potential.
Well its not "next gen" in the least, its fairly old technology (Rigs of Rods), just now running on the Torque3D engine with much better optimization and features. As for Cryengine, big companies generally want A LOT of money when someone makes a game then goes commercial (chargine money for it), which is probably the reason why they went to Torque
With a much improved (and it is night and day between Rigs of Rods and BeamNG) version it's fair to call the newer one "next gen". On the environmental physics front, I think it would be cool, but it's really low on the totem pole.
x64, GPGPU, multithreading, OpenCL... dont get me wrong but the game industry/engines loves to say that need more powerfull computers to follow their technology but they aren't following any kind of technology that isn't a console, you don't see many games using this freatures and this exist on a considerable time. Am i wrong?
x64 and GPGPU (OpenCL is GPGPU so you kinda mentioned that one twice) are fair suggestions, but the game is multithreaded already, quite heavily so. Pretty much all modern games are multithreaded (even the console ports as the consoles themselves utilise multithreading), many are native 64 bit too and quite a few utilise off the shelf physics engines capable of using either OpenCL or CUDA on supported hardware (again even console ports sometimes use these as in reality the console game will be using a console port of a PC orientated physics engine so will simply disable GPGPU for console versions)
Under the line, everything else than Cuda/OpenCL support (or GPU support if you want) is straight out last gen and not even close to anything next gen beside being the following distributed product following ror... not the next gen circumstances we are looking for if we are honest. Performancewise cpu abilities are a sad joke against some good ammount of cuda cores, I dont see this game having anything of the requested features as long it stais with the cpu. Just not possible realy on most used cpus, which are not the high end ones.
for cryengine, their not going back to it, ever, why does everyone ask that, there is a REASON they switched you know, said reason being LICENSING, since beamng.drive is a paid for game, they would have to pay like, $12 MILLION to use cryengine, so they switched to toruqe3D (although, i don't know if the licensing issues would also happen if they just released it free WITH the paid tourqe3D version, probably would though, considering you're technically still paying for it, maybe a dev or someone who knows the cryengine 3 licence could elaborate on weather or not that part would be possible)
I'm guessing people with bad computers will cry but us with our good computers will also cry... WITH HAPPINESS!
Umm.. If you release it for free with CE, there's no point in buying it. If you bundle it with CE and T3D as one product: 1. Thats pointless, and 2. You'd still have to pay the CE license. CryEngine may have better graphics, but it's all just shaders these days, all the graphics use shaders. Writing a nice shader = good looking game. Also people probably think that CryEngine = good graphics, while that may be true, and CE may be optimized for graphics, that's not specifically true. (Shader is GLSL or HLSL code) Yes, game engines do use multithreading, and that's great, but physics engines should (and are starting to: PhysX using CUDA, Bullet supports OpenCL now) use GPGPU. Reason being is that GPUs are optimized for parallel execution; thousands of cores, compared to the 4 on a CPU, and also the Graphics cards are better at doing Floating point operations: A Nvidia GTX 780 does about 4 TFLOPS (single precision), while the latest Intel i7 does a 100 GFLOPS at most. With these powerful GPUs, it may seem like CPUs aren't needed, but there's physics and graphics to do, and since people want both, it's really hard to balance it out. About 64 bit: that just gives more RAM (>4GB), doesn't make it faster. Basically all CPUs after 2003 are 64 bit as well (and you can still utilize it with a 32 bit OS/application) PS: It's late, so there may be some dumb stuff written there.
Graphics and some general features that are unavailable in Torque, such as advanced shaders, or dynamic rigid body support. Irrelevant regardless, as the devs have made it clear that they're not porting the game back over. Gabe said that the primary things holding back destroyable level objects are the ability to fix nodes to the ground, to rotate jbeam objects in-editor, and to put nodes to sleep after a period/proximity of inactivity. After these are implemented (probably not for the next 8+ months), signs, fences, etc. can be placed that will be loaded on level startup and can be destroyed just like vehicles. However, don't set your hopes too high. We'll probably not see complete destruction of walls, buildings, and bridges, RFG-style being implemented into the base game.
