8 ms·

O3DE

304 points by 0xDEF 3y ago

0xDEF 3y ago
O3DE is based on Amazon Lumberyard which in turn is based on the industry-proven CryEngine 5 from Crytek. The codebase has been modernized to C++17 and the parallel rendering engine "Atom" supports Vulkan, DirectX 12, and real-time ray tracing.
- CodeCompost 3y ago
  It's also a project under the stewardship of The Linux Foundation.
- RadiozRadioz 3y ago
  I'm curious - why does Amazon Lumberyard exist?
  - meheleventyone 3y ago
    It doesn’t anymore but Amazon made a play to get into games that didn’t work out. I’m not sure any of their first party studios even used Lumberyard.
    - machinekob 3y ago
      New world was created on Lumberyard, and it have excellent graphics and sound desinge but overall floped cause of no endgame content and tons of game breaking bugs (plus small max server populations). Not sure about which one of (sound/graphics) are more dependend on engine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_(video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_(video_game)
      - omnibrain 3y ago
        Oh, it actually got released. There was some hype years ago, but I thought it got cancelled. But I think Star Citizen switched over to Lumberyard from CryEngine. Though it stands to be seen, if this game will ever be released.
        dartos 3y ago
        The starship model viewer is the game. It’s been out for years
        NekkoDroid 3y ago
        IIRC New World actually got some RTX 3090s (?) to actually fry due to IIRC some weak soldering of some chips
- dartharva 3y ago
  It's strange that there's a AAA-level FOSS game engine that most of the gamedev community is seemingly just sleeping on. Wonder what glaring downside this engine has that's keeping everyone away.
  - meheleventyone 3y ago
    I’ve only used CryEngine and back then it was a bit of a mess to use in comparison to the better organised Unreal Engine. It was obviously extremely capable but it had a learning cliff rather than curve. I’m not sure Lumberyard improved on that reputation.
  - machinekob 3y ago
    It was FOSS'ed in 2021 and there is probably extremly small talent pool for people even knowing Lumberyard/O3DE.
  - jwitthuhn 3y ago
    It is somewhat awkward to use because, at least the last time I checked, you need to purchase a wwise license for audio to work.
  - flohofwoe 3y ago
    If you ever had to work with Lumberyard you would understand why ;) The whole thing is a massively big hairball of C++ code that was started in the mid-90's by Crytek as CryEngine and has since gone through multiple hands, all with different opinions on how a game engine should be designed leading to various rewrite attempts. Nothing good can come out of such a situation, this is actually a rare case where starting from scratch would have made more sense.
    - Arelius 3y ago
      I agree with you in essence.. Having said that, it basically has nothing in common with the mid-90's code, either in details nor design. It's dysfunction is almost entirely modern by now. Essentially, while CryEngine was a detour and got us where we are more slowly, it's ended up basically where they were aiming for in the original start-from-scratch scenario. There is an argument that the more direct approach may have lead to less turnover and a more coherent engine. But IMO, the dysfunction is more likely the result of systemic problems at Amazon organizationally.
- bitvoid 3y ago
  I thought Lumberyard was forked from CryEngine 3.6? Did they refork or rebase it from CryEngine 5?
  - Arelius 3y ago
    So, to say Lumberyard is a fork of Cryengine is actually missing some important details. Basically, Amazon started building a new engine and plugin architecture. After acquiring the CryEngine code, it was pretty heavily refactored to fit into the new LY design and plugin (gem) architecture. Overtime they had slowly replaced gems that were originally of Cry design, with LY's origin design untill finally the last major piece of Cry was it's renderer. With the release of O3DE, it finally includes their own new renderer Atom, finishing their transition off of CryTech developed system. So, while it's strictly true that LY is a CryEngine fork. And I don't think CryEngine 5 code was ever imported. It's really for the most part irrelevant, as it exists as an almost entirely original piece of technology now that has almost entirely lost it's Cryengine heritage by now.
  - lentil_soup 3y ago
    Yeah, it was CryEngine 3.6. CryEngine 5 came after the Amazon fork with a whole new editor, a VR focus and a bunch of other things.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dafelst 3y ago
  "Industry-proven" isn't the endorsement that you think it is - I've used engines that have shipped games that have made hundreds of millions of dollars, and you couldn't pay me enough to use them again. Just because a game ships doesn't mean that the underlying tech is good or pleasant to work with - I would say the majority of games are shipped not via good code but via sheer force of will.
nyanpasu64 3y ago
Not to be confused with O3D, Google's rendering engine in early Chrome... https://hn.algolia.com/?q=o3d https://hn.algolia.com/?q=o3d? Beach demo, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uofWfXOzX-g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uofWfXOzX-g, anyone? ...oh it's just me. I found a rip of the 3D model and an archived page for the beach demo, but the actual browser plugin was never archived and I don't want to setup decade-old build systems for obsolete browser plugins. How I miss those days...
- flohofwoe 3y ago
  Also not to be confused with ODE, the Open Dynamics Engine ;)
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Also not to be confused with Ogre 3D, which I first thought this is about?
- rzzzt 3y ago
  In the big samples.zip [1] there's an "o3d-webgl" folder which seems to be an API bridge between the two worlds. The examples pointing to these scripts work in a modern browser without requiring the plugin. [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20100308001327/http://code.google.com/p/o3d/downloads/list http://web.archive.org/web/20100308001327/http://code.google...
- owenpalmer 3y ago
  It's funny, there's a comment on the video from 14 years ago that says, "Wow, all the demos look a LOT like Unreal Engine 3, although it runs somewhat smoother". It's funny how some technologies die out and others survive.
  - nyanpasu64 3y ago
    Oh, that reminds me of the Epic Citadel UE3 demo for Android/iOS, ported to asm.js and WebGL (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyAcKgr6mZU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyAcKgr6mZU)... funny how that turned out, mobile gaming turned into a cesspool of pay-to-win, and WebGL gaming never replaced desktop apps, and the demo doesn't even load anymore (if you try archive.org, it fails to fetch resources over JS XHR). Books last centuries, but digital history can die in merely a decade.
KronisLV 3y ago
It's odd to me that when the whole Unity fiasco happened, everyone was basically looking at either Godot or Unreal, but pretty much nobody mentioned or cared for something like O3DE, though maybe the plentiful comments in regards to ease of use also had something to deal with that. If you praise Godot for being open source a lot, then it stands to reason that you should similarly prefer O3DE as opposed to Unreal: https://github.com/o3de/o3de/blob/development/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/o3de/o3de/blob/development/LICENSE.txt (no idea why they're going for both Apache 2 and MIT license, though) vs https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/license https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/license Unless people just care about the options that are popular enough to warrant their attention and the features that they provide, whereas the licensing is actually a boon, rather than the main factor, given that Unreal also did some slight price increases a while later as well: https://www.unreal-university.blog/post/unreal-engine-5-pricing-changes-for-2024 https://www.unreal-university.blog/post/unreal-engine-5-pric... Either way, it's still nice to have lots of options available regardless of the licensing details (though this kind of does fragment developers among bunches of different projects), be it Godot, O3DE, Stride, Unreal or even something like jMonkeyEngine (one of the rare Java engines/editors with 3D) or NeoAxis (that one had a cool voxel LOD solution, but performance on AMD hardware was bad).
- fotcorn 3y ago
  The Apache 2 license is incompatible with GPL2, you cannot have code under those two licenses in the same project. So they dual licenses it under MIT, which is compatible with GPL2. The Rust project has the same problem, it's also dual-licensed under Apache2 + MIT. You want Apache 2 because of the explicit patent grant, but at the same time you also want to allow GPL2 projects to use your code.
  - cxr 3y ago
    MPL2 is great for something like this. It's not Apache 2 or MIT, but is compatible with them (if that's how you wished to license your stuff, for example, or if you wished to use libraries that are)—as well as being compatible with GPLv2 by default. In practice, the fact that MPL2 is not as permissive as Apache 2 or MIT and has copyleft-like reciprocal terms is not a problem, because it's a file-based license, and few (if any) developers tend to be interested in changing the source files for the upstream project, and those who are are usually people doing so because they're in the process of trying to submit a fix upstream, anyway. For the fraction of a fraction of a minority of folks for whom it still would be a problem, it's as simple as the upstream project either declaring Apache 2 as a compatible Secondary License or just saying that they won't enforce MPL2's reciprocal clauses against downstream folks who are using the project in a way that is permitted by Apache 2. MPL2 is an extremely underused and underappreciated license.
thrillgore 3y ago
I'm keeping my eyes on O3DE as Godot's designs aren't conducive to high performance operations, or lots of actors (at least, I haven't had a need for a lot of actors, but I do find myself needing to use Observers). But in terms of trivial design, Godot is much closer to Unity, and in a lot of ways, its Node system gives it an edge for extendibility and ease of use.
- dartos 3y ago
  Godot is optimized for easy of use and common game dev problems. It should be able to handle several 10s of 1000s of actors without a hiccup, but once you get into the millions, you may need to write some of your own modules. Luckily godot’s codebase is just about as pleasant as c++ can be for a project as complex as a multi platform game engine with multiple rendering backends. In this interview the devs of cassette beasts touch on it a bit https://godotengine.org/article/godot-showcase-cassette-beasts/ https://godotengine.org/article/godot-showcase-cassette-beas...
  - jokoon 3y ago
    godot is not really nice to use in C++
    - spookie 3y ago
      Parent was talking about its codebase
  - mardifoufs 3y ago
    Did Godot finally migrate from c++03? I know it's pretty subjective but c++03 doesn't make for a super pleasant codebase imo. Doesn't detract from your point, I'm just wondering if they completed the switch to a more recent standard. I remember they were planning on doing it
    - follower 3y ago
      Yes, via https://docs.godotengine.org/en/4.1/contributing/development/cpp_usage_guidelines.html https://docs.godotengine.org/en/4.1/contributing/development...: > Since Godot 4.0, the C++ standard used throughout the codebase is a subset of C++17. > [...] > Prior to Godot 4.0, the C++ standard used throughout the codebase was C++03, with a handful of C++14 extensions.
synergy20 3y ago
Other than gaming, these engines can be used for simulations and desktop GUI as far as I can tell, what else?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
redder23 3y ago
I was thinking as well why nobody talks about his. I think the entire history of the engine is interesting. I think Cryengine really fall off and does not perform that well for modern games. I played Hunt Showdown, it look quite OK but that THAT good and it rather performs badly, I think trees is what really causes massive performance. I also played Sniper Ghost Warrior 3 (I think) also use Cryengine and it seemed it performed better and also looked better in a way even though I love Hunt Showdowns art direction, something about Ghost Warrior make it look "better". Anyway there was a part of a level with a lot of trees and the performance really noticeably went down. But Cryengine to this day is close source so I am really curious what kind of insane deal Amazon had with Crytek that they could build their Lumberyard engine based on Cryengine and later open source it and rename it o3de. From what I read they mainly just put lots of Amazon cloud stuff integrations into it rather then focusing on the actual 3d rendering parts of the engine. This seems like a pretty decent engine that is open source that is something really special, yet nobody does anything with it, nobody talks about it. They do not no showcase that shows anything known or good for some reason on the site. New World uses the engine and I did not even saw it mentioned. Should that not be the big showcase? I mean the game seems not super good and it also not looks very impressive but still, at least its a major title that is build with it.
- Arelius 3y ago
  > From what I read they mainly just put lots of Amazon cloud stuff integrations into it rather then focusing on the actual 3d rendering parts of the engine Feel free to see my other post, it's a misunderstanding to think Amazon hasn't focused on the other parts of their engine, including the renderer. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37968280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37968280
  - redder23 3y ago
    It was Cryengine 2 when Amazon bought the rights? Cryengine 3 is used in Wolcen for example, it seems some devs still chose Cryengine 3 over o3de, at least the Wolcen devs did. I would be curious what the differences are by now between o2de engine and the latest Cryengine version because there is quite some time past after "the split". And they have to pay to use Cryengine 3.
nylonstrung 3y ago
Like Lumberyard before it, O3DE is an absolute abortion of a game engine. Heard nothing but the worst things from teams who had been forced to work with Lumberyard
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- AHTERIX5000 3y ago
  Lumberyard was still heavily CryEngine based though, this version looks wildly different.
iamgopal 3y ago
Years ago there was ODE ( ode.org ), which I used to simulate my micro mouse algo along with physics, this name bring back those memories.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
marcellus23 3y ago
Loading that front page downloads almost 200 MB of videos.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
duped 3y ago
Why do they go through the trouble of providing a .deb package if they're going to chuck FHS in the bin and dump their install in /opt?
- flashback2199 3y ago
  Can't we at least appreciate it when a team supports Linux at all, it's already an uphill battle
  - duped 3y ago
    It's just a really odd thing to do
    - viraptor 3y ago
      It's a not-terrible solution if you ship lots of dependencies which you don't want to install as available system-wide. And at some number of them, it's easier to ship your deps than to ensure every version of the system is compatible enough.
- klodolph 3y ago
  /opt is part of the FHS, or am I missing something?
  - duped 3y ago
    They place everything under /opt/OD3E/<version>, which is fine for support files but also place their binaries there rather than installing under /usr/bin or even /opt/OD3E/bin. What I find weird about it is that you don't typically install multiple versions of the same software globally that way, if you have a .deb package you would have one version with its binaries going in /usr/bin, libs in /usr/lib, headers in /usr/include, and support files in /usr/share. Or supporting XDG so you can control where those files go if you want multiple versions installed, or if you want to support multiple versions directly. It's just an odd install path for a Debian package to use, I don't think I've seen it before.
cyanydeez 3y ago
Odd, clicked around for 5minutes and couldn't figure out any supported language s

304 points by 0xDEF 3y ago

O3DE is based on Amazon Lumberyard which in turn is based on the industry-proven CryEngine 5 from Crytek. The codebase has been modernized to C++17 and the parallel rendering engine "Atom" supports Vulkan, DirectX 12, and real-time ray tracing.

CodeCompost 3y ago
It's also a project under the stewardship of The Linux Foundation.
RadiozRadioz 3y ago
I'm curious - why does Amazon Lumberyard exist?
- meheleventyone 3y ago
  It doesn’t anymore but Amazon made a play to get into games that didn’t work out. I’m not sure any of their first party studios even used Lumberyard.
  - machinekob 3y ago
    New world was created on Lumberyard, and it have excellent graphics and sound desinge but overall floped cause of no endgame content and tons of game breaking bugs (plus small max server populations). Not sure about which one of (sound/graphics) are more dependend on engine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_(video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_(video_game)
    - omnibrain 3y ago
      Oh, it actually got released. There was some hype years ago, but I thought it got cancelled. But I think Star Citizen switched over to Lumberyard from CryEngine. Though it stands to be seen, if this game will ever be released.
      - dartos 3y ago
        The starship model viewer is the game. It’s been out for years
      - NekkoDroid 3y ago
        IIRC New World actually got some RTX 3090s (?) to actually fry due to IIRC some weak soldering of some chips
dartharva 3y ago
It's strange that there's a AAA-level FOSS game engine that most of the gamedev community is seemingly just sleeping on. Wonder what glaring downside this engine has that's keeping everyone away.
- meheleventyone 3y ago
  I’ve only used CryEngine and back then it was a bit of a mess to use in comparison to the better organised Unreal Engine. It was obviously extremely capable but it had a learning cliff rather than curve. I’m not sure Lumberyard improved on that reputation.
- machinekob 3y ago
  It was FOSS'ed in 2021 and there is probably extremly small talent pool for people even knowing Lumberyard/O3DE.
- jwitthuhn 3y ago
  It is somewhat awkward to use because, at least the last time I checked, you need to purchase a wwise license for audio to work.
- flohofwoe 3y ago
  If you ever had to work with Lumberyard you would understand why ;) The whole thing is a massively big hairball of C++ code that was started in the mid-90's by Crytek as CryEngine and has since gone through multiple hands, all with different opinions on how a game engine should be designed leading to various rewrite attempts. Nothing good can come out of such a situation, this is actually a rare case where starting from scratch would have made more sense.
  - Arelius 3y ago
    I agree with you in essence.. Having said that, it basically has nothing in common with the mid-90's code, either in details nor design. It's dysfunction is almost entirely modern by now. Essentially, while CryEngine was a detour and got us where we are more slowly, it's ended up basically where they were aiming for in the original start-from-scratch scenario. There is an argument that the more direct approach may have lead to less turnover and a more coherent engine. But IMO, the dysfunction is more likely the result of systemic problems at Amazon organizationally.
bitvoid 3y ago
I thought Lumberyard was forked from CryEngine 3.6? Did they refork or rebase it from CryEngine 5?
- Arelius 3y ago
  So, to say Lumberyard is a fork of Cryengine is actually missing some important details. Basically, Amazon started building a new engine and plugin architecture. After acquiring the CryEngine code, it was pretty heavily refactored to fit into the new LY design and plugin (gem) architecture. Overtime they had slowly replaced gems that were originally of Cry design, with LY's origin design untill finally the last major piece of Cry was it's renderer. With the release of O3DE, it finally includes their own new renderer Atom, finishing their transition off of CryTech developed system. So, while it's strictly true that LY is a CryEngine fork. And I don't think CryEngine 5 code was ever imported. It's really for the most part irrelevant, as it exists as an almost entirely original piece of technology now that has almost entirely lost it's Cryengine heritage by now.
- lentil_soup 3y ago
  Yeah, it was CryEngine 3.6. CryEngine 5 came after the Amazon fork with a whole new editor, a VR focus and a bunch of other things.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dafelst 3y ago
"Industry-proven" isn't the endorsement that you think it is - I've used engines that have shipped games that have made hundreds of millions of dollars, and you couldn't pay me enough to use them again. Just because a game ships doesn't mean that the underlying tech is good or pleasant to work with - I would say the majority of games are shipped not via good code but via sheer force of will.

nyanpasu64 3y ago

Not to be confused with O3D, Google's rendering engine in early Chrome... https://hn.algolia.com/?q=o3d https://hn.algolia.com/?q=o3d? Beach demo, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uofWfXOzX-g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uofWfXOzX-g, anyone? ...oh it's just me. I found a rip of the 3D model and an archived page for the beach demo, but the actual browser plugin was never archived and I don't want to setup decade-old build systems for obsolete browser plugins. How I miss those days...

flohofwoe 3y ago
Also not to be confused with ODE, the Open Dynamics Engine ;)
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Also not to be confused with Ogre 3D, which I first thought this is about?
rzzzt 3y ago
In the big samples.zip [1] there's an "o3d-webgl" folder which seems to be an API bridge between the two worlds. The examples pointing to these scripts work in a modern browser without requiring the plugin. [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20100308001327/http://code.google.com/p/o3d/downloads/list http://web.archive.org/web/20100308001327/http://code.google...
owenpalmer 3y ago
It's funny, there's a comment on the video from 14 years ago that says, "Wow, all the demos look a LOT like Unreal Engine 3, although it runs somewhat smoother". It's funny how some technologies die out and others survive.
- nyanpasu64 3y ago
  Oh, that reminds me of the Epic Citadel UE3 demo for Android/iOS, ported to asm.js and WebGL (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyAcKgr6mZU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyAcKgr6mZU)... funny how that turned out, mobile gaming turned into a cesspool of pay-to-win, and WebGL gaming never replaced desktop apps, and the demo doesn't even load anymore (if you try archive.org, it fails to fetch resources over JS XHR). Books last centuries, but digital history can die in merely a decade.

KronisLV 3y ago

It's odd to me that when the whole Unity fiasco happened, everyone was basically looking at either Godot or Unreal, but pretty much nobody mentioned or cared for something like O3DE, though maybe the plentiful comments in regards to ease of use also had something to deal with that. If you praise Godot for being open source a lot, then it stands to reason that you should similarly prefer O3DE as opposed to Unreal: https://github.com/o3de/o3de/blob/development/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/o3de/o3de/blob/development/LICENSE.txt (no idea why they're going for both Apache 2 and MIT license, though) vs https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/license https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/license Unless people just care about the options that are popular enough to warrant their attention and the features that they provide, whereas the licensing is actually a boon, rather than the main factor, given that Unreal also did some slight price increases a while later as well: https://www.unreal-university.blog/post/unreal-engine-5-pricing-changes-for-2024 https://www.unreal-university.blog/post/unreal-engine-5-pric... Either way, it's still nice to have lots of options available regardless of the licensing details (though this kind of does fragment developers among bunches of different projects), be it Godot, O3DE, Stride, Unreal or even something like jMonkeyEngine (one of the rare Java engines/editors with 3D) or NeoAxis (that one had a cool voxel LOD solution, but performance on AMD hardware was bad).

fotcorn 3y ago
The Apache 2 license is incompatible with GPL2, you cannot have code under those two licenses in the same project. So they dual licenses it under MIT, which is compatible with GPL2. The Rust project has the same problem, it's also dual-licensed under Apache2 + MIT. You want Apache 2 because of the explicit patent grant, but at the same time you also want to allow GPL2 projects to use your code.
- cxr 3y ago
  MPL2 is great for something like this. It's not Apache 2 or MIT, but is compatible with them (if that's how you wished to license your stuff, for example, or if you wished to use libraries that are)—as well as being compatible with GPLv2 by default. In practice, the fact that MPL2 is not as permissive as Apache 2 or MIT and has copyleft-like reciprocal terms is not a problem, because it's a file-based license, and few (if any) developers tend to be interested in changing the source files for the upstream project, and those who are are usually people doing so because they're in the process of trying to submit a fix upstream, anyway. For the fraction of a fraction of a minority of folks for whom it still would be a problem, it's as simple as the upstream project either declaring Apache 2 as a compatible Secondary License or just saying that they won't enforce MPL2's reciprocal clauses against downstream folks who are using the project in a way that is permitted by Apache 2. MPL2 is an extremely underused and underappreciated license.

thrillgore 3y ago

I'm keeping my eyes on O3DE as Godot's designs aren't conducive to high performance operations, or lots of actors (at least, I haven't had a need for a lot of actors, but I do find myself needing to use Observers). But in terms of trivial design, Godot is much closer to Unity, and in a lot of ways, its Node system gives it an edge for extendibility and ease of use.

dartos 3y ago
Godot is optimized for easy of use and common game dev problems. It should be able to handle several 10s of 1000s of actors without a hiccup, but once you get into the millions, you may need to write some of your own modules. Luckily godot’s codebase is just about as pleasant as c++ can be for a project as complex as a multi platform game engine with multiple rendering backends. In this interview the devs of cassette beasts touch on it a bit https://godotengine.org/article/godot-showcase-cassette-beasts/ https://godotengine.org/article/godot-showcase-cassette-beas...
- jokoon 3y ago
  godot is not really nice to use in C++
  - spookie 3y ago
    Parent was talking about its codebase
- mardifoufs 3y ago
  Did Godot finally migrate from c++03? I know it's pretty subjective but c++03 doesn't make for a super pleasant codebase imo. Doesn't detract from your point, I'm just wondering if they completed the switch to a more recent standard. I remember they were planning on doing it
  - follower 3y ago
    Yes, via https://docs.godotengine.org/en/4.1/contributing/development/cpp_usage_guidelines.html https://docs.godotengine.org/en/4.1/contributing/development...: > Since Godot 4.0, the C++ standard used throughout the codebase is a subset of C++17. > [...] > Prior to Godot 4.0, the C++ standard used throughout the codebase was C++03, with a handful of C++14 extensions.

synergy20 3y ago

Other than gaming, these engines can be used for simulations and desktop GUI as far as I can tell, what else?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

redder23 3y ago

I was thinking as well why nobody talks about his. I think the entire history of the engine is interesting. I think Cryengine really fall off and does not perform that well for modern games. I played Hunt Showdown, it look quite OK but that THAT good and it rather performs badly, I think trees is what really causes massive performance. I also played Sniper Ghost Warrior 3 (I think) also use Cryengine and it seemed it performed better and also looked better in a way even though I love Hunt Showdowns art direction, something about Ghost Warrior make it look "better". Anyway there was a part of a level with a lot of trees and the performance really noticeably went down. But Cryengine to this day is close source so I am really curious what kind of insane deal Amazon had with Crytek that they could build their Lumberyard engine based on Cryengine and later open source it and rename it o3de. From what I read they mainly just put lots of Amazon cloud stuff integrations into it rather then focusing on the actual 3d rendering parts of the engine. This seems like a pretty decent engine that is open source that is something really special, yet nobody does anything with it, nobody talks about it. They do not no showcase that shows anything known or good for some reason on the site. New World uses the engine and I did not even saw it mentioned. Should that not be the big showcase? I mean the game seems not super good and it also not looks very impressive but still, at least its a major title that is build with it.

Arelius 3y ago
> From what I read they mainly just put lots of Amazon cloud stuff integrations into it rather then focusing on the actual 3d rendering parts of the engine Feel free to see my other post, it's a misunderstanding to think Amazon hasn't focused on the other parts of their engine, including the renderer. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37968280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37968280
- redder23 3y ago
  It was Cryengine 2 when Amazon bought the rights? Cryengine 3 is used in Wolcen for example, it seems some devs still chose Cryengine 3 over o3de, at least the Wolcen devs did. I would be curious what the differences are by now between o2de engine and the latest Cryengine version because there is quite some time past after "the split". And they have to pay to use Cryengine 3.

nylonstrung 3y ago

Like Lumberyard before it, O3DE is an absolute abortion of a game engine. Heard nothing but the worst things from teams who had been forced to work with Lumberyard

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
AHTERIX5000 3y ago
Lumberyard was still heavily CryEngine based though, this version looks wildly different.

iamgopal 3y ago

Years ago there was ODE ( ode.org ), which I used to simulate my micro mouse algo along with physics, this name bring back those memories.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

marcellus23 3y ago

Loading that front page downloads almost 200 MB of videos.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

duped 3y ago

Why do they go through the trouble of providing a .deb package if they're going to chuck FHS in the bin and dump their install in /opt?

flashback2199 3y ago
Can't we at least appreciate it when a team supports Linux at all, it's already an uphill battle
- duped 3y ago
  It's just a really odd thing to do
  - viraptor 3y ago
    It's a not-terrible solution if you ship lots of dependencies which you don't want to install as available system-wide. And at some number of them, it's easier to ship your deps than to ensure every version of the system is compatible enough.
klodolph 3y ago
/opt is part of the FHS, or am I missing something?
- duped 3y ago
  They place everything under /opt/OD3E/<version>, which is fine for support files but also place their binaries there rather than installing under /usr/bin or even /opt/OD3E/bin. What I find weird about it is that you don't typically install multiple versions of the same software globally that way, if you have a .deb package you would have one version with its binaries going in /usr/bin, libs in /usr/lib, headers in /usr/include, and support files in /usr/share. Or supporting XDG so you can control where those files go if you want multiple versions installed, or if you want to support multiple versions directly. It's just an odd install path for a Debian package to use, I don't think I've seen it before.

cyanydeez 3y ago

Odd, clicked around for 5minutes and couldn't figure out any supported language s