Is EQNext Vaporware?

MrSnuffles

iatesand said:

MrSnuffles said:

iatesand said:

..

 

No, it does not use the same engine as Planetside 2. Landmark uses a really bad marching cubes engine that deteriorates dramatically with small viewing distance while Planetside 2 uses a polygon based terrain that has a huge viewing distance with high fidelity.

I'd post 2 screenshots to compare but it's so  ridiculous saying they are the same i won't even bother. The two could not be more different.

Landmark is a disaster, nothing has happened with it. Just because a handful of nerds have build a few houses does not make it a success. If you think that this is going anywhere you will be in for a surprise.

I cant  tell if you are being willfully ignorant, trolling, or really are just completely out of your depth here. But I'm happy to carry on the conversation.

They both use the Forgelight, it the same engine, Landmark is polys too man, (pss that is why you can fall through the world and peak through the walls)  they package the Voxel Farm Engine in polys.   This may be going to far in left field for this topic but our grapx cards are all based off polys, and the only way you could actually make a  "marching cubes engine" we can call them Voxels would be to write a engine that bypassed the hardware and was  just a software engine, but instead of dong that, they just convert the Voxels into poly meshes. Now Im not an expert on the Voxel farm or the mesh conversion, I just repeated in a dumbed down fashion what I remember about  EQ:LM and Voxels, if somebody know more details on how it works \ feel free to jump in but in general ... it is the same thing guy. So these 2 things that "cant be more different" could  be a little more different by not being the exact same thing.

So let me get this right, they made a game where you build things and craft stuff, and that game is a disaster ( by your own standards) based on the fact that a "handful of nerds" are building things and crafting? Inversely it is funny that "handful of nerds have build a few houses" is also the same thing as the players making 95% of EQ:N content. 

I do not know if the game is going anywhere, the concept was always rather obscure and artistic in nature, and I am not privy to what the there long term goals or aspirations for the game are. Maybe in that regard, it is a failure. Or maybe its doing exactly what they wanted it to do, I'm just not in that loop

I worked on engines for over 25 years and i know a marching cubes voxel engine when i see one. Falling through the world has nothing to do with polygons at all. It's pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to rendering landscapes. I have written voxel based renderers. Of cause the marching cubes uses polygons, i never said anything different but it's not a landscape based on polygons like PS2, rather it is calculated using a marching cubes algorithm that is pretty much industry standard for voxel based landscapes. Not the same thing, in fact its the complete opposite.

That is also the reason why the landscape and the buildings look like shit once you are a couple of feet away. They all become a ginat blob opposed to the polygon based landscape and objects in PS2 that stay visually perfect at any render distance. I am still too lazy to make a comparison screenshot because everyone that has ever logged into Landmark knows how shitty it looks if you are not close up to something.

There is no EQ:N content because there is no EQ:N. Landmark is going nowhere and i say it again. Less than 24 months.

Nanfoodle

@MrSnuffles 25 years didn't teach you anything lol google it, they all use the same engine lol

EDIT: Just an FYI, what a game looks like have little to do with the game engine. You can make a 2D side scroller, 2D pong game and a 3D MMO all with the same engine. But I would think someone who worked on game engines for 25 years would know that????

SomethingUnusual

Falling through the world is nothing to do with what type of "building engine" plain and simply it is based on the object code. In OpenGL and DirectX collision is completely based on (x, y, z)!=cp (cp=collision point). If even a single point/line/polygon is to "glitch" below or above the said != (not, cannot equal) then the entire object will continue to go in its programmed direction, usually x - rate. Most of the time this is countered with redundancy... And applies to all game engines that utilize a rendering API. (If you find anything that completely runs on a framebuffer, I want to see it.) 

Edit: To add. These glitches occur due to a common problem in computing: floating point numbers. While error correction and redundancy have vastly improved, there are still numbers that cannot be represented by floating point (decimals) should the collision point be equal to an undefined floating point, the glitch will occur as if the point were non-existent, an asymptote if you will. http://asymptote.sourceforge.net/doc/three.html

Mothanos

It might get released but it will not be the blockbuster it could have been or will reach the playerbase it could have had.

I bet there is a place for any mmo with a small playerbase, but fantasy mmo's are a dozen a dime and you realy need something good to survive in the market unless you cater to a small niche playerbase.

I think none expects this mmo to come even close to the other EQ tittles in both fun and contend.

Shaigh

MrSnuffles said:

CrazKanuk said:

MrSnuffles said:

Someone knew in advance that SONY is selling it's games division. These deals usually take 2-3 years plus the time it takes to find an actual buyer. It's pretty safe to say that SONY Management knew at least 3-5 years ahead of time that they are going to sell.

EQN and Landmark were announced August 2013. The announcement that it was sold was made in February 2015. That is 1.5 years.

You can not convince me that no one knew in August 2013 that the company will get sold and EQN most likely never going to be developed but Landmark would be a quick cash grab as it basically is just a tech demo created in less than a year.

Sooooo, you're saying that when a company enters into talks to sell, they should immediately stop doing whatever the company does? Stop stamping metal, stop making clothing, stop writing code? Sorry, but it's the most asinine thing I've heard. You do realize that there are expectations during the sale of a business, too, right? CN wasn't buying the sign hanging over the door. They're buying the properties, existing and in development. OH! And they could still walk away at any given point up until that sale agreement is signed. Also, you're assuming that everyone knew this was happening, which is not likely the case. It's very rare that talks about selling a company are leaked to employees, it just creates chaos and panic, and people end up leaving, thus hurting the value of the company. Until told otherwise, it's business as usual. 

Look at the timeline. It's less than 2 years. I am saying they announced EQN to sell Landmark when they knew that they are not going to finish it. If you think an investment company will finish anything you are in for a surprise. What an investment company does is buy a business, cut cost down by firing employees and closing stores or scraping projects. They aim to generate profit not develop games.

I have seen a couple of sales and mergers in my lifetime and even employees knew at least a year in advance while middle and top management like me knew 2 years in advance so we could plan and prepare severance packages for all employees. Companies are legally bound to offer their employees exit strategies at least a year in advance in case of a merger. You obviously have no idea how corporate business works.

Daybreak bought the existing games portfolio which they now sell with an all access pass. That is really all they are interested in and i go on record here now by saying that Landmark and EQN is dead within the next 24 months. Probably even earlier.

To add to your post, it was widely known that Sony wanted to sell their divisions that made products for the PC market to put their focus on Playstation and Mobile. With SOE they just looked for the right buyer.

SomethingUnusual

I swear people are just making it up as they go along... Columbus Nova is an investment company... John Smedley took his rights holdings to this company under a new company founding named Daybreak Game Company assumed the CEO position, got the investment and SOE closed the doors... None of the staff changed other than the usual turn over for any company, people quit, people get fired, new people get hired on. 
Granted Smed has gone for a leave of absence due to personal issues (Get badgered by the internet dwellers for 16 years and tell me how you feel afterward... Vacation yeah?). Shanks has supposedly taken the position of CEO now...

They really should have held off on even announcing this game... Particularly with the recent beatings that Sony had to deal with and then immediately carried over causing Smed to rip his hair out... The DDoS attacks, the Sony breaches. The outrage over a movie released by Sony Pictures. The list goes on.

Long story short... Landmark is still being used as a player tool to build EQN, they are still doing the competitions etc. Will the game see a nearby release? Absolutely not. Games, particularly those of this scale take half a decade to develop then another year or so to smooth over... Other than an engine revamp and toolset (Landmark) they hadn't even started on the game until about a year or so ago. 
I would expect late 2016 at the absolute earliest, or 2018 at best. The only way this game wouldn't get released will be if the investors drop, not seen any news of that around. 

CrazKanuk

MrSnuffles said:

CrazKanuk said:

MrSnuffles said:

Someone knew in advance that SONY is selling it's games division. These deals usually take 2-3 years plus the time it takes to find an actual buyer. It's pretty safe to say that SONY Management knew at least 3-5 years ahead of time that they are going to sell.

EQN and Landmark were announced August 2013. The announcement that it was sold was made in February 2015. That is 1.5 years.

You can not convince me that no one knew in August 2013 that the company will get sold and EQN most likely never going to be developed but Landmark would be a quick cash grab as it basically is just a tech demo created in less than a year.

Sooooo, you're saying that when a company enters into talks to sell, they should immediately stop doing whatever the company does? Stop stamping metal, stop making clothing, stop writing code? Sorry, but it's the most asinine thing I've heard. You do realize that there are expectations during the sale of a business, too, right? CN wasn't buying the sign hanging over the door. They're buying the properties, existing and in development. OH! And they could still walk away at any given point up until that sale agreement is signed. Also, you're assuming that everyone knew this was happening, which is not likely the case. It's very rare that talks about selling a company are leaked to employees, it just creates chaos and panic, and people end up leaving, thus hurting the value of the company. Until told otherwise, it's business as usual. 

Look at the timeline. It's less than 2 years. I am saying they announced EQN to sell Landmark when they knew that they are not going to finish it. If you think an investment company will finish anything you are in for a surprise. What an investment company does is buy a business, cut cost down by firing employees and closing stores or scraping projects. They aim to generate profit not develop games.

I have seen a couple of sales and mergers in my lifetime and even employees knew at least a year in advance while middle and top management like me knew 2 years in advance so we could plan and prepare severance packages for all employees. Companies are legally bound to offer their employees exit strategies at least a year in advance in case of a merger. You obviously have no idea how corporate business works.

Daybreak bought the existing games portfolio which they now sell with an all access pass. That is really all they are interested in and i go on record here now by saying that Landmark and EQN is dead within the next 24 months. Probably even earlier.

I disagree on why they announced EQN. I'm sure they knew they were in trouble long before they were sold, and I'm sure that they knew that EQN was nowhere near ready. IMO, announcing EQN and Landmark and H1Z1, for that matter, was all just a last saving throw. Didn't work, but it was an attempt. However, I don't believe the deal was on the table at that point, either. There is zero advantage to CN announcing early and then shutting down. If they were going to shut down these projects, then they would rather just not announce them because if they do now, they look like the bad guys. Stalwart fans of existing games leave because they see it as a dying company, and new players don't buy into the games because they don't want them shut down in a few months. Also, SOE launched H1Z1 prior to the purchase, effectively funnelling any cash they could out of that, as well, unless a deal was solidly on the table at that point and they had already negotiated for those revenues. 

I will go on record saying that EQN will be delivered, if not only because if they don't then they actually damage their existing, aging, properties. I don't know how much SOE sold for, but I also don't know what a glue factory pays for a horse. IMO, if they are going through the trouble of re-branding, keeping developers around, etc. then they'll have plans to release something, in whatever limited capacity it might be. It'll be released, though. EQ is just too big a property to allow two emerging properties to die on the vine. It gives absolutely no confidence that any future work will be completed. 

iatesand

SomethingUnusual said:

Falling through the world is nothing to do with what type of "building engine" plain and simply it is based on the object code. In OpenGL and DirectX collision is completely based on (x, y, z)!=cp (cp=collision point). If even a single point/line/polygon is to "glitch" below or above the said != (not, cannot equal) then the entire object will continue to go in its programmed direction, usually x - rate. Most of the time this is countered with redundancy... And applies to all game engines that utilize a rendering API. (If you find anything that completely runs on a framebuffer, I want to see it.) 

Edit: To add. These glitches occur due to a common problem in computing: floating point numbers. While error correction and redundancy have vastly improved, there are still numbers that cannot be represented by floating point (decimals) should the collision point be equal to an undefined floating point, the glitch will occur as if the point were non-existent, an asymptote if you will. http://asymptote.sourceforge.net/doc/three.html

I was reading this article a few months ago about  how at one point in time game makers  and video card designers had to choose a path of either Voxels or Polygons, It went on to compare some older software based voxel engines to older polygon based ones.  They listed some only real  voxel game developed , I remember one being OUTCAST back in 2000 and why true voxel engines don’t exist because of the difference in rendering the two types and how all games currently are polygon based games and any voxel games would have to be made with software  engines because we have no hardware based voxel solutions commercially available.  There was a list of pros and cons some of them being

 

A voxel engine could greatly surpass a polygon in detail because you could have virtually i infinite detail with a true voxel engine

The other thing they said is that you should not fall through the world  or look through the walls because of something to do with the 3d point of space being different  from the outer wall of a polygon.  I don’t remember exactly what  it said but it had something to do with more depth of a voxel as opposed to the nonexistent depth of the wall of a polygon. and after reading what you wrote here that makes more sense to me as collision detection may be different. I don't know, it stuck with me when I read it.

There was something but how a voxel engine can’t make a real straight line either,

I spent an hour this morning on Google trying to find the article so I could reread it and refresh my understanding of what it was saying  and post it here as well, but  you would be amazed how hard it is to type random words in Google to hope for a specific result. I will keep looking.  Anyway long story short that’s where the fall through the world comment came from.  From a vaguely remember article I read 6 months ago that may or may not have any real merit. But I remember it being a good read.

Nanfoodle said:

@MrSnuffles 25 years didn't teach you anything lol google it, they all use the same engine lol

EDIT: Just an FYI, what a game looks like have little to do with the game engine. You can make a 2D side scroller, 2D pong game and a 3D MMO all with the same engine. But I would think someone who worked on game engines for 25 years would know that????

He didn't say he worked on game engines, he said engines.. maybe locomotive? maybe boat? 

kemono55

iatesand said:
...
A voxel engine could greatly surpass a polygon in detail because you could have virtually i infinite detail with a true voxel engine
...

This is not really true, because we are not there yet in technology. It is only theoretically possible.
This has to do with the amount of data that is needed to be stored for each voxel. 

Some time in the future we could possibly have drives and servers with the capacity to store a large landscape of "micro voxels".
It could possibly be done with a procedurally static landscape, but again that defeats the point of voxels.

MrSnuffles

Nanfoodle said:

@MrSnuffles 25 years didn't teach you anything lol google it, they all use the same engine lol

EDIT: Just an FYI, what a game looks like have little to do with the game engine. You can make a 2D side scroller, 2D pong game and a 3D MMO all with the same engine. But I would think someone who worked on game engines for 25 years would know that????

So we agree that Planetside 2 and Landmark are not the same then. One is 3D Voxels terrain the other is 3D Polygon/heightmap terrain. Good!

Nanfoodle

MrSnuffles said:

Nanfoodle said:

@MrSnuffles 25 years didn't teach you anything lol google it, they all use the same engine lol

EDIT: Just an FYI, what a game looks like have little to do with the game engine. You can make a 2D side scroller, 2D pong game and a 3D MMO all with the same engine. But I would think someone who worked on game engines for 25 years would know that????

So we agree that Planetside 2 and Landmark are not the same then. One is 3D Voxels terrain the other is 3D Polygon/heightmap terrain. Good!

But both using the same engine, thats where we dont agree =-) Simple google search could stop you from saying really silly things. Before you post again pls goto www.google.com 

MrSnuffles

Nanfoodle said:

MrSnuffles said:

Nanfoodle said:

@MrSnuffles 25 years didn't teach you anything lol google it, they all use the same engine lol

EDIT: Just an FYI, what a game looks like have little to do with the game engine. You can make a 2D side scroller, 2D pong game and a 3D MMO all with the same engine. But I would think someone who worked on game engines for 25 years would know that????

So we agree that Planetside 2 and Landmark are not the same then. One is 3D Voxels terrain the other is 3D Polygon/heightmap terrain. Good!

But both using the same engine, thats where we dont agree =-) Simple google search could stop you from saying really silly things. Before you post again pls goto www.google.com 

Google tells me the same: One uses a voxel terrain engine called VoxelFarm the other a heightmap engine which name is undisclosed and probably developed by SONY. So what's your point again?

How VoxelFarm and Storybricks are helping to shape everquest next

Nanfoodle

MrSnuffles said:

Nanfoodle said:

MrSnuffles said:

Nanfoodle said:

@MrSnuffles 25 years didn't teach you anything lol google it, they all use the same engine lol

EDIT: Just an FYI, what a game looks like have little to do with the game engine. You can make a 2D side scroller, 2D pong game and a 3D MMO all with the same engine. But I would think someone who worked on game engines for 25 years would know that????

So we agree that Planetside 2 and Landmark are not the same then. One is 3D Voxels terrain the other is 3D Polygon/heightmap terrain. Good!

But both using the same engine, thats where we dont agree =-) Simple google search could stop you from saying really silly things. Before you post again pls goto www.google.com 

Google tells me the same: One uses a voxel terrain engine called VoxelFarm the other a heightmap engine which name is undisclosed and probably developed by SONY. So what's your point again?

If I made it any simpler for you, I would need to start at teaching you your A, B, Cs. Here I googled it for you and posted a pic from the wiki for you. I hope this is helpful =-)

EDIT: P.S. Voxels are also made up of polygons.

Moirae

Mavolence said:

Ultimately the only answer you are going to get is speculation from us or a promise from the devs themselves. Personally I think it'll be released half finished and then people will forget about it after half a year

Bingo. I think you are right. 

I'm also quite tired of hearing this. I seriously doubt it's vaporware. I'd prefer that they take the time to get it right. Are they doing that? We will see. 

SlyLoK

MrSnuffles said:

Nanfoodle said:

MrSnuffles said:

Nanfoodle said:

@MrSnuffles 25 years didn't teach you anything lol google it, they all use the same engine lol

EDIT: Just an FYI, what a game looks like have little to do with the game engine. You can make a 2D side scroller, 2D pong game and a 3D MMO all with the same engine. But I would think someone who worked on game engines for 25 years would know that????

So we agree that Planetside 2 and Landmark are not the same then. One is 3D Voxels terrain the other is 3D Polygon/heightmap terrain. Good!

But both using the same engine, thats where we dont agree =-) Simple google search could stop you from saying really silly things. Before you post again pls goto www.google.com 

Google tells me the same: One uses a voxel terrain engine called VoxelFarm the other a heightmap engine which name is undisclosed and probably developed by SONY. So what's your point again?

How VoxelFarm and Storybricks are helping to shape everquest next

It is layered on top of their Forgelight engine. That is why the performance is soooo bad compared to other voxel based games. FL just isnt cut out for it. Maybe one FL2 will be able to handle it.

MrSnuffles

Nanfoodle said:

MrSnuffles said:

Nanfoodle said:

MrSnuffles said:

Nanfoodle said:

@MrSnuffles 25 years didn't teach you anything lol google it, they all use the same engine lol

EDIT: Just an FYI, what a game looks like have little to do with the game engine. You can make a 2D side scroller, 2D pong game and a 3D MMO all with the same engine. But I would think someone who worked on game engines for 25 years would know that????

So we agree that Planetside 2 and Landmark are not the same then. One is 3D Voxels terrain the other is 3D Polygon/heightmap terrain. Good!

But both using the same engine, thats where we dont agree =-) Simple google search could stop you from saying really silly things. Before you post again pls goto www.google.com 

Google tells me the same: One uses a voxel terrain engine called VoxelFarm the other a heightmap engine which name is undisclosed and probably developed by SONY. So what's your point again?

If I made it any simpler for you, I would need to start at teaching you your A, B, Cs. Here I googled it for you and posted a pic from the wiki for you. I hope this is helpful =-)

EDIT: P.S. Voxels are also made up of polygons.

Who is talking about the render engine? This is about Landmark looking like ass and having a performance like shit because of the bad Voxel Engine.

PS: No, Voxels are not made out of Polygons. A Voxel Engine creates Polygons by using various algorithms such as the "marching cube algorithm" so a GPU and render engine like Forelight Enigne can render them but a VOXEL is not made up of polygons.

Mavolence

Here comes the backtracking

Fractal_Analogy

Isn't that Nanfoodle's job, to off track every thread and defend this game at all costs.

Nobody who is a true fan of MMORPGs can be still interested in this project, after being lied to for so long. To rush to their monitors only to see concept drawing of Barbarians & Elves? SOE chose the wrong engine for their customers and are still trying to find a way around it.

Now Nanfoodle & Co are trying to put a smokescreen in front of why things are in such shambles. 

Nanfoodle

@MrSnuffles  So you were really sure about the engine and that didn't turn out so well. Sure you don't want to google it first before you make your stand? Lol Try looking up voxel mesh tech before you make a fool of yourself lol just saying.

iatesand

PS: No, Voxels are not made out of Polygons. A Voxel Engine creates Polygons by using various algorithms such as the "marching cube algorithm" so a GPU and render engine like Forelight Enigne can render them but a VOXEL is not made up of polygons.

Actually.. they are. You like to use the old "marching cube" a lot but even that algorithm was based 100% on displaying polygons , not voxels. The whole algorithm was created to make polygons 3d renders for CT and MRIs, You should know that...

And the Voxel is just a 3d point in space. A 3d pixel.  So the only thing you see is the poly mesh that is generated. The entire world is (talking about a Landmark zone here) polygons there are no "voxels" being displayed  you should know that as well...

Maybe you can look at the procedural generated worlds and say, I can tell those were made my a voxel farm algorithm or maybe you can't who knows. But according to the people that made the game these voxels are made up of polygons. As a matter of fact every voxel type game that is out there is made up of polygons, because there isn't a voxel based video card. Unless they are using some software rendering engine. That is certainly possible, I am just not aware of one. 

As for your opinion that " Landmark looking like ass" and having "performance like shit" because of the "bad Voxel Engine" is exactly that, a opinion.  I find that on one of my pc's landmark runs great  on my laptop its unplayable. There is more than enough room for some optimization I would agree with Sylock that the 2  are not the best paring and there could be performance, I'm sure as the game  gets further into development those things will be addressed.

I find it funny that you think that a multi-million dollar game company is perpetuating a ongoing lie for some mysterious purpose. They might cancel the game , but from what I have seen and have read , its still in production. 

SomethingUnusual

There is no difference on any algorithm... It's all just the same as how we calculate that of the universe itself, what better model than a working one?

No matter the engine it is all still sorting a matrices of an an x y and z axis, represented on a 2d space (your screen). How an object moves or reacts in space is no different in calculation than that of physics. Rotations, Translations, Scaling. (Scaling perceived by a viewer as z axis translation.) The matrices would be a database of where something is in that space, the "algorithms" of the actions are the exact same in any representative 3d space. The program itself (application being the better term as it is a collaboration of several programs) sees and compares only within the matrices, not the 3d representative that we see in the output. 
These would be examples of points, lines, shapes of all sorts... Voxels are polygons made of polygons in the rendering. In the matrices they are blocks made of several dividable blocks... In a pure polygon environment objects are lines points and planes just the same, the main difference would only be the size of the files containing coordinates of the points/lines/etc. 
Calculations remain 100% the same when interpreting actions within the rendering. The larger amount of points and lines and planes is the only difference in voxels. 

A lecture on OpenCL would be the best example, the entire API is based on dividing data into sections to be interpreted/compiled. 
It could be better explained as a "voxel engine." Parallel division. 

lobotaru

Why did this thread suddenly become so cool to read near the end? 

Volgore

Is EQNext Vaporware?

Long answer: Yes, it is.

TLDR-version:
yes

MrSnuffles

iatesand said:

PS: No, Voxels are not made out of Polygons. A Voxel Engine creates Polygons by using various algorithms such as the "marching cube algorithm" so a GPU and render engine like Forelight Enigne can render them but a VOXEL is not made up of polygons.

Actually.. they are. You like to use the old "marching cube" a lot but even that algorithm was based 100% on displaying polygons , not voxels. The whole algorithm was created to make polygons 3d renders for CT and MRIs, You should know that...

And the Voxel is just a 3d point in space. A 3d pixel.  So the only thing you see is the poly mesh that is generated. The entire world is (talking about a Landmark zone here) polygons there are no "voxels" being displayed  you should know that as well...

Maybe you can look at the procedural generated worlds and say, I can tell those were made my a voxel farm algorithm or maybe you can't who knows. But according to the people that made the game these voxels are made up of polygons. As a matter of fact every voxel type game that is out there is made up of polygons, because there isn't a voxel based video card. Unless they are using some software rendering engine. That is certainly possible, I am just not aware of one. 

As for your opinion that " Landmark looking like ass" and having "performance like shit" because of the "bad Voxel Engine" is exactly that, a opinion.  I find that on one of my pc's landmark runs great  on my laptop its unplayable. There is more than enough room for some optimization I would agree with Sylock that the 2  are not the best paring and there could be performance, I'm sure as the game  gets further into development those things will be addressed.

I find it funny that you think that a multi-million dollar game company is perpetuating a ongoing lie for some mysterious purpose. They might cancel the game , but from what I have seen and have read , its still in production. 

This discussion was never about polygons in the first place. You just keep changing the subject and moving the goalposts. The discussion was about Landmark being a bad engine and a cash grab and EQ:N will never be made because they realized they done fucked up!

I don't know why you keep repeating the same thing about voxels being polygons when you yourself say voxels are just points in space. So what is it then?

Voxel engines use VOXELS end of story. Then some engines use an algorithm to create polygons. I said this the whole time even in the quote you included.

No, Voxels are not made out of Polygons. A Voxel Engine creates Polygons by using various algorithms such as the "marching cube algorithm" so a GPU and render engine like Forelight Enigne can render them but a VOXEL is not made up of polygons.

So what exactly is your point?

As for EQ:N. My opinion still stands. It's dead Jim!

MrSnuffles

Nanfoodle said:

@MrSnuffles  So you were really sure about the engine and that didn't turn out so well. Sure you don't want to google it first before you make your stand? Lol Try looking up voxel mesh tech before you make a fool of yourself lol just saying.

Yes i am still pretty sure that Landmark uses a Voxel engine while PS2 uses a traditional heightmap based engine for the terrain. They are not the SAME. They are not even the same ballpark.

It seems that we are at a point where you need to call people fools which shows me you ahve no arguments and from here on i shall ignore you because there is no point in arguing with people like you.

PS: Using "lol" multiple times in the same sentences does not make them more true or convincing.