sandbox 2 vs unreal ed 3

I've been using udk lately an I'm on the verge of completing a project and am considering using the cryengine 2 sandbox editor after its done. just because I'll probably convert to sandbox 3 when and if it's released. since I'm not creating commercial titles, the better graphics are really attractive. before I convert tho, I need opinions on several things:

- sandbox 2 flowgraph editor versus unreal kismet

- general ease of use

- model import pipeline ease of use

- is sandbox's material editor better that unreal 3's?

- which optimizes better

-which provides better terrain editing (the cryengine's voxels look really neat)

- which is better for rapid developement

- will cryengine 3's ai editor be worth the switch?


keep in mind that I am an artist whose programming knowledge is limited to hello world in python

Replies

  • Justin Meisse
    Offline / Send Message
    Justin Meisse polycounter lvl 14
    Unreal Ed wins for ease of use, pipeline and material editor

    Sandbox 2 wins on the terrain editing side but the voxel tools feel very rough and buggy.
  • mickyg
    Offline / Send Message
    mickyg polycounter lvl 7
    I'm also interested in this. It seems to me that these game editors are nearly as complex as a full 3D package, so it makes sense to know all the facts before jumping in to one.
  • dregoloth
    Unreal Ed wins for ease of use, pipeline and material editor

    Sandbox 2 wins on the terrain editing side but the voxel tools feel very rough and buggy.

    interesting.
    could you explain the pipeline?
  • teaandcigarettes
    Offline / Send Message
    teaandcigarettes polycounter lvl 9
    Unreal Ed wins for ease of use, pipeline and material editor

    Fully agree with the point about the pipeline and material editor. However, I think that CryEngine is much easier to use and learn than UnrealED; basic object manipulation can be really clunky at times in UnrealED.

    BSP's are far better in UDK than in CE2; Solid Tool is an unfinished and completely unsupported feature. I agree with Justin about the voxels; they can be really hard to work with and I wouldn't advise using them for anything besides caverns and overhangs.

    CryEngine's vegetation tools rock; it's truly amazing how easy they are to work with.

    However, I would say that Sandbox, compared to UDK feels very unpolished. You will certainly encounter some bugs and Crytek doesn't seem to be releasing any updates. It will probably change with the release of CE3, though (if they want to compete with Epic of course).

    Also, you didn't mention what kind of project you are working on. If it's just a scene or a map (with no custom gameplay mechanics) then CryEngine might be the right choice; I feel that I can make more progress in Sandbox thanks to fully dynamic lighting and great movement tools.

    If you want to create a game/demo or anything with custom mechanics, then UDK seems like the right choice. Just compare the amount of mods that deviate from the FPS genre; UDK community has plenty of them, whereas CryEngine mods are usually carbon copies of Crysis.
    Flowgraph can do some complex stuff, however from what I've heard UDK is much more flexible. Keep in mind that I've never had a chance to play around with Kismet and Flowgraph for too long, so don't count on my opinion too much.
  • Martin Henriksson
    Offline / Send Message
    Martin Henriksson polycounter lvl 9
    - general ease of use

    Sandbox is very easy to use if you intend on using it the same way they did in crysis. If you want to do anything else then UDK is better, more versatile.

    - model import pipeline ease of use

    import/export is much easier in UDK imo. Maybe its because im a maya user mostly and forced to use user built maya exporter or take it into max first.

    - is sandbox's material editor better that unreal 3's?

    Doesnt even come close.

    - which optimizes better

    Hmm dont know, sandbox is obviously more demanding however.

    -which provides better terrain editing (the cryengine's voxels look really neat)

    Cryengine has awesome terrain editing/painting

    - which is better for rapid developement

    If you want to rapidly develop an outdoor scene then id say sandbox2 is faster

    - will cryengine 3's ai editor be worth the switch?

    Cant comment on this one since i havent used it.


    I think alot of the negative aspects of Sandbox2 is going to be adressed with Sandbox3! The biggest improvement is ofcourse the deffered lighting that they are adding. Indoor/Cityscape lighting is pretty limited as of now.
  • dregoloth
    Also, you didn't mention what kind of project you are working on. If it's just a scene or a map (with no custom gameplay mechanics) then CryEngine might be the right choice; I feel that I can make more progress in Sandbox thanks to fully dynamic lighting and great movement tools.

    what I'm currently doing is a 3rd person puzzle level, which udk is helping me with just fine. it's biggest issue so far has been the pain in the ass that is rebuilding lighting constantly. I'm not trying to make a graphically beautiful experience, just some normal maps and specular maps. nothing complex, just want to do it in my spare time, trying to create something engaging mostly. my next project however, will be more of a tech demo to add to my portfolio, because I'm an artist. It'd be neat to implement custom vehicles and such, but it'll be mostly wide open areas.
    I don't know programming so the ai editor seems really attractive for scripting basic behaviors of wild life or somethat, but not necessarily for advanced things.

    so far the replies have been really helpful, thanks.

    oh, I also thought of several more questions to ask:

    - how is the animation pipeline

    - and how is the effect editor compared to unreal's
  • Cody
    Offline / Send Message
    Cody polycounter lvl 12
    I'm wearing a CryEngine 3 t-shirt right now. [That I got from GDC]

    I like the way my models look in sandbox better, but udk is waaaaaaaaay easier to use. So I use udk out of convenience. This can change on case to case basis, however. There is also a lot more learning material out there on udk, and more games use it [obviously].
  • dregoloth
    Cody wrote: »
    There is also a lot more learning material out there on udk.

    ya, that's one thing I noticed about udk, especially with such a friendly community.

    P.S. I just found these documentations online, and they seem pretty complete.

    asset creation
    http://doc.crymod.com/AssetCreation/frames.html?frmname=topic&frmfile=index.html

    and the editor manual
    http://doc.crymod.com/SandboxManual/frames.html?frmname=topic&frmfile=index.html

    oh, ya, and congrats on the t-shirt

    EDIT

    of course, breakable objects seem like a pin in the arse without an auto breaker like udk.

    3ds max 2011 might ease the workflow out a bit, with it's node based material editor. I don't currently use max but the future features like composite look very neat.
  • cycloverid
    I'd recommend Sandbox 2 for asset rendering or small scenes over UDK, as Sandbox's built-in shaders are much stronger than UDK's. Sandbox and Marmoset do assets great justice!


    For large environments with complex lighting and crazy custom shaders, obviously you can't use Sandbox at all. Go with UDK!


    If you plan to use simple lighting and simple shaders for an environment, Sandbox wins imo.


    EDIT: I think the community point is also a good one. Sandbox can be a nightmare if you want to do something fancy, or something even somewhat simple!
  • dregoloth
    @cycloverid
    thanks for the advice, but whats marmoset?

    whats you're argument for large environments in udk? I've found it slows down alot, is sandbox worst?

    EDIT: not completely slowed down, but a slight framerate drop, and the issue of contantly rebuild lighting for the entire map after a change to a small area. it doesn't take long, a minute at most, but still.
  • cycloverid
    Don't get me wrong, Sandbox is great with large environments, but rebaking tons of lights will save you a lot when compared to having them all dynamic. Or you won't have shadows!

    I guess it's worth clarifying that I meant large environments WITH complex lighting. There are no shadow maps in Sandbox, and I think when you see the performance difference, you'll like baking a bit more :)

    Sandbox is a great looking engine though, and if your project fits the criteria, I personally recommend it.

    EDIT: Marmoset 'toolbag' is a stripped engine used for rendering here on the PC community (the original project or use has escaped me). You can find more about that in the sticky in technical discussion.
  • dregoloth
    ok thanks! I'll try it later, once my project gets finished

    oh ya, were you referring to the engine used in the darkest of days?
  • Stewox
    I registered just for this topic, because

    And for others to know ...even tho it's old... but since it's the first hit on google search.

    This thread fails - because you're comparing Crysis Sandbox Editor 2 with UDK.

    Crytek has not yet released an UDK equivalent. Sandbox editor is an equivalent to Unreal Editor.




    The major difference is the VIEW - FREE-ROAM endless space FTW!


    Crysis Sandbox all the way , not for making custom games , but because it's enjoyable modding , i really hate that 2D bird eye views ... i tried UE3 editor before and it was similar to ID software's and Call of duties , the hardest editors ever made. That 2D views lost my interest to further explore the UE3 editor.

    Im downloading latest UDK now nad it'll see it my self ( i already had it but didn't do much)
Sign In or Register to comment.