Great game, but the Source Engine is nothing but a limitation.

[BobbyBadBoy]

Hey guys, now that Valve will be porting most of their games to source 2 and Linux for the upcoming release of SteamOS, I think it would be cool if you guys ported this game into a newer game engine.

The game is really underperforming on the Source 1 engine, this engine is extremely inefficient with newer hardware, and my nvidia 970 cant even run the game without intermittent frame drops and occasional freezes. Its a ridiculous...

So, if you guys can port this game into a 64bit engine it would be great. Valve will be porting CSGO into Source 2 even though it will be pointless because CSGO is a competitive game which cannot be changed much.
For Insurgency however, a new engine would allow for very noticeable performance optimization and visual enhancements.

Perhaps the engine change can be done while you guys try to bring the game into Linux, since I am sure you will not want to be missing a potential customer base from SteamOS.

[Ingen fest uden hest]

They made a poll about a new insurgency. I believe the most voted was 60's vietnam conflict.
And if they make it, hopefully on an UE engine.

[mom's sphagetti]

a vietnam insurgency.. omg that would be great

[BobbyBadBoy]

I think the last thing they need is to divide the community with a vietnam (outdoors/jungle) shooter which has already been made many times. Battlefield 1 to 4 and future battlefield games already dominate this market, even if they are not called "vietnam" games, their engine is appropriate for handling forest, mountain and jungle settings. And their map design is pretty much flawless.

I think the Insurgency team has a bright future so long as they dont put themselves in competition with games that are already big titles. I think Insurgency will only continue to succeed with relatively smaller and more focused maps.

Making a jungle or forest map with the source engine is nothing but suicide, and even if they do upgrade to a better engine, it would only put them against the AAA titles and ARMA 3 so... I would think twice about that if I were them.

I think they are better off developing a game with a more unique setting or indoors SWAT-style combat. There are no games out there at the moment with good indoor combat. Rainbow Six Siege is coming out in while after their failure to develop a proper Rainbow Six Rogue Spear sequel since 1998.

So I am predicting Siege will be nothing but a flop, since CSGO will just punch it in the face and Ubi will stop supporting it.

The Insurgency team should take advantage of Ubisofts mistakes and the failure of Takedown Red Sabre.

The point is, there is room for an insurgency-like game in this type of setting in my opinion.

But to be honest, I think just porting this game to a new engine or making a sequel of this game in a new engine would be okay too. There is still a lot of room for improvement in Insurgency and I think that if the devs really try to turn this game into the best game they can before abandonning it, THAT is what will give them recognition and THAT is what will bring in the cash in the long run.

[anonymous]

I hope they keep developing this game. Simply because my PC, and a lot of other players' PCs, are not up to playing a real game. Within my gaming clan, Insurgency has been so successful because:

1. It's an incredible game. It really is.
2. It's ridiculously cheap, and goes on sale, and gets put in the humblebundle.
3. It runs on potato PCs.

If the devs were to make an incredible new INS game, then it would no longer run on potato PCs, and because of the amount of time that would have to be spent making more detailed models and maps for the new engine, probably far more expensive.

[IronCore]

Originally posted by InsurgencyForFred:

I hope they keep developing this game. Simply because my PC, and a lot of other players' PCs, are not up to playing a real game.

You mean those really expensive games that only works better on hi end rigs only to find out they are as full of bugs and crappy over done gameplay? I think those are not real games more of like fun games with lots of eye candy. Ins is like Half-life ...it ain't about the graphics and monster rig it's about a better gameplay and whole lot more fun for everyone with old and low end rig, I totally agree to yah!

[BobbyBadBoy]

Battlefield 4 looks better and runs faster on my pc than Insurgency. I think that would be one of the benefits of a new engine, not that "low end pcs cant run it anymore" but rather that it will run more efficiently.

But we will need to wait for the new directX or Vulkan API to really see a difference.

I guess I'm just a bit dissappointed that my nvidia 970 is having such a hard time running this game on high settings relative to other games.

[Nimmel]

What are you talking about? Underperforming? Actual hardware? Are you kidding me?
Fact is, the Source Engine has limitations, BUT its all about epolys/wpolys.
If they would reach a critical number of polys, everyone would have those problems.
But we doesnt, so this might be a configurationproblem or a problem with nvidia.
But Source Engine is one of the best/swift gameengines if codeproblems/polyproblems/visproblems has been tweaked.

[BobbyBadBoy]

CSGO will run smoothly at 300 FPS even on older cards, but this game has lower frame rates, maybe because it has more shadows and bigger more complex maps i dont know. I do agree though that perhaps, if better-optimized, this game could run almost as good as CSGO in terms of performance

[frombehind]

so you think a 64bit exe will help you?

if you are getting stutters and ♥♥♥♥ now once you start to fill that 4gb of vram dude you in for a whole new world of that.

ins has much more going on than cs which puts more load on the engine, so more cpu load.

you could have a titan z and an old cpu will still kill the fps.

bf4 is not as cpu reliant as source, ok you need 4 cores to play lag free on bf but it is happy with any 4 cores, even a core 2 quad or amd x4.

[IronCore]

Originally posted by Nimmel:

What are you talking about? Underperforming? Actual hardware? Are you kidding me?
Fact is, the Source Engine has limitations, BUT its all about epolys/wpolys.
If they would reach a critical number of polys, everyone would have those problems.
But we doesnt, so this might be a configurationproblem or a problem with nvidia.
But Source Engine is one of the best/swift gameengines if codeproblems/polyproblems/visproblems has been tweaked.

totally agree. ins coders are probably still learning on good old source engine or their simply pushing it to it's limit just the way DOD devs used to do on gold source and they did manage to make it work in the end.

[BobbyBadBoy]

I doubt my processor is bad,

i have a 2600K processor with the nvidia 970

I have another system with a 3570K which allows for PCI-E 3.0

What would you guys do, run a 970 with a 2600K at PCI-E 2.0 or run the 970 with a 3570K at PCI-E 3.0?

[mr.pink]

Is there any good reason to move on to another engine besides attracting bf / cod players due to better graphics?

The mechanics wont change, everything that makes Insurgency unique wont change with a different engine. So its useless imo to move on to another engine.

[frombehind]

clock speeds are what matters, unless you have the 2600k a few 100mhz faster the i5 is the better gaming cpu.

but i agree both of those cpu should be more than enough for this. i mean i know they are as i have a 26k in my old system and it still kills games.

maybe your gpu is already using the wrong vram?