I thought there was a stage length limit??

[fishsticks 0]

There was a thread sometime ago with requests for longer rally stages (sorry I can't find the thread).  In this thread there were several comments detailing why the stages could only be somewhat short.  Now fast forward to present and low and behold we have a 20km hill climb in Dirt Rally. 

What happened to the track length limitations??  Does this mean we are going to get 20KM rally stages as well? Say yes please :-)

[dwkGravey 0]

Heh, I can only assume there's a good technical reason why the rally stages are limited to
<12 km while PP is almost 20, so I'd be curious to know what that is.

[enamel 0]

fishsticks said:

Say yes please :-)

YES PLEASE 

[TheAdmiester 0]

Maybe some odd technical thing to do with pacenotes? Either manpower or some engine issue I'd imagine. The lack of codriver is the only difference I can think of between rally and PP.

[SkiddyMcCrash 311]

You mean, aside from the fact that for a lot of your time on the full Peak stages your view on one side of the car is just blue sky?

[Ruben Correa Alves 28]

What's on your screen at any given moment doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the length of the stage. I don't know if the EGO engine does this but most current engines have features that remove visual assets when you not look at them. There is something called Occlusion Culling that disables rendering of objects when they are obscured by other objects (so a three that's behind a big mountain will not be rendered). In combination with Frustum Culling, a feature that disables rendering of objects that are behind the camera (so stuff not in the frame, but right behind you will not be rendered), you have two features that greatly improve the performance of a game AKA hidden surface determination.

So even if you have millions of trees in a stage you will never see them at once and the game will never render them at once. The limitation that I can think of that has a relation with the length of the stage is not what is on the screen at any given moment but purely the data size that has to be loaded in. The longer the stage the more data the game has to load. If the game tries to load the whole stage at once you will run into limitations (ram size etc). Pike Peak is longer but doesn't have the fidelity you find in Greece (as far as props and thus textures (which are data size unfriendly so to speak) So yeah it's not purely the length of a stage but more the size of the data I think. One workaround for this would be to stream in and out data, giving you ulimited lenght but the downside is that it creates stutters 

Don't read this as a fact for this particular game though, I'm just an artist working with other engines. Would be nice if a DiRT dev could weigh in on the matter. @KickUp 

More info on the matter here

[fishsticks 0]

Areyouben said:

What's on your screen at any given moment doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the length of the stage. I don't know if the EGO engine does this but most current engines have features that remove visual assets when you not look at them. There is something called Occlusion Culling that disables rendering of objects when they are obscured by other objects (so a three that's behind a big mountain will not be rendered). In combination with Frustum Culling, a feature that disables rendering of objects that are behind the camera (so stuff not in the frame, but right behind you will not be rendered), you have two features that greatly improve the performance of a game AKA hidden surface determination.

So even if you have millions of trees in a stage you will never see them at once and the game will never render them at once. The limitation that I can think of that has a relation with the length of the stage is not what is on the screen at any given moment but purely the data size that has to be loaded in. The longer the stage the more data the game has to load. If the game tries to load the whole stage at once you will run into limitations (ram size etc). Pike Peak is longer but doesn't have the fidelity you find in Greece (as far as props and thus textures (which are data size unfriendly so to speak) So yeah it's not purely the length of a stage but more the size of the data I think. One workaround for this would be to stream in and out data, giving you ulimited lenght but the downside is that it creates stutters 

Don't read this as a fact for this particular game though, I'm just an artist working with other engines. Would be nice if a DiRT dev could weigh in on the matter. @KickUp 

More info on the matter here

Areyouben,  thanks for the explanation.  If you are correct then in theory we could have longer rally stages at a cost of textures perhaps and whatever else needs to be downgraded to make the stage file size smaller.  I must say though PP looks beautiful and I can't tell if there is a graphical downgrade at all. :-/  Unless the same trees being repeated as well as rocks give it a smaller file size.  This still it gives me hope for long rally stages though even if they are a flat barren wasteland!

[BrySkye 14]

If I recall correctly, the <12km figure was in relation to DiRT3 which not only used EGO2, but was also had to deal with the limitations of the X360/PS3.
That's why there was no Pikes Peak in DiRT2 or 3.
It just wasn't possible between EGO, EGO2 and the memory/bandwidth limitations of the systems the game was running on.

Now we're using EGO 3 and focused on PC, with a potential 8th generation console release down the line, longer stages are possible.

[couger1981 89]

BrySkye said:

If I recall correctly, the <12km figure was in relation to DiRT3 which not only used EGO2, but was also had to deal with the limitations of the X360/PS3.
That's why there was no Pikes Peak in DiRT2 or 3.
It just wasn't possible between EGO, EGO2 and the memory/bandwidth limitations of the systems the game was running on.

Now we're using EGO 3 and focused on PC, with a potential 8th generation console release down the line, longer stages are possible.

DiRT 3 used a updated version of ego 1 engine and DiRT rally also uses a updated version of ego 1. Ego 3 is exclusive to F1 2015.

[Ruben Correa Alves 28]

Isn't DiRT Rally running on an updated EGO 2?

[BrySkye 14]

Colin McRae DiRT ran on Neon.
Colin McRae DiRT 2 ran on EGO
DiRT 3 ran on EGO2
DiRT Rally runs on modified, or rather the latest, version of EGO3
F1 2015 runs on the next gen EGO4

[couger1981 89]

Areyouben said:

Isn't DiRT Rally running on an updated EGO 2?

No they said it's running on a updated version of ego 1.

Edit: Confirmation from the lead designer that DiRT rally does use a updated version of Ego 1

http://twitter.com/Kick_Up/status/604561419955269632

[BrySkye 14]

Amazingly enough, something as simple as which game uses which engine seems to be a complete mess of conflicting stories and reports.
Codemasters very publicly announced that EGO 2.0 powered DiRT3.
That's widely reported, as was GRID 2 introducing EGO 3.0.
Given that people have imported vehicles from GRID Autosport into DiRT Rally and found things like animated aeroparts and wipers are working, the engines have to be incredibly similar to be so compatible.

It's like the media is told one thing by the PR team, but internally the devs have their own numbering system.

[couger1981 89]

BrySkye said:

Amazingly enough, something as simple as which game uses which engine seems to be a complete mess of conflicting stories and reports.
Codemasters very publicly announced that EGO 2.0 powered DiRT3.
That's widely reported, as was GRID 2 introducing EGO 3.0.
Given that people have imported vehicles from GRID Autosport into DiRT Rally and found things like animated aeroparts and wipers are working, the engines have to be incredibly similar to be so compatible.

It's like the media is told one thing by the PR team, but internally the devs have their own numbering system.

The DiRT devs have always said that DiRT 3 used a updated version of Ego 1, also Codemasters said that Ego 3 will be used for the first time by F1 2015, you may have got the info from wiki and as we all know wiki isn't always reliable :)

[BrySkye 14]

 couger1981 said:

BrySkye said:

Amazingly enough, something as simple as which game uses which engine seems to be a complete mess of conflicting stories and reports.
Codemasters very publicly announced that EGO 2.0 powered DiRT3.
That's widely reported, as was GRID 2 introducing EGO 3.0.
Given that people have imported vehicles from GRID Autosport into DiRT Rally and found things like animated aeroparts and wipers are working, the engines have to be incredibly similar to be so compatible.

It's like the media is told one thing by the PR team, but internally the devs have their own numbering system.

The DiRT devs have always said that DiRT 3 used a updated version of Ego 1, also Codemasters said that Ego 3 will be used for the first time by F1 2015, you may have got the info from wiki and as we all know wiki isn't always reliable :)

Nope. I never rely on just one source. Do even the most basic Google search and you'll find countless games news sites and magazines reporting exactly what I said from information provided to them from Codemasters press releases and interviews.
Like I said, it was widely reported by all the major publications, such as Eurogamer, that DiRT3 used EGO 2.0
Codemasters never corrected any gaming publications on that.
Every publication has referred to F1 2015 using EGO 4.0, including Official Playstation Magazine UK which you can see for yourself here:
http://www.pressreader.com/australia/playstation-official-magazine-uk/20150508/282376923134118/TextView

Digging into that further, the sources seem to have been interviews with then senior vice president of production Jamie MacDonald and vice president Gavin Cheshire: 
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/codies-opflash-dirt-grid-sequels-on-way

"We are focused on EGO 2.0 at the moment, which will be coming in with a massive title that we can't talk about just yet. That will really keep us cutting-edge."

DiRT3 was revealed the following week, so that seems to be where the connection started.
It's possible there were referring to F1 Race Stars... though I don't think many of us would use the phrase "Cutting-edge" to refer to that game.

Expanding on that

https://twitter.com/Kick_Up/status/604650015605313536

In order words, EGO 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 seem to have more to do with PR and misconception than actual in-house development.

It's all quite a big horrible mess really. No wonder there is so much confusion.

[couger1981 89]

BrySkye said:

 couger1981 said:

BrySkye said:

Amazingly enough, something as simple as which game uses which engine seems to be a complete mess of conflicting stories and reports.
Codemasters very publicly announced that EGO 2.0 powered DiRT3.
That's widely reported, as was GRID 2 introducing EGO 3.0.
Given that people have imported vehicles from GRID Autosport into DiRT Rally and found things like animated aeroparts and wipers are working, the engines have to be incredibly similar to be so compatible.

It's like the media is told one thing by the PR team, but internally the devs have their own numbering system.

The DiRT devs have always said that DiRT 3 used a updated version of Ego 1, also Codemasters said that Ego 3 will be used for the first time by F1 2015, you may have got the info from wiki and as we all know wiki isn't always reliable :)

Nope. I never rely on just one source. Do even the most basic Google search and you'll find countless games news sites and magazines reporting exactly what I said from information provided to them from Codemasters press releases and interviews.
Like I said, it was widely reported by all the major publications, such as Eurogamer, that DiRT3 used EGO 2.0
Codemasters never corrected any gaming publications on that.

Digging into that further, the sources seem to have been interviews with then senior vice president of production Jamie MacDonald and vice president Gavin Cheshire: 

"We are focused on EGO 2.0 at the moment, which will be coming in with a massive title that we can't talk about just yet. That will really keep us cutting-edge."

DiRT3 was revealed the following week, so that seems to be where the connection started.

Expanding on that

https://twitter.com/Kick_Up/status/604650015605313536

In order words, EGO 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 seem to have more to do with PR and misconception than actual in-house development.

Bit of a mess really.

Yep the PR seems to hype the games up with talk about the Ego engines.

[enamel 0]

User facing software versioning has always, and will always be 95% marketing function and 5% support function. When you get into the components of a software system, like the underlying engine, it becomes even more irrelevant to the end user.

@Kick_Up 's tweet is how software dev normally works. The engine has been in constant incremental development, and any user facing branding (version) is generally irrelevant to the development team. The version number is arbitrary and carries very little meaning internally.

[dwkGravey 0]

So on this note again, in the last livestream, @KickUp said about Finland:

[W]e've actually made the track longer than a lot of our other tracks to account for the fact that you are flat out for a large proportion of it. So your overall experience is going to be pretty similar to some of the other locations that we've got. But to do that we've made the track a bit longer to account for it.

Like I said before, I'm curious how this works—is it a balance between length and visual quality that Codemasters try to strike, or minimum specs to account for, or maybe a maximum stage time for the typical player? Would 20, 30, or 40 km stages be possible, and if so what compromises would have to be made?

Personally, I'm satisfied with what we have. If the online challenges are any indication, I'm just under average, so the 10 km stages we have now take me ~8 minutes (10+ in RWD with penalties :s ).

[gfRally 465]

Isn't it more important as to which DirectX version is supported?  I know very little about DX version other than every new DX version brings new graphics cards to support the new DX technologies (shaders, particle effects, etc).  

Then again, to argue with myself :confused: if you use 1 feature of a DX version you can claim to support DX#.  This may not even be a PR ploy, more of a programmer saying "hey this is a feature we can use" or improve development of the current graphic engine.

I think internally codies tweaks the ego engine and branches it as new titles require different functions.  DiRT Rally is supposedly based on the graphic engine of Autosport, again tweaked for the requirements of a rally enviroment.  Physics are a series of incremental improvements with major leaps in development.  

I think this is partially for PR to give EGO engines versions, but are not used internally and has been at the desecration of whoever is being interviewed to refer to the engine by version.  This maybe the reason that the versions are all over the place.  

What does EGO (eeGo) stand for?  Is it an acronym or a sort of joke like the engine has a big ego that it is so good?

For what its worth, I doubt there is a conspiracy as to what version is given to the public or PR game, just no official policy on what to call it.

[JackKey 23]

Let's compare it to Windows:
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows 4.0 = Windows 95
Windows 4.1 = Windows 98
Windows 4.9 = Winbdows ME
Windows NT 4.0
Windows NT 5.0 = Windows 2000
Windows NT 5.1 = Windows XP
Windows NT 6.0 = Windows Vista
Windows NT 6.1 = Windows 7
Windows NT 6.2 = Windows 8
Windows NT 6.3 = Windows 8.1
Windows NT 10 = Windows 10 - I bet its actually Windows 6.4

As far as I know and understood Neon-Engine was co-developed with Sony. Codemasters EGO is based on Neon. So Grid1 was the first EGO. Everything after that is improving the Engine. With Dirt 2 there was a new lighting-model. With F1 2010 there was a weather-system. With Dirt 3 splitscreen. With Grid2 Network-AI. What the number of the internal Build is I don't know. But in the end its still the same engine.

[WasabiWei 0]

It is what it is, abstraction is inaccuracy. The map is not the terrain. I agree with Paul.

[FluxCapacitance 0]

Pikes is a work of art from an optimization standpoint. It ran on my slower machine pretty well! I think that optimizing a view looking down a mountain would be a nightmare.

I have yet to see any real official reason why stages can't be longer because of the engine. More like a rumor to me as it seems that build time is a bigger factor. I'd rather have the quality that they've put in instead of longer stages. The detail needs to be there without tiled textures or procedurally generated terrain.

[DocStrangelove 165]

FluxCapacitance said:

I have yet to see any real official reason why stages can't be longer because of the engine. More like a rumor to me as it seems that build time is a bigger factor.

I think they mentioned it in one of the live sessions--although I can't remember when and which one sadly, so I'm not doing much to disprove that it's a rumour, I guess

But if it was only build time, then there should be no reason to split Monte Carlo, since that's one long stretch of road cut in 2.