Electronic Arts UK Community > Popular Games > Battlefield Series > Battlefield Bad Company 2 > Battlefield Bad Company 2 PC

Like Tree3Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 20-09-2010, 10:33 PM   #1 (permalink)
DICE
 
MikaelKalms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 275
Default So how about modtools?

Zh1nt0 and you folks have asked about it, so here's a piece on the modtools situation for BC2 PC.


Frostbite 1.5 consists of these components:

  • The game runtime
  • The editor runtime
  • The content processing runtime (aka "the pipeline")
  • and some plugins for Maya

The game runtime is distributed outside of EA, but the editor + pipeline + Maya plugins are not.



So let's take a look at some things that would need to be solved before we'd be ready to distribute the editor + pipeline.


Pipeline operation

Let's say that you tell the pipeline to build level MP_003.

MP_003 is represented by an XML file, which references a bunch of other files. These in turn reference other files. If you follow this graph of references, you will find the level layout, heightmap, characters, weapons, vehicles, and all the content that you can see in-game. (The in-game HUD and related stuff might also be in the graph.)

When the pipeline is about to build MP_003, it will first perform a consistency check on all content, and yell if any file that is referenced by any other is not present.

If all files are present, the pipeline will attempt to convert all files referenced by MP_003. It uses the file system journal to determine which files have changed on-disk. Also, and any files that have already been converted have info on which files depend on it (so it has info like: "if file X changes, then files Y,Z,W will also need to be rebuilt").

Building all content for BC2 from scratch takes something like 48-72 hours on a normal workstation. Half that time is spent building common content (such as character animations), half builds level-specific content.

In addition, there's a caching mechanism: if the pipeline wants to build a specific bit of content, it will first check if the pre-built content is already available on a cache server and take the result directly from the cache server instead. The pipeline can also populate the cache if it builds something new.


Pipeline issues

So how does this work in practice? It's not ideal, but it's good enough for us to ship games on it.

The pipeline is a bit overzealous with regards to rebuilding assets - sometimes it rebuilds stuff that it shouldn't need to.

The pipeline will normally crash about 2-3 times during a full rebuild.

You need to have Maya 8.5 (32-bit version) installed in order to convert any meshes.

Any content in the cache expires after 3 weeks. After 3 weeks have passed, that content will need to be rebuilt and re-uploaded by a machine running the pipeline. The effect that this has on day-to-day development is minimized by having one or two machines dedicated to running the pipeline every time any content change is done. By running the pipeline, those machines will populate the cache, thereby speeding up the build process for everyone else. (The output form those content build steps is discarded.)

In short: the pipeline + cache setup works better the more people are using it simultaneously.


If there are content errors, you need to know a lot about the internals of the game engine to figure out what's wrong.

Finally, in its current form, the pipeline + editor expects some specific IT infrastructure in place (most notably the cache server and a Perforce server).
If it's not there then the pipeline + editor will behave strangely.
The first time I tried, it took me about one week to get the full editor + pipeline setup to work properly outside of the DICE office. And that was when I had the option to call any of the other developers to ask for help.



... does this sound bad to you?

Truth be told, this is approximately where the industry average is at for game studios' internal game engines. One of FB 1.5's weaknesses is specifically that its content processing is flaky, and the flakiness gets more problematic as the amount of content goes up. FB 2.0 is much improved in this regard, but FB 1.5 is what we're using for BC2 and that's what relevant in the current discussion (or monologue if you prefer).


Content

Both the pipeline and the editor takes in all content in its raw, original form. Anyone who is to build any content needs the full 80GB of raw data on their machine. We are not comfortable giving out all our animations, meshes etc in raw form.

We are comfortable giving out the processed data - after all, that's what on the game disc - but that data does not plug into the editor/pipeline at all.


Licenses

The game, editor and pipeline all use commercial middleware. It is developed by Havok and several other companies.

The licensing agreement for the middleware allows us to use that code in specific products, on specific platforms.
If we want to release editor + pipeline, we need to license the middleware specifically for this. How much would that be? Perhaps $1M-$3M. I'm guessing wildly here.

Stripping out that middleware would seriously hamper the functionality especially of the pipeline. We use Havok Physics, for instance. Without Havok Physics, the pipeline wouldn't be able to convert any of the physics meshes. We also use Granny. Without Granny, the pipeline will not be able to convert any of the character animations. Etc.

Re-implementing the necessary functionality of the middleware ourselves ("let's make our own physics engine / let's plug in an open-source physics engine") would take literally man-years. Licensing is cheaper in pure $ cost and faster (it works now instead of by 2012).

The pipeline also uses some code that is under GPL. Given that we do not want to release the full source code for the editor + pipeline, we would need to replace the GPLed code with other implementations.

The GPLed code is less of a problem than the proprietary middleware.


Editor

The editor itself is reasonably stable and well-behaving. It is far from obvious how to set up the game logic for a level, but that is easily covered by releasing some example levels which contain the logic setup for the common gamemodes.


Test-running levels

First the level needs to be successfully processed by the pipeline. Then you'd want to be able to test it locally. That involves having a listen server around. We don't have a listen server neatly packaged. There's probably a piracy angle here too but I'm not going to discuss that.


Distribution of levels

Getting levels onto the RSPs server machines would likely not be any problem. However there's need for checksumming levels, so that game clients can know whether or not they have the correct version of level X on their machines. There's a whole bunch of other things (mainly UI-related) which will need cleaning up as well. Not difficult to do, just takes time and I'm listing it for the sake of completeness.

Also, there are some complications wrt when we release patches that affect the base game's content. Whenever we release a patch, all existing levels will need to be rebuilt with a new set of original data. This is because some level-common data is stored inside of the level archives. I'm not sure at the time of writing, but that probably means that the only manageable way for us would be to invalidate any user-made levels when we release a patch of that form.
Then creators of any user-generated levels would be required to run their levels again through the pipeline with the new base content supplied.


So how about just a map editor?

If it doesn't plug into the ecosystem above, then getting it to work involves some serious wrangling. Either it is a light-weight replacement for our existing editor - in which case all the challenges with the pipeline still remain - or it is a separate mode (think Forge for Halo). Developing an extra mod-layer that is sandwiched into the game would easily take 6-12 months.


Synergy effects between FB 1.5 and FB 2.0

So let's say that we would go through the procedure of making mod tools for FB 1.5. How much of that work would be reusable for FB 2.0?
I don't have any firm figures, but the differences between FB 1.5 and FB 2.0 are pretty large by now. Given this and the fact that a fair bit of the FB 1.5-specific problems (where the devil often is in the details) don't apply to FB 2.0, I'd guess that less than half of the work would port over to FB 2.0.


Conclusion

In conclusion, my recommendation to the rest of DICE is not to develop mod tools for BC2 PC. There are too many hurdles to overcome. That energy is better spent elsewhere, be that on BC2 or other titles.
halninekay and Influx_PUA like this.
__________________
Follow Battlefield on Twitter at http://twitter.com/OfficialBF2 and http://twitter.com/OfficialBF2142 and http://twitter.com/OfficialBFBC2
MikaelKalms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 10:40 PM   #2 (permalink)
Rookie
 
QW-CrazyKnife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 82
Default

Very informative, thanks for taking the time to spell that out for people (and the conclusion seems pretty reasonable).
QW-CrazyKnife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 10:45 PM   #3 (permalink)
Forum Junkie
 
f0CUS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Terra firma.
Age: 26
Posts: 4,939
Default

Its nice with some prober information, just too bad its not what we wanted to hear...
__________________
Co-owner of the only Danish Battlefield Community, BFHQ

Current teams
Gamers Platoon
Team Denmark.BF3

Former teams in join order:
BC2
VIP-Gaming
Team Denmark
BF3
VIP-Gaming
Team ireplica
f0CUS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 10:47 PM   #4 (permalink)
Rookie
 
janie91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Here on Earth
Posts: 369
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Thank you, for all the info.....makes sense to me...
janie91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 10:50 PM   #5 (permalink)
Forum Junkie
 
NLsandman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: netherlands
Posts: 2,797
Default

Thank you, very interesting stuff.
__________________

NLsandman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 10:50 PM   #6 (permalink)
Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Portsmouth
Age: 19
Posts: 60
Default

Its not the news we wanted.

But, Thanks for taking the time to explain why its not possible. It means a lot more than a straight forward 'no'.

This explanation was very informative, and it makes sense why they can't be released.
GeneralShaun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 10:56 PM   #7 (permalink)
Forum Guru
 
CrpngDth001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,829
Default

Thank you for taking the time to explain all this. It clearly shows how it is unfeasible with this current tech.

It is good news to hear that most of these problems have been ironed out of FB 2.0 as that is the one that will really need the mod tools and better patching.
NavadeHi likes this.
__________________
CrpngDth001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 10:56 PM   #8 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 989
Default

So does the fact that BF3 is FB2.0 and that theFB engine just sounds ****ed for modtools, are you also ruling out modtools for BF3?

lol
__________________


Last edited by Fallacy4; 20-09-2010 at 11:00 PM.
Fallacy4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 11:01 PM   #9 (permalink)
Forum Junkie
 
Koji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,536
Default

Thank you for clearing the issue up with a informative monologue

I can see why there is no point in developing mod-tools for the out dated FB 1.5, but I would like to see work done in this department for FB 2.0 as it seems that this new iteration of Frostbite is a lot more user friendy.
__________________
PC|The one and only.
Xfire: aryaos

Last edited by Koji; 20-09-2010 at 11:05 PM.
Koji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 11:03 PM   #10 (permalink)
Forum Guru
 
CrpngDth001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallacy4 View Post
So does the fact that BF3 is FB2.0 and that theFB engine just sounds ****ed for modtools, are you also ruling out modtools for BF3?

lol
Didn't read the whole thing, did ya?
__________________
CrpngDth001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 11:05 PM   #11 (permalink)
Forum Guru
 
R3CLAIMED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,279
Default

Good explanation of how things work, thanks for taking the time to post this.

So considering how you have worded this post, and the development time for BF3, is it safe to assume that FB2.0 *may* have the capability to support mod tools? I'm not asking for a confirmation, just your honest opinion given the progress of the FB engine.

You stated that your recommendation is to not release SDK for BC2, and that's pretty much what we would have expected.. is the effort being made to refine FB into a manageable form for the future?
__________________

At WAR with the trolls of MORDOR
R3CLAIMED is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 11:12 PM   #12 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 966
Default

May I ask what happened during the development of the FB engine ? why were all these problems not addressed or avoided ?
parker1988888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 11:12 PM   #13 (permalink)
DICE
 
MikaelKalms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 275
Default

FB2.0 is better suited for modtools, but it is not a shoe-in yet. I will not speculate on whether or not modtools will be released for BF3.
__________________
Follow Battlefield on Twitter at http://twitter.com/OfficialBF2 and http://twitter.com/OfficialBF2142 and http://twitter.com/OfficialBFBC2
MikaelKalms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 11:13 PM   #14 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
B0SSMANN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Latitude: 34°03′N Longitude: 118°15′W
Posts: 750
Default

I am very happy to hear someone from DICE brings this up, you heard the voice of this PC community, and you address this issue as pros. I hope you guys build a tool for BF3 so mapping and modding is a possibility.

Thanks DICE for that answer! +1
__________________
Battlelog: B0SSMANN
B0SSMANN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 11:13 PM   #15 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 989
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrpngDth001 View Post
Didn't read the whole thing, did ya?
Actually, I did. Please kindly point me in the direction in which he said "FB 2.0 supports modtools."

All I read is "FB 2.0 has improved upon FB 1.5" Maybe you didn't read the whole thing, but all I got from that was FB1.5 - bad, FB2.0 - better, but still bad at its core.

So yes, asking if FB2.0 will forgo mod-tools is a perfectly valid question [removed-unnecessary insult]
__________________


Last edited by CrazyCanuck; 20-09-2010 at 11:57 PM.
Fallacy4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 11:14 PM   #16 (permalink)
Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 17
Default

Thank you MikaelKalms, a very informative post in reguard to map editing
__________________
WatterAPS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 11:18 PM   #17 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 966
Default

They aren't going to tell us right now if modtools wont be released for BF3 can you imagine the outrage ? lol

They probably don't know for certain themselves at this time.
parker1988888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 11:25 PM   #18 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
B0SSMANN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Latitude: 34°03′N Longitude: 118°15′W
Posts: 750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by parker1988888 View Post
They aren't going to tell us right now if modtools wont be released for BF3 can you imagine the outrage ? lol

They probably don't know for certain themselves at this time.
I agree but you guys at DICE, please keep this in mind when at the final stage of BF3! You'll surely win back your BF fans with this! And don't forget the LAN players as well
__________________
Battlelog: B0SSMANN
B0SSMANN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 11:31 PM   #19 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 639
Default

Mikael I have no clue about modding but as far as I can understand from what you wrote is that the biggest problem about releasing the mod tools is the cost of it $1-$3 Mil. is not a joke...

I'm wondering what are the company plans for future frostbite games such as BF3?

-Are you guys going to release mod tools for BF3 and offcourse charge more for the game on release date.

-Or are you guys going to not release the mod tools,but support the game with DLC content to make sure that the game will see a longer life span(when I say DLC I ment making new maps and offcourse charging for it)

What are the future plans regarding this issue?
__________________
SolitarioSoldat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 11:39 PM   #20 (permalink)
Rookie
 
mats_mono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sweden
Age: 34
Posts: 442
Default

Very informative. Good thread.

Here's a thought: What if levels weren't designed with a standalone map/mod-editor, but instead treated as a kind of "open source" collaboration between Dice and the community?
I understand you guys don't have the time and budget to construct a lot of new content, and implement it in the game at this stage - but the community has! A lot of us (me included) have great knowledge and experience of working in 3d software - others might have good scripting skills - some have great level design ideas. It would be awesome if a project to build, say, 4 new maps was initiated by you, Dice, where you would set up a developer wiki, and the content needed to be manufactured, was distributed within the community. Then you could compile it all through you already working pipeline. No need to make a standalone editor.
This would require a minimum of work form your side, and it would be a great chance for you to connect with the community. We would get new maps, and everyone would be happy.

Easy!
__________________

mats_mono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 11:45 PM   #21 (permalink)
Forum Junkie
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: United States
Age: 21
Posts: 3,501
Default

Well, sounds like you guys made you life very complicate when you coded the engine. Not as bad while you are developing the game but we all know how patching goes.
Blackn01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 11:46 PM   #22 (permalink)
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 142
Default

That is very appreciated Mikael. Might not be what the community was hoping for, but it was honest and that means a lot. I don't know many developers sharing internal development practices. Major props
mitsuhiko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 11:53 PM   #23 (permalink)
Forum Guru
 
KingNL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Netherlands
Age: 55
Posts: 1,296
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikaelKalms View Post
In conclusion, my recommendation to the rest of DICE is not to develop mod tools for BC2 PC. There are too many hurdles to overcome. That energy is better spent elsewhere, be that on BC2 or other titles.
A wise desicion

Thanks for the explanation m8, that's one problem solved.
This is exactly what's needed, an answer with a explanation.
A clear no is better than no answer at all.

Two thumbs up.
__________________


The Internet is an insane asylum run by the patients
KingNL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 11:56 PM   #24 (permalink)
Forum Guru
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikaelKalms View Post
FB2.0 is better suited for modtools, but it is not a shoe-in yet. I will not speculate on whether or not modtools will be released for BF3.
Is the reason why 1.5 is not suited for mod tools also to do with the fact the engine was originally designed for consoles and not PC?

Does FB2.0 take the PC into consideration this time around if so?
__________________


Dwayne_Dibbley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2010, 12:11 AM   #25 (permalink)
Forum Guru
 
CrpngDth001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallacy4 View Post
Actually, I did. Please kindly point me in the direction in which he said "FB 2.0 supports modtools."

All I read is "FB 2.0 has improved upon FB 1.5" Maybe you didn't read the whole thing, but all I got from that was FB1.5 - bad, FB2.0 - better, but still bad at its core.

So yes, asking if FB2.0 will forgo mod-tools is a perfectly valid question [removed-unnecessary insult]
Wow, relax. I was just replying to your conclusion saying the new engine;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallacy4 View Post
just sounds ****ed for modtools,
I have no idea where you got that from because he only mentions how much BETTER FB 2.0 is. So I figured you only read a bit or skimmed over it because it seems like you only soaked in what you where expecting to hear.
__________________
CrpngDth001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:19 AM.

EA - Top

Powered by Searchlight Copyright ©2006 - 2012 Axivo Inc.