Think this is fixed, else the player made houses would not make much sense.

Some moders even managed to fix it in Skyrim as I understand.

I have to disagree. The engine might, according to you, not jack-up the animations themselves, but if the animations don't interact with the world properly they will still look stupid. I was playing Skyrim the other day and I found the perfect example. The horse... Sure the animations themselves look good when you're traveling over a flat surface, but when you go uphill or try to get over a mountain things really start to look weird.

Be it the animations, how the engine processes them, or how they interact with the world, call it whatever you like but as long as this isn't fixed Bethesda needs to step up their game with their engine. It's such a downer when you see a beautifully created world and then you see the Npc's just totally ruining the immersion because of how they move.

There are plenty of other engines they could use.

About the game not working. Thats ridiculous. The game has a very high rate of failure. Why would so many people comment about Fallout in particular being buggy? Because it is.

Where in the world have you read this nonsense?

Bethesda have used Gamebryo since Morrowind. For oblivion, Fallout 3, New Vegas and Skyrim, and they will be using it for Fallout 4.

Bethesda has a license to use Gamebryo, but I can assure you they don't own gamebryo.

They have modified Gamebryo for their projects, and labeled it the Creation Engine, but it is still essentially Gamebryo.

Games like this are bound to have glitches and are not fully stable on release; look at the Witcher 3 as a recent example when it released. These open world games tend to be patched up anyway so nothing to absutely worry about atm. Plus better Creation then Gamebyro which by the time Fallout New Vegas came out was horribly outdated.

Oh, I agree with you. Bethesda needs to step-up their animation game. I'm just saying it isn't the engine's fault that stuff is happening.

Yeah Unreal 4 is still the same old crap as the first Unreal.

I liked the fact that the first Unreal engine could run in 16 color mode.

FO3, FONV, and Skyrim actors have a bounding box which is a simple damn box that represents (or the game uses) to basically define the characters space / footprint in the game and it has been used for basic collision checking / pathing, it's crude. Some actors like robobrains and Skyrim horses have something called model tilt which compares the base of this bounding box with the collision of the terrain and tilts the actor accordingly, as you can imagine there would be plenty of occasions where this could result in clipping and weird looking actor center of gravity / balance non adjustment in the animations.

The only actors I've seen make use of in game IK sovlers for walking are Bipeds, so use of animation adjustment for terrain has been limited.......It might be costly use.

Unfortunately the dynamic lights part seems to be untrue.

If you watch the base building part of the presentation you can clearly see that the floodlights (starting at 1:31:30) doesn't make either the pavilons, nor the character standing real close to it, to cast any shadows at all when lit.

So I'm quite sure that's exactly the same as how it worked in skyrim, that only a couple 'select' lightsources are real.. quite a let down.

You mean physically based rendering right?

I didnt say Gamebryo had never been updated.

Afair, version 20 of the gamebryo engine was used for Skyrim.

Yeah. It is the same rendering method Ubisoft used for Assassin's Creed Unity, and that DICE is using for Battlefront 2015.

oh man... ok I know it was naive wishful thinking on my part that they would have changed to something else but how do you know they are using Papyrus in F4 ?

I mean do you know this from some bethesda DEV interview or just assuming it as it is "logical" to assume that.

...god I hope the extra computing power they get now and the extra time to optimise that new script system will greatly minimise script lag.

Its not all of Bethesda's animations bad. And generally talking about "Bad animations" will make any developer who might be reading these threads to think that we are trolling, or to wonder what we mean.

The animations on creatures for example are decent. The dog on the trailers has quite good animations. It acts naturally. Mole rats were also very well animated.

The problem is on human characters in particular. The player's character and NPCs.

We have to make this distinction, to know what we are talking about, and also help the guys from BGS that might read this, to understand what we are seeing that they might not.

And now that we isolated the area where animations aren't as good as we would like, lets try to find why exactly, what exactly is it that we don't like on the human animations ?

After watching the trailer and gameplay demo a few times jumping to the points where humans were shown in the game moving, I believe I can spot what are the negatives.

1) One thing is that the human models seem like they lack gravitational pull and inertia. Its what makes some NPCs look like they are sliding when they are walking fast.

2) Another thing is that some human animations seem 'mechanical', and 'robotic', and by that I mean that their body parts move the exact same way all the time. Take for example walking animation. When we walk, sometimes one footstep will be a bit wider than the other, sometimes our torso will lean to one direction a bit as we raise one leg to move it forward... Not all steps humans do are 100% the same. But this kind of variation is missing from the humanoid models.

My guess is that the reason the NPCs and player's character have animations like that, is because they are handmade, instead of motion captured. Most games capture the motion of real actors, who wear the corresponding suits to build animations that look realistic. And that would mean, that the animations problem would probably be solved if Bethesda used motion capture tech on real human actors to create their animations. If BGS is already using motion capture of real humans, and they get these results I really don't know whats wrong.

The consoles are 64bit.

The most interesting thing for them was the additional memory, as Todd Howard said many times.

The reasonable conclusion is to conclude that the game will be 64bit. And since the game will be 64bit, the engine its made it has to be too.

Sound reasoning. I certainly hope that it is indeed the case. Although, there are still folks out there using 32 bit operating systems..... wonder if the installer will have a fix for that.

You speak for the Windows XP crowd ?

I think from Vista and on (maybe 7) buying a Windows retail license includes both 32 and 64 bit options.

The question is what happens to people who bought pre-built PCs. I don't know, I built all the computers I owned myself.

As for those who are still on WinXp, I don't think they are really concerned with 'core' gaming. There have been a number of games coming out that don't run on XP for at least 4 years.

If that person's system is still running a 32 bit OS it should be about time to upgrade the OS or Hardware if the Hardware does not support a 64 system or get a X1/PS4. 32 bit OS has a lot of limits.

I would still be using Win2k if not for FO3 being linked to an XP library. ... I begrudgingly accepted XP's bloat, and used that until recently, when the Blender Foundation abandoned XP as a platform. Now I'm forced to use Win7, and a dozen 3rd party UI fixes to correct it.

If I could find a Linux or BSD that could [truly] replace Win7, I'd jump ship and become a Linux/BSD user.

I'm not one of those people who will say "buy the newest version of X just because its newer", and I have skipped about half Windows editions,but even I have moved away from XP.

I can feel the dissatisfaction of having to re-learn things that you were be doing daily for long. When I first moved to Win7 from XP I was like "Hey why did they moved this function from the 'Control Panel' to 'My Computer' ? That doesn't make sense!"

But dx11 graphics options were sweat man. Volumetric smoke and lighting looked better, tesselated stuff looked better, lighting looked better... And then I discovered that SSDs are fast, and at Win7 are faster, 'cause the software uses them to the full potential.

My fear after seeing what a mess Vista was, was that Win7 would just make my computer slower. But no, 7 are faster than Vista out of the box, and with the appropriate hardware can become faster than XP.

So in the end moving from XP to 7 was a good jump I believe.

But I didn't jumped to Win8. I hate the GUi.

And anyone who wants those sweet Direct X 12 effects and upgrades will have to upgrade to Windows 10. Which will be free for Windows 7 and 8 users. Because Microsoft is an expert at torture and manipulation.

I wonder what's the catch though.

Microsoft giving their most cash generating product for free ?

More than unusual.

They know their previous offerings have fallen short, and that a lot of Windows users are skittish of new operating systems. I see this as their grab to secure market share and make sure as large a portion of their base is using Windows 10 as possible. It is the OS they want running across all their devices - Surface tablets, Smartphones, Laptops, and Desktops.

So, load it up with what they know people want - like the return of a Start menu button that works like Windows 7, new features for gamers, etc. and making it free, they are like a crack dealer giving out free hits.

It's worse than that... They almost certainly did that on purpose, to obfuscate administrative functions, and make the OS more paranoid and self defensive against novice users.
[Saves them money in the long run.]

That's the big thing with Windows 7,8, & 10. The continued quest to annoy power users who want control of the guts and don't want an OS making guesses and assumptions for them.

Anyone that started out with DOS and Windows 3.1 is bound to be annoyed at continuously being made to jump through hoops to access low level features and control in the new OS offerings.

I won't lie though. My new system is going to have 8.1 on it, and I'll probably upgrade to Windows 10 in the next 1-2 years once the first Service Pack rolls out and driver support has caught up.

Reality check, the Creation engine is basically the in-house engine that they made from taken a existing game engine and rebuilding it to work with the kind of game they wanted to make. over the years they have worked bugs out of the system (while bringing in new bugs)

Any NEW game engine they start with that you care to name will basically undergo the same process of being gutted and rewritten in order to do the things they want the game to do.

This will create even more bugs and on top of it would be a game engine that they are not familiar with, resulting in yet more bugs, and also extend the development cycle of the game