Trailers: Unreal Engine 3: Engine Overview

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

I actually really liked the water effects during the thunderstorm. I may not have had a class in physics, but goddamn do I like it when games use real fluids.

And I can hear my processor crying now.

josemlopes:

Sneaklemming:
clearly pc/ps3 graphics there....

Clearly a troll here

Tbh... its more that I'm moaning at how this is all well and good to have good effects etc... but we're never going to see it, because developers that commonly use the ut3 engine develop for consoles... namely the xbox... and as such they dont utilise the best that the engine has to offer...

That rain for example looks like it would melt my PCs gfx card...

ciortas1:

josemlopes:
snip

Because the first 2 Cryengines were only for PC?

PleasantKenobi:
So if the CryEngine is better than the Unreal Engine, why does no one use it?

Beats me, I'd hope someone will answer that to me.

I dont know for sure but I think that Crytek isnt very fond of letting other companies use their tech, you can see their past, not many games were developed with their engine, maybe its because of Ubisoft's backstab, they kind of ripped their engine to create one for themselfs, Dunia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryEngine_2

I am not saying that the CryEngine is bad, I did some stuff with it and with UE3 and I like them both, but I have to give kudos to Epic for their attachement with the community.

Sneaklemming:

josemlopes:

Sneaklemming:
clearly pc/ps3 graphics there....

Clearly a troll here

Tbh... its more that I'm moaning at how this is all well and good to have good effects etc... but we're never going to see it, because developers that commonly use the ut3 engine develop for consoles... namely the xbox... and as such they dont utilise the best that the engine has to offer...

That rain for example looks like it would melt my PCs gfx card...

It is a tech demo, all you get is good looking stuff that in the end they wont be used for now. The engine is capable of having all that stuff but what about all that stuff and with the AI, explosions and the player interactions?

It's not because of the Xbox, its because that is how things work. Tech demos push the limits of multiple features individualy. We still have to wait to have all that stuff at the same time and call the game playable.

josemlopes:

Sneaklemming:

josemlopes:

Clearly a troll here

Tbh... its more that I'm moaning at how this is all well and good to have good effects etc... but we're never going to see it, because developers that commonly use the ut3 engine develop for consoles... namely the xbox... and as such they dont utilise the best that the engine has to offer...

That rain for example looks like it would melt my PCs gfx card...

It is a tech demo, all you get is good looking stuff that in the end they wont be used for now. The engine is capable of having all that stuff but what about all that stuff and with the AI, explosions and the player interactions?

It's not because of the Xbox, its because that is how things work. Tech demos push the limits of multiple features individualy. We still have to wait to have all that stuff at the same time and call the game playable.

Well the question then is if that is a limitation of the system, or a limit of the software coding.

I'm confused - why is this tech vid just out? Have they added in these effects only recently?
Though *ahem* HELL YES. It looks like UT are in competition with Crytek for which engine will become standard on the games consoles. Graphics wars always means the customer is a winner without having to do anything. ^^

josemlopes:

ciortas1:

josemlopes:
snip

Because the first 2 Cryengines were only for PC?

PleasantKenobi:
So if the CryEngine is better than the Unreal Engine, why does no one use it?

Beats me, I'd hope someone will answer that to me.

I dont know for sure but I think that Crytek isnt very fond of letting other companies use their tech, you can see their past, not many games were developed with their engine, maybe its because of Ubisoft's backstab, they kind of ripped their engine to create one for themselfs, Dunia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryEngine_2

I am not saying that the CryEngine is bad, I did some stuff with it and with UE3 and I like them both, but I have to give kudos to Epic for their attachement with the community.

If memory serves me correctly, it's that CryEngine 2 was just pretty inefficient when it came to graphics and out at a similar time to the UT3 engine which ran fine on most consoles. While it was a good engine, it wasn't really optimised well - it could handle pretty much anything you threw at it but in most games, that's just not a feature needed e.g.:


(Yep, that was a fun video to make ^^)
I think Crytek want to be more versatile with CE3 and try to get others devs to use it & become the standard engine hence what looks like emphasis on construction tools that work across platforms.

Straying Bullet:
How have you come to this conclusion of a terrible input latency. Is your sensitivty settings even properly configured on your PC/Console?

Sensitivity has nothing to do with latency.

I play Gears of War 2 just fine like any other TPS/FPS without a 'lag' in my movement, but I am waiting for your evidence of the contrary.

It's not movement, it's aim. Play any FPS based on a Quake engine (Q1-3/Live, HL1/2/episodes, etc), or the earlier Unreal engines (up to UT2k4) and notice how your aim reacts IMMEDIATELY to your mouse movement. Now play UT3, Mass Effect, Borderlands, anything based on UE3. There's a one frame lag between moving your mouse and having it show up on screen. The latest patch of UT3 gives you an option in the advanced menu to turn off this one frame of input lag (yes, it's something that was deliberately added!), but most games built on UE3 do not offer this option.

It's easy to miss the input latency if you're using a console controller, since console controllers are extremely imprecise in the first place. You could also miss it if you either haven't spent a lot of time on engines without input latency, or simply haven't spent a lot of time playing FPS in general. I've spent many thousands of hours over a decade and a half or so playing FPS games, so I'm very very sensitive to this sort of thing.

josemlopes:

GothmogII:
Very, very pretty. It's a shame though, I wonder if even 1/5th of games using the engine will actually do anything visually interesting with those tools. I can just sense the greys and browns oozing below the surface, snarling to get out.

Actually the companies that kind of have "direct access" to this version (Epic and People Can Fly) are making games with this pallete of colors. You can see in Gears of War 3 and Bulletstorm that they also have that yeallowish tone. Grey was so last year, now its yeallow with these two games and other games like Deus Ex lol

ciortas1:

Lost In The Void:

The difference being I can run this on my computer in all likelihood whereas Cryengine 3 would cook it; so I'm much more interested in Unreal Engine's enhancement

Fucking Crysis-related misconceptions, I hate them.

I present to you the minimum requirements for the original Crysis:

CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
Graphics: Nvidia 6600/X800GTO (SM 2.0)
RAM: 768Mb/1Gb on Windows Vista
HDD: 6GB
Software: DX9.0c with Windows XP

This is nothing, less than you could get from a budget PC the moment this game shipped, so unless your PC is a loaf of bread, it wouldn't be cooked by Crysis. Try playing on the lower graphics settings if you're having problems. Just because you can change options doesn't mean they have to be cranked up without any sane thought about your PCs capabilities.

Now, why I'm bringing this up is because the technology has got way, way cheaper and more cost effective than it was three years back, and because Cryengine 3 is made with consoles in mind, naturally it will be better optimised and it's unreasonable, and that's putting it lightly, to think that Cryengine 3 will cook your PC, given how weak the console hardware is when compared to those of even low-end PCs nowadays.

Of course, you won't be able to play this with all the shaders, deferred lighting and global illumination etc. on maximum if you don't invest in a good PC, but that doesn't mean you won't be able to play it at all.

Also, destruction.

Straying Bullet:
snip

I get what you're saying, but not really. It does everything the Unreal Engine does only better, now what route developers choose to go - photorealism or.. the other way - is completely up to them. It would be rather weird if the engine was limited to only gritty brown/green colour textures, the NPCs to perfect human proportions and the scenery to an island, wouldn't it?

Dont forget that there is a reason why you dont see a lot of games with CryEngine.

I support UE3 since Epic gives a load of support to the indie guys with things like "Make something Unreal" where the winner of the contest wins a license to make a fully commercial game to sell. Tripwire (Red Orchestra and Killing Floor) was born with that contest

Agreed I use the free open source version to make maps for killing floor no engine company gives the level support and ease of tool access to the mod community well possible exception of the Bethesda oblivion/fallout engine.

kcarl2a:
Why after all the multiple iterations of this engine can't it render realistic fire?

I was kinda thinking the same, the torch there is just an eyesore next to all that eye candy.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here