I'd say the raw number of polygons in that outdoor screenshot beats our more contemporary engines squarely. The graphic design isn't the best, true, but I'd still assume a higher potency of the U3 engine.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sub zer0+Feb 27 2005, 03:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sub zer0 @ Feb 27 2005, 03:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Must say that S.T.A.L.K.E.R is an impresive game the ai alone is out standing then the gfx are uber if they succed we will indeed have a game of the year(s) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 50% to 100% of the buildings within the 30^2 Km of the entire play area will be ACCESSABLE. Lets see the Unreal engine do this and run decently... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Now the image of that beast was making me crap my pants, but i'm quite sure even my top-of-the-line computer will choke and gag and commit suicide if it ever tried to render a 3 million polygon model with self-shadowing, dynamic lighting, as well as high dynamic range lighting... Granted, unreal 3 will probably stick to a "dumbed down" version and use only a fraction of the total power it's capable of. But i guesstimate that since even the best computers cough at Doom 3 with ultra-high (which i'm also guesstimating is as close to Unreal 3 engine's abilities) set, i'm guessing they'll gag on Unreal 3... Even with the advancement of hardware and software.
.. And BadKarma, I'll guess a wager at Aug. to about Nov. (now is the winter of our content. heh.) for the release of Stalker. Close to Xmas, as well as at a time when it gets cold/snow begins to fall and people want to stay indoors. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-BadKarma+Feb 28 2005, 12:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BadKarma @ Feb 28 2005, 12:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> P.S. Where is your sig from Venmoch, it's bugging the hell out of me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Spaced, a rather good British Comedy that I have only recently started watching.
Holy fudge, the stalker engine is way sexier then I remebered from the preview vids. Another game I'm going to need to get <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Okay lets say this u3 has the best gfx in the world but wait i would value gameplay over gfx any day, stalker has that im not saying u3 wont /dont have that gameplay..
<!--QuoteBegin-Sub zer0+Feb 27 2005, 05:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sub zer0 @ Feb 27 2005, 05:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Okay lets say this u3 has the best gfx in the world but wait i would value gameplay over gfx any day, stalker has that im not saying u3 wont /dont have that gameplay.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It has absolutely ZERO graphics (only text characters, representing things) and yet it is surprisingly fun and addictive, being very true to a good majority of the Doom games with a distinct feel all it's own. Then, compare it to Doom 3 which has superb graphics.
Then ask yourself, with which one would you play more of?
<!--QuoteBegin-Sub zer0+Feb 27 2005, 08:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sub zer0 @ Feb 27 2005, 08:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Okay lets say this u3 has the best gfx in the world but wait i would value gameplay over gfx any day, stalker has that im not saying u3 wont /dont have that gameplay.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh groan... can't you just leave it with "I like A screenshot better than B screenshot", instead of constantly trying to undermine the topic of this thread?!
Only <b>one</b> game has licensed this <b>engine</b> from Epic Games. There is no game released from the Unreal Engine 3.0 yet. Gameplay is <b>not</b> a concern in this thread. We're talking eye candy here. Stop fretting over whether or not this game will beat S.T.A.L.K.E.R., and just appreciate the visuals!
I saw the video of that a few months back... /me healsprays in his ponce.
And from what I understand, the models are high poly, but most detail comes from bump mapping. "Most of our characters are built from two meshes: a realtime mesh with thousands of triangles, and a detail mesh with millions of triangles. We provide a distributed-computing application which raytraces the detail mesh and, from its high-polygon geometry, generates a normal map that is applied to the realtime mesh when rendering. The result is in-game objects with all of the lighting detail of the high poly mesh, but that are still easily rendered in real time."
I remember reading a while ago that the tech demo at E3 was done using a GF6600, as that was the only thing that could run it at decent frame rates... So, the engine does technically run on today's hardware.
CplDavisI hunt the arctic SnonosJoin Date: 2003-01-09Member: 12097Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Sub zer0+Feb 27 2005, 06:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sub zer0 @ Feb 27 2005, 06:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hl2 works on old computer becuase it was being made for 6 years nearly and it was well made i doubt unreal 3 will becuase they will want it out fast for more money so rather than make it for old computers (to an extent) make it for new one lasts longer too <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Then again i dont think it will be that bad.
If you take a look at the Unreal engine tech demo video they say how they use displacement mapping and other things.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...build a very high lvl detail mesh, then build a very low resolution /detail version of that same mesh,, thenmesh processing tool compares the two models and stores the difference in a map texture. The engine then draws the low res asset with the normal map giving the impression that it is displaying its high poly counterpart in real time. This allows display of immensly detailed worlds at excellent frame rates.
*"Shows out side of building"
The scene you are looking at here is around 1,000,000 polygons of total ingame assets. Which came from about 200,000,000 polygons of source art.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
bla bla bla
seems it wont be too bad of a drain on your PC. i hope lol.
Stop posting this kind of pictars, my 'puter got all depressive <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Seriously, that's so many triangles, my PC would burn if I tried to play it <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Sub zer0+Feb 28 2005, 12:18 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sub zer0 @ Feb 28 2005, 12:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hl2 works on old computer becuase it was being made for 6 years nearly and it was well made i doubt unreal 3 will becuase they will want it out fast for more money so rather than make it for old computers (to an extent) make it for new one lasts longer too<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Doom3 was in development for 5 years, and it takes pride in demolishing today's computers. Infact, I would go as far as saying the Doom3 engine was pretty much finished back in 2000 during the GF3 introduction, and it had just been on standby until hardware could handle it.
Wondering what the hell they did with the remaining 4 years, I wouldn't dare to guess...
Alcapwn"War is the science of destruction" - John AbbotJoin Date: 2003-06-21Member: 17590Members
Heh, when i saw the <b>first</b> video ever of the Unreal 3 engine, Besides picking up my jaw off the floor, i was also lauging my **** off for all the people that clapped when the guy on the stage said something like, "And for the 1st time in video game history, we will have models that have Realistic lighting shadows which cast the shadow %100 accurately with no blockyness or bla bla bla" (something like that) Like All the people in the audience clapped for that... <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Didn't read thr<span style='color:white'>ough</span> the whole topic so forgive me if <span style='color:white'>someone</span> already s<span style='color:white'>ai</span>d this: I believe models <span style='color:white'>and</span> their shadows are going to be calculated at 1.000.000 polygons and rendered ingame in 10.000 for normal creatures to 100.000 for bigger ones...
Any<span style='color:white'>one</span> seen the video<span style='color:white'>,</span> btw?
KungFuSquirrelBasher of MuttonsJoin Date: 2002-01-26Member: 103Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<!--QuoteBegin-CplDavis+Feb 28 2005, 01:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CplDavis @ Feb 28 2005, 01:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...build a very high lvl detail mesh, then build a very low resolution /detail version of that same mesh,, thenmesh processing tool compares the two models and stores the difference in a map texture. The engine then draws the low res asset with the normal map giving the impression that it is displaying its high poly counterpart in real time. This allows display of immensly detailed worlds at excellent frame rates.
*"Shows out side of building"
The scene you are looking at here is around 1,000,000 polygons of total ingame assets. Which came from about 200,000,000 polygons of source art.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
bla bla bla
seems it wont be too bad of a drain on your PC. i hope lol. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's the same process Doom3 uses, and look how many people were happy with how that ran. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Biggest difference is a few new features and much higher-resolution/detail content, but beyond that it's mostly the standard id/epic leapfrog pushing just a little farther than the last one.
Min spec on this engine is at least a gf 6800, if I recall. Rumor has it there may be a title on this engine as a launch title or soon after for the xbox 2, but that's just rumors on the internets for you <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It might be interesting to note that doom 2 was very close to the cuting edge, perhaps more so than doom 3 or any other iD game. Minimum requirements are intel 486 at 66Mhz and 8 MB or RAM, the fastest thing intel had out at the time was the 100 MHz pentium released march 94' at a ~1000$ price point.
<!--QuoteBegin-Soylent green+Feb 28 2005, 06:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Soylent green @ Feb 28 2005, 06:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It might be interesting to note that doom 2 was very close to the cuting edge, perhaps more so than doom 3 or any other iD game. Minimum requirements are intel 486 at 66Mhz and 8 MB or RAM, the fastest thing intel had out at the time was the 100 MHz pentium released march 94' at a ~1000$ price point. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Incorrect.
I'm looking at my DOOM II box right now and the minimum specs are:
[quote]doom2 ran fine on my 486 50, but i had 16 mb[quote]
And there's people that find that doom 3 runs fine on < minimum requirements as well.
[QUOTE] But isn't DOOM II just a glorified expansion pack?
(In all honesty) [/QUOTE]
Doom 1 only required a 33 MHz 386 and 4 MBs of RAM(and ran remotely decently on it). Doom 2 had hordes of monsters and more open maps and would have quite a bit worse on the same hardware.
[QUOTE=Doom maniac]Incorrect.
I'm looking at my DOOM II box right now and the minimum specs are:
funny... I was looking at id software's site just before making my post.
(And doom 1 ran quite a bit smoother and was a bit less open/had less monsters in hordes. I guess they revised their minimum requirements then when they realized their mistake?)
Comments
P.S. Where is your sig from Venmoch, it's bugging the hell out of me.
50% to 100% of the buildings within the 30^2 Km of the entire play area will be ACCESSABLE.
Lets see the Unreal engine do this and run decently... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Now the image of that beast was making me crap my pants, but i'm quite sure even my top-of-the-line computer will choke and gag and commit suicide if it ever tried to render a 3 million polygon model with self-shadowing, dynamic lighting, as well as high dynamic range lighting... Granted, unreal 3 will probably stick to a "dumbed down" version and use only a fraction of the total power it's capable of. But i guesstimate that since even the best computers cough at Doom 3 with ultra-high (which i'm also guesstimating is as close to Unreal 3 engine's abilities) set, i'm guessing they'll gag on Unreal 3... Even with the advancement of hardware and software.
.. And BadKarma, I'll guess a wager at Aug. to about Nov. (now is the winter of our content. heh.) for the release of Stalker. Close to Xmas, as well as at a time when it gets cold/snow begins to fall and people want to stay indoors. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Spaced, a rather good British Comedy that I have only recently started watching.
i am the biggest STALKER-c*sucker at these forums..
but this absolutely pwns it in terms of small-area environments O_O
<img src='http://www.unrealtechnology.com/screens/HDRGlow.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
[Agreed.]
//Shameless plug
<a href='http://chaos.magma-net.pl/doom/' target='_blank'>The Doom Roguelike</a>
It has absolutely ZERO graphics (only text characters, representing things) and yet it is surprisingly fun and addictive, being very true to a good majority of the Doom games with a distinct feel all it's own. Then, compare it to Doom 3 which has superb graphics.
Then ask yourself, with which one would you play more of?
Sweet. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://home.comcast.net/~grain_silo/Mommy.gif' target='_blank'>If you ask me, he looks kinda sad.</a> <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Oh groan... can't you just leave it with "I like A screenshot better than B screenshot", instead of constantly trying to undermine the topic of this thread?!
Only <b>one</b> game has licensed this <b>engine</b> from Epic Games. There is no game released from the Unreal Engine 3.0 yet. Gameplay is <b>not</b> a concern in this thread. We're talking eye candy here. Stop fretting over whether or not this game will beat S.T.A.L.K.E.R., and just appreciate the visuals!
/me healsprays in his ponce.
And from what I understand, the models are high poly, but most detail comes from bump mapping.
"Most of our characters are built from two meshes: a realtime mesh with thousands of triangles, and a detail mesh with millions of triangles. We provide a distributed-computing application which raytraces the detail mesh and, from its high-polygon geometry, generates a normal map that is applied to the realtime mesh when rendering. The result is in-game objects with all of the lighting detail of the high poly mesh, but that are still easily rendered in real time."
Unless the quote was bogus and incorrect.
Then again i dont think it will be that bad.
If you take a look at the Unreal engine tech demo video they say how they use displacement mapping and other things.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...build a very high lvl detail mesh, then build a very low resolution /detail version of that same mesh,, thenmesh processing tool compares the two models and stores the difference in a map texture. The engine then draws the low res asset with the normal map giving the impression that it is displaying its high poly counterpart in real time. This allows display of immensly detailed worlds at excellent frame rates.
*"Shows out side of building"
The scene you are looking at here is around 1,000,000 polygons of total ingame assets.
Which came from about 200,000,000 polygons of source art.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
bla bla bla
seems it wont be too bad of a drain on your PC.
i hope lol.
Seriously, that's so many triangles, my PC would burn if I tried to play it <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Doom3 was in development for 5 years, and it takes pride in demolishing today's computers. Infact, I would go as far as saying the Doom3 engine was pretty much finished back in 2000 during the GF3 introduction, and it had just been on standby until hardware could handle it.
Wondering what the hell they did with the remaining 4 years, I wouldn't dare to guess...
I believe models <span style='color:white'>and</span> their shadows are going to be calculated at 1.000.000 polygons and rendered ingame in 10.000 for normal creatures to 100.000 for bigger ones...
Any<span style='color:white'>one</span> seen the video<span style='color:white'>,</span> btw?
Best Regards
- Rover
<span style='color:white'>Hint, hint...</span>
*"Shows out side of building"
The scene you are looking at here is around 1,000,000 polygons of total ingame assets.
Which came from about 200,000,000 polygons of source art.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
bla bla bla
seems it wont be too bad of a drain on your PC.
i hope lol. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's the same process Doom3 uses, and look how many people were happy with how that ran. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Biggest difference is a few new features and much higher-resolution/detail content, but beyond that it's mostly the standard id/epic leapfrog pushing just a little farther than the last one.
Min spec on this engine is at least a gf 6800, if I recall. Rumor has it there may be a title on this engine as a launch title or soon after for the xbox 2, but that's just rumors on the internets for you <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Incorrect.
I'm looking at my DOOM II box right now and the minimum specs are:
386/33 DX
DOS 5.0
20MB HDD
4MB RAM
VGA Graphics
DOOM I has the same system requirements.
(In all honesty)
And there's people that find that doom 3 runs fine on < minimum requirements as well.
[QUOTE] But isn't DOOM II just a glorified expansion pack?
(In all honesty)
[/QUOTE]
Doom 1 only required a 33 MHz 386 and 4 MBs of RAM(and ran remotely decently on it). Doom 2 had hordes of monsters and more open maps and would have quite a bit worse on the same hardware.
[QUOTE=Doom maniac]Incorrect.
I'm looking at my DOOM II box right now and the minimum specs are:
386/33 DX
DOS 5.0
20MB HDD
4MB RAM
VGA Graphics
DOOM I has the same system requirements.[/QUOTE]
<a href='http://www.idsoftware.com/games/doom/doom2/index.php?game_section=sysreq' target='_blank'>http://www.idsoftware.com/games/doom/doom2..._section=sysreq</a>
funny... I was looking at id software's site just before making my post.
(And doom 1 ran quite a bit smoother and was a bit less open/had less monsters in hordes. I guess they revised their minimum requirements then when they realized their mistake?)
(In all honesty) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes.
And Soylent Green: My box > id's website. :P