[QUOTE=edja007;16252461]Excuse me?[/QUOTE]
Oops, hurf moment there.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;16193035]There's no death ragdoll in Crysis because of German laws preventing it (Crytek is a germany based company)[/QUOTE]
TAKEN- german edition
his daughter goes to disneyland and stays there too long and gets tired
he has to take her home
[QUOTE=ARR DARMA;16253805]TAKEN- german edition
his daughter goes to disneyland and stays there too long and gets tired
he has to take her home[/QUOTE]
in europe you wish
[QUOTE=thisispain;16253821]in europe you wish[/QUOTE]
the germans wanted to honor the americans for all the people they lost 50 years ago
Speaking of engines, has anybody else tried the RE5 pc benchmark? It runs absolutely superbly while looking amazing. On high with no AA I manage 140fps, most games I have which look that good stagger a lot lower. Capcom really have done a good job. Of course it doesn't look as good as the Cryengine 2 but I think it looks a lot better and certainly more crisp visuals than UE3 (while running a fuckload better).
[QUOTE=Rusty100;16256320]Speaking of engines, has anybody else tried the RE5 pc benchmark? It runs absolutely superbly while looking amazing. On high with no AA I manage 140fps, most games I have which look that good stagger a lot lower. Capcom really have done a good job. Of course it doesn't look as good as the Cryengine 2 but I think it looks a lot better and certainly more crisp visuals than UE3 (while running a fuckload better).[/QUOTE]
I got an average of 92 FPS on the long benchmark test with an i7 920 and GTX 295. Was your 140 FPS an average or peak :\
[QUOTE=Shogoll;16251846]Not anyone can do what is done in that video, the point isn't the higher FPS, the point of that video is the fact that CryEngine can even handle that many objects with that level of fidelity in the first place. If you tried to stack up that many boxes in Source you'd probably run into some stupid shit like the entity limit or allocated memory limit.
Also your statement is incredibly dumb because a greater proportion of developers using the engine does not correlate at all to the quality of the engine. A lot of developers use the UE3 engine because they're scared away by rumors that it's supposedly impossible to run on new computers, and by the general ignorance of the gaming crowd, or because it has aggressive marketing and is a popular brand name. Not necessarily because it's a superior or better suited engine.
[editline]02:21AM[/editline]
Yeah dude fuck you
[editline]02:24AM[/editline]
Again I can't make an objective comparison since I haven't experimented with this in depth, but as far as I know Source physics aren't as good as those in CryEngine; I've had bad experiences with spazzing/black holing/over all dumb crap that happens when working with physics in Source.[/QUOTE]
I am REALLY sure the software developers know much more about engines then you do, how would you know if the UE3 engine was shit? It's one of the most optimized engines out there that SUPPORT multi-core processors efficiently unlike Crysis([url]http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=102244[/url]). They wouldn't buy an engine just by marketing.
EDIT:
Honestly I think Cryengine 2 and UE3 are completly different engines that have their own complete pros and cons. I don't think its really fair to compare them. I would say Cryengine 2 is better at doing open-ended enviroments while UE3 is better at doing closed-enviroments.
[QUOTE=edja007;16249405]I don't like CE2 physics much. Sure it is good in masses, but it is so undetailed, eugh.[/QUOTE]
Which is why you can shoot down individual trees and watch the leaves bend realistically as they fall on the ground :downs:
How the fuck do you think people run crysis with 1 core?
Ut3 engine looks like ass on my machine
The shaders combine with my low graphics capabilities to make ugly ass shit.
On my PC HL2 looks better than UT3.
[QUOTE=Pandamobile;16256761]I got an average of 92 FPS on the long benchmark test with an i7 920 and GTX 295. Was your 140 FPS an average or peak :\[/QUOTE]
average of the first level since it breaks after that on dx9. with 8xAA on in dx10 my average is 91 (all 4 areas)
[QUOTE=FunnyGamer;16253099]This is a form of shitposting.
See how the topic is a discussion about Cryengine2 and UE3? Sure, you can say "I like both of these mentioned in the topic, but Source better", or something to that extent, but NOT "HURR HURR SOURCE IS BESTSTSTSTSSTER!"[/QUOTE]
No, i like only Cryengine of the 2 mentioned, but SOURCE IS T3H BEST ANYWAY LOLOLOLLOLZLOL HURF DURF
lol oltro
-snip-
[QUOTE=Chunk3ym4n;16257305]I am REALLY sure the software developers know much more about engines then you do, how would you know if the UE3 engine was shit? It's one of the most optimized engines out there that SUPPORT multi-core processors efficiently unlike Crysis([url]http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=102244[/url]). They wouldn't buy an engine just by marketing.
EDIT:
Honestly I think Cryengine 2 and UE3 are completly different engines that have their own complete pros and cons. I don't think its really fair to compare them. I would say Cryengine 2 is better at doing open-ended enviroments while UE3 is better at doing closed-enviroments.[/QUOTE]
Obviously the Software devs know more about engines than I do, but I'd like to think that I know more about engines than the average idiot that make up a great proportion of PC users. If you constantly see the whole "OMFG U CNT RUN CRYSIS ON A SUPER COMPUTER!!!1111" hype everywhere, than that doesn't really encourage you to buy a game which is based on CryEngine. The devs have to cater to the gaming population, and if CryEngine has received a bad reputation for being unoptimized and difficult to run, then it's not going to sell as well as a game based on UE3, which is famous and widely known.
Also that link you posted is filled with idiots who don't know what they're discussing at all. Claiming that Crysis doesn't utilize multiple cores properly when they're already badly bottle necked by a slow GPU is fucking dumb. They're arguing that CryEngine is badly coded because it's only using 50% of each core, instead of 90%+ of each core, because higher CPU usage supposedly correlates to a better coded engine. That's totally bullshit.
Parallax Occlusion Maps, they are sexy. Fact.
[QUOTE=SnakeFace;16266048]Parallax Occlusion Maps, they are sexy. Fact.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, Parallax is the shit.
[QUOTE=imaguy;16257398]Which is why you can shoot down individual trees and watch the leaves bend realistically as they fall on the ground :downs:[/QUOTE]
Yes because in real life the leaves of a palm tree drastically reduce impact.
[QUOTE=SnakeFace;16266048]Parallax Occlusion Maps, they are sexy. Fact.[/QUOTE]
Fact. Parallax Specular are sexy too, especially for the metal. 4 'da metal das teh shit.
You couldn't do Bioshock well in Cry engine 2. Just think about it.
In this case UE3 was perfect for this game (since evrything needs to look wet)
If you however making a hughe and open (realistic) game like well: Crysis, Battlefield, Red faction, I think cryengine would do better.
[QUOTE=taipan;16301471]You couldn't do Bioshock well in Cry engine 2. Just think about it.
In this case UE3 was perfect for this game (since evrything needs to look wet)
If you however making a hughe and open (realistic) game like well: Crysis, Battlefield, Red faction, I think cryengine would do better.[/QUOTE]
So you are saying CryEngine 2 can't do wet environments, despite Sandbox 2 having a shader that you just tick and it instantly gives you the impression water is running off the object?
[QUOTE=MisterM;16302037]So you are saying CryEngine 2 can't do wet environments, despite Sandbox 2 having a shader that you just tick and it instantly gives you the impression water is running off the object?[/QUOTE]
He doesn't know what he's talking about.
[QUOTE=Occlusion;16224397]LOOK AT THIS SHIT. I love the cryengine, so adaptable.
[img]http://www.crymod.com/uploads/mediapool/2107_snca/5.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.crymod.com/uploads/mediapool/2107_snca/3.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
actually that looks quite bad. all but the sides/walls of the buttes look like blurry shit
[QUOTE=edja007;16304112]He doesn't know what he's talking about.[/QUOTE]
Very few people do in this thread.
[QUOTE=M_B;16305390]actually that looks quite bad. all but the sides/walls of the buttes look like blurry shit[/QUOTE]
Shall we see the same scene made in source and UE3 to a higher quality?
I prefer the UT3 engine.
But its map making system is [I]horrible[/I]
[QUOTE=mikeyt493;16306454]I prefer the UT3 engine.
But its map making system is [I]horrible[/I][/QUOTE]
You mean, professional?
Have you not played Photoreal II
[hd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD1VM6ML57w[/hd]
I have this map, It's incredibly detailed.
[editline]01:29PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rusty100;16256320]Speaking of engines, has anybody else tried the RE5 pc benchmark? It runs absolutely superbly while looking amazing. On high with no AA I manage 140fps, most games I have which look that good stagger a lot lower. Capcom really have done a good job. Of course it doesn't look as good as the Cryengine 2 but I think it looks a lot better and certainly more crisp visuals than UE3 (while running a fuckload better).[/QUOTE]
Average: 56 FPS with 2xaa
4870 512 mb.
What gpu you have?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
