[QUOTE=Clementine;37165367]words[/QUOTE]
I haven't seen CryEngine do indoors well at all. It always looks like a shadowy mess.
difference
Valve makes a game and builds on anything they need to the engine they use for it.
Crytek make an Engine and slap a game on top to show it off.
Im pretty sure valve would win in an Engine dick stroking contest if they ever decided they wanted too. Valve have like... Unlimited resources because of their constant income from steam. Im fairly sure that larger maps, tesselation and better fog aren't a problem for valve.
[QUOTE=The Jack;37165710]difference
Valve makes a game and builds on anything they need to the engine they use for it.
Crytek make an Engine and slap a game on top to show it off.
Im pretty sure valve would win in an Engine dick stroking contest if they ever decided they wanted too. Valve have like... Unlimited resources because of their constant income from steam. Im fairly sure that larger maps, tesselation and better fog aren't a problem for valve.[/QUOTE]
Do you know CryDev page?the modders team makes things that are impossible to achieve in source engine. Also with a sdk that is not outdated
[QUOTE=danharibo;37165510]I haven't seen CryEngine do indoors well at all. It always looks like a shadowy mess.[/QUOTE]
Some engines do certain environments better than others, the games that CryEngine is principally used for is used for giant open environments, so its only natural that it has a little hardship when indoors, because it was not really something for the dev's to care much about.
[editline]10th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=The Jack;37165710]difference
Valve makes a game and builds on anything they need to the engine they use for it.
Crytek make an Engine and slap a game on top to show it off.
Im pretty sure valve would win in an Engine dick stroking contest if they ever decided they wanted too. Valve have like... Unlimited resources because of their constant income from steam. Im fairly sure that larger maps, tesselation and better fog aren't a problem for valve.[/QUOTE]
I don't really know much about anything when it comes to engines, and I won't pretend to, but I can gather from Crytek's track record with their engines that they are insanely good at what they do, especially open environments, that seems to be their forte. You seem to give Valve this godlike persona, as if it could never be bested, when that is simply not true, Valve makes mistakes all the time, mostly to do with their time management skills or milking of certain games (though this doesn't necessarily count as a mistake, just more of a thing the community may see as negative). They are not an all amazing company, and I would love to see the sources and citations you are utilizing to make such bold claims as to discredit Crytek, and act as if Valve has the best engine engineers known to man, because so far, it seems like Crytek has them.
[QUOTE=Clementine;37165937]I don't really know much about anything when it comes to engines, and I won't pretend to, but I can gather from Crytek's track record with their engines that they are insanely good at what they do, especially open environments, that seems to be their forte. You seem to give Valve this godlike persona, as if it could never be bested, when that is simply not true, Valve makes mistakes all the time, mostly to do with their time management skills or milking of certain games (though this doesn't necessarily count as a mistake, just more of a thing the community may see as negative). They are not an all amazing company, and I would love to see the sources and citations you are utilizing to make such bold claims as to discredit Crytek, and act as if Valve has the best engine engineers known to man, because so far, it seems like Crytek has them.[/QUOTE]
Not sure if you're misinformed, incredibly stupid, or just trolling.
[url]http://techreport.com/articles.x/21404/1[/url]
But here you go. Granted, CryEngine 2/3 were highly impressive, but YOU have to get off your high horse and face the facts. Source is one of the most robust(and some might question me on this) game engines out there.
[QUOTE=Robertto;37163723][video=youtube;dhXiEXXPjBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXiEXXPjBE&feature=g-all-lik[/video]
[editline]10th August 2012[/editline]
source would crash rendering only the fucking frog xD[/QUOTE]
So... what is you saying, that engine made in 2009 is better than the one made in 2004? Quite interesting.
[QUOTE=Wulfyx;37166231]So... what is you saying, that engine made in 2009 is better than the one made in 2004? Quite interesting.[/QUOTE]
quite interesting nobody catches the joke, mainly for all the people saying that source can compite with modern engines.
[QUOTE=Clementine;37165937]:words:[/QUOTE]
To be quite frank, Valve may not have the best and most powerful engine made to man right now, but they're still a huge success. You could say it's all from the help of Steam, but who made Steam? Valve.
[QUOTE=Clementine;37165937]They are not an all amazing company, and I would love to see the sources and citations you are utilizing to make such bold claims as to discredit Crytek, and act as if Valve has the best engine engineers known to man, because so far, it seems like Crytek has them.[/QUOTE]
Crytek themselves aren't such a bad company but are more or less punched in the face and kicked in the balls by EA. Yet despite the fact that their engine looks incredibly beautiful, Valve still manage to make good looking maps for older systems and get more hype for one of their singleplayer games such as any game from the Half Life series than Crytek will ever get, not to mention the amount of availability and modding you can do for the Source engine which has made other people's lives successful.
And I know that it's not much of a huge factor, but considering that every time Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw reviews a Valve game, he's given it has best words. Hell, [URL="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/6126-Half-Life"]he reviewed Half-Life[/URL] the other day as he didn't have a game to review from the Escapist, and out of the millions of other games he could have chosen, guess what he chose? A Valve game. Okay, so we're moving away from engines here a little, but my point is Valve quite possibly does have some of the best "engineers" out there, because they can make the best out of what they have and not rely on technology 5 years into the future so you can play the game on full graphics.
No, I don't have proof to back this up, so you can still feel smug in your armchair knowing that I couldn't give you a "proper retaliated message" because you can't accept the fact that an engine doesn't have to look good to be good. Dumb me if you will but that's how I feel about the whole situation. Maybe you should think about how this forum originally came to place due to a certain company from the very beginning...
[QUOTE=Clementine;37165367]Cryengine 3 is more than its particle effects, and you'd know that if you would get off your ignorant high horse once in awhile.[/QUOTE]
Did I only speak about particle effets? No
Did I say CryEngine is bad? No
The point is just that CryTek did a good job a putting everything together, even if the technologies were already present for the past few years, and the engine can still show its weaknesses when it comes to content designed by artists themselves and not procedurally generated by the engine.
As you said yourself, you don't know much about engines, so why do you act like this? I'm not THE biggest engine developer of the world and I'm far from being so, but I'm not ignorant either.
Now what makes people think that Valve does better graphics than CryTek? Sure, if you compare a Source game screenshot and a CryEngine game screenshot side by side, the CryEngine one looks more detailed. But what makes a game really good-looking to people who think deeper than a benchmark is the visual style made by the game artists, not the amount of glow and volumetric effects you can put into it. I'm pretty confident people here will prefer playing Episode Two again because the graphics immerse them better than other games that might look more realistic. This, and the story behind the game.
[QUOTE=Clementine;37165937]Some engines do certain environments better than others, the games that CryEngine is principally used for is used for giant open environments, so its only natural that it has a little hardship when indoors, because it was not really something for the dev's to care much about.
[/quote]
Wrong.
[QUOTE=Clementine;37165937]
I don't really know much about anything when it comes to engines, and I won't pretend to, but I can gather from Crytek's track record with their engines that they are insanely good at what they do, especially open environments, that seems to be their forte. You seem to give Valve this godlike persona, as if it could never be bested, when that is simply not true, Valve makes mistakes all the time, mostly to do with their time management skills or milking of certain games (though this doesn't necessarily count as a mistake, just more of a thing the community may see as negative). They are not an all amazing company, and I would love to see the sources and citations you are utilizing to make such bold claims as to discredit Crytek, and act as if Valve has the best engine engineers known to man, because so far, it seems like Crytek has them.[/QUOTE]
Valve
- No publisher overlord
- Constant stream of income from steam (finances aren't a problem)
So they can hire whoever they like to get whatever done. To make you happy they could even hire all the guys from crytek. We don't think that everyone in valve is perfect and thus produces only quality- we believe that valve Make quality because they can take more time and can hire better people or get interesting hardware.
I'm still at a loss of words when people are talking about how "cloth physics" are so amazing these days.
Hitman: Codename 47 had both cloth and ragdoll physics, and it came out 11 years ago. [[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitman:_Codename_47]source[/url]]
Granted, the physics of these things have gone further, but I still believe that what is being shown in the CryEngine 3 showcases, and what is being shown in most other places is pretty much just dated technology with shiny effects added onto it. With some exceptions, of course.
All in all, I'm not saying that engines today are shit, only that they're not performing as well as they should and providing the visuals that should be.
Optimization still seems to me to be lacking behind in many of todays modern games. An exception to this is the id Tech 5 engine, as shown in RAGE. Granted, there were a lot of problems with that game, and the pop-in textures could be massively annoying, but the visuals/performance ratio in that game is pretty amazing. I get a flat-out 60 FPS on the maxed out settings, running this on a ATi HD 4670 with Windows 7 x64. Without touching any config files, I still get those texture pop-ins of course, which is a sad side-effect of streaming and not-all-that-optimized-as-it-should-be. But all in all, the game ran pretty darn well, even on dated machines. And that is how it SHOULD be!
Game engines today should play on older machines, and still scale well so that maybe in 2 or 3 years, the graphics card released there will be able to fully maximize the settings in games released "today".
But this is all just my opinion on this whole engine thing.
It seems there is less optimization when we are pushing forwards in hardware. Think of it as having a shitty computer and trying to make a game run and look fantastic on it, what will you do? Optimize the shit out of it (Like what they did with source for HL2) But now that we are getting hardware that is capable of playing these non-optimized games there is no reason to optimize them to get the best possible performance.
[QUOTE=Shirky;37170118]It seems there is less optimization when we are pushing forwards in hardware. Think of it as having a shitty computer and trying to make a game run and look fantastic on it, what will you do? Optimize the shit out of it (Like what they did with source for HL2) But now that we are getting hardware that is capable of playing these non-optimized games there is no reason to optimize them to get the best possible performance.[/QUOTE]
No, that's not the case at all. Go read some papers on any modern graphics technique, crazy shit has to be done for most techniques to be realtime.
The word optimization is thrown around so much by idiots.
[QUOTE=SiPlus;37148823]Dark Messiah, a Source engine game released 5 years before Skyrim, looks much better than Skyrim.[/QUOTE]
You're either trolling or are a massive fanboy. Whenever I play Dark Messiah, I can't help but notice just how badly it aged.
[QUOTE=laylay;37170226]No, that's not the case at all. Go read some papers on any modern graphics technique, crazy shit has to be done for most techniques to be realtime.*
The word optimization is thrown around so much by idiots.[/QUOTE]
* On consoles.
FTFY.
[QUOTE=Clementine;37165367]Of course you insult the engine because its being pushed at you in a negative tone, your bias is incredible. Cryengine 3 looks better in every aspect than Source, don't be naive.
[editline]10th August 2012[/editline]
oh my fucking god are you seriously one of those generic pretentious indie game developers? So fucking...wow, holy shit.
Cryengine 3 is more than its particle effects, and you'd know that if you would get off your ignorant high horse once in awhile.[/QUOTE]
So he made PERFECTLY CORRECT ANALYZATION OF CE3.4 And you suddenly revert to bashing him for being an "generic pretentious indie game developers".
What he said is perfectly correct, not a single point in there was wrong or bias (Except that he obviously has witnessed engines that can shove equal amounts of polys; without the shitty Hollywood effects).
If you ripped out CE3.4's crappy bloom and tendancy to make everything have high diffuse specular, fixed its Motionblur; it, by itself would be a really good engine.
Edit: Found the Engine again; this is the one I'd love to work with.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLd8kEQJIzw[/media]
Stop bringing up skyrim. It just makes me want to throw things at you. It's a mosty ugly game and todd's a colossal cunt.
I realy hope we get grass/terrain like this soon. But im not sure if it's fps friendly and optimised or they have a beast of a computer. It's still pretty good though.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdMaFWGLxKE[/url]
[QUOTE=The Jack;37173020]Stop bringing up skyrim. It just makes me want to throw things at you. It's a mosty ugly game and todd's a colossal cunt.
I realy hope we get grass/terrain like this soon. But im not sure if it's fps friendly and optimised or they have a beast of a computer. It's still pretty good though.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdMaFWGLxKE[/url][/QUOTE]
yeah, we really need to get rid of vbsp and slap something more dynamic and less limited. Reducing texture resolution seems more inteligent than cutting the grass in distance
[QUOTE=Alienmario;37173175]yeah, we really need to get rid of vbsp and slap something more dynamic and less limited. Reducing texture resolution seems more inteligent than cutting the grass in distance[/QUOTE]
Why render that much grass at a distance where it only causes the odd aliasing, after a certain distance you only have to render low-poly meshes that rise off the ground the amount the grass does on average, it saves a TON of performance .... and looks fine.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;37173203]Why render that much grass at a distance where it only causes the odd aliasing, after a certain distance you only have to render low-poly meshes that rise off the ground the amount the grass does on average, it saves a TON of performance .... and looks fine.[/QUOTE]
Ill be happy with anything that can be seen in distance and doesn't pop in. (Last time I tried I wasn't able to set the detail fade distance in source(I know there are both the entity and console commands))
[QUOTE=Alienmario;37173325]Ill be happy with anything that can be seen in distance and doesn't pop in. (Last time I tried I wasn't able to set the detail fade distance in source(I know there are both the entity and console commands))[/QUOTE]
One method of optimization is "Impostoring", where basically the engine renders the object from a few different angles to textures, applied on billboards. When at a large distance, the billboards are shown with the baked texture, and it smoothly fades in to the real 3D model as you come nearby.
This avoids objects popping in out of nowhere most of the time (assuming you don't have a limited amount of entities, which would still be a dealbreaker in current Source engine).
[QUOTE=Alienmario;37173325]Ill be happy with anything that can be seen in distance and doesn't pop in. (Last time I tried I wasn't able to set the detail fade distance in source(I know there are both the entity and console commands))[/QUOTE]
LODs are pain in the ass in (games in general) Source.
You use them for reducing the ammount of stuff needing to be rendered, but to make smooth transitions (no poping) at close distances, you need to basically render the model 2 times (The near LOD, and the far LOD) so it can get counter-intuitive.
[QUOTE=xplodwild;37173370]One method of optimization is "Impostoring", where basically the engine renders the object from a few different angles to textures, applied on billboards. When at a large distance, the billboards are shown with the baked texture, and it smoothly fades in to the real 3D model as you come nearby.
This avoids objects popping in out of nowhere most of the time (assuming you don't have a limited amount of entities, which would still be a dealbreaker in current Source engine).[/QUOTE]
IIRC FrostBite 2.? uses this method (a bit more advanced, but the technique is the same) You can especially see it in Bad Company 2.
[QUOTE=The Jack;37173020]Stop bringing up skyrim. It just makes me want to throw things at you. It's a mosty ugly game and todd's a colossal cunt.
I realy hope we get grass/terrain like this soon. But im not sure if it's fps friendly and optimised or they have a beast of a computer. It's still pretty good though.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdMaFWGLxKE[/url][/QUOTE]
Do you mean something like this?
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29_TMEPgziA&feature=youtu.be[/url]
I mean it may not be quite what you had in mind. But it's the closest I've seen in Source.
[QUOTE=Emo Panda;37175272]Do you mean something like this?
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29_TMEPgziA&feature=youtu.be[/url]
I mean it may not be quite what you had in mind. But it's the closest I've seen in Source.[/QUOTE]
I believe that's from the same guy who made the Deferred mod for Alien Swarm (Biohazard)
[QUOTE=glitchvid;37172830]* On consoles.
FTFY.[/QUOTE]
You didn't fix anything, I don't think you comprehend or appreciate the black magic that has to be done to get certain things realtime even on the top of the line graphics cards. Which is why it pisses me off when idiots throw around the word optimized like they have the first clue what goes into optimizing any modern realtime graphics technique.
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;37169944]but I still believe that what is being shown in the CryEngine 3 showcases, and what is being shown in most other places is pretty much just dated technology with shiny effects added onto it. With some exceptions, of course.
[/QUOTE]
You know what's sad? Crysis 1/CryEngine2 [B]HAD CLOTH PHYSICS[/B]
All they did was re-implement it and fix it up a bit - so yeah, exactly what you said.
[QUOTE=laylay;37177403]You didn't fix anything, I don't think you comprehend or appreciate the black magic that has to be done to get certain things realtime even on the top of the line graphics cards. Which is why it pisses me off when idiots throw around the word optimized like they have the first clue what goes into optimizing any modern realtime graphics technique.[/QUOTE]
Well surely developers can still optimize other parts of the game that doesnt require this "black magic"
[QUOTE=laylay;37177403]You didn't fix anything, I don't think you comprehend or appreciate the black magic that has to be done to get certain things realtime even on the top of the line graphics cards. Which is why it pisses me off when idiots throw around the word optimized like they have the first clue what goes into optimizing any modern realtime graphics technique.[/QUOTE]
Don't shit me, maybe its because of people like who CLAIM its practically black magic, it isn't; its common sense.
Optimization could be as simple as properly threading the rendering engine so that instead of getting a bandwidth cap on a single thread, you can have the GPU get constant information on what it needs to render, ALA Source's 07-10 updates.
Or, adding in SSE support on compile so CPUs can do more shortcuts; powering the particle systems using OpenCL / offload to a GPU. Or simply using SMARTER methods to to things.
Code CAN be written to run BETTER, Maybe you should read up on "Michael Abrash's Graphics Programming Black Book" Even though its ancient, a lot of the concepts still apply.
Stop acting like developers are COMPLETELY innocent for bad code.
Edit: Shit, pageking.
Also, Developers have to deal with Crappy drivers on PC as well, They need some lower-level access to be to do some of the fancier stuff with less of a perf cost.
And that developers find it a ton easier to make a game that uses the 3 cores on Xbox 360 and the GPU, do some modifications so it supports the PC platform, and let it fly; the PS3 is a bit more complicated and has a few compilers that help with this.
[QUOTE=Shirky;37177920]Well surely developers can still optimize other parts of the game that doesnt require this "black magic"[/QUOTE]
Sure, the point I'm making though is it's annoying when idiots that have no experience in the field ^ say programmers should optimize their code when they have no idea what the bottleneck is.
[QUOTE=Emo Panda;37175272]Do you mean something like this?
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29_TMEPgziA&feature=youtu.be[/url]
I mean it may not be quite what you had in mind. But it's the closest I've seen in Source.[/QUOTE]
That's good too. But i like that in the outerra engine they can do dirt patches of no grass in the grass rather well. Usually games have the edge of their grass looking absolutely awful.
Any sort of improvement to grass would be an improvement though.. considering how we've currently got a few sparse sprites that so obviously fade in.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
