PDA

View Full Version : CryEngine as good as Unreal Engine 3..


Pages : [1] 2

Intel17
08-06-04, 08:52 PM
Ok, i've been thinking, since the awesome dudes at CryTek have implimented HDR, Offset (virtual displacement) mapping, SM3.0 Support and heavy shader use, what exactly does Unreal Engine 3 have on this engine?? Unified lighting? No sir, Unreal Engine 3 doesnt have unified lighting as Light/shadowmaps are still an option. here's a comparison...

CryEngine (2004)

-Real Time per pixel lighting at Artists discression
-Support for lightmaps if needed
-Offset mapping (Same as UE3's Virtual Displacement mapping)
-High Dynamic Range lighting
-Normal Mapping technique supported
-Real time stencil shadows supported again at artists discression
-1.2KM draw distance

Unreal Engine 3 (2006)

-Real Time, per-pixel lighting at Artists discression
-Again support for lightmaps if artist desires
-Offset mapping (Virtual Displacement mapping)
-High Dynamic Range lighting
-Normal mapping technique
-Real Time stencil shadows on objects at Artists discression
-Soft Shadows for character models

So you see, CryEngine is very, very advanced, and the ONLY thing Unreal Engine 3 has on it, is soft shadows on players.

Interesting, eh?

Mr. Hunt
08-06-04, 09:46 PM
HDR isn't supported in farcry yet. Who knows when it will be. Unreal Engine 3 isn't out yet so features can change.

I have a question for you though, Why are you obsessed with the cryengine so much? Yes, it is a good engine but not the best right now.

MUYA
08-06-04, 09:55 PM
It's getting rather boring Intel17. How can u speculate on the UE3 that isn't out, at final stage or even beta stage yet.....

killahsin
08-07-04, 02:01 AM
two words:

scale ability.
up and down

Why are you always comparing cryengien to everything else?

Warden13
08-07-04, 06:57 AM
Well I'm not nearly interested enough in the technical aspects of either engine to try and educate myself on them but... from the screenshots I've seen the Unreal 3 Engine beats the snot out of anything from Farcry.

Warden

Lfctony
08-07-04, 07:20 AM
I found Farcry a boring game, despite the cool graphics. I hope future games based on the Cry Engine are more exciting than Far Cry.

On the subject, after watching the UE3 in action in E3 videos, I think the Cry Engine comes nowhere near its potential. Can the Cry Engine render characters with 8 millions polygons? The characters displayed at E3 using the UE3 looked almost real. The Cry Engine still looks TOO much like a game.

Warden13
08-07-04, 09:21 AM
I agree that Farcry is boring. I played through the first few levels before selling the game for $25. As far as looking at comparing Farcry graphics... no need to look into the future for that. Doom 3 graphics are far superior to anything I saw in Farcry.

Warden

NightFire
08-07-04, 09:33 AM
Well, I gues, Intel17, if that's your real name, (actually, that would be an odd name. I guess you could legally change it, but...well, yeah. That would work. That would be great at a job interview.

You'd just go into the office, and hand the secretary your card, and she'd be: "Wow! You changed your name to Intel17?"

And you could be all smug and say: "Of course.", and then she'd be like: "GET OUT OF THE OFFICE YOU SICK FREAK! WHY DID YOU PUT THE 17 IN FRONT OF YOUR NAME?", and you'd have to run because she'd chuck the very heavy lamp with her bulging muscles and crack induced rage.

Anyway, back to subject:)

You should probably be comparing Doom3 to UE3. Or something like that. You know, in terms of stuff.

Or, you don't know. But anyway...ok. Just forget it.

Intel17
08-07-04, 09:42 AM
I was just thinking about the features in UE3 and CryEngine. I mean with all the hype about HDR, Offset mapping and SM3.0 features I was just wondering if there wasnt much of a gap between UE3 and CryEngine.

Lfctony
08-07-04, 10:12 AM
I recommend downloading the E3 demo of the U3E. You will change your mind once you see the engine in action. As I said, the Cry Engine comes nowhere near. :)

nrdstrm
08-07-04, 01:14 PM
I sat in on the Unreal Engine 3 demo at E3 (inside a theater at nvidia's booth) and let me tell you, NO ENGINE is capable of what that one is, even in it's early stages. What facts do I have to support that? None...Only my sense of sight, wich honestly is all I need to draw that conclusion...Intel17, if you would have seen it in a live demo atmosphere, you would have no doubt either...
Nrdstrm

Nv40
08-07-04, 07:19 PM
for comparisons between engines just visit Crytek.com and later http://www.unrealtechnology.com and you will see by yourself what each engine is capable to do. ;) as far as i can see.. there is nothing in facry or any other game that will come close to the quality graphics in Unreal3 engine. which is a next generation engine with that will use shaders beyond Sm2.0 posibilities (Sm3.0) ,Fp32 as minimun precision and Fp blending/filtering. the ultra quality mode will need gpus with 1gb of ram. DOnt focus in the marketing list of features , but in the graphics and gameplay of the game.
Unreal3 = best of Doom3 +best of farcry + with Hl2 similar physics and gameplay :retard: :) Epic usually dont mind to take many good ideas from other games ,and implement them in theirs ...(cough) UnrealT2004 (TRibes MEga clone).. (cough) ,quake2 railgun.. etc..

Intel17
08-07-04, 09:24 PM
Unreal Engine 3 doesnt have a Unified lighting model, so we will see lightmaps :(

However, it is an extremely impressive piece of technology. It is a step forward in the Doom 3 rendering style...again proves that Carmack indeed does lead the way in Game engines :) With Tim Sweeney a close second because the unreal engine is amazing.

Don't be fooled however, Unreal Engine 3 isn't that much ahead of the Doom 3 tech (however it is ahead, only an idiot would say Doom 3's tech is more advanced), I mean apart from more complex shaders (which the Doom 3 engine has support for via CG, an HLSL) and Soft shadows on characters only, The engines are marvelously simple and it is really the fact that UE3
s source models are 6million polys while doom 3's are 250K, its basically content creation. We will see some pretty neat things done with the doom3 engine before carmacks next work....In betruger voice "Amazing things will happen with the Doom 3 engine, you just wait!" :)

killahsin
08-08-04, 12:55 AM
dude the issue is your comparing different generations of game engines.
Now if you compared farcry unreal 2.x and doom 3 the debate would be more valid.

Your talking about a game being built to run on cards with 1gig of ram
For cpu's well above 4 gighz etc.

Bad_Boy
08-10-04, 03:19 AM
lol
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=547769&postcount=8

Smokey
08-10-04, 06:23 AM
lol
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=547769&postcount=8
:lol2: (spit)

majortom
08-10-04, 07:02 AM
just arguing wont solve anything. someone's got to recreate a doom3 level with the cry engine. the sdk and map makers are all there, arent they?

Mr.Clawz950
08-10-04, 09:31 AM
lol
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=547769&postcount=8

:lol2: owned:

stncttr908
08-10-04, 10:48 AM
lol
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=547769&postcount=8
Definitely owned. What do you have against Crytek anyway? Dumbass. :lame:

cam9786
08-10-04, 11:27 AM
^ I second that. Owned.

Ninjaman09
08-10-04, 01:32 PM
Intel17, please stop. You don't know what you're talking about. You're making up your own definitions for features that you don't understand and throwing terms around that you can't comprehend. I've already discussed this with you in the Doom 3 forum. Crytek is a good engine but is only comparable to the Unreal Engine 2.0, in my opinion. Though it has a great draw distance it uses lightmaps for dynamic effects. This is nothing more advanced than turning on Dynamic Lights in Quake 3. It draws texture maps on its surfaces with detail textures and the occasional pixel shader to give the illusion of reflective surfaces. The Doom 3 engine renders color, normal, diffuse, and specular maps on EVERY surface (including models) and it does so using dynamic light sources (normal maps are the fancy term for per-pixel lighting, basically). Doom 3 is the next great leap in engine technology and is far and away more advanced than the Crytek engine, on paper and in practice. And you may need to visit your eye doctor if the Unreal Engine 3.0 screenshots and movies look as good as Crytek to you.

Zelda_fan
08-10-04, 01:44 PM
The CryEngine can't even compete with the Doom3 engine much less Unreal3.

First off the Virtual Displacement Mapping in Unreal3 is vastly superior to the bump mapping used in FarCry. Virtual Displacement Mapping is capeable of casting shadows by the displaced geometry - that is something bump mapping can't do. FarCry dosent' even allow bump mapped surfaces to every texture - something that Doom III does and is what sets it apart. The CryEngine dosen't fully implement SM3.0, it just uses a few of it's features to speed up a thing or two. Unreal3 uses the real deal SM3.0 with shader instructions well over 700 lines (past even the sm2b limit). Also, FarCry won't let you use 100% dynamic lighting and you must use lightmaps otherwise performance sucks, and Doom III, from what I understand, is 100% dynamic lighting with no lightmaps. The CryEngine has some really nice SM2 effects and a decent physics system, but other than that, nothing else set's it apart from any other engine.

kev13dd
08-10-04, 02:55 PM
Doom 3's engine was designed to be PLAYABLE. Currently, Unreal3 has a hard time with more than 3 characters on screen. They are both designed for different cards and generations. No comparison needed

K

Nuvian
08-11-04, 10:36 AM
the cryengine in farcry didnt impress me that much,this thread is a bit stupid imo,since im 100% sure that unreal3 engine will look better then that,at least when it comes to character models etc..

Intel17
08-11-04, 11:55 AM
The CryEngine can't even compete with the Doom3 engine much less Unreal3.

First off the Virtual Displacement Mapping in Unreal3 is vastly superior to the bump mapping used in FarCry. Virtual Displacement Mapping is capeable of casting shadows by the displaced geometry - that is something bump mapping can't do. FarCry dosent' even allow bump mapped surfaces to every texture - something that Doom III does and is what sets it apart. The CryEngine dosen't fully implement SM3.0, it just uses a few of it's features to speed up a thing or two. Unreal3 uses the real deal SM3.0 with shader instructions well over 700 lines (past even the sm2b limit). Also, FarCry won't let you use 100% dynamic lighting and you must use lightmaps otherwise performance sucks, and Doom III, from what I understand, is 100% dynamic lighting with no lightmaps. The CryEngine has some really nice SM2 effects and a decent physics system, but other than that, nothing else set's it apart from any other engine.

You serious? UE3 uses instruction counts for shaders of >700? wow. source?

Ok, I was completely wrong. Sorry!