Go Back   nV News Forums > Software Forums > Gaming Central

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-05-05, 01:54 PM   #61
Razor1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 574
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by HIWTHI
After that insane comment I'm done with this argument.

Insane in your mind because you don't understand the basis of where it comes from. Just like that devmaster guy.

Didn't think it was an argument, but I do apologize for calling the devmaster guy an idiot, a bit too strong of a word. I don't know the guy personally might be a nice guy but he has alot to learn.
Razor1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-05, 01:55 PM   #62
Nv40
Agent-Fx
 
Nv40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: everywhere
Posts: 2,216
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intel17
Ok, dude, I'm a nice guy typically, and I am logical at most times, but my teenage primal instincts are going to take over for the next statement;

WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU SMOKING?

Seriously? FarCry's shadowing is as good as Doom 3's? Really, I go through the trouble to learn the CryEngine sandbox and test out the shadowing tech, and then I spend time writing up my detailed findings, and you still insist on saying FarCry's shadowing is as good as Doom 3's.

What's this bullcrap about the developers can code what they want but the SDK doesn't have it? Well, yeah I can add HDR into the Quake 2 engine since the source code is sitting on my hard-drive, but does that make it "HDR capable"? No!

Also, Carmack's next engine isn't using pre-computed lighting or shadowing! What gave you that idea? I mean, he did not once say the word "lightmap" at Qcon.

He's moving to shadow-buffers because the hardware can handle it now, whereas it couldn't handle it before. There's also a difference between limited case shadow maps like in FarCry, and globally used like what he's proposing. He still yet may go with stencils, because of crappy hardware support with the GPU vendors, but it's unlikely.

O.K. Dammit, I don't feel like continuing, because i'm now feeling my efforts were in complete vain, with this whole write up. I feel that I wasted so much time.

The point has been made several times in this thread. Believe what you want. I'm only trying to educate people with my research in this regard,

HE NEVER said Doom was the holy grail of engine technology.

(Oh, and Nv40, could you please make an effort to use capitalization and punctuation correctly if not grammar? Your posts are incredibly hard to read!)


i already proved earlier THat you were incorrect in your claims INTEL17... with the shadows in DOom3.. you were praising the realtime shadows in DOom3.. without the need to ask carmack i told you this before .. DOom3 use FAKE shadows in e-v-e-r-y level. many times!! so its not better than FArcry when it comes to realism or fakism.. DOom3 advantage is that is a very dark game so there is very easy to hide its weakness with the lighting and the shadows.. go ahead an email carmack ..he will tell you this again.. in a more elegant way.

I know ,what i know..not going to prove anything to you anymore,since even when i show you the truth . you change your original defense to something lower.. never said Carmack TOLD (literary ) that Doom3 was the holy grail or the second comming of jesus.. just that he praised his engine as being so good that other developers will not need to make another engine.. for the next 5 years. that developers will be doing "engines just for FUn".. he even downplayed Offline renderers as saying he has an engine that could achieve that quality without the thousands those aplications cost.. and that was by the time he was working with Doom3. if that doesnt sound like the holy grail in graphics to you ,then i dont know what else could. because Offline renderers radiosity quality will not be possible in -realtime games- for at least 10 -15 years. if were are lucky.

carmack will be using shadow maps.. in the next engine..

http://www.nvidia.com/object/feature_shadowbuffers.html

with very high resolution maps .. That is precomputed shadows.. non realtime technology. just like many others games already released or close too that you downplay a lot and say are "less powerfull". if to early to say ,but he could end end using hardware shadows maps too.. *just like FArcry*..but with more samples because he is already testing it.. and he has hopes for hardware vendors ATI/NVIDIA to have them in their hardware at full speed. you can find his comments of what his doing in the next engine in the other thread.


lets summarise where we disagree..

-DOom3 is the MOst powerfull engine..?
NOpe.. far from that.. in my opinion is very limited.. however it have very nice features.. so still have many things to show.

-The DOom3 engine .. the one used by the MOD community and that finished 4years ago support HDR?
no it doesnt..not in any usable way.. his heavy upgrades to the D3 engine. -> his NEXT ENGINE is a diferent thing. that is post Doom3 work. something that began when his work on doom3 finished. is dishonest to mix his previous work ,with what he now *says* in a plann is working.. to compare released work of other developers,with vaporware.. and give credit where none should be given.Farcry and other games already support TRue HDR -> FP blending.. wtih some of the latest Nv40 features.. and not on paper but in games or other tech demos.. where it counts.

-IS DOom3 revolutionary?
imho.. i dont think so. its just evolutionary. already games even in the Xbox ,could achieve similar graphics.. and that my friend was a year ealier with very outdated technology that is the xbox.

-Crytek engine can't do realtime shadows in "outdoors" ?
the *game editor* limitations arent the game engine limitations.. whatever restrictions the developers have done for the mod community was merely performance decision ,not engine limitations . if im not mistaken crytek released a very nice ATI X850 demo using realtime lighting everywhere ,to demostrate x850 capabilities .the demo was in closed BIG areas known as -> "outdoors" by us. CRytek and EPic and many others have already *demostrated* in public more advanced engines..

-then Crytek is the best engine?
never have said that.. there is no "best engine" yet.. because every game have serious limitations somewhere.. but that could change very soon this year or the next with the new games outhere.

The "best engine" should be capable of doing very detailed "indoors"/"outdoors" and take advantage of the latest hardware technology in the present . should capable of any type of game.. with forest or deserts ,capable of graphics like Farcry/Hl2/Stalker and Doom3 all of them not just one.with latest Fragment shaders or pixel shaders effects ..for water/fire/ latest lighting effects and physics ..capable of very nice deformation and true breakable enviroments . how about the ability to break or deform any wall ,weapon or surface in a game ? something like Giants or TBFME ,indeed you need to play more games..and see for by yourself the amazing features that exist in other games that should an standar in the "best engine". with good AI and non linear gameplay.. and very important solid multiplayer capabilities.. so as you see Doom3 is far far ,very far ,from being and "all powerfull or be called best engine " .. Farcry engine can simulate Doom3 indoors , it have have the tools for that.but doom3 can't do farcry outdoors ,with beautifull forest ,water and beaches..just figure that. .of course they can code whatever they want in his next engine .. but the discussion here is about released work or demostrated technology . not about vaporware. This is not downplaying Doom3 ,just the truth. it deserve credits ,special achievements for its technical innovations which have many . but it ends there. if this make you happy , i agree that Doom3 is the best engine for Doom3.. but just for that game.. the engine was made around the graphics in the game. which is a scary and dark game .here it rocks..but with any other style of game will have serious troubles with the graphics ,if not impossible to do. when doom3 was finished ,carmack already is saying will have a NEW RENDERER.. with many cool stuff.. there is no question that he has the all skills and talent to do something really revolutionary and jawbreaking next time in the future .. (but just if someone manage to kick his ass from time to time) because his seems lately more interested in rockets in the space lately . . i know you will not like to hear anything that is not wonderfull about DOom3 engine capabilities.. so my apologies for being honest with you. i promise this will end here.. so you are free to believe as you please.


About the grammar.. sorry about that.. its a combination of laziness , and that my english is very poor.

Last edited by Nv40; 03-05-05 at 03:43 PM.
Nv40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-05, 02:04 PM   #63
Gabrobot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 141
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor1
No BSP would think Robert would know what he was talking about
Well, that does make it sound like it, but I should think Brian knows what he's talking about as well, and he said that only the AAS (AI stuff) was still BSP based.

From my experimentations and from my talking with Brian, it seems there isn't really any known limit to the size a level can be. However, brushes with dimensions larger than 1024 are cut up and portals are placed every 1024 units. For extremely large brushes (this would be the skybox brushes most likely) this means a lot of memory is required when compiling the level, and Windows XP has a 2GB memory limit for processes which makes it somewhat more difficult to have extremely large levels. Perhaps it might work in Linux, but more likely it would just require a well optimized brush and portal set-up so that the compiler doesn't need obscenely large amounts of memory to compile.

Really all that's needed is a system in the editor and compiler designed more for large stuff...the engine can do it, the problem is just getting the level compiled.
Gabrobot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-05, 02:23 PM   #64
Razor1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 574
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabrobot
Well, that does make it sound like it, but I should think Brian knows what he's talking about as well, and he said that only the AAS (AI stuff) was still BSP based.

From my experimentations and from my talking with Brian, it seems there isn't really any known limit to the size a level can be. However, brushes with dimensions larger than 1024 are cut up and portals are placed every 1024 units. For extremely large brushes (this would be the skybox brushes most likely) this means a lot of memory is required when compiling the level, and Windows XP has a 2GB memory limit for processes which makes it somewhat more difficult to have extremely large levels. Perhaps it might work in Linux, but more likely it would just require a well optimized brush and portal set-up so that the compiler doesn't need obscenely large amounts of memory to compile.

Really all that's needed is a system in the editor and compiler designed more for large stuff...the engine can do it, the problem is just getting the level compiled.

I'm not exactly sure how Doom 3's BSP functions but if thats true yeah that circumvent the limitations.
Razor1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-05, 03:04 PM   #65
Intel17
Is not an Intel fanboi
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Burlington, VT
Posts: 1,368
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

Carmack has never said that Doom 3 would end the need for offline renderers. He did say that his renderer after Doom would be about as good as an offline renderer in many cases.

He's always talked about an engine after Doom...

And I think this discussion has run its course, let's all just believe what we want, and we can enjoy the games!
Intel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-05, 09:26 PM   #66
HIWTHI
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 80
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

Quote:
Insane in your mind because you don't understand the basis of where it comes from. Just like that devmaster guy.
Please enlighten me then. You seem to be the one with no idea what you're talking about. To say that changing the shaders can make the Source Engine function exactly like the Doom 3 Engine is completely wrong. The renderer is completely different from both, and adding pixel shaders isn't going to change that. You made a fuss about the BSP comment and then admitted you have no idea how Doom 3's BSP even works.
HIWTHI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-05, 09:55 PM   #67
Intel17
Is not an Intel fanboi
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Burlington, VT
Posts: 1,368
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

I doubt that simply writing the light/surface interaction shader for Half-Life 2 would allow for the same quality as Doom 3's.

Shaders are just programs on top of the core renderer, and i'm sure there's stuff in the core renderer with regards to per-pixel rendering.

I wonder how I could convert shaders from a game like FarCry to Doom 3...hmm...
Intel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-05, 01:18 AM   #68
HIWTHI
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 80
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

Razor1, now that GDC is over can we see the game or mod you are working on?
HIWTHI is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-05, 02:30 AM   #69
Razor1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 574
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

yep www.btugames.com
Razor1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Amazing Soft-Body Physics in CryEngine 3 News Archived News Items 0 05-29-12 09:40 PM
CryEngine 3 / Beam Physics: Soft Body, Hard Metal News Archived News Items 0 05-29-12 06:30 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.