Go Back   nV News Forums > Software Forums > Gaming Central

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-15-05, 07:47 AM   #25
|MaguS|
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: X-Ray Engine...completely underrated!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intel17
That's incorrect. The engine doesn't push 250 million polygons, but making 250 million polygon models, making a normal map textures from those and wrapping those around much lower ones.

And STALKER DX9 renderer can push 3 Million polygons PER-FRAME. Multiply that number by 60 (180) and that's how many million polys X-Ray can push per second.

Epic has said that the entire outdoor scene in the techdemo is about 1 million polygons total.
And yet it still looks worse then many of the current games available... so who cares about the numbers if they can't produce the visuals...

BTW, I did watch the dx9 video, and it still looks like crap. Crappy Textures and HORRIBLE Models...
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-05, 09:02 AM   #26
brady
I'm like everyone else.
 
brady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,376
Default Re: X-Ray Engine...completely underrated!

hmm well, to each his own i guess.
__________________
C2Q @ 3.6GHz | GA-P35-DS3L | 8GB DDR2 | EVGA GTX 580 SC 1.5GB | Windows 7 Ultimate x64

C2D @ 3.0GHz | GA-P35-DS3L | 4GB DDR2 | HIS AMD 6990 4GB | OS X Lion 10.7 | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
brady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-05, 09:48 AM   #27
jolle
Registered User
 
jolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,804
Default Re: X-Ray Engine...completely underrated!

I would assume the engine could push any given amount of polygons, as long as you have the hardware to back it up.. and that would apply to any engine..
Why would a engine contain a "cap" of how many polygons scenes could contain? the limiting factor is the hardware in the end after all..
I mean you cant expect a TNT card to shove 3 mil polys just cause "the engine" is supposed to be able to..

They might have a more efficient setup then most other engines which enables them to push more polys with the same performance, but in the end the GPU running it is the limit, they can only process so many triangles...

Im not saying anything negative about X-ray here, I think Stalker looks great and Im really looking forward to the game (even tho they took out Coop), but claims like that doesnt seem like much of a credit to the engine really..

Like that claim about UE3.0, "in this scene we have about 250 mil polys worth of geometric data" which then refered to the polycount of the source objects of which the normal maps were generated, like mentioned..
I think performance of normal mapping depends more on its resolution then how many polys went into the source object really, so it doesnt say much, other then that they spent alot of time generating normal maps to get a very high level of detail in the demo scene..
Then there is the real question: Will gamedevelopers using the engine acctually build every surface in their game in extreme highres objects to generate normal maps from or not.. It takes alot of time and you already have to spend a substantial amount of it on the characters alone, then there is onboard RAM amounts and memory bandwidth issues when you have Diffuse + normal and sometimes specular or other layers..

And when comparing the engines, you HAVE to concider that UE3.0 is showing pure Engine demo content, its not something you will have running in acctual games in the very near future, while STALKER is acctual game content that works very well on todays mainstream hardware..
Remember those MMORPG screens using UE3.0, they dont look nearly as good as the UE3.0 engine demo content, which is nothing but normal since the UE3.0 demo was running somewhat slow on the bleeding edge hardware..
So engine capabilities ISNT always = to what will be utilized in acctual games, often the same effects might be used, but the content being scaled down to actually play on a wider range of hardware..
__________________
Q6700, Abit X38 QuadGT, 8Gb (4x 2GB) OCZ Reaper DDR2 1066MHz, Gainward GTX 285 1Gb, X-Fi XtremeMusic
jolle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-05, 09:55 AM   #28
Toss3
.<<o>>.
 
Toss3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 4,763
Default Re: X-Ray Engine...completely underrated!

Quote:
Originally Posted by egbtmagus
And yet it still looks worse then many of the current games available... so who cares about the numbers if they can't produce the visuals...

BTW, I did watch the dx9 video, and it still looks like crap. Crappy Textures and HORRIBLE Models...
yes, but that's the game and not the engine...
__________________
: :Asus Rampage II Gene : : Core i7 920 4011Mhz : : 6Gb 1600Mhz A-Data DDR3 : : Club3D Theatron Agrippa : : Intel 80GB SSD : : 2xSamsung F1 750Gb : : Sapphire 5850 @ 850/1225Mhz : :
: :Benq FP241W : : Optoma HD80 Projector + 92" Screen : : Genelec 8020B speakers : : Sony MDR-XB700 Headphones : : Razer Lycosa : : Razer Lachesis : :
Toss3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-05, 11:40 AM   #29
Sgt_Pitt
Registered User
 
Sgt_Pitt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 820
Default Re: X-Ray Engine...completely underrated!

Nothing wrong with dull or bland textures, makes the game seem dark and gloomy, exactly like the atmosphere should be in a post apocalyptic wasteland. Take a look at the fallout series, one of the best series of games ever and had mediocre gfx.

Who wants bright greens or reds like supermario bros in a chernobyl nuclear waste zone ? im sure the devs know what they are doing in the art dept. and im sure as hell you gonna be sh*$$ing your pants playing this

Atmosphere, innovation and a unique concept is something that has been lost in most modern games, If stalker could bring part of the oldskool back, it might turn a few companies heads, and make them rethink the way they just pump out clone after rubbish clone. Look at the time GSC has spent on stalker, and i can pretty much guarentee its gonna be one hell of a game
__________________
i7 920 640g/b Raid 0 Corsair 64gig SSD Gigabyte EX58-UD3R 3x 27" Eyefinity 2x5870 crossfire Antec true 750w Logitech G15 6 gig kingston ddr3 1033
Windows 7 x64 Web design:http://www.advancedws.com.au:http://www.nobletrading.com.au:http://www.rackingaudits.com.au:http://www.imhandling.com.au

Last edited by Sgt_Pitt; 04-15-05 at 12:04 PM.
Sgt_Pitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-05, 12:57 PM   #30
brady
I'm like everyone else.
 
brady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,376
Default Re: X-Ray Engine...completely underrated!

i hope your right.
__________________
C2Q @ 3.6GHz | GA-P35-DS3L | 8GB DDR2 | EVGA GTX 580 SC 1.5GB | Windows 7 Ultimate x64

C2D @ 3.0GHz | GA-P35-DS3L | 4GB DDR2 | HIS AMD 6990 4GB | OS X Lion 10.7 | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
brady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-05, 02:17 PM   #31
Banko
Red Pepper Vodka
 
Banko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,155
Default Re: X-Ray Engine...completely underrated!

Supposedly at this year's E3 they are going to show outdoors in DX9!
__________________
Work/Gaming PC:
Lian-Li PC-80
Intel Core i7 860 @ 3.53
MSI P55-GD80
G.Skill DDR3-1600 8gb 4x2gb
Asus DRW-1814BLT SATA
ATi Radeon 5870
OCZ GameXStream 700W
Windows 7 Ultimate

HTPC/Second Gaming PC:
Gigabyte GA-EP45-DQ6
Intel Q6600 @ 2.8
G.Skill DDR2 4gb 2x2gb
NVidia 8800GTX
OCZ GameXStream 700W
Banko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-05, 06:20 PM   #32
superklye
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MKE
Posts: 13,629
Default Re: X-Ray Engine...completely underrated!

Quote:
Originally Posted by egbtmagus
And yet it still looks worse then many of the current games available... so who cares about the numbers if they can't produce the visuals...

BTW, I did watch the dx9 video, and it still looks like crap. Crappy Textures and HORRIBLE Models...
yup...the hands/guns especially.
superklye is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-05, 02:40 AM   #33
AthlonXP1800
Registered User
 
AthlonXP1800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4,352
Default Re: X-Ray Engine...completely underrated!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intel17
That's incorrect. The engine doesn't push 250 million polygons, but making 250 million polygon models, making a normal map textures from those and wrapping those around much lower ones.

And STALKER DX9 renderer can push 3 Million polygons PER-FRAME. Multiply that number by 60 (180) and that's how many million polys X-Ray can push per second.
Oh right thank for tell me what it all mean...

Quote:
Let see, if the Dreamcast can render more polygons then it can store, and I will use 6 mpps as an example:

6,000,000 (polygons) / 60 (frames per second) = 100,000 polygons per scene 100,000 x 40 Bytes (size of polygon) = ~4 MB
Right... X Ray engine can push 2 to 3 million polygons per frame, that a total of 120 to 180 million polygons on a normal map. Unreal 3 engine has total of 200 to 250 million polygons on a normal map, that can push 3.3 to 4.1 million polygons per frame.

Quote:
Epic has said that the entire outdoor scene in the techdemo is about 1 million polygons total.
No you probably mean the wireframe, on Unreal Technology site, scroll down near to the bottom showed 2 pictures that the wireframe used just under 500,000 polygons and then added all contents over 100 million polygons on the outdoor scene.

I been watched Stalker DX9 demo twice, it seem had low quality textures but Unreal 3 engine is far more advanced than X Ray engine.

Compare this...



to this is nothing more advanced than Unreal 3 engine.



And also Stalker characters is no match to UT2006 characters in actual game render...

__________________
Intel Core i7 3770K, Corsair H80 liquid cooler with Noctua S12-1200 fan, ASUS P8Z77V with UEFI 2104, 16GB Samsung Green 30nm DDR3-RAM, Pioneer BDR-S09XLT 16x Blu-ray writer, Corsair AX850 PSU, Western Digital 2TB SATA3 hard drive, CanonScan LiDE 210 scanner, Microsoft Internet Keyboard, Microsoft Touch Explorer mouse, 32inch Sharp LC32LE600 LED TV, EVGA Geforce GTX 670 SC 4GB with Geforce 370.50 driver, 50Mb broadband Virgin Media VMDG480 Super Hub, Aspire Xplorer Midi Tower, Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit.
AthlonXP1800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-05, 04:50 AM   #34
Intel17
Is not an Intel fanboi
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Burlington, VT
Posts: 1,368
Default Re: X-Ray Engine...completely underrated!

Well AthlonXP1800,

That STALKER shot is from the DirectX8 renderer. They're currently setting up the DX9 renderer (probably setting up the content) for outdoors, because they've been talking about how they want all real-time lighting and shadowing outdoors for the DX9 renderer.

Plus, in UE3 there's still a lot of mixing methods around and not everything casts a real-time shadow.


And about the polygon thing...no, STALKER can push 3 million polygons per-frame. Not "normal mapped" polygons (which is just a texture), but actual geometry.

Unreal doesn't do that.
Intel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-05, 05:14 AM   #35
EciDemon
Registered User
 
EciDemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,423
Send a message via ICQ to EciDemon
Default Re: X-Ray Engine...completely underrated!

AthlonXP1800 you realy should not argue about things you do not understand. Your latest post was very funny.

Now what the guys here was trying to tell you is that when the scene was made it was made of very high poly count stuff, just like you sayd. Then they render the scene and create texutres of it containing the shadows etc and they slap those textures onto low poly count end product. See ?
Thats what they mean that the x engine has more polygons renderd on the scene then UE3 demo.

If you look close on the UE3 shot you posted you can still see the edges on the modles in the scene are not completly round as you would expect if such high poly count was actualy used in real time.
EciDemon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-05, 05:24 AM   #36
Intel17
Is not an Intel fanboi
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Burlington, VT
Posts: 1,368
Default Re: X-Ray Engine...completely underrated!

Quote:
Originally Posted by EciDemon
AthlonXP1800 you realy should not argue about things you do not understand. Your latest post was very funny.

Now what the guys here was trying to tell you is that when the scene was made it was made of very high poly count stuff, just like you sayd. Then they render the scene and create texutres of it containing the shadows etc and they slap those textures onto low poly count end product. See ?
Thats what they mean that the x engine has more polygons renderd on the scene then UE3 demo.

If you look close on the UE3 shot you posted you can still see the edges on the modles in the scene are not completly round as you would expect if such high poly count was actualy used in real time.

Agreed. Yes in UE3, the lack of polygonal detail is still apparent. However, if you watch the STALKER videos, notice how everything is completely rounded off with no ugly stuff. And all this complex geometry is casting soft-shadows
Intel17 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
Regression with 295.33 and GeForce GT 240 maro NVIDIA Linux 16 06-29-12 06:47 PM
Valve's Source engine to power upcoming animated film News Archived News Items 0 06-10-12 09:20 PM
Gorgeous Unreal Engine 4 brings direct programming, indirect lighting News Archived News Items 0 06-08-12 09:20 PM
Star Wars 1313 running on Unreal Engine 3 on PC at E3, will be linear and light on Je News Archived News Items 0 06-08-12 05:20 AM
May 24 Webinar: How Do You Make Grid Engine Faster? News Archived News Items 0 05-22-12 06:30 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:35 AM.


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