[ultragpu]

Originally Posted by bagofsuck

This Deferred lighting (Cry Engine 3)is more aggressive( superior/whatever you wanna call it) than the one found in KZ2?

Not the same thing I believe, KZ2 uses Deferred Rendering, different to Deferred lighting.

[bagofsuck]

Originally Posted by ultragpu

Not the same thing I believe, KZ2 uses Deferred Rendering, different to Deferred lighting.

Oh ok.. i'm not an expert..but isn't Cry Engine 3 a mix of Forward and Deferred rendering?

[AlStrong]

Originally Posted by ultragpu

Not the same thing I believe, KZ2 uses Deferred Rendering, different to Deferred lighting.

KZ2 defers the lighting calculation. It also has its forward rendering path for transparent objects.

Folks, let's not get too caught up with whose ePen is larger mmmkay? For an engine that is still in production, there is little tangible reason to compare engines from different companies.

[L. Scofield]

Originally Posted by PhilB

Well I guess it's not the same as the RAMs then (looking at the thread you posted a bit back, it doesn't look like that is in Warhead). However, something they call global ambient lighting is in Warhead. According to Crytek it's a better/faster reworked lighting system that better shows off the detail in the normal maps (maybe better SSAO as well). Don't know much else about it though besides what Crytek mentioned.

I'm thinking it's an improved SSAO too.

__

I'm also wondering how many of those 300 lights can cast shadows at once.

[Neb]

Originally Posted by L. Scofield

I'm thinking it's an improved SSAO too.

__

I'm also wondering how many of those 300 lights can cast shadows at once.

No it is not improved SSAA alone. That might be tweaked for Warhead/Crysis Wars to but the 'global ambient lighting' improves detail in textures and how lighting affects environment. Probably the reason why Crysis Wars looks quite a bit more realistic than Crysis ~same mp maps.

I cant find the comparision shot for this feature but I found an interview.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/cr...&prev_button=1

[ultragpu]

Watched the 2 interviews, kinda having a hard time grasping his English but from what I could understand or believe, CE3 console versions will have all the new features such as realtime global dynamic animations, deferred lighting and advanced shaders, but PC CE3 will have them more elaborated, due to the open ended architecture. So perhaps when everything all adds up, CE3 on consoles do indeed surpasse what's available on CE2 as stated by Mr.Yerli himself. Excluding those UBER mods maybe.

[Neb]

Originally Posted by ultragpu

Watched the 2 interviews, kinda having a hard time grasping his English but from what I could understand or believe, CE3 console versions will have all the new features such as realtime global dynamic animations, deferred lighting and advanced shaders, but PC CE3 will have them more elaborated, due to the open ended architecture. So perhaps when everything all adds up, CE3 on consoles do indeed surpasse what's available on CE2 as stated by Mr.Yerli himself. Excluding those UBER mods maybe.

Well they showed off all those things in the CE3 techdemo. The thing is though about how many of those effects can really be used in games. All the things together will require lots of processing power as evident by the techdemo where few things together had a large perfomacne impact. But sure CE3 surpasses CE2 capabilities but you need enough powerful hardware to do it and take into account the size of the gameworld/levels.

[L. Scofield]

Originally Posted by Nebula

No it is not improved SSAA alone. That might be tweaked for Warhead/Crysis Wars to but the 'global ambient lighting' improves detail in textures and how lighting affects environment. Probably the reason why Crysis Wars looks quite a bit more realistic than Crysis ~same mp maps.

I cant find the comparision shot for this feature but I found an interview.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/cr...&prev_button=1

Mhh, who knows, but it's definately not indirect lighting.

Originally Posted by Nebula

Well they showed off all those things in the CE3 techdemo. The thing is though about how many of those effects can really be used in games. All the things together will require lots of processing power as evident by the techdemo where few things together had a large perfomacne impact. But sure CE3 surpasses CE2 capabilities but you need enough powerful hardware to do it and take into account the size of the gameworld/levels.

I don't think they showed the global illumination in those videos.

[Turok]

Is a G-buffer still used for deferred lighting?

[Arnold Beckenbauer]

Originally Posted by ultragpu

Not the same thing I believe, KZ2 uses Deferred Rendering, different to Deferred lighting.

Photo-realistic Deferred Lighting

Deferred Rendering or Deferred Shading or Deferred Lighting?

The term deferred rendering is used to describe a number of related techniques; they all share a deferment stage but differ in what portion of the pipeline is deferred. This article only defers the lighting portion of the pipeline, all other parts can be done in what ever way you like, and the only requirement is that the G-Buffers are filled prior to the lighting stage. Deferred Shading is typically where the actual surface shader execution is deferred, this is the model presented by UNC Pixel Plane project [4].

[ultragpu]

Originally Posted by Nebula

Well they showed off all those things in the CE3 techdemo. The thing is though about how many of those effects can really be used in games. All the things together will require lots of processing power as evident by the techdemo where few things together had a large perfomacne impact. But sure CE3 surpasses CE2 capabilities but you need enough powerful hardware to do it and take into account the size of the gameworld/levels.

You can have all the features in the game, I suppose that would all depend on the on screen requirement, I'm sure some scenarios doesn't require everything at once while those big climax scenes may be more troublesome. Whether Crytek engineers optimized the engine efficient enough for that kind of trouble or yet to is still unknown. Though he kept talking about how the consoles have achieved Crysis visual and more, do gives me more confidence on the engine's capability.

[Neb]

Originally Posted by ultragpu

Though he kept talking about how the consoles have achieved Crysis visual and more, do gives me more confidence on the engine's capability.

Well Crysis visuals starts at low and ends at very high/custom. Not saying we will not see amazing games as I hope for that and multiplatform to.

[ultragpu]

Originally Posted by Nebula

Well Crysis visuals starts at low and ends at very high/custom. Not saying we will not see amazing games as I hope for that and multiplatform to.

I'm not taking his words literally of course, he's talking in more of a general form so I know it wont be pixel for pixel. But in a way, it would be hard to compare them due to their different features. But for now I'll wait for a proper game based on CE3 before furthering any conclusion.

[green.pixel]

First game not before 2010:

It seems like we won't see a Cryengine 3 based game this year. Creytek CEO Cevat Yerli said so in an interview with the German magazine Gamestar. Accordingly the first Cryengine 3 based game will be released in 2010 at the earliest. If this game will be coming from Crytek, has not been decided on yet since Crytek has many partners who could deliver games with the Cryengine 3 earlier.

At the GDC Crytek impressed with the new engine while other big engine players like id Software and Epic Games took a back seat.

Originally Posted by m.fox

I have a question. Crytek says that the engine is going to target next-gen consoles as well, because it's scalable. How they are planning to do that without rewriting the engine for a new and possibly vastly different architecture ? Or maybe they know something about PS4/X720 that we don't ?

Anyone ?

[Solarus]

So Cryengine 2 didn't use deferred lighting? Any reason why they switched? I assume better performance?

[pc999]

Originally Posted by m.fox

Anyone ?

Well I think it is a pretty safe assumption that next gen consoles will use a future version/derivation of DX.

As for the CPU in the "worst" case they will use improved versions of current ones, so unless they change for a worst PPC design there is no problems here, if they go for a X86 CPU any todays dualcore is better than XeCPU and compatible with CE3.

IMO this means if it runs in todays consoles, it can only be better in future ones (and it can be as "easy" as turning some features on).

[almighty]

Originally Posted by ultragpu

Though he kept talking about how the consoles have achieved Crysis visual and more, do gives me more confidence on the engine's capability.

Consoles will NEVER hit Crysis levels, they might match it in certain areas but anyone who really thinks that the consoles can even come close Crysis running at V-High needs a reality check.

CryEngine 3 might be more advanced then Cryengine 2 but its how many of these new enhancments the consoles can actually run and from what ive seen they fall very short of even Cryengine 2 in alot of areas.

Shadow res, texture res, draw distance, effects, shaders....the list goes on.

For the hardware the consoles are packing the results Crytek have hit are amazing but saying that CryEngine 3 on consoles has achieved more then CryEngine 2 on PC is nothing more then them hyping up the engine and all this talk from people who think and talk about consoles matching and beating CryEngine 2 should really go and play Crysis at V-High settings because its silly.

Consoles are a mix of Cryengine 2 with Medium/Low settings + a few of CryEngine 3 enhancments tacked on the side.

I hope that the engine does turn out to run amazing and that Crytek clean up the framerate as console gamers deserve to get some sort of Crysis spin-off and Crytek should get a pat on the back for actually bothering to do a console speciffic engine and not pwn off a shoddy CryEngine 2 port, i hope other developers follow them and start doing the same

[Fran]

Originally Posted by almighty

Consoles will NEVER hit Crysis levels, they might match it in certain areas but anyone who really thinks that the consoles can even come close Crysis running at V-High needs a reality check.

I don't agree with you, actually I think it's very well possible to get close and surpass the quality delivered by Crysis on PC, through good use of the fixed hardware and the shortcuts possible on consoles that are pretty much excluded when working on PC, smart asset creation, a bit of creativity and the use of a more advanced engine.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by Fran

I don't agree with you, actually I think it's very well possible to get close and surpass the quality delivered by Crysis on PC, through good use of the fixed hardware and the shortcuts possible on consoles that are pretty much excluded when working on PC, smart asset creation, a bit of creativity and the use of a more advanced engine.

I'm not doubting you guys or anything but that I can't wait to see. :P

I think it'll really be something if you can surpass Crysis at Very High levels on the consoles - especially if all the new features appear on the consoles (like the GI!).

Regardless, I can't wait see more!

[ultragpu]

Originally Posted by Fran

I don't agree with you, actually I think it's very well possible to get close and surpass the quality delivered by Crysis on PC, through good use of the fixed hardware and the shortcuts possible on consoles that are pretty much excluded when working on PC, smart asset creation, a bit of creativity and the use of a more advanced engine.

That sounds very promising Fran, can't wait for a CE3 based game. I know I'm pushing my luck here but are you guys gonna announce anything this E3?

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by Fran

I don't agree with you, actually I think it's very well possible to get close and surpass the quality delivered by Crysis on PC, through good use of the fixed hardware and the shortcuts possible on consoles that are pretty much excluded when working on PC, smart asset creation, a bit of creativity and the use of a more advanced engine.

If that were the case then no offense Fran but what the hell were Crytek playing at with CE2?

Since a 4870 is pretty much a minimum to get smooth framerates at very high in Crysis even at console resolutions, that would mean you need a GPU with around 4 times the raw power of a console GPU simply to produce the same results?

Squeezing a little extra juice out of a fixed platform is to be expected but 4x the performance of the equivilent PC setup? That to me suggests exremely poor use of the PC setup.

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

If that were the case then no offense Fran but what the hell were Crytek playing at with CE2?

Since a 4870 is pretty much a minimum to get smooth framerates at very high in Crysis even at console resolutions, that would mean you need a GPU with around 4 times the raw power of a console GPU simply to produce the same results?

Squeezing a little extra juice out of a fixed platform is to be expected but 4x the performance of the equivilent PC setup? That to me suggests exremely poor use of the PC setup.

Carmack has stated you get roughly ~2X speedup by using fixed console hardware. Given a game like KZ2 running on essentially a 7800GTX, that seems about right to me. Heck, if not more considering it's all done on a measly 512MB RAM!

So 4X may be extreme, but "a little extra juice" hardly cuts it from the other direction either.

[Fran]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

If that were the case then no offense Fran but what the hell were Crytek playing at with CE2?

Man, it's like asking what the Romans were playing at when they invented the War Charriot; they could have invented directly a modern Tank

[green.pixel]

During all those pre-release Crysis demonstrations, announcements and interviews Cevat did, I remember they said it would work fine in high resoulutions on 8800GTX/DX10 class hardware, but when it came out, it was hovering around 30fps in 1280x1024 VeryHigh. What happened in the meantime ?

And even today, we need massive GPU power for 1080p VH and playable framerate.

How come optimizations sort of "hit and miss" PCs all the time ?

Originally Posted by Rangers

Carmack has stated you get roughly ~2X speedup by using fixed console hardware

Do you have a link for that ? I would like to read it.
And 2x speedup in comparasion to what ? Same GPU in a PC ?

[FirewalkR]

Originally Posted by almighty

I hope that the engine does turn out to run amazing and that Crytek clean up the framerate ...

If you watch the Crytek GDC interview on GameTrailers.com, they have someone playing the 360 demo in the background (according to GT) and it looks pretty good and smooth! Quite some pop-up but hey, it's to be expected. I hope that, as someone previously said, they eventually use fade-in/out instead of pop-up.

Originally Posted by Fran

I don't agree with you, actually I think it's very well possible to get close and surpass the quality delivered by Crysis on PC, through good use of the fixed hardware and the shortcuts possible on consoles that are pretty much excluded when working on PC, smart asset creation, a bit of creativity and the use of a more advanced engine.

I hope this means that the PC version will look somewhat better or at least the same AND run much smoother than a CE2 game in the same PC.