Crytek and unreal 3 demo...which one has better graphic

[bitwise xor]

I paid for a Radeon 9700 Pro not just for speed, but for the technology it supports.

Well that was silly of you. I'm also curious as to why Ostsol thinks id should care what video card Ostsol bought and for what reasons Ostsol bought it? I'm pretty sure their concerns go beyond justifying your purchase you made based on a supposed ability to run content that doesn't exist?

Sxotty,

That shot reminded me of severance:blades of darkness. I really have to play that again sometime.

 

[MasterBaiter]

That shot reminded me of severance:blades of darkness. I really have to play that again sometime.

Hehe, true dat! That was a hella fun game.

 

[Ostsol]

I paid for a Radeon 9700 Pro not just for speed, but for the technology it supports.

Well that was silly of you. I'm also curious as to why Ostol thinks id should care what video card Ostol bought and for what reasons Ostol bought it? I'm pretty sure their concerns go beyond justifying your purchase you made based on a supposed ability to run content that doesn't exist?

Two 's's please. Ostsol.

Anyway, by the time Doom 3 came out, DX9 level video cards had been available for two years -- and based on the fact that it was running on a Radeon 9700 the E3 before ATI released the card, it is clear that ID Software had one even then. That's plenty of time to provide even vaguely more specific shaders for various materials.

Also, my comment was in general terms. I expected that various games that used DX9 technology would provide something more than the same detail with just a new interface.

Oh, and one other reason why I bought a Radeon 9700 Pro was because I wanted to experiment with its shader capabilities. The 8500 was fun, but writing fragment shaders for it was a pain, given the available OpenGL extension. Thinking back, I could have wrapped it up in some code to make it easier. . .

 

[bitwise xor]

Ostsol,

My apologies about the name. I fixed it up.

By the time dx9 cards came out id had already made all their major descisions about technology and content and were just cranking away getting the game done. From what I've read they didn't really expect the game to take as long to finish as it did, so none of their descisions would have been based around that kind of development length. At the end they kinda made a bit of an effort, Carmack stuck in his new materials system and the level designers threw around that heat haze effect everywhere.

All I've really expected from dx9 technology is that it would be the basis for developers next from-the-ground up engines and content. I never really expected much from stuff that was already well under way when 9700 came along.

 

[XxStratoMasterXx]

Again, it's all a matter of whether they wanted to throw fragment programs in or not. The ENGINE has support for it, and ARB2 is a DX9 only renderer. id chose not to utilize it.

 

[Ostsol]

Um. . . I don't think that for the two years of development they kept on expecting it to be finished "soon". The opportunity was there, but they decided it was not worthwhile or something. Still disappointing. (I did enjoy the game, BTW. . .)

 

[bitwise xor]

Yes, not worthwhile because they had already made all their descision about their targets.

I think they were expecting to release the game early 2003 initialy.

 

[Ardrid]

To the question this thread originally posed, UE3 without a doubt.

 

[Dave B(TotalVR)]

Speaking for the Doom 3 engine....

I'd quickly say that it is vastly superior to the Hl2 engine in terms of GFX only, but HL2 really wins in other areas - like its interactivity.

As for the Doom3 engine not being used to its full potential...

Its clear in a number of areas where they have had to hold back in doom3, due to performance constraints. The most obvious thing is the low poly models. While with polybumping you can make them look better with bump mapping but it has no effect on the shadows, you can see their clunkiness. I think a lot more high rez textures could be used in some areas too, I think the cunning use of dim lighting has hidden this in places.

Its like the Quake 3 engine, clearly Q3 was not its limit, it generally had much lower poly and texture counts than games made afterwards based on the same engine.

 

[NeoCool]

Unreal Engine 3 any-day.

 

[SlmDnk]

I love the CryEngine but Unreal Engine 3 gets my vote too. But I think CryEngine 2 will be as good or even better than UE3

Here's some talk about the next-gen CryEngine:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=170106891&m=2101086332

By the way.... here's the direct feed video of the UE3 demo @ E3 2004:
ftp://ftp.maikauerswald.de.001:gorgul@s336.evanzo-server.de/UnrealEngine3Demo.wmv

 

[_xxx_]

That shot reminded me of severance:blades of darkness. I really have to play that again sometime.

Hehe, true dat! That was a hella fun game.

But with awful controls, which kills all the fun.

 

[PeterAce]

I love the CryEngine but Unreal Engine 3 gets my vote too. But I think CryEngine 2 will be as good or even better than UE3

Here's some talk about the next-gen CryEngine:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=170106891&m=2101086332

By the way.... here's the direct feed video of the UE3 demo @ E3 2004:
ftp://ftp.maikauerswald.de.001:gorgul@s336.evanzo-server.de/UnrealEngine3Demo.wmv

Could you post another link to the UE3 direct feed, as the link you've given doesn't work. Thanks.

 

[SlmDnk]

The link still works. I'm using Firefox and right click/save link as starts downloading the file.

But here's another version of that link...

ftp://ftp.maikauerswald.de.001:gorgul@s336.evanzo-server.de/UnrealEngine3Demo.wmv

 

[PeterAce]

The link still works. I'm using Firefox and right click/save link as starts downloading the file.

But here's another version of that link...

ftp://ftp.maikauerswald.de.001:gorgul@s336.evanzo-server.de/UnrealEngine3Demo.wmv

Thanks, there working now.

 

[poly-gone]

All the talk about the Doom 3 engine being limited by hardware technology is pure nonsense . In my opinion, an engine's superiority refers to what an engine can do given the best hardware at the time. Any shader engine can put stunning graphics on the screen, but what's the use if it needs a Render-Farm to do that ? With the given choice of engines, Unreal Engine 3 obviously gets my vote.

 

[KimB]

All the talk about the Doom 3 engine being limited by hardware technology is pure nonsense . In my opinion, an engine's superiority refers to what an engine can do given the best hardware at the time.

It is, though. It's limited because there was a design decision early-on that stated that all hardware that supported shaders would look the same (precision issues aside). This meant that the specular highlights weren't programmable due to the limitations of NV2x hardware.

Later, when it became clear that NV3x/R3xx hardware was going to be much more common upon release, it just didn't make sense to go back and retool all of the artwork for variable specular highlights or more complex light interaction shaders.

So, the game was limited by hardware in conjunction with a particular design decision.

 

[poly-gone]

That's all fine, we know that JC and the id software folks had to make decisions early on that influenced the "game", but there isn't a chance that a tech demo like 3DMark 05, made with the Doom 3 engine, would run at even sub-interactive framerates! Of course, in response some people would say that the engine isn't made for rendering outdoor levels, but that would automatically imply one of the engine's weaknesses.

 

[KimB]

That's all fine, we know that JC and the id software folks had to make decisions early on that influenced the "game", but there isn't a chance that a tech demo like 3DMark 05, made with the Doom 3 engine, would run at even sub-interactive framerates! Of course, in response some people would say that the engine isn't made for rendering outdoor levels, but that would automatically imply one of the engine's weaknesses.

Well, 3DMark 05 doesn't come close to running at interactive framerates on my machine (Athlon XP 2000+, GeForce 6800).

That aside, the only change you'd really need to make is to change the shadow volume extrusion from the CPU to the GPU.

 

[Leto]

hi

I'm not asking which game engine is/will be more advanced ,instead I'm asking with regards to graphic seen in both crytek engine demo and unreal 3 demo...which of the two demos has better graphics(more detailed textures,more realistic movements etc)

For some reason when looking at pics from both demos I can't decide which one is better looking(perhaps cos one has human characters while the other doesn't)

I aslo realise that demo from unreal 3 will probably become a game sometime in the near future while crytek is only a demonstration of the engine

I didn' know the UE3 demo was released in executable form?