CryENGINE 3

djskribbles said:
A big chunk of that $500 comes from the soundcard alone (the ASUS HDAV1.3) which is the only soundcard capable of bitstreaming or decoding TrueHD/DTS HD MA.
Click to expand...
Uhh, I don't think that's true. It may be the only sound card that can stream TrueHD/DTS, but hell the software video card codecs can happily output uncompressed (bitstream) 7.1 audio, since that's the format it comes in as anyways. I believe all of the BD players for windows decode TrueHD and output it bitstream as well, similar to what the PS3 does. Certainly on my receiver it reacts similarly with the PS3 vs. my HTPC (ATI HDMI out) outputting raw 5.1/7.1 bitstream audio.

Anyways this is getting a bit off-topic. Personally I was impressed to see CryENGINE 3 do as well as it does on current generation consoles (I saw the demos at GDC), and am looking forward to what those guys will continue to do with it, both in the console space and on PC. I suspect that due to their console porting efforts it'll run quite well on current PCs, with higher resolutions and AA/AF to boot.
 
Andrew Lauritzen said:
Uhh, I don't think that's true. It may be the only sound card that can stream TrueHD/DTS, but hell the software video card codecs can happily output uncompressed (bitstream) 7.1 audio, since that's the format it comes in as anyways. I believe all of the BD players for windows decode TrueHD and output it bitstream as well, similar to what the PS3 does. Certainly on my receiver it reacts similarly with the PS3 vs. my HTPC (ATI HDMI out) outputting raw 5.1/7.1 bitstream audio.
Click to expand...
Well, players decode the audio, but downsample it to 16-bit/48kHz, which probably won't make much of a difference. Without the HDAV (you would need a videocard/IGP with 8ch LPCM support, like an 8200), you're still looking at a little more than the cost of a PS3, or quite a bit more if you want a videocard capable of playing games.

But yeah, off topic.
 
PC versus console is not a valid Console Tech discussion. It should be no surprise to anyone that modern computing tech has more power than years old computing tech. The relevance of PC in this thread is how CryEngine 3 utilises the console and PC hardwares.
 
(Mod edit removes OT content)

Regarding Crysis, they certainly do manage to do more with the console hardware than I would have expected, but on the other hand the results do really highlight the fact that current generation consoles aren't going to hit the quality bar of the original PC Crysis... they get pretty close, and stuff looks pretty good given the constraints, but they're not going to be driving graphics forward. That said, I approve of the direction that Crytek is taking with the engine and I think it's very forward-looking and scalable. Thus I'm quite interested in seeing what they can pull off on current PC hardware (which presumably is a good predictor for next-gen console hardware) with a Crytek 3-style deferred rendering engine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The only thing that's stressing my eyes with the console CE3 was the lack of distant plants on the mountain. I know it's memory constraining but is it possible just to display them on screen without physics, shading and shadows, just the raw polygon? Right now the mountain looked fairly natural without the trees, although the textures actually looked better than CE2's mountain especially around the top area.
 
Silent_Buddha said:
As someone stated earlier, you'd need a PC at the very least 2-4 times as powerful as a console to achieve the same results.

Regards,
SB
Click to expand...

Thats certainly true of RAM quantity but not for GPU power. A well ported game can get almost 1:1 results on the PC compared with the console version given the same amount of GPU power.

Some poor ports obviously fare much worse though.
 
Hasn't id already solved the texture memory problem with Rage and tech 5?

I'm still wondering why we haven't heard about any other developer taking a closer look at this approach... Is it that hard, or - perhaps more likely - does it introduce that many compromises on other features of an engine?
 
Laa-Yosh said:
Hasn't id already solved the texture memory problem with Rage and tech 5?

I'm still wondering why we haven't heard about any other developer taking a closer look at this approach... Is it that hard, or - perhaps more likely - does it introduce that many compromises on other features of an engine?
Click to expand...
Maybe it would take lots more R&D and re-writing of code to get such a 'texture engine' going, maybe by the time its perfected next gen will be here, meaning they either can't make current gen games with that tech or it will be too late to get 3rd parties to adopt/buy their technology using Megatexture-like features...

Wouldn't be surprised if companies are thinking of implementing it in future engines :)
 
ultragpu said:
The only thing that's stressing my eyes with the console CE3 was the lack of distant plants on the mountain. I know it's memory constraining but is it possible just to display them on screen without physics, shading and shadows, just the raw polygon? Right now the mountain looked fairly natural without the trees, although the textures actually looked better than CE2's mountain especially around the top area.
Click to expand...
I noticed that too, but I more notice the low resolution, lack of good AA/texture filtering, closer shadow cascade distances (and slower updates) and simpler geometry (especially the foliage) compared to the PC version. That's not to say that the PC version was completely immune to these issues, but they are definitely more pronounced in the console versions if the videos are to be believed.

That said, the new lighting engine and many of the effects are impressive to say the least.
 
Andrew Lauritzen said:
I noticed that too, but I more notice the low resolution, lack of good AA/texture filtering, closer shadow cascade distances (and slower updates) and simpler geometry (especially the foliage) compared to the PC version. That's not to say that the PC version was completely immune to these issues, but they are definitely more pronounced in the console versions if the videos are to be believed.
Click to expand...

The thing that jumped out at me was the lighting on the foliage; it looks to be comparable to Medium settings at best.

Heh, I just did a google image search for "CryEngine 3" and came across this: http://www.kriyayoga.com/wallpapers/island_scenery/tropical_island_vegetation-dsc02252.jpg.
Funny thing is I thought it was an actual screenie 'till I focused on the grass :LOL:. Crytek did a truly amazing job with those palm and banana trees.
 
Laa-Yosh said:
Hasn't id already solved the texture memory problem with Rage and tech 5?

I'm still wondering why we haven't heard about any other developer taking a closer look at this approach... Is it that hard, or - perhaps more likely - does it introduce that many compromises on other features of an engine?
Click to expand...

Apparently the Project Offset guys are also using (their own kind of) MegaTexture.
 
i would love to say something but iam speechless...way to go crytek!

(ps: was searching for the gdc09 cryengine thread for days now on b3d only to find it in this subforum. again; speechless...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Point light shadows work wrong, how can I debug it?
Replies
2
Views
912
JoeJ
J
Shortbread
Phil Spencer Interview: Redfall Reviews, Activision Deal - Kinda Funny Xcast Ep. 137
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
12K
trinibwoy
T
S
NPD January 2022
Replies
1
Views
1K
Deleted member 11852
D
F
Shader Compilation on PC: About to become a bigger bottleneck?
46 47 48
Replies
955
Views
162K
Krteq
K
S
NPD December 2019 Results
Replies
0
Views
953
Silent_Buddha
S
Back
Top