CryENGINE 3

I've noticed that so far all examples of the real-time GI only apply to the skylight, not regular point lights. If that's the case... :cry:

I think it's too early to tell. The only shots they've really shown are the outdoor scenes. But yeah if that's the case .... :cry:
 
I think he meant other light sources besides the sun (looks like the inside is still being lit by sunlight). For instance, will my flashlight illuminate not just what it's pointed at but the surroundings as well?
 
No lightmaps (or did you just mean lights), CE3 is all completely dynamic :)

I do hope though that all light sources act the same.
 
Pretty sure this is a universal solution. Plenty of indoor goodness.

<Video>

Is it me or is the lighting in that video all wrong?

I thought the whole point of GI approx algorithms was pseudo-accurate radiosity and indirect lighting..?

Yet in those videos you have massive cut-off between areas where the light hits directly and the rest of the scene which is way too dark from what i can tell..?
 
Is it me or is the lighting in that video all wrong?

I thought the whole point of GI approx algorithms was pseudo-accurate radiosity and indirect lighting..?

Yet in those videos you have massive cut-off between areas where the light hits directly and the rest of the scene which is way too dark from what i can tell..?
It is a approximation of the first bounce of light, so it naturally doesn't get very bright.
They could add more bounces to it tough, but if I understood correctly each new bounce would need a new pass.
 
It is a approximation of the first bounce of light, so it naturally doesn't get very bright.
They could add more bounces to it tough, but if I understood correctly each new bounce would need a new pass.

As far as I can tell, adding more bounces would be complicated.
It seems like they're rendering the scene from the point of view of the light, like when doing shadow mapping, and creating a light source for each lit pixel. This takes them about 0.7 ms per frame.
Then they use their technique to propagate their light and get everything ready for rendering, which takes about 2.8 ms per frame.
Adding an extra light source should hopefully only add an extra 0.7 ms (possibly less if it's a small light source, since you could get by with lower resolution).
I'm not sure how you'd manage to add an extra bounce in a proper way, you'd need to process all the triangles in the scene in world-space as far as I can tell.. It should be simple to tweak the result with ambient lighting or screen-space fakery, though.
 
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-crysis-console

Nice job Nebbs. :)


Our experiment in modding Crysis to replicate the console look also suggests that PC owners have little to worry about. While Crysis 2 may be console-focused by financial necessity, it's fair to assume that the PC version will benefit from higher-quality artwork, and will receive an enormous visual upgrade by default simply by scaling up many of the powerful environmental variables built into the engine by design.

It's also fair to say that PC owners should be able to get performance that far outstrips the 720p30 we can realistically expect from the PS3 and Xbox 360. The scalability of CryEngine3, along with the existence of those higher-quality assets designed for PC, also means that CryTek could conceivably release a supremely impressive version of Crysis 2 for the next-gen consoles when they materialise in the expected 2011/2012 time-frame. The developer is already on the record as saying that CE3 has been designed to scale up to accommodate the next generation of console platforms.

Another factor computer owners should consider is that the optimisation work required to get CryEngine working on console will inevitably lead to significant performance boosts when rolled back across to PC, a point of view expressed in this GDC presentation from Valve, which discusses in depth the challenges of moving from a pure PC development environment to multi-format. There was a useful performance bump between Crysis and Warhead, but both games still targeted a dual-core CPU for optimum performance. Bearing in mind the six hardware threads available in the Xenon CPU, plus the six available Cell SPUs, CryTek would have been hard at work in scaling their engine to work across many more processors. The best gaming CPUs on PC right now are quad-cores, so those efforts will transition across back to PC very nicely.

Bottom line: we would hope that Crysis 2 will be a technical showcase regardless of platform, scaling to match the power of the system you run it on


So, in the end we all win. ;)
PC really is the "fist of fury" platform. :D :cool:


Although I don't like the possible implications of this:
However, the fact that Frankfurt's finest are not producing a straight-up port of Crysis is also very significant. Moving onto a sequel allows CryTek to concentrate on levels and gameplay that do suit a cross-platform product. For example, level design with more occluding elements in the scenery could serve to boost performance significantly.

It could be that the leves are more corridor-like instead of more opened ones.


But this:
It's also a matter of fact that CryTek's zero-compromise coding techniques result in some pretty massive source code. One developer recently told me that just the source for creating normal maps in Crysis is bigger than that for their entire engine - which has been used to ship over half a dozen games.

:oops:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If anyone has such PC they could test it. Maybe I'll see how much a 7900GT and AMD 4200+ would struggle. However it would be interesting to do this with Crysis 2/CE. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No comments on the analysis? ;)

Seems like nobody replied, not even in the appropriate thread:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1365809#post1365809

;)

If anyone has such PC they could test it. Maybe I'll see how much a 7900GT and AMD 4200+ would struggle. However it would be interesting to do this with Crysis 2/CE. :)

And don't forget to raise the arms of the character model if you want to make it look even more like in the CryENGINE 3 videos :p:D;).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah I'll do it with raised arms to. However I would need to resort to the Opteron 185/7900GT system as the other AMD system has faulty RAM stick and 1GB of RAM just doesn't cut it for test.
 
I don't see the poit of such an analysis when we don't have a measurement of all the optimization done for CryEngine 3.

Yeah true. Would be better with CE3. Though what could be interesting is how such things as sunshafts, SSAO, colorgrading runs on a non-unified shader architeture vs unified. And then also see how much Cell + RSX or Xenos + Xenon achieves by being fixed platform and by being more flexible (DirectX limitations) and Cell helping out RSX.
 
I honestly couldn't care less, but I wish you guys would stick to the PC forums instead of loitering in the Console forums.

Don't you have anything better to do?
 
Back
Top