CryENGINE 3

[L. Scofield]

Behold the powah of CryEngine 3! xD

http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/ClunyEnodo_01.jpg
http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/ClunyEnodo_02.jpg
http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/ClunyEnodo_03.jpg
http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/ClunyEnodo_04.jpg
http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/ClunyEnodo_05.jpg
http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/ClunyEnodo_06.jpg
http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/ClunyEnodo_07.jpg

More info here:

http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=502184#p502184

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Absolutely fantastic, except for the visual aliasing.

Things like that really make me excited to see a Cityscape (ala Crysis 2) in ways a Junglescape (Crysis 1) couldn't.

The diffuse shadows look quite good. Perhaps this'll be the first time on PC I leave shadows on full when given a choice. IMO, currently noone in the industry can touch Crytek with regards to tech and graphics IQ.

Regards,
SB

 

[Ruskie]

Holy...

 

[Neb]

Fantastic lighting and shadows making it look realistic/realistic CGI. Really shows CE3 superior tech just like what CE2 did before. To spice it up higher res textures and POM would be suitable. Looks about on par with lightmass from UE3.5 but this stuff is realtime, REALTIME rendered, not baked.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Remarkble stuff. You can see this has a place in professional visualisation or graphics prototyping. How it scales on consoles is a big question mark.

 

[L. Scofield]

A little bit of exaggeration Nebula, while it looks great and it's 100% realtime, it still lacks penumbra, area and indirect shadows.

How it scales on consoles is a big question mark.

Not really. Their papers on GI give us numbers.

http://www.crytek.com/cryengine/presentations

Besides, GI was already present in the XB360 build they used for the "beta" they had a few months back.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Dang, and GTX 285 is already 2 generations (or 1.5 depending on how much better you consider GTX 580 over 480 and Radeon 6970 over 5870) old on PC.

It's interesting that LPV look-up is so much faster on consoles. I'm assuming LPV lookup is still only half resolution on PS3 while it's roughly the same between X360 and PC?

Regards,
SB

 

[pjbliverpool]

Dang, and GTX 285 is already 2 generations (or 1.5 depending on how much better you consider GTX 580 over 480 and Radeon 6970 over 5870) old on PC.

It's interesting that LPV look-up is so much faster on consoles. I'm assuming LPV lookup is still only half resolution on PS3 while it's roughly the same between X360 and PC?

Regards,
SB

What's LPV lookup? Do we know why it would be faster on a console?

 

[Neb]

It's interesting that LPV look-up is so much faster on consoles. I'm assuming LPV lookup is still only half resolution on PS3 while it's roughly the same between X360 and PC?

Regards,
SB

The GTX285 is working on 4x resolution vs 360/PS3.

 

[AlNom]

What's LPV lookup?

3D texture lookup to render/illuminate the scene amongst a couple other things.

Do we know why it would be faster on a console?

Possibly API overhead on PC.

The GTX285 is working on 4x resolution vs 360/PS3.

That's just for the RSM. The final lit scene is 1280x720.

I'm assuming LPV lookup is still only half resolution on PS3

Yeah, they make use of that 2xMSAA remapping trick.

 

[Neb]

Possibly API overhead on PC.

I wonder though why they did this bench in DX9 API mode. AFAIK all their benches and numbers with GTX285 has been under DX9 API.

That's just for the RSM.

Perhaps it can affect other things due to bigger surface/higher res to sample?

Anyway here is another chart with different perfomance numbers for Sponza testmap (2010-I3D ppt document).

 

[Neb]

A little bit of exaggeration Nebula, while it looks great and it's 100% realtime, it still lacks penumbra, area and indirect shadows.

True, true though SSAO if stronger would do a satisfactory job especially if it also can handle mapping. Also was it explained at what API mode this was taken in becouse it sure is lame having everything or near everything showcased on PC CE3 being DX9 so far.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Not really. Their papers on GI give us numbers.
http://www.crytek.com/cryengine/presentations

The first presentations showed realtime GI on consoles, but it was significantly reduced quality. These latest screenshots are running at higher quality than what was shown in their September presentations. That chart you posted shows quarter resolution RSM rendering. If the above cathedral scene was rendered on consoles to the same quality, how long would it take? If scaled back to run realtime, how will the image be affected?

 

[Rangers]

Cevat is saying "Unreal Engine couldn't handle Crysis"

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/285069/news/unreal-engine-couldnt-handle-crysis-2-crytek/

Crytek has told CVG that its CryEngine 3 could have fuelled the development of "pretty much any other game" - but claimed that its rivals, including Epic Games' Unreal Engine, would struggle to power Crysis 2.

I think thats fairly true. UE3 is 5 years old after all. I think UE3 still looks great on the newest build (Bulletstorm, Gears 3) but Cryengine 3 does look better.

Boy nobody must want a longer console gen than Cevat. Yeah he's got the best engine (at least in looks) but is there any more time for games to use it this gen?

 

[MarkoIt]

Cevat is saying "Unreal Engine couldn't handle Crysis"

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/285069/news/unreal-engine-couldnt-handle-crysis-2-crytek/



I think thats fairly true. UE3 is 5 years old after all. I think UE3 still looks great on the newest build (Bulletstorm, Gears 3) but Cryengine 3 does look better.

Boy nobody must want a longer console gen than Cevat. Yeah he's got the best engine (at least in looks) but is there any more time for games to use it this gen?

I would be happy with a maxed out CE3@1080p on Xbox720/PS4

 

[dragonelite]

And didn't they made CE3 next gen ready.

 

[Neb]

Cevat is saying "Unreal Engine couldn't handle Crysis"

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/285069/news/unreal-engine-couldnt-handle-crysis-2-crytek/



I think thats fairly true. UE3 is 5 years old after all. I think UE3 still looks great on the newest build (Bulletstorm, Gears 3) but Cryengine 3 does look better.

Boy nobody must want a longer console gen than Cevat. Yeah he's got the best engine (at least in looks) but is there any more time for games to use it this gen?

Having the UDK3.5 and despite it being nice it sure is slow compared to CE2 vs visuals and rendering tech used. Having global realtime shadows (jungle scene) makes for a very big perfomance impact and shadow edge quality is greatly inferior to CE2 at anything but low settings.

But yeah UE3.5+ is nice but for what it renders in fully realtime scenarios it sure performs a heck of a lot worse than CE2 while in many cases delivering worse effect quality. Though the lightmass tech is godlike and once done for scene damn fast and looks jaw-dropping.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

What makes me sad whenever I see what's possible on PC's like CE3 and the Lightmass tech for UE 3.5+ is thinking about how the vast majority of developement dollars is used to try to make things on console look even a small fraction as good as it could be on PC.

Just imagine what the KZ devs, Bungie, GoW devs, etc. could do with the budgets they have, except on PC without being limited to consoles. /sigh.

Regards,
SB

 

[egoless]

Delete

 

[tabs]

I'd bet more PC gamers want the next gen of consoles to come out than the people who actually play on the things.