beginner16
Newcomer
Leto said:
It wasn't to public,but guys from PC gamer managed to play a bit non the less
Crytek and unreal 3 demo...which one has better graphic
- Thread starter beginner16
- Start date
It wasn't to public,but guys from PC gamer managed to play a bit non the less
poly-gone said: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
That reminds me of Quake (1). Ran like a dog unless you had a Pentium 150 or the ultra rare and ultra expensive Pentium Pro and even then forget about anything higher than 640x480. 8-bit textures (which, as someone put it, seems like id spent all 7 bits of which on shades of brown), blocky characters, needed 16mb ram to really get off the ground, etc.
Compare it to Duke3D which had come out just under 6 months before Quake: fast (you could play at 800x600 if your video card supported VESA), colourful, highly interactive, worked quite well with just 8mb ram etc.
Which engine did eventually win out tons of licenses and virtually gave birth to the engine licensing industry? You always have to weight what a particular engine brings to the table and not just how fast it can pump frames on screen.
Duke3D-era Build was used/licensed for Blood, Shadow Warrior, Redneck Rampage, and ~10 low-budget titles. Quake was used/licensed for ... Hexen II and Sin. They also sold it for Half-Life and Daikatana, but both of those ended up far different (and with bits of Quake II). It wasn't really any more successful than Build, and barely more than Doom.Mordenkainen said:
Fodder said:
Almost (if not) all published by 3Drealms. If they didn't use Build that'd be like Return to Castle Wolfenstein using the Unreal engine.
I think you're making an incorrect distinction. How different is Quake II's engine from Quake 1's (especially from GLQuake)? It had radiosity precomputation. And it did some things better (like brush rotation -- but which had already debutted in Quake 1's mission pack by Hipnotic, now Ritual). Existing Quake (1) licensees just used the new parts of the code but the base is still Quake 1. Here's a quote from JC's .plan:
By the same token I think TekWar should also be considered a Build engine game even if it came out with an older version of Build.
Another distinction you're making is between licenses and released games. id still gets money from games that use its engines even if they are eventually canned or switch to another engine, they just don't get royalties. Yet another is between number of games and total units sold. I played TekWar but how many did in comparison to, say, Sin.
From 3drealms page:
You can add Blood II I guess. I think the fact that 3Drealms licensed the Quake (II) engine for DN4E is a small hint of which engine "won". And also the fact that after Build they decided to start a new engine from scratch (Prey), fully 3D like Quake. Why do this if Build was so much better?
Blood 2 looks nice even in these days.
Lithtech Engine always impressed me.
Blood 2 was probably the only game in that time with player/monsters shadows that was not only blob,but real shadow which was moving like player/monsters did. Not to mention dynamic lightning which looked very nice.
Lithtech Engine always impressed me.
Blood 2 was probably the only game in that time with player/monsters shadows that was not only blob,but real shadow which was moving like player/monsters did. Not to mention dynamic lightning which looked very nice.
Fodder said:
And I provided arguments to support my claim (like how almost all if not all of Build games are developed/published by 3DRealms which is then obvious they'd use Build so you can't take # of games instead of say, # of total units sold, into account).
But now I'm seeing something else; you're now basically saying (feel free to correct me) that 3Drealms had a more successful engine on their hands, with lots of licensees and so they gave up on it?
AFAIK, technically "Interactive" means less than 10 fps. 3DMark 05 definately would run at atleast 10 fps on a 6800.
That ain't gonna help much. Shadow volumes are a definate no-no with high-poly geometry. With the 1 million+ polygon scenes that 3DMark 05 puts on the screen, the Doom 3 engine would choke.
Well, the E3 video indicates that the scenes are running at something like 20-25 fps. Besides, the scenes rendered in that video have close to 1 million polygons per frame, very high resolution textures and definately no pointy heads!
poly-gone said:
If you want to use MS's definition of "interactive" (which you might not want to) then you'd need at least 10fps (at 640x480).
Generally true but not exactly, only if all those polygons were dynamic and/or were all hit by moving lights. In D3, if you have "static" lights affecting "static" geometry then the engine stores the shadows involving those areas the first time it is rendered and needs not compute them afterwards (as long as both conditions continue to be met). But yeah, generally true.
Agreed, but that's also a techdemo which means a lot of stuff you'd expect in a game that affect framerates aren't there (like firefights spawning dynamic lights and particles, loading an entire level possibly filling all the card's memory, etc.)
Until you can run an actual (tech)demo you can't judge texture resolution and the official UE3 site says those scenes "only" have 500k polys.
MasterBaiter
Regular
Similar threads
