JacksBleedingEyes
Regular
And mind u the unreal warfare engine is the unreal engine with more poly more and more detailed textures
G
Guest
Guest
Heya, not all DC, PS2 or GC games run at 60fps too. A little more optimasation and get it 30fps stable. 8)
The screenshots look a lot more like Unreal 2 than DOOM3. The shadows are much softer than doom3, and the polygon counts are higher, so they're almost definitely not using stencil shadows... dunno why the terrain shadows are so much harder than character shadows. =/
The aliasing in the 5th screenshot (guys standing around a room with pipes) is absolutely HORRIBLE.
On closer look at the shadows, it seems pretty apparent that character shadows aren't calculated in the precise DOOM3 way. In screenshot 1, the shadows on the wall indicate that the lighting is coming from the direction of the screen, but the people's shadows are directly underneath them. In screenshot 2, the girl standing on the table doesn't cast any shadow at all. In fact, the thingy she's standing on casts a shadow as if the lightsource is coming from her position.
Then, in screenshot 4, it is absolutely clear that the lighting is coming from that bright spot on the wall. The shadows on the table and the cups confirm this, but the one guy who's shadow is visible has it directly underfoot. Judging by this and screenie 1, it seems like it isn't really unified lighting. However, the shadows cast by background objects seems ridiculously hard for a lightmap... they are almost certainly stencil shadows. I can't think of why anyone would go for such a hard look with lightmaps, that just wouldn't make sense.
Most likely, dynamic shadows are calculated for static objects and unrealistic shadows are calculated for dynamic objects. Also, notice how characters have extremely high polygon counts but environments have surprisingly low polycounts. They're probably aiming for the DOOM3-ish look where you can shoot a rocket, and watch the rocket cast shadows on the pipes on the wall, but they don't want to sacrifice character model polycount just for shadows. If true, it would be an interesting hybrid approach. However, I wonder how weird it would look in a room where a swinging light casts swinging shadows on the terrain, but the enemies shadows don't swing around.
By the way, anyone else find the texture quality horrible? They all seem rather bland and low-resolution, and if you look at Screenshot 3, you can clearly see pixel crawling on the line running across his chest. Also, the arch above the doorway in that screenshot shows some individual pixels, and the table in Screenie #5 is bizzarrely blurry, considering that they are definitely using anisotropic filtering. (screenie #7) I hope the game doesn't encounter the Unreal II problem of inconsistent textures - wasting GPU power on a few super high res textures while plastering Quake3-looking textures over other things.
The aliasing in the 5th screenshot (guys standing around a room with pipes) is absolutely HORRIBLE.
On closer look at the shadows, it seems pretty apparent that character shadows aren't calculated in the precise DOOM3 way. In screenshot 1, the shadows on the wall indicate that the lighting is coming from the direction of the screen, but the people's shadows are directly underneath them. In screenshot 2, the girl standing on the table doesn't cast any shadow at all. In fact, the thingy she's standing on casts a shadow as if the lightsource is coming from her position.
Then, in screenshot 4, it is absolutely clear that the lighting is coming from that bright spot on the wall. The shadows on the table and the cups confirm this, but the one guy who's shadow is visible has it directly underfoot. Judging by this and screenie 1, it seems like it isn't really unified lighting. However, the shadows cast by background objects seems ridiculously hard for a lightmap... they are almost certainly stencil shadows. I can't think of why anyone would go for such a hard look with lightmaps, that just wouldn't make sense.
Most likely, dynamic shadows are calculated for static objects and unrealistic shadows are calculated for dynamic objects. Also, notice how characters have extremely high polygon counts but environments have surprisingly low polycounts. They're probably aiming for the DOOM3-ish look where you can shoot a rocket, and watch the rocket cast shadows on the pipes on the wall, but they don't want to sacrifice character model polycount just for shadows. If true, it would be an interesting hybrid approach. However, I wonder how weird it would look in a room where a swinging light casts swinging shadows on the terrain, but the enemies shadows don't swing around.
By the way, anyone else find the texture quality horrible? They all seem rather bland and low-resolution, and if you look at Screenshot 3, you can clearly see pixel crawling on the line running across his chest. Also, the arch above the doorway in that screenshot shows some individual pixels, and the table in Screenie #5 is bizzarrely blurry, considering that they are definitely using anisotropic filtering. (screenie #7) I hope the game doesn't encounter the Unreal II problem of inconsistent textures - wasting GPU power on a few super high res textures while plastering Quake3-looking textures over other things.
marconelly!
Veteran
BoddZerg, I'm not sure what are you talking about as far as shadows go. It's pretty clear from those screens that both characters and static geometry cast those hard edged D3-like shadows (are you referring to those as 'realistic' btw?)
JacksBleedingEyes
Regular
Its NOT DOOM 3. Get the fuck over it. Its the the new Unreal Engine
go check the DX2 website. Its always been the unreal warfare engine.
Not that I like it, frankly the unreal warfare hasnt achieved anything from a inovative standpoint, just more grunt.
go check the DX2 website. Its always been the unreal warfare engine.
Not that I like it, frankly the unreal warfare hasnt achieved anything from a inovative standpoint, just more grunt.
JacksBleedingEyes said:
It's got about as much in common with the Unreal engine as it does the Doom 3 engine right now. IIRC the file format and the editor are about the only parts they're still using from the Unreal engine. New renderer, new AI, new sound engine, new physics engine (Havok), etc.
Aliasing is probalby due to the fact that it's a screenshot taken at 640x480 on a computer monitor with no anti-aliasing on. It won't look like that on a TV, and if you're running it at 640x480 with no AA on a computer, you have no one to blame but yourself.
I have seen some screenshots where the shadows didn't look 100% correct, but without being able to examine the entire scene and figure out where all the light sources are, it's tough to say. That's one downside of screenshots with the newer lighting methods. They've got a few months left to tweak and polish it, so hopefully they'll get any major bugs worked out before release.
As for texture detail (also shows off some shadowing problems on the player model, but rather good proof that the shadows on the models are dynamic):
Wow! New DX2 movie! NICE unified lighting! Lights and shadows are going to play a big part in pushing true DX8 beauty.
Xbox version will look as good at 480p too.
GraphiiX GaloreX
Xbox version will look as good at 480p too.
GraphiiX GaloreX
chaperone said:Wow! New DX2 movie! NICE unified lighting! Lights and shadows are going to play a big part in pushing true DX8 beauty.
Xbox version will look as good at 480p too.
------>GraphiiX GaloreX <-------
8)
CaptainHowdy
Regular
ahaha, I cant help by laugh.. lets do a comparison, and see how it pans out... more polys..sure..
Xbox pics(According to that site)
now, PC Pics that have been on PC.IGN for over a month
wow, what a mad difference.. the XBox version is just a port of whats being done on the PC(THe PC version will be out long before the XBox version as well), XBox version will be indenticle only feature bad console controls and lack of editing tools.
now let me show you some other breathtaking PC shots from last month(do they look familiar?}
Xbox pics(According to that site)
now, PC Pics that have been on PC.IGN for over a month
wow, what a mad difference.. the XBox version is just a port of whats being done on the PC(THe PC version will be out long before the XBox version as well), XBox version will be indenticle only feature bad console controls and lack of editing tools.
now let me show you some other breathtaking PC shots from last month(do they look familiar?}
DX2 looks nice and solid. Dun mind caphowdy, Xbox version will be great for those without a nice powerful PC. Warren Spector is da man. I have confident in the port.
I will have the last laugh if DX2 is release for the Xbox first.
Rumors has it Halflife2, System Shock3, DX2 and Theif3 are going to make a "strong" console appearance.
I will have the last laugh if DX2 is release for the Xbox first.
Rumors has it Halflife2, System Shock3, DX2 and Theif3 are going to make a "strong" console appearance.
CaptainHowdy
Regular
hehe, have you even played Halflife Chap?
do you sincerely believe is success has anything to do with the game as it stood? I dont, because I've been playing the game for about 4 years straight, but never touched the stock game.
I wasnt knocking the Xbox version, I just found it funny people were talking about how it sported all these extra polys, gawking at those shots, not knowing those were PC screens, one would think before saying, "Wow, look at this, its really beefed up", they would have seen the original game to compare it to first.
do you sincerely believe is success has anything to do with the game as it stood? I dont, because I've been playing the game for about 4 years straight, but never touched the stock game.
I wasnt knocking the Xbox version, I just found it funny people were talking about how it sported all these extra polys, gawking at those shots, not knowing those were PC screens, one would think before saying, "Wow, look at this, its really beefed up", they would have seen the original game to compare it to first.
Similar threads
- Locked
