new demo(s) coming that put Double Cross (Ruby) to shame ?

[Rolf N]

Can that good HDR be done with an 8 bit framebuffer?

R300 supports FP16 and FP32 per channel render targets. I'm sure R420 does so, too.

You won't get fixed function blending functionality on them. The way around that is ping-pong rendering between two (or more) targets and performing the blend in a fragment program.

NV3x is much more handicapped in this respect than R300 (no mipmaps, no wrap).

NV4x is obviously better because it can blend FP targets and filter FP textures, but this is "just" a performance enhancement. You can still do it on R300.

 

[KimB]

NV4x is obviously better because it can blend FP targets and filter FP textures, but this is "just" a performance enhancement. You can still do it on R300.

"Just" ? I don't think so. This is the entire point. For general rendering, it is realistically just not possible to use FP render targets on the R3xx. The ping-ponging would have be done vastly too many times for it to be remotely playable. The only way to use FP render targets on the R3xx is to impose limits upon what can be rendered.

 

[RejZoR]

I wouldn't call that Bloom effect... if so,Far Cry also uses Bloom effect...
And again HL2 looks nicer. Far Cry looks like killer overbright while HL2 looks very natural. Especially sun blindness and dark to light transition.

 

[Xmas]

You won't get fixed function blending functionality on them. The way around that is ping-pong rendering between two (or more) targets and performing the blend in a fragment program.

NV3x is much more handicapped in this respect than R300 (no mipmaps, no wrap).

Why would you need mipmaps or wrap for render targets? (besides, ATI supports neither for NPOT textures yet)

 

[[maven]]

For general rendering, it is realistically just not possible to use FP render targets on the R3xx. The ping-ponging would have be done vastly too many times for it to be remotely playable.

From my experience, that is not true. You can do quite a few a few ping-pong renderpasses with flip-flopped FP surfaces before things become unbearably slow. Conversely, you wouldn't want to change blend-mode too often either as it kills your batching.
Obviously I agree that having FP-blending is better than not having it.

 

[KimB]

]From my experience, that is not true. You can do quite a few a few ping-pong renderpasses with flip-flopped FP surfaces before things become unbearably slow. Conversely, you wouldn't want to change blend-mode too often either as it kills your batching.
Obviously I agree that having FP-blending is better than not having it.

Flip-flopping per-pass is fine.....but once you do transparencies you have to do it much more often than that.

 

[bloodbob]

Okay most games that have bloom don't use HDR. They just take the 8 bit render ( at a low resoltuion ) subtract say 192 from it ( 0-255 rather then 0-1.0 here ) multiple it by 4 and do a blend. Or somthing roughly to that effect. This sort of thing is rather crap as you get something that supposed to be plain white lets say text on the screen yet it has a bloom which is really wrong.

Now some of the newer game like NSFU2 and HL2 have over bright which is an improvement they either use INT8 or INT16 render targets and they render more darker then normal ( really for INT8 render targets anything then about 1/2-1/4 brightness and your probably get banding ). This is a VAST improvement as you can have things at full brightness on screen such as white text but there is no bloom yet you can have specular hightlights with a bloom. This still isn't really a high dynamic range but it certainly is an improvement and a step in the right direction.

Oh yeah flip-flop/ping-pong with 10K transparent particles

 

[[maven]]

]From my experience, that is not true. You can do quite a few a few ping-pong renderpasses with flip-flopped FP surfaces before things become unbearably slow. Conversely, you wouldn't want to change blend-mode too often either as it kills your batching.
Obviously I agree that having FP-blending is better than not having it.

Flip-flopping per-pass is fine.....but once you do transparencies you have to do it much more often than that.

I see what you mean. Brainfart.

 

[KimB]

This still isn't really a high dynamic range but it certainly is an improvement and a step in the right direction.

Well, technically it is, but it's just low-precision HDR....

 

[ChrisRay]

Double Cross has better skin shaders than these Crytek demos.

I agree. In their vain attempt at making it realistic. They just made it ugly.

 

[bloodbob]

This still isn't really a high dynamic range but it certainly is an improvement and a step in the right direction.

Well, technically it is, but it's just low-precision HDR....

Technically you could have 2 bits 0-3 would that be HDR as well?

 

[KimB]

Well, sure. I believe the official definition of HDR is that it allows for a higher range of intermediate color values than can finally be displayed. Obviously there are degrees to this, and it's further obvious that floating-point HDR is vastly superior to integer HDR (FP=HDR with no precision loss).

 

[trinibwoy]

I believe the official definition of HDR is that it allows for a higher range of intermediate color values than can finally be displayed.

Speaking of which, when are we going to be seeing > 16.5 million possible display colors ?

 

[Cryect]

Soon as there is fast cheap RAMDAC's supporting floating point I would say.

The Parhelia has a 30 bit RAMDAC doesn't it btw?

Hopefully a DVI 2.0 or something will be updated supporting floating point or at least 16 bit ints for each of the colors (prolly would have to use serial instead of parallel though).

 

[KimB]

I believe the official definition of HDR is that it allows for a higher range of intermediate color values than can finally be displayed.

Speaking of which, when are we going to be seeing > 16.5 million possible display colors ?

Well, supporting a greater number of colors is entirely different than displaying a greater range of colors. But I'd love to see Matrox' 30-bit color make it to the mainstram market as the optimum rendertarget for the tone mapping pass of rendering.

 

[BrynS]

A chap over at the OcUK forums has posted a video of the demo in this thread.

It's 30.6MB (320x240 WM9 - TVRip from NBC). Try to go easy on his bandwidth

Cheers,


BrynS

 

[XxStratoMasterXx]

Double Cross has better skin shaders than these Crytek demos.

I agree. In their vain attempt at making it realistic. They just made it ugly.

It's not "ugly" and it looks better than say Half-Life 2 or some other major game. However, there are games with better visuals than this.

I personally say, great job CryTek for showing off the best the engine can do

 

[101998]

A chap over at the OcUK forums has posted a video of the demo in this thread.

It's 30.6MB (320x240 WM9 - TVRip from NBC). Try to go easy on his bandwidth

Cheers,


BrynS

Wow. That video is quite impressive.

 

[CJ]

Here's a slightly bigger version of the video: CryEngine 1.3: The Project - X850 demo (115MB)

And here you can download hi res screenshots: High res screenshots (44MB)

 

[101998]

Is the demo running at 1920x1440 or just some single frames capped at that res?