Wolfenstein, did not know it was on the way and did not know that it used the Rage engine.
http://www.fz.se/filer/?id=6879
http://www.fz.se/filer/?id=6879
Wolfenstein, did not know it was on the way and did not know that it used the Rage engine.
http://www.fz.se/filer/?id=6879
Wolfenstein, did not know it was on the way and did not know that it used the Rage engine.
http://www.fz.se/filer/?id=6879
It looks quite good, but we definitely need some direct feed video, as these camera videos always tend to look better than the 'real thing'.
In fact I'm thinking about how to simulate the same effect as in game post processing effect
Does it? I thought it used Megatextures, like Quakewars before it did, but wasn't a id Tech5 game (Rage is a game built on the id Tech5 technology).
The black shadows and shading in RAGE makes it look somewhat Doom-3-esque.It didn't look good enough for Tech5 to me. Definatly looked more Doom 3 esq.
I was considering that pennies a disk at millions of disks adds up quite a bit, and if such a game will only require a third disk because "developers lose upwards of 2 gigs of space per a disc because of information Microsoft requires developers to put on the discs" then I can see why they would want to persuade MS into covering that cost. After all, that alone makes their engine less atractive to license, where as the extra development costs put into optimizing their engine for the PS3 does the opposite.That would seem unlikely--DVDs are pennies to press and it is akin to id Software asking Sony to pony up for the extra development effort they had to put in on the PS3.
developers lose upwards of 2 gigs of space per a disc because of information Microsoft requires developers to put on the discs"
wolfenstien use something called Id Tech 4 plus, which is a upgrade doom 3 engine basically.
What does this mean? I assume he's referring to whatever it is on the discs that knocks the capacity down from the 8.5 GB theoretical of DVD-9 to the 7.2 we know on 360 DVD's.
But thats less than 2GB difference..
It doesnt seem like he could be referring to an ADITTIONAL 2GB, as that would knock capacity down to ~5 GB!
Wonder what he is referring to, and what that data is, copy protection stuff?
I thought the 8.5->7.2 loss was already copy-protection stuff. He could just be exagerating numbers for effect, to get more of a rise out of those of us who don't know the truth and have to rely on 'people in the know'.
Hmm , somebody at id likes Motorstorm ...
Because motostorm invented deserts and buggies.