Some Engine Questions

[The Great Bundini]

I'm working on a chart that compares various game engines. I'm checking the CryEngine, Unreal 2, Doom 3, Source, and Unreal 3 engines.

What information would be relevant to include? I've already got general goodies, like developed by, date debuted, API, physics engine, editor, but want to include more options, like support for HDR, PS 3.0, Geometry Instancing, etc.

I've been Googling for similar things and answers (I still can't figure out whether or not HL2 features HDR; I'm pretty sure no), but have not had much luck.

Maybe you guys could help me out.

Thanks in advance.

-Bundini

 

[gfhr-]

What does physics have to do with graphics?

btw: comparing these (unless it's purely for informational purposes) is quite useless. UE3 isn't even out yet, so how can you make an objective comparison is beyond me.

 

[The Great Bundini]

It's strictly for informational purposes. Without any first-hand experience with the Unreal 3 engine, I have difficulty commenting on its actual prowess.

EDIT- Of course, everything we have seen from the title thus far is nothing less than awe-inspiring. But again, I don't think anyone here is prepared to make a fully informed generalization without seeing a finished product.

 

[Reverend]

What information would be relevant to include?

How many games will be made with the engines you mentioned.

Personally, I am not interested in bullet-list features of any "game engine". Anyone that knows how to program can come up with a "game engine" that is absolutely feature-rich (or feature-complete!). Take the Reality engine for example -- it is cool and is stuffed with goodies. It is targetted to be licensed to be used as a game engine. Without any disrespect to Artificial Studios, the engine is meaningless if it is not "popular" (you can interpretate that whatever way you choose).

Or are you talking purely about "hyped-up" and existing-and-already-has-a-game-made engine?

 

[jpr27]

Reverend,

How long has the Reality Engine been around? Has it been used in games if so which ones? Does it have extensive tools and support? Sorry to go a little off topic but the pictures with lighting were pretty impressive and to my knowledge, I dont think it has been used in a game of any type. Maybe you can shed a little more light on this engine Rev as its caught my curiosity


***There is no Luck...Only the Will and Desire to Succeed!***

 

[TomW]

The Source engine does have some kind of HDR lighting (look into the sun or walk out of a tunnel in HL2). It isn't OpenEXR though, the format that CryTech's engine and NV4x supports.

 

[DegustatoR]

The Source engine does have some kind of HDR lighting (look into the sun or walk out of a tunnel in HL2). It isn't OpenEXR though, the format that CryTech's engine and NV4x supports.

Halos are not HDR.

 

[Para]

The Source engine does have some kind of HDR lighting (look into the sun or walk out of a tunnel in HL2). It isn't OpenEXR though, the format that CryTech's engine and NV4x supports.

OpenEXR can be supported by anyone anywhere since it's just a HDR image format, not some special technology to get the effect.

HL2/Source doesn't have HDR, those "blooms" and such are just clever hacks. The Source Engine does have HDR support though, dunno why it's not in HL2.

 

[Reverend]

The Source Engine does have HDR support though, dunno why it's not in HL2.

Because the game never was intended to feature HDR.

What was "showcased" to Dave et al was not the game. That was a cheat by Valve (DemoCoder will agree, I'm sure).

 

[KimB]

I'm working on a chart that compares various game engines. I'm checking the CryEngine, Unreal 2, Doom 3, Source, and Unreal 3 engines.

What information would be relevant to include? I've already got general goodies, like developed by, date debuted, API, physics engine, editor, but want to include more options, like support for HDR, PS 3.0, Geometry Instancing, etc.

I don't think support for various technologies would be important to include in comparing different engines. It's just trivial to imlement these things if the support isn't already there (it's not trivial, of course, to implement them with content that has already been created, i.e. a shipped game or a game that is significantly into development).

The important things to include will be more related to performance and ease of programming. For example, does engine A provide high-level tools to produce shaders? Does it have lots of built-in shaders, and a good, scalable mechanism for creating more? What is the level editor like? Can it import models from your favorite 3D modelling program? How much content is available with the engine? Can I make use of it?

These are questions that, as far as I can see, would actually be important to people desiring to license an engine.

 

[DjordySeelmann]

Definitely true. Most companies are looking for an engine with good support, especially concerning the provided tools. The better the engine tools are (like a Level Editor and plug-ins for Maya and 3DS Max), the faster a company is able to create a game. It mainly involves money, so moreover, you have to look at the price of an engine license; Most game studios rather hire some additional artists to speed up the production process, than they invest in an engine with superb graphics that is very expensive.

Concerning next-gen engines; I think Reality Engine is the best competitor on the market; it is feature competitve (and at some point even better) than Unreal 3.0, however, it is actually not really what matters; What matters are its price and the tools that come with the Engine SDK. Better tools mean better results, achieved in less time. Most people believe that Unreal 3.0 is superior on that front; however, from personal experience I can tell you that the tools that come with Reality Engine, are at least equivalent, and at some points even better. To conclude the tool part; concerning development tools, I think none of the engines really beats the other.

Same goes for graphics; render an identical scene on both engines, and they won't look that different.

So what DOES make a difference between the Unreal 3.0 and Reality Engine? Price does. A license of Reality will cost you a tenth of the price of Unreal 3.0; A Tenth! Now this is what makes engines popular. Most developers want the best they can get at the cheapest price.

Now, to answer the questions that arised in this topic so far..

- Reality Engine has been around publicly for about 3 months now, and has been developed since 2000.
- Reality Engine and the Screenshots that you have seen so far are taken in scenes that run perfectly on my 9800 Pro 128 MB; it is based on the hardware of today, which actually means it is more than a next-gen engine.
- We've noticed that a lot developers are interested in Reality; so a lot of Evaluation Kit copies have been sent out.
- The Reality engine license comes with extensive development tools that enable artists to create complex scenes themselves. Direct support can be called from Artificial Studios staff members and the Reality Engine Development Portal
- Source engine does indeed support HDR. Thing is that running with HDR enabled really hits performance. Running at 1024x768 in a complex scene, will run about 30 FPS "slower" than with HDR disabled. Perhaps Valve balanced it out and went for better performance; who knows.

I'm checking the CryEngine, Unreal 2, Doom 3, Source, and Unreal 3 engines.

Sorry for saying this; but to my belief, comparing those with each other is pretty worthless. Unreal 2 is "old"; Doom 3, Cry Engine and Source are the engines of today, and Unreal 3 belongs to the next generation of engines. It is more interesting to look at the engines that are availabe in games that are already out on the market.

Furthermore, I do agree with most what has been said above; comparing bullet-lists of features is not the most important part of comparing Game Engines, certainly not when developers are trying to decide which engine to license for their project.


Djordy Seelmann
Level Designer at Artificial Studios

 

[KimB]

I just have a hard time believing that a 3-month-old engine can really be as complete a development tool as one that has been developing for years. That's not to say that it shouldn't be good at what it does, but if you really get into the development of a full game, I'm willing to bet that there are quite a few more things you'd have to write yourself using the Reality engine than Unreal 3.0.

 

[Ostsol]

I think it depends on the tool programmers' experience.

 

[DjordySeelmann]

Reality Engine is the cumulative result of an engine going through a lot of major overhauls and improvements and has been designed since 2000. So, it has been developed over a 4-year timespan.

Three months ago it went 'public'; not intentionally though. After an eruption of forum topics on over a dozen of forums (including this one) it became more popular, and from that point on developers have been interested. We actually planned to go 'public' sometime next year.

However, what would you have to write yourself as a licensee? Everything's already in place for you, and you can make your own modifications if you wish to, not being limited by a Scripting Engine that uses its own scripting language like UnrealScript, but by enjoying the freedom of a Scripting Engine that uses C# as its scripting language.

How good the tools are is mostly dependent on the interaction and feedback between the tool programmer and the artists, and not only the tool programmer itself. Since we use Reality Engine ourselves to develop our flag-ship title Cry Havoc, its tools have been heavily tested and improved over the past years, and therefore we are able to garantee the quality you would expect from a next-gen engine rivaling Unreal 3.0.

 

[KimB]

Well, that starts to make a bit more sense in terms of timescale.

However, what would you have to write yourself as a licensee? Everything's already in place for you, and you can make your own modifications if you wish to, not being limited by a Scripting Engine that uses its own scripting language like UnrealScript, but by enjoying the freedom of a Scripting Engine that uses C# as its scripting language.

Well, I have two things to say on this. One is that the scripting engine in Unreal was designed specifically for a game, and I feel is the Unreal Engine's greatest strength. I claim that it is, in fact, the thing that really defines the engine to the greatest degree. I don't see any reason to believe that a general scripting language would be any better.

Secondly, I automatically dislike C# due to where it has come from (essentially, Microsoft's attempt to get rid of Java), and would rather work in normal C++ or Java instead. The fact that it is, in essence, Windows-only doesn't help either.

How good the tools are is mostly dependent on the interaction and feedback between the tool programmer and the artists, and not only the tool programmer itself. Since we use Reality Engine ourselves to develop our flag-ship title Cry Havoc, its tools have been heavily tested and improved over the past years, and therefore we are able to garantee the quality you would expect from a next-gen engine rivaling Unreal 3.0.

Well, now this does sound more plausible than your original posting made it sound. But if you really want to try to make the case that the engine is better, in any way, you're going to have to post some more concrete information.

 

[see colon]

don't forget about lithtech! F.E.A.R. looks amazing. it's THE PC title i'm waiting for, everything else is just to tide me over.

http://www.touchdownentertainment.com/home.htm

 

[The Great Bundini]

Your input is appreciated, Djordy. But don't take this the wrong way, but I agree with Reverend on this subject. Unreal Engine 3 carries that "holy-shit, it's Unreal 3" effect with it.

Obviously, prove yourself with Cry Havoc when the time comes, and things will turn sharply in your favor.

 

[Guden Oden]

The fact that it is, in essence, Windows-only doesn't help either.

So...? What other gaming platforms are there besides consoles? Mac, ya gotta be kidding. Linux? Please...

 

[DjordySeelmann]

Well, I have two things to say on this. One is that the scripting engine in Unreal was designed specifically for a game, and I feel is the Unreal Engine's greatest strength. I claim that it is, in fact, the thing that really defines the engine to the greatest degree. I don't see any reason to believe that a general scripting language would be any better.

As I was saying, a general scripting language like C# creates more freedom for every developer, they are not limited to the possibilities of the scripting engine. Secondly, just because the fact that C# is that general, and known by a lot of programmers, means that programmers that are already capable of programming using the language, do not need to learn a new language and are able to use all the experience they got with C#. This cuts down the learning time and costs for a developer; should be an easy choice. (Or you have some programmers in-house that have experience with Unreal Script of course, but that's less likely to be the situation)

Secondly, I automatically dislike C# due to where it has come from (essentially, Microsoft's attempt to get rid of Java), and would rather work in normal C++ or Java instead. The fact that it is, in essence, Windows-only doesn't help either.

What is the point of supporting more platforms than you need to? Windows is what our public uses to play games, and Linux servers are supported as well. It's pretty standard at these days, I do not see any disadvantages of not supporting other platforms.

Well, now this does sound more plausible than your original posting made it sound. But if you really want to try to make the case that the engine is better, in any way, you're going to have to post some more concrete information.

I do belief Reality Engine is better from the point that it offers the same features as Unreal 3.0 does, running on the hardware of today. However, I do not believe Reality Engine has proven that so far by any visual presentation that has been made public. Main reason for this is that Artificial Studios is a small studio, and does not have the money to employ 25+ artists and 11 programmers to create a stunning environment with superb visuals. No, we're working with less than 20 people, 4 of them being a programmer, and 1 of those being responsible for 99% of the engine's code. So that taken into account, I think the result of Reality Engine and the team behind it so far, is just astonishing. Anyway, what we're trying now is quite logical; raise income by selling licenses, and use that money to invest in human resources, enabling us to show the real power of Reality in Cry Havoc. This is what I believe, and this is also what the team's objective is at the moment.

 

[beginner16]

I do belief Reality Engine is better from the point that it offers the same features as Unreal 3.0 does, running on the hardware of today.

You're saying that if you had the same number of artist as Epic does you'd be able to create equally impressive demo as one made with Unreal 3 engine,only it would run better on today's hardware?
If that indeed was the case,one would think that better known game developers would already heard of this,start using it and most important,would be very vocal about the amazing graphics the game will have
Or perhaps it's too soon for that and we should give it a couple more months?
I just can't imagine why game developers aren't more enthusiastic about game engine that even surpases UE3 in terms of speed and it's available now,not in two years time?!