Very true. People forget Endor scenes were shot with lots of "smoke and mirrors" to things and technology that mostly came from George Lucas's imagination.
Can't wait for the mid April presentation and then E3 2015 however...
Besides the console current generation technology hardware and besides say what was seen in Battlefield Hardline (I'm mainly referring to single player mode campaign.)
The biggest challenge DICE has to face is that Star Wars does feature more than Ice/Snow world, Endless Forrest world, Lava fire world and Endless Desert world...actually there's endless Oceans World... oh and also Endless City world. Is that most environments will depend on what they need to use them for.
The old Battlefront games didn't even feature an actual story mode and besides the tech being relatively ancient now...there are major hurdles to know or see just what the devs managed to push tech wise.
Games like Crysis, Cryostasis, and Battlefield 3 had different technology limitations... I recently have been replaying Crysis, Warhead and Cryostasis and honestly those games were, despite pretty effects...limited by old Shader model 3.0 and early attempts to implement Physx which still to this day are very impressive and a sad shame we didn't see more of...yet pure Shader model 4.0/4.1 just never happened.
Currently consoles are based on Shader model 5.0 as a reference point yet it still takes years or a couple to build a console 3d engine that's purely natively using the hardware...
I have high hopes for this game because it's going to sell regardless...yet DICE is a tech pushing dev and EA is financing them so perhaps come mid April we will have heated debates over if we really saw what we just saw...
Also for the teaser I personally felt it was a very basic demo...
There's a fair bit of subtle movement. Which make we wonder if that couldn't be faked with a post effect to move bits of foliage around a few pixels? Obviously the big stuff would have to be modelled, but maybe the tiny movements that add subconsciously to the breaking the artificialness could be cheaply implemented?
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Hello? PlayStation 2 called and wants its foliage effect trickery back
Hopefully with plant/wind effects being pretty prevalent in other games this gen - Assassin's Creed IV and Unity, WATCH_DOGS, GTA V, Dying Light, Tomb Raider DE, The Last of Us Remastered, Shadow of Mordor, Witcher 3 (from what's been shown), Uncharted 4 (from what's been shown) - that they won't have to fake too much. I don't know what foliage system DICE use but SpeedTree has supported per-tree wind for a while.
Full on geometry processing has a higher overhead. If you can get a very similar effect at a tiny fraction of the cost, it's worth considering. Realtime graphics is always about the best fakes to get the most from your limited resources (ignoring budgets).
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Full on geometry processing has a higher overhead. If you can get a very similar effect at a tiny fraction of the cost, it's worth considering. Realtime graphics is always about the best fakes to get the most from your limited resources (ignoring budgets).
I quite agree but given the prevalence of realtime foliage animation in games I'd speculate that it's relatively light in terms of computation resources. The amount of games where it's included where it's includes purely for aesthetics, I do wonder if even basic simulation is now cheaper than fakery.
When you think about it, a plant or tree has a basic skeleton with a limited number of 'limbs' with consistent but predictable motion variables. And lots of individual foliage items rooted in the same spot will be affected by wind in the same way meaning it's likely you you propagate the wind effect animations on the plant skeletons en masse. And if you look a implementations in game like Assassin's Creed IV, you don't even need plants to react to impacts of other plants for it too look great even if it's not already heavily faked.
TRE used TressFX 2.0 for very nice foliage movement. 3.0 version of TressFX will be implemented in future Eidos titles [Rise of the Tomb Raider and Deus Ex Universe].
As for open world games, journalists have said that "stormy" conditions look awesome in Witcher 3 forests. We have few gifs leaked from early version of the game.
http://www.vgleaks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/witcher3-gif-3.gif
E used TressFX 2.0 for very nice foliage movement. 3.0 version of TressFX will be implemented in future Eidos titles [Rise of the Tomb Raider and Deus Ex Universe].As for open world games, journalists have said that "stormy" conditions look awesome in Witcher 3 forests. We have few gifs leaked from early version of the game.
http://www.vgleaks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/witcher3-gif-3.gif
Full on geometry processing has a higher overhead. If you can get a very similar effect at a tiny fraction of the cost, it's worth considering. Realtime graphics is always about the best fakes to get the most from your limited resources (ignoring budgets).
Crysis and Warhead were effectively Shader Model 3.0 limited and never trully "Direct X 10" as all the PC liars said...that said that technology came out in 2007 and 2008... at this point or we can be free to assume or expect that software 3d engines should have advanced enough to manage the resolutions and frame rates.
The PC versions of these limited games running in 64bit PC barely use 1.xGB of system ram and 1.xGB of graphics ram...now these consoles have 8GBs of unified ram...
Hello? PlayStation 2 called and wants its foliage effect trickery back
Hopefully with plant/wind effects being pretty prevalent in other games this gen - Assassin's Creed IV and Unity, WATCH_DOGS, GTA V, Dying Light, Tomb Raider DE, The Last of Us Remastered, Shadow of Mordor, Witcher 3 (from what's been shown), Uncharted 4 (from what's been shown) - that they won't have to fake too much. I don't know what foliage system DICE use but SpeedTree has supported per-tree wind for a while.
smoke and mirrors and lower resolutions...just don't try playing and looking for those effects with a HDTV
PlayStation 2 relied on some talented devs no doubt and its sad that despite the power upgrades in last two gens the games unless are AAA titles just don't get that special treatment.
Yeah...I actually was very much disappointed when playing Crysis and Warhead and noticing how you could gather...which you had to gather because the game's flawed system set up of not really trying to display all explosions and such...but yeah trees and bushes didn't burn despite all the hype.
Maybe we can look back at Republic Commando which was an Unreal Engine 2.0 game that used bloom and some type of physics system but was essencially a strictly corridor first person shooter with scripted but highly enjoyable team leader command system gameplay as it was meant to be played by giving orders, not being one man army bro.
I don't recall that ever being a feature of Crysis that was hyped. And who the hell cares what it's flaws where anyway? It was years ahead of anything else out at the time - moreso that any other game has been since (aside from maybe BF3). It's fairly petty to start nitpicking at it (which is also how I feel about the whole "no wind" argument for Battlefront).
Its a fair point to make as a flaw...I still have the many print PC magazines that claimed Crysis was gonna usher a new era and make consoles look ancient when there was just hyperbole marketing, lies in marketing, and worse the fanboys backing up and adding to the hyperbole and lies.
Maybe if things had been different and Microsoft had based the Xbox 360 on a 666+ million transistor GPU like the Radeon 3870 or 4870 and standardized their proprietary Dx10 API and all claimed features.
BF3 was a mature effort, DICE really went all out to make sure their 3d engine targetted each platform's strengths while PC benefited only because their Frostbite 2 engine came nearly five years after Crysis.
I can't complain about "no wind" on Battlefront because it is just a simple teaser trailer...hell even Killzone 2 had two pre-Alpha trailers in real time.
But if people are gonna be so anal about wind, we might as well point fingers at Crysis and its fireproof tropical tree forrests.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Ummm, Crysis DID make consoles look ancient. The fact that CryEngine didn't take off is due to the bad development tools available to it (compared to UE) and the lack of multiplatform capability (compared to UE). By the time Crytek addressed those issues UE was firmly entrenched as the defacto multiplatform developement engine even if it was inferior to CryEngine, and there were cheaper alternatives (Unity) available to the market as well.
Regards,
SB
Lack of...whatever...just excuses... lets not kid ourselves. Crytek chose the holy grail of being a benchmark tech demo instead of an actual working and competitive videogame experience.
Then theres the fact that with piracy and initial poor sales they just didn't bother to support their games.
It looked pretty sure but it was never a "directx 10" standard or a pure Dx10 like the PC hype suggested, stated or implied...it didn't really do anything special other than have large/huge corridors and it needed a lot of work.
Also not being negative on the game, just dispelling the hype which still seems prevalent by mention.
UE engine was built for Xbox360 and PS3 as lowest common denominator, EPIC didn't bother chasing benchmark records or hype on those levels as Crysis pretty much had displaced Doom 3 and whatever forgetable fps (uh FEAR?) that was being used at the time as a hype benchmark.
Again I have played Crysis 1 and Warhead and recently replayed (with faster CPU, GPU with fraps and ram monitoring apps) in 64bit mode.
its truly a slow, stealth play game at best, compared to comparisons to a teaser of Battlefront which again was just a teaser, the notion of static trees as a complaint is laughable.
If I really wanted to be a jerk there is that scandal about how a tech site from Europe found that the CryEngine 2 was still rendering the ocean and super high polygon road blocks helping to force the "slow down of the framerate" (by forcing the rendering of polygons that are not seen but covered under layers of ground textures) and making people with some awareness that a fast one is being pulled...no disrespect or offense to Crytek but the idea of advanced is muddy with other tricks to make a benchmark which the hope was to generate more hype and it is sad that many still believe such old hype because of a pretty face and all is forgiven.
PS4 and XbOne should be able to render the desired polygons for a lush forrest, plus lighting, plus explosions, plus etc, etc post processing effects theories... the best way to observe it is by replaying Battlefield 4 and Hardline single and multiplayer modes to get an idea...beyond that being that it should be a definite seller, it should be using a far more advanced version of Frostbite that is just much more capable.
The Endor speeder bike scenes were shot to give the impression of speed using motion neutral cameras being walked in the forrest, then sped up to achieve the desired effect to notice other details, smoke and mirrors where it worked, however now if applied to a videogame we all get hyper critical because we have to as part of the fun.
L. Scofield
Veteran
I think the problem is that you confused the marketing of Crysis (flexible and destructible vegetation) with that of Far Cry 2 (burning vegetation).
It's both, actually. But as Crytek learned, it's a bad idea to have super high quality settings for a game right in the options menu because players who max them out will complain the game is unoptimized.
I think that was a blunder with the reporting because the ocean was being rendered in wireframe mode, but not during actual gameplay.
Although it's true that sometimes Crytek hypes some engine feature that never makes into the games such as realtime ambient maps in the case of CryEngine 2 and light propagation volumes (with specular reflections) in the case of CryEngine 3.
I never played nor did I ever really notice Far Cry 2 besides benchmark graphs mention (and being disappointed with Far Cry 1 and the franchise)
So no confusion, have plenty of "dx10 and Crysis 1" print magazine hype and did read constant mention...online to this second that still attributes Crysis 1/Warhead with magical powers.
Burning trees is hyperbole however my main meaning had more to do with the wide huge corridor design getting in the way of actually experiencing the huge explosions and physx due to having to manually set up and gather...unless a modder managed to set it up and that nulls the idea.
I never implied anything about "unoptimized"
Perhaps PC review sites and PC gamer sites are just way too biased and fanboish to do in depth analysis (and retro-analysis) and investigation instead of either perpetuating the hype or becoming negative.
The comment you imply seems to originate from dissatisfied elite PC gamers who perhaps posted in online forums with sigs boasting their 3x $600/$500 high end graphics card set ups during 2007 to 2009
Also note I am not being negative nor anti-Crysis 1/W however I have played the campaign several times with different cpu/gpu config.
The main point being it was super stressful S.M. 3.0 locked out to certain os/hw configs of the time.
The alleged render ocean and super high polygon concrete road blocks in the report sure needs some more analysis.
I've noticed some tech demos that under wintertime mode switching do exhibit drops and dips in framerates.
That initial hype train permeates to this day in the most perpetual of manners and often unquestioned.
However back on topic, Battlefront stands to build or add upon the already laid bricks of Battlefield 3, BF4 and Battlefield Hardline amd perhaps Need for Speed the Run. Specially because the latter had to do with the sensation of speed.
I have been reviewing the PC versions in single player campaign and maximum graphics. Noting the graphics effects and combined scene action to build a personal expectation for what eventually will be made (thinking of the star wars films and that this will be a game franchise/sequels/variations)
I don't have high hopes or expectations but whatever is near-alpha should display a bit more than the teaser.
High speed motion sense on speed bikes and the sense of danger from the films and I just don't feel the trees or leaves swaying will be noticed unless one completly stops to gawk around...
This is something I can say from high speed arcade games...although they are now ancient in a way.
(((interference)))
Veteran
Umm, has no one played Battlefield 4?
On maps like Parcel Storm there's heaps of foliage (trees, shrubs etc) blowing about wildly in the storms that hit the map as the round goes on.
On maps like Parcel Storm there's heaps of foliage (trees, shrubs etc) blowing about wildly in the storms that hit the map as the round goes on.
L. Scofield
Veteran
Corridor design?
What do you mean locked out?
I must clarify that the reporting about the tesselated road blocks and ocean was about Crysis 2. The winter effects performance issues you talk about are from Crysis 1.
I think it delivered for the most part.
I don't think the teaser was anywhere near alpha. The AT-ST models weren't even textured.
EA/DICE had or still has that Frostbite physics video where they discuss how the wind affected trees. That iirc was way before BF4 or the PS4/Xbone were ever released.
The foliage is amazing however keep in mind that Crysis 1/Warhead was previously mentioned with rose colored glasses and some rosy nostalgia that forgets cost, thermals and power consumption among others.
Crysis 1 and Warhead are huge corridor designs. I understand the marketing pr hype uses words like "sandbox" but then I would ask did people really play the campaigns?
Enemy A.I. obeys the corridor design as well.
Initially the hyped "DX10 features" were not for Windows XP however there's pc gamer forums and modder or hackers who claimed to "unlock vista features on win xp" I actually confirmed this with the demo...
Iirc the report did go back to crysis 1 and found similar wireframe mesh still being rendered. Eh winter was a typo I meant wireframe.
I often went back to the pre-release hype and presentations and many hardware reviews.
It's a matter of opinion that it left a huge wake from the hype...gamers from the beginning had their vocal grievances and praises...
I do feel that C1 and CW were special, considering the sequels. The zero-g stage was excellent and needed to be expanded more...the games however is still a walk and gawk at the flowers not really the high speed thrills...not to mention if you weren't facing the explosions or certain set pieces then you would miss them.
Oh hey that date is this week...can't wait to see what they cooked up a year later.
Similar threads
