Technical Game Engine Comparisons: non-subjective *OffTopic Cleanup Spawn*

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think turfFX is just more dense than the CryEngine implementation..

Recop said:
I won't reply to the other points since that doesn't' have any interest.

Anyway, i don't understand your point... it doesn't change anything : larger objects = more polygons.

Edit : as for the one shot thing being easy : https://segmentnext.com/2017/09/29/god-of-war-midgard-serpent/

This is what happens when people argue against obvious things...
Click to expand...
Just empty PR talk and more of you taking my words out of context.

Just to recap:
Large characters are nothing new. Using a lot of polygons in a mostly environment is nothing special.
"Hiding" loading in transition zones is nothing special.
Making single-shot cutscenes in videogames is nothing special.

Bonus:


Also, my favorite single-shot cutscene in a game:

 
zed said:
perhaps it is but check out ghost recon with turfFX its certainly not using multiple bones for the grass animation
Click to expand...

This is no TurfFX grass but cereals with the same technique used in Crysis 3 and Uncharted 4. The title of the video is not correct in this case.


eloyc said:
I've seen that before. In motion, as well. And I don't like it, even though I concede that it's a good technical advancement towards realistic grass, I don't doubt that.

I don't like it because it looks like objects are on top of a kind of... grass cushion, so to speak. It doesn't look like grass is effectively pushed down to ground level, it feels like a big cushion made of grass where only the top parts of the blades are deformed, so the result is astoundingly plain despite all that geometry or whatever.

I mean, why so much emphasis in individual blades if the final result is that?

I just wanted to say that. I'm not addressing any comparison between any games.
Click to expand...

I understand what you mean but in my opinion you have exceptionally high expectations in this case. ^^
 
Jupiter said:
I understand what you mean but in my opinion you have exceptionally high expectations in this case. ^^
Click to expand...
Not that much, honestly, since I prefer a more classic approach where the height of the grass is effectively depicted, even if the grass is made of cardboards (or a low-fi polygon mesh that looks just good, as we've seen in so many games, already).

It's like I'm suffering a kind of uncanny valley with TurfEffects, haha. :D
 
OCASM said:
Large characters are nothing new. Using a lot of polygons in a mostly environment is nothing special.
"Hiding" loading in transition zones is nothing special.
Making single-shot cutscenes in videogames is nothing special.
Click to expand...

I don't care... special or not, if everything is equal, it is more difficult to do that.

60fps has nothing special too. But it's far more impressive to run a comparable game at double the framerate.

Honestly, your arguments are completely irrevelant.

According to your logic, nothing is special. And even if you're right on this point, nobody cares since it's not my point.

An open world is not special too, but having graphics as good as in linear games in an open world is impressive. And so on...

God of war :

- No loading times
- No camera cuts
- Open world or semi open-world
- Giagantic scale

But yeah, nothing to see here...

With all these constraints, having this kind of graphics is an exceptional technical achievement to me :

GwqlnD.png


And the game does many other impressive things, as the best snow tech ever created :

https://twitter.com/x/status/989287491122458624
 
Last edited:
Why have those icicles grown off kilter? Is there weird gravity in effect, or has there just been an earth-quake that's skewed the buildings?
 
Recop said:
I don't care... special or not, if everything is equal, it is more difficult to do that.

60fps has nothing special too. But it's far more impressive to run a comparable game at double the framerate.

Honestly, your arguments are completely irrevelant.

According to your logic, nothing is special. And even if you're right on this point, nobody cares since it's not my point.

An open world is not special too, but having graphics as good as in linear games in an open world is impressive. And so on...

God of war :

- No loading times
- No camera cuts
- Open world or semi open-world
- Giagantic scale

But yeah, nothing to see here...

With all these constraints, having this kind of graphics is an exceptional technical achievement to me :

GwqlnD.png


And the game does many other impressive things, as the best snow tech ever created :

https://twitter.com/x/status/989287491122458624
Click to expand...
"No loading times". It's loading screens are the transition zones.
"No camera cuts". So what?
"Open world or semi-open world". It's neither. It's a connected world with very limited traversability. Even N64 Zeldas are more open than this.
"Gigantic scale". Some enemies are big, yes. Maybe if they were like the colossi in SotC were you climb them or run on them it would be impressive.

The snow is nice.

In my opinion HZD is far more impressive:

Massive world you can actually explore.
Day night cycle.
Dynamic weather.
Dynamic sky with volumetric clouds.
Tons of vegetation.
And so on...

Only the water sucks. GoW's is much better.
 
OCASM said:
"Open world or semi-open world". It's neither. It's a connected world with very limited traversability. Even N64 Zeldas are more open than this.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that. Anyway, still far more open than : The Order, Ryse, Gears of War 4, Hellblade, Quantum Break, etc.

For the rest of your message, i can act like you too : so what ?
 
Recop said:
I'm not sure about that. Anyway, still far more open than : The Order, Ryse, Gears of War 4, Hellblade, Quantum Break, etc.

For the rest of your message, i can act like you too : so what ?
Click to expand...
Being more open than The Order now means open world :LOL:
 
HZD on PS4/Pro really got me impressed on what they pulled of on that hardware, a RX470 level gpu with the jaguar cores and 8GB total. Its for me the best looking game so far i have played, alongside AC Origins, maybe Origins having the edge. Many seem to favor AC, many HZD. Both impress more then GoW, GoW isnt the open world game as HZD is.
For you that think Wildlands looks better, it certainly doesnt, its more aiming for vastness then ultra nice graphics.

Oh and, never again wacky or exotic architectures like PS2 PS3 etc. No one can complain pc gaming is being held back by consoles now seeing whats there now. HZD and AC are truly next gen, its hard to imagine better graphics, on almost all aspects, particles etc everything. This X86/normal hardware seems to do very well.
 
Wildlands looks much better on PC than AC: Origins but most of all I miss the better TAA from AC: Origins in Wildlands. AC: Origins doesn't make anything technically new for me either while I saw the first time dense jungle in an open game in Wildlands. Honestly, I haven't even seen such a dense jungle in a linear title and the closest thing is the open Battlefront 2015 Endor map which is even a multiplayer game.

The Division has the best TAA I have seen so far where I don't see ghosting even at 20fps and 720p on fences (game does not have motion blur). No game has ever managed this in that clarity with TAA before.
 
Last edited:
wildlands (and FC5) has a very simple 2D average looking skybox, contrary to AC:O and HZD which have full volumetric clouds, must take away some processing power, and very nice looking.
 
Volumetric clouds look better than a flat skybox but so far most of what I saw in AAA games is still relatively low res and frayed out/pixelated especially at the edges. This costs only a very small percentage of performance compared to higher resolution shadows or tesselation for example.

I have to deactivate this in AC: Origins and compare the performance.
 
Last edited:
if it was that cheap all games would use them.
Even if it's low res it adds so much to the overall atmosphere of a game.
The use of volumetric fog in the PC version of watch dogs 2 is impressive

 
I think it's more of a time and resource Problem and many developers will set other development priorities. This is indeed really impressive but too high resolution for a real-time application for most of todays gpus. Technically this is really high end. I made UHD screenshots of these clouds from Watch Dogs 2 before: https://flic.kr/s/aHskPa4Geg



These tens of thousands of kilometers large voxel nebulae were exported from Houdini, were simulated at one frame per minute, need about 4GB VRAM (at the moment) and are high res. However, fog in space is of course a completely different thing from planetary clouds which have to be dynamic.

Volumetric clouds look better than 2d clouds of course but that alone does not set AC: Origins higher than Wildlands if it doesn't look as good on the ground.
 
Last edited:
Horizon's clouds take 2ms of frame time to render. That is 2/33 for 30fps, so around 6-7% of their rendering budget. They reach that through an extreme relyance on temporal reconstruction, (done on a separate pass exclusive for the sky, separetly from TAA or cb on pro)
They render only one in every 16 pixels each frame. That's why its so blurry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top