Unreal 3 Engine and SM 3.0
- Thread starter Ashaman52
- Start date
Re: sm3.0
If your saying I'm wrong why then do I distinctly remember hearing Tim say the 6800U was the first card to allow for decent framrates. According to him, past cards (9800 XT/5950U) would only get around 15-20 fps. 30 seems about in line with what the 6800U is capable of.
vogel said:Why didn't anyone tell me?ANova said:
-- Daniel, Epic Games Inc.
If your saying I'm wrong why then do I distinctly remember hearing Tim say the 6800U was the first card to allow for decent framrates. According to him, past cards (9800 XT/5950U) would only get around 15-20 fps. 30 seems about in line with what the 6800U is capable of.
Re: sm3.0
Oh, and Epic are under NDA from both Nvidia and ATI - they work with both. Try reading this thread from a while back. Mark Rein pops up in that one!
'Decent' being relative, and remember we are talking about a tech-demo, not a game with AI, sound, physics or lots of on-screen action.ANova said:
I'm sure he said past cards got 2 to 3 fps. 10 fps is 'decent' compared to that, but it's not playable. I think the 6800 will be to Unreal 3 (engine games) like the GeForce 1 is to Doom 3 now...
Oh, and Epic are under NDA from both Nvidia and ATI - they work with both. Try reading this thread from a while back. Mark Rein pops up in that one!
Re: sm3.0
He said it ran at two to five frames per second on previous hardware.ANova said:vogel said:Why didn't anyone tell me?ANova said:
-- Daniel, Epic Games Inc.
If your saying I'm wrong why then do I distinctly remember hearing Tim say the 6800U was the first card to allow for decent framrates. According to him, past cards (9800 XT/5950U) would only get around 15-20 fps. 30 seems about in line with what the 6800U is capable of.
Re: sm3.0
Sorry, I like being vague.
My point is that people tend to repeat things they heard, spice them up with their guesstimates and present them as cold hard facts without stating a source or a quote. Case in point, Tim says decent framerates, someone hears it and associates decent == playable, playable == 30 FPS and then writes that Unreal Engine 3 runs at 30 FPS on XYZ without providing further context... and that's just the first step. Now imagine a second person posting a different "framerate" (heck, even from a different level) on a different graphics card and then a third person combines the two into XYZ is twice as fast as ABC - Epic said so!!!
To be clear, I'm not making any statement on framerates but rather how things tend to get misrepresented... personal pet peeve
-- Daniel, Epic Games Inc.
Sorry, I like being vague.
My point is that people tend to repeat things they heard, spice them up with their guesstimates and present them as cold hard facts without stating a source or a quote. Case in point, Tim says decent framerates, someone hears it and associates decent == playable, playable == 30 FPS and then writes that Unreal Engine 3 runs at 30 FPS on XYZ without providing further context... and that's just the first step. Now imagine a second person posting a different "framerate" (heck, even from a different level) on a different graphics card and then a third person combines the two into XYZ is twice as fast as ABC - Epic said so!!!
To be clear, I'm not making any statement on framerates but rather how things tend to get misrepresented... personal pet peeve
-- Daniel, Epic Games Inc.
ANova said:
Yeah, some people don't realize that XXX engine runs at YY FPS is NEVER a valid statement!
In case you don't know speed depends on game content more than anything else.
And the amount of game content is usually determined by a target FPS on a pre-determined configuration.
In case you don't know speed depends on game content more than anything else.
And the amount of game content is usually determined by a target FPS on a pre-determined configuration.
davepermen
Regular
Re: sm3.0
not to say i call it very playable actually.. some people just.. ah, forget it
vogel said:Why didn't anyone tell me?ANova said:
-- Daniel, Epic Games Inc.
not to say i call it very playable actually.. some people just.. ah, forget it
Re: sm3.0
Well then, only one way to ensure things don't get misrepresented, tell us the real info Well we are waiting... What, you can't...woossy
Dan, in your best guess will Mod authors have more abilities to use real PS shaders in the next engine. As right now they are called shaders when we are using the material editor (or texture broswer) but they are not really shaders as in the sense of PS shaders. Or is that kind of power too much for the mod people to handle?
vogel said:To be clear, I'm not making any statement on framerates but rather how things tend to get misrepresented... personal pet peeve
Well then, only one way to ensure things don't get misrepresented, tell us the real info
Well we are waiting... What, you can't...woossy Dan, in your best guess will Mod authors have more abilities to use real PS shaders in the next engine. As right now they are called shaders when we are using the material editor (or texture broswer) but they are not really shaders as in the sense of PS shaders. Or is that kind of power too much for the mod people to handle?
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
A "decent" framerate is subjective at the best of times, let alone when Sweeny might have been talking about decent in terms of an early development with partial environment and no optimising, targeted at hardware released two years from now. AFAICR, Sweeny has never mentioned framerated for the UE3 techdemo, so claiming that must mean 10-15 or 30 fps (as some people in this thread have) is simply conjecture.
BTW, I notice in the most recent press release from Nvidia, they are once again trying to push SM3.0 by claiming they will be showing the SM3.0 engine of UE3 at E3. Dan, have you had a chance to put some SM3.0 code into the techdemo, or is it the same SM2.0 techdemo as at GDC and the NV40 launch?
BTW, I notice in the most recent press release from Nvidia, they are once again trying to push SM3.0 by claiming they will be showing the SM3.0 engine of UE3 at E3. Dan, have you had a chance to put some SM3.0 code into the techdemo, or is it the same SM2.0 techdemo as at GDC and the NV40 launch?
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:
you're missing the point
on nv hardware sm2.0 <= sm3.0 (smaller subset than, included in)
so there is no interest in talking of sm2.0 when you can talk of the more general sm3.0. In mathematical terms : (sm2.0 | sm3.0) = sm3.0
Of course that is not true for some competitor's hardware.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
LeGreg said:
I know that, but I don't see how you can claim you are demoing a SM3.0 engine, when your techdemo uses no SM3.0. It's just more FUD from Nvidia, trying to make out that you need to buy an NV40 to use UE3. In fact, NV40 will be just as underperforming as R420 for UE3 in a couple of years time.
LeGreg said:
Isn't this also the case for the vast minority of NV hardware being sold currently...
