Unreal Technology site updated new screens and tech...

[JD]

Well, by the looks of it you might not need to use that build feature much when you can import whole max/maya level into unreal toolchain. They apply the same char. polybump tech. to the world and it must be a royal pain in the butt to make all those high res. models and then match them perfectly to the low res. ones so the rays when fired don't get screwed up by the incorrectly built geometry. However the scenes look beautiful I noticed that unreal3 won't have a point light and it's because of the shadow maps needing a direction vector. Could use a cubemap for pointlight like JC going to use and not having omni light really bites for indoor scenes. No, you can't take two spotlights and put them end to end to mimick omni light I tried that in my editor and it looks funky. I kind of like that specular baked into the walls like in one of those pics. Wonder how prt will look like. One thing for sure and that the teams making a game with these new tech. are only going to grow in size to accomodate more artists. I like to know how long it took epic to create that scene in on of those hdr pics and that 2mil tri monster. It's also interesting just how much content pipeline unreal3 toolchain handles. I thought most of it was going to be exported out of max/maya but looks like lot less work is done by those two tools. The unreal3 toolchain is really nice though. God, so much stuff to do, you almost get lost in it all. I thought that FSM, I think, diagram was interesting. I write uml for all my fsms so I'm not surprised unreal3 has a visual tool for that. All in all pretty nice engine and it's strength lies in the integration of outdoor/indoor lighting model despite of losing the omni light, I get that.

 

[KimB]

There are many automated tools for polybump-like technology. UE3 incorporates some.

 

[Richard]

The tools look great, I just wish UE3 would do away with that subtract then build requirement of the level editor.

But that's the best part of Unreal! :?

Perhaps if you've been using more traditional editors for years it could be a pain, but speaking as a level editing newb, I found it far easier to get stuck into UnrealEd than Radiant or Hammer.

I'm only talking about the "subtract and then add" requirement. I agree that UnrealED is much more user-friendly for novices than either Radiant and Hammer (I think, last time I used it it was called Worldcraft . I wish id would invest more in their tools (they seem to be doing that, D3 now has a really nice material editor - not perfect but way, way better than editing materials in notepad).

And no omnidirectional lights in UE3? Uh-oh. What's the broadest frustrum we can have then?

 

[JD]

I agree, that subtract then add is stupid. The way Jet3D/genesis3D do it is much better. What was Epic thinking I don't know. There are several places like that in their editor for example panning then releasing buttons and have the popup window show up. Or moving forward in pers. view which then causes texture to become selected. Inserting objects, why not just select from class list and click on the ortho grid and presto. No, we have to bring up popup then insert I think then click. Or what about panning grid? It's reverse if you think about it. Treat it as holding the grid and moving it where you want not the other way around. They could have solved that pers.view. camera handling by throwing an fsm in there to handle the logic. You would think Epic hire some people who can build editors the right way. Or heck, just test it and you can immediately sense that it's not behaving intuitively. Or all it takes is just look at others how they've done it and learn from them because if you code in a cave you get what you deserve.

 

[Ostsol]

I agree, that subtract then add is stupid. The way Jet3D/genesis3D do it is much better. What was Epic thinking I don't know.

*shrugs* I've seriously never thought anything of it. The first 3d map editor I used was for Quake 1 and the transition to UnrealEd wasn't so horrible. I actually liked the fact that it was a heck of alot more difficult to leave a hole in the map with UnrealEd.

There are several places like that in their editor for example panning then releasing buttons and have the popup window show up. Or moving forward in pers. view which then causes texture to become selected.

What was the last version of the editor that you used? UT2004 doesn't have any of those problems. The only time the pop-up appears is when you click the right mouse button. Also, if you move the mouse before releasing the button, the pop-up doesn't appear. Similarily, the texture in the perspective view doesn't become selected if you move the mouse before releasing the button. There is a clear distinction between clicking and dragging.

Inserting objects, why not just select from class list and click on the ortho grid and presto. No, we have to bring up popup then insert I think then click.

Select an actor from the class tree, right click on a location (in any viewport) to bring up the pop-up, and add it. Not too much work.

Or what about panning grid? It's reverse if you think about it. Treat it as holding the grid and moving it where you want not the other way around. They could have solved that pers.view. camera handling by throwing an fsm in there to handle the logic.

I agree that there should be some sort of option to change how the panning is handled, but quite honestly it's all subjective. Once you get used to it there's no problem.

You would think Epic hire some people who can build editors the right way. Or heck, just test it and you can immediately sense that it's not behaving intuitively. Or all it takes is just look at others how they've done it and learn from them because if you code in a cave you get what you deserve.

The basic mechanics of the editor are at least seven years old. How many people do you think they've hired or licensed the engine and editor to since then? If it really were such a serious problem, they would certainly have had many complaints, by now.

 

[psurge]

JD - I personally like doxygen a lot (the ability to insert TeX and have nicely formatted math formulas in the output is a huge plus IMO). That said, I think it's purpose is to provide fine grained documentation of classes/functions - not to provide high level overviews of a software system.

Regards,
Serge

 

[suryad]

I am slowly becoming not as impressed with the engine especially after learning about the acquisition of the Realit Engine by EPIC. Does not seem like they are incorporating the Reality Engine featureset into UE3 does it? I could be wrong...but yes I agree with the statement that the artwork is amazing but not the render itself...oh well...time will tell....

 

[chrisATI]

Maybe it's an illusion but I can't help but see a small face on the back of the soldier's neck. He's got eyes on the back of his head

 

[trinibwoy]

Maybe it's an illusion but I can't help but see a small face on the back of the soldier's neck. He's got eyes on the back of his head

Damn!! For real.

 

[KimB]

Haha, wow. I don't know what that can be other than a face.

 

[KimB]

I am slowly becoming not as impressed with the engine especially after learning about the acquisition of the Realit Engine by EPIC. Does not seem like they are incorporating the Reality Engine featureset into UE3 does it? I could be wrong...but yes I agree with the statement that the artwork is amazing but not the render itself...oh well...time will tell....

UE3 not having a great renderer? I really don't know what you're talking about. It implements polybump at the content development level along with a great shader development interface, plus high dynamic range rendering and a good global shadowing system. What's not to like?

 

[Ostsol]

I am slowly becoming not as impressed with the engine especially after learning about the acquisition of the Realit Engine by EPIC. Does not seem like they are incorporating the Reality Engine featureset into UE3 does it? I could be wrong...but yes I agree with the statement that the artwork is amazing but not the render itself...oh well...time will tell....

Could you elaborate on that? Just what, in your mind, is it that makes a renderer good?

 

[Intel17]

I am slowly becoming not as impressed with the engine especially after learning about the acquisition of the Realit Engine by EPIC. Does not seem like they are incorporating the Reality Engine featureset into UE3 does it? I could be wrong...but yes I agree with the statement that the artwork is amazing but not the render itself...oh well...time will tell....

UE3 not having a great renderer? I really don't know what you're talking about. It implements polybump at the content development level along with a great shader development interface, plus high dynamic range rendering and a good global shadowing system. What's not to like?

The renderer is good, but from what I've seen recently, proper shadowing is obviously not one of UE3's design goals, and they are still relying on mixed methods, pre-computation etc..., which is fine, and I'm sure it'll look great and be peformance attractive, but there are renderers out there now in games which can compete quite nicely and some on the horizon which will make UE3 not so impressive.

Again, tools are what draw in the licencees and Epic sure have done an excellent job! I will be modding for UE based games and I hope to one day get a job in the industry as a level designer/modeler for Unreal Engine based games!

 

[KimB]

The renderer is good, but from what I've seen recently, proper shadowing is obviously not one of UE3's design goals, and they are still relying on mixed methods, pre-computation etc..., which is fine, and I'm sure it'll look great and be peformance attractive, but there are renderers out there now in games which can compete quite nicely and some on the horizon which will make UE3 not so impressive.

How is proper shadowing not one of UE3's design goals? Mixed methods are great for both performance and image quality: no current shadowing algorithm is best for all situations. Pre-computation is also necessary for the best combination of image quality and performance. It's just impossible to do realtime global illumination right now, and will be for some time, so pre-computation is just going to happen.

 

[suryad]

Intel17 best explained my point. I guess it was not appropriate of me to say "the renderer is not as good". The visuals are stunning no less, but I guess when you look in that image of the soldiers fighting, the light reflecting on the back of their necks...it just looks a bit too shiny doesnt it? And same with the pillar...right behind those two soldiers...it looks as if the whole pace has been lit up by a giant floodlight...the ones in big football matches...it kinda looks "unreal". Unlike HL2 which personally I liked the lighting better in that one. It looked just right.

 

[Ostsol]

The renderer is good, but from what I've seen recently, proper shadowing is obviously not one of UE3's design goals, and they are still relying on mixed methods, pre-computation etc..., which is fine, and I'm sure it'll look great and be peformance attractive, but there are renderers out there now in games which can compete quite nicely and some on the horizon which will make UE3 not so impressive.

There is nothing wrong with pre-computation. The mantra of computer graphics: if it looks good, it is good. Pre-computed lighting can look very good -- and in the case of static lighting on static geometry, why waste cycles on dynamic methods?

 

[JD]

I was using editor that came with DeusEx game.

HL2 and unreal3 renderers had to use precomputed global illumination unless they wanted to be only doom3 like renderers which limits the gameplay and thus number of licensees of the engine. How would you go about doing a large outdoor scene? With pixel lights in a night game? Even then you need some clever light/shadow culling method. For some indoor scenes pixel lights are ok but for outdoors they're not that great imo. Heck, I would prefer just plain terrain renderer, no shadows. Like morrowind4 or liner that nice looking rpg game. The last thing I would want is to bumpmap the terrain since it will be hidden under vegetation anyways. A deusEx outdoors could be done with pixel lights but only for fps games ie. smallish scenes. I think the HDR is becoming overused like flares were. Remember that hdr simply works during the transition between high and low contrast areas. Your eyes get adjusted after a while so hdr should die off then. I mean for outdoors, for indoors like in a cave I can see a beam of light from a crack in the ceiling being implemented by hdr. Like in some farcry pics, that's appropriate. But in an outside scene like in reality engine, it simply blocks my view of things so I become blind.

 

[JD]

I mean, if the sun keeps on going behind the hills then that's ok, I don't mind being blinded for couple of seconds. But if it just stays there then ugh, that's a problem for me. Not sure if reality engine sun moved in that scene so I appologize if I bad mouthed it.

 

[squarewithin]

Intel17 best explained my point. I guess it was not appropriate of me to say "the renderer is not as good". The visuals are stunning no less, but I guess when you look in that image of the soldiers fighting, the light reflecting on the back of their necks...it just looks a bit too shiny doesnt it? And same with the pillar...right behind those two soldiers...it looks as if the whole pace has been lit up by a giant floodlight...the ones in big football matches...it kinda looks "unreal". Unlike HL2 which personally I liked the lighting better in that one. It looked just right.

So you are blaming the engine for subjective choices in the demo artwork? Don't you think they could tune that scalar down if they wanted to? I highly doubt its hardcoded.

 

[Ostsol]

I was using editor that came with DeusEx game.

Ah. . . a 5 year old version. That explains alot.