UT 2003 on my Radeon 8500

8)

Surprise...



UT2003.jpg

Ut3.jpg

Ut2.jpg

Ut4.jpg
 
I saw the demo for the first time today and must admit that I am underwhelmed... To me, the graphics look only marginally better than Unreal/Unreal Tournament, which is to say, they look dated.

Look at the second screenshot Doomtrooper posted. The mismatched rock textures are very unimpressive... The only improvement I could see in the demo I saw were improved models.

If anyone has seen the Doom III demo, then you can see a much better example of lighting and bump mapping... Unreal Tournament 2003 doesn't even use any bumpmaps that I can see! I wonder if it uses multitexturing this time around... :rolleyes:
 
I'd be careful to rate (or condemn) UT2003 on basis of this leak. Nobody knows yet for sure how old the content actually is.

But at a first glance, the images look like what was to be expected, taking all the information provided by Epic regarding UT2003 and its use of the Unreal engine in consideration.

ta,
.rb
 
I heard this is build 906 right ?
Epics Daniel Vogel mentioned, that build 918 is 2 month old.
 
OpenGL guy said:
I saw the demo for the first time today and must admit that I am underwhelmed... To me, the graphics look only marginally better than Unreal/Unreal Tournament, which is to say, they look dated.

You apparently haven't been playing UT all that much lately. The polycounts in those scenes are vastly higher than anything ever seen in Unreal/UT. There's far more structure to the indoor scenes, and the outdoor scenes don't look square.
 
The thing to remember is that UT2003 is a multiplayer game.

Thus, it would be completely unacceptable if you only got 30 fps on, say a GF3 (like Doom3 is suppose to get).

Carmack has actually mentioned something about this in an interview where he thought that the graphics didn't neccesarily have to become much better then in Quake3 in those types of games since everybody would turn of all the "nice looking" features anyway.
 
IMHO they could have worked harder on the textures.
I understand they want high fps but a very good compressed texture could help a lot.

thanks Doomtrooper
Maybe we could have some deathmatches here in the future ;)
 
Ok performance on my setup which is a AthlonXP 2100 + @ 16 X Anistropic @ 8500 - 288/288:
Using Fraps I get:

1024 x 768 42-66 fps not bad ..not great

Things to mention...

Game defaults to 800 x 600 @ 60 hz in the .INI file, there is no video options to change resolution so manually editing the .ini is a must.
There is a benchmark mode..I will try that next...

I have to agree with OGL guy, as a huge UT fan the character animations are non-existant..gameplay is quite different...
The translocater can't be fired a thousand times now..needs to be charged..didn't realize that until I got into the enemy base.. :LOL:
 
This liked demo also defaults to 'Normal' quality geomtery/textures. Doom have you modified the ini to ultrahigh in any way? Do not judge the game on this demo.
 
Randell...nope want to show you .ini file mods :)...

BTW not judging the game from the Demo but I expected a little more thats all.
 
This 'guy' showed me the leaked demo as well...Unfortunately, I also was underwhelmed.

I thought the graphics were nice; however, nothing spectacular...but the gameplay didn't feel all that great.

Let's hope things change for the better once the game goes gold.
 
Back
Top