UT4: T&L or CPU

[John Reynolds]

Nope, Valve hasn't been preaching about future hardware..my main concern is the obvious bias Epic has with certain IHV's and how powerful of a PC required to play their latest game at decent framerate on a 32 player server.
Epic has dissapointed me, a developer I really respected with the original UT.

I UT2003 and 2004 actually ran better on nVidia hardware, you might have a point; as it stands what you're writing just comes off as knee-jerk, partisan banter. No offense intended, but it's not like you're exactly impartial when it comes to ATI and nVidia.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Can't run better on inferior hardware...I may be biased but I'm not blind..

 

[Hanners]

Nope, Valve hasn't been preaching about future hardware..my main concern is the obvious bias Epic has with certain IHV's and how powerful of a PC required to play their latest game at decent framerate on a 32 player server.
Epic has dissapointed me, a developer I really respected with the original UT.

So, a couple of posts ago you complained that Epic aren't using enough advanced features, now you are complaining that their engine requires a powerful machine to run it? You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Well you point me to the modern video card features being used in UT2003 (now a year later UT 2004 also) to help lessen the CPU utiliztion Hanners and you get a cookie

 

[Doomtrooper]

A reminder:

We don't use vertex shaders in UT2003 though we do use multiple vertex streams in conjunction with the fixed function pipeline which is the reason why we have to revert to software vertex processing on SiS cards like the 315 or Xabre as they only expose one vertex stream.

Very Little use of Pixel Shaders...

We didn't find any use for them in UT2003. Basically all you realistically need vertex shaders for on DX8 cards is to set up pixel shaders. As we're happy with the DX7 blending approach for UT2003 there was no need for neither pixel nor vertex shaders. We do use pixel shaders for terrain rendering but that's just a minor optimization and the DX7 blending fallback is almost as fast and looks 100% identical.

-- Daniel, Epic Games Inc.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2855&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

Even Terrain rendering on PS 2.0 equipped cards would have been nice, or some PS 2.0 water effects (9700 is 2 years old and plenty of time for some additions)

 

[Bjorn]

Well you point me to the modern video card features being used in UT2003 (now a year later UT 2004 also) to help lessen the CPU utiliztion Hanners and you get a cookie

DV said:

We didn't find any use for them in UT2003. Basically all you realistically need vertex shaders for on DX8 cards is to set up pixel shaders

So since they don't use pixel shades, vertex shaders wouldn't help in removing any CPU load since they use HW T&L for everything.

Even Terrain rendering on PS 2.0 equipped cards would have been nice, or some PS 2.0 water effects (9700 is 2 years old and plenty of time for some additions)

UT is a multiplayer game which makes the priorities a little bit different. They seem to have focused on gameplay instead of adding shiny water and stuff like that and i don't really blame them for that.

 

[vogel]

Well, we do have a track record of supporting software rendering ;-)

More seriously though, Andrew's new renderer is quite amazing and we have the art talent to make it really shine though I obviously won't be able to convince you if you're not going to be able to see it with your own eyes at GDC.

-- Daniel, Epic Games Inc.

Looking at Epic's track record they certainly don't have experience with pixel shader power, but I bet they have made alot of CPU sales for AMD and Intel.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Well looking forward to seeing it Loki, thanks for a update.

 

[Reverend]

Well, I'm pretty sure you have more pixel shader experience than the developers of Epic.

Funny, I didn't claim I did....I do find it humorous a developer famous for not using advanced features of modern video cards preaching about future hardware. You can read whatever you want into it

I suppose it's a case of "damned if you don't, damned if you do", huh?

Get over this mindset you have of Tim. The original UnrealEngine was a big leap. He refined it, keeping in mind the schedule of games in the pipeline both by Epic and potential licensees of his engine (and not just for the PC but the consoles). UnrealEngine3 ain't here yet so for all I care he can push the envelope with this engine all he wants and start making suggestions to the IHVs. That's a good thing in the overall picture.

On a related note : Do you find it humorous as well wrt JC and the Doom3 engine?

 

[Ostsol]

On a related note : Do you find it humorous as well wrt JC and the Doom3 engine?

I gotta agree with that. Doom 3 was first announced at the time of the Geforce 3. It's been years since that day and now the feature set showing some age. It may have been pushing the limits of hardware functionality back then, but now it's just average and still isn't out.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Get over this mindset you have of Tim. The original UnrealEngine was a big leap. He refined it, keeping in mind the schedule of games in the pipeline both by Epic and potential licensees of his engine (and not just for the PC but the consoles). UnrealEngine3 ain't here yet so for all I care he can push the envelope with this engine all he wants and start making suggestions to the IHVs. That's a good thing in the overall picture.

On a related note : Do you find it humorous as well wrt JC and the Doom3 engine?

Well yes I do a matter of fact (JC is another hyping future hardware but on his last update is using DX8 at most on a close to 4 year project)...I will also point out that I stated I respected Epic ALOT for UT. I played many many games (too bad Ngstats is gone) and had alot of fun. My complaint is about UT 2003 in General (UT 2004 is better just for the gameplay alone), no one played UT 2003...everyone hated it and complaints about performance of UT 2004 is filled in their forums.

I don't make these stories up out of thin air.

 

[DemoCoder]

You'll complain about any game you perceive as not showing ATI in a positive light.

And for the record, even if fixed-function-T&L and old DX7 texture-stage-state pipeline is being used, on modern cards like the R300, this gets translated into vertex programs and pixel shaders by the driver in order for them to run.

I'm tired of shiny water. Either your engine is architected from the ground up to be PS2.0, or it isn't. Spare me the piecemeal effects. You can't fault epic for not having a PS2.0 engine. It's only been a little over a year since DX9 came out, and I would not expect a ground breaking PS2.0 utilizing engine to be written in 12 months.

That goes for Valve too. They didn't exactly deliver the miracle PS2.0 engine last September did they? And now it looks like it won't come out until September 2004. PS2.0 performance has practically been irrelevent for most of the R300's lifespan.

 

[FUDie]

You'll complain about any game you perceive as not showing ATI in a positive light.

What does this mean? The Radeons perform quite well in UT2003, at least the R300 and up.

-FUDie

 

[DemoCoder]

Yes, but so do alot of cards. CPU limited games don't allow you to do GPU performance comparisons in the "best light." DT likes benchmarks where PS2.0 performance can show a dramatic difference between the R300 and NV3x.

 

[Doomtrooper]

You'll complain about any game you perceive as not showing ATI in a positive light.

I have some advice for you, your opinion of what I want is not wanted here...dig. This has nothing to do with ATI, try learning to read

 

[Hanners]

I have some advice for you, your opinion of what I want is not wanted here...dig. This has nothing to do with ATI, try learning to read

This statement by yourself earlier in the thread seems to contradict that:

...my main concern is the obvious bias Epic has with certain IHV's...

 

[jb]

Doom for awhile I was kind of bumbed that UT2k3 did not make use of DX8 shaders that much. Then I had a chance to talk to Epic at the Mod Summit. The engine that powers UT2k3 was done WAY before UT2k3 was released. Back then we still just had GF4/8500 cards. But the majority of the cards being sold were still DX7 class (like the GF4mx). Had they written a game for DX8 cards and above it would have excluded a large number of users. Sure you can have fall back modes (Like Dan's Software mode) but that also adds time to your developement. You have to make a call. Design your game will basic hardware in mind, release game by X date. Or Desing your game with advanced hardware in mind yet add in fall back modes, release game by X + 180 days... Its really a trade off. No right answer...

 

[jb]

More seriously though, Andrew's new renderer is quite amazing and we have the art talent to make it really shine though I obviously won't be able to convince you if you're not going to be able to see it with your own eyes at GDC.

Hey Dan, for those mods teams still under NDA can we get a pic at the GDC demo?

 

[Doomtrooper]

This statement by yourself earlier in the thread seems to contradict that:

...my main concern is the obvious bias Epic has with certain IHV's...

Yes it is a concern, and you should too. Developer forming partnerships as a official technical partner with only one IHV is not good for the consumer. Sure some developer that makes only PS2 games, but not on a PC.

We already saw what EA did, and that is all I have to say on this subject.

 

[DemoCoder]

Developer forming partnerships as a official technical partner with only one IHV is not good for the consumer.

Oh, you mean like the evil Valve<->ATI alliance, which lied about shipping a game 1 year before the ship date which was supposed to make NV3x cards look really bad, but which, even today, no R3xx consumer can use?