What specs Epic use to develope UE3?

[Ooh-videogames]

Were they using info provided by Nvidia and ATI, possibly roadmaps? Just curious as to how they were able to produce a engine that is giving the PS3 and Xbox360 a serious workout.

Any performance numbers available? Would you say that the UE3 engine visuals are comparable to the Killzone E3 demo?

 

[jvd]

they most likely target the r300 as teh bare minimum for the game and used the full dx 9 specs as the medium .

 

[Wunderchu]

from HomeLAN Fed 's earlier interview with Tim Sweeney (linked to from here: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10927 ) (direct link: http://www.homelanfed.com/index.php?id=21751 ) the following is stated:

HomeLAN - How does the new Unreal Engine relate to the upcoming GPU's from NVIDIA and ATI?

Tim Sweeney - At GDC, we'll be demonstrating UnrealEngine3 on 3D hardware shipping in early 2004, and the performance there is only decent. The GPU's we're looking at as UnrealEngine3's sweet spot are approximately 18 months away. As you can see, we're aiming high! This makes UE3 an excellent platform for next-generation console games, and also for performance-oriented PC gaming in 2006.

and

UnrealEngine3 is targeted at high-end DirectX9 and future GPU's and next-generation game consoles

from BeyondUnreal:

TS: Well, we are aiming at the kind of PC that we think will be mainstream in 2006. We will also be able to scale it down. Basically DirectX 9 cards will be minimum spec, so any DirectX 9 shipping today will be capable of running our game, but probably at reduced detail.

[source: http://www.beyondunreal.com/content/articles/95_1.php ]




from Beyond3D:

You have mentioned that UnrealEngine3 - what you're currently working on - is :

"… the name for the next major step in Unreal technology, aimed at DirectX9 hardware as the absolute minimum spec, and scaling (way) upwards from there."
Could you briefly clarify (perhaps with a summarized list of DirectX9 features) what is meant by "DirectX9 hardware as the absolute minimum spec" since there appears to be different interpretations of "minimum DirectX9 spec" from a hardware perspective?

By DirectX9 minimum spec, we mean we're going to make a game that brings today's GeForce FX's and Radeon 9700+'s to their knees at 640x480! We are targetting next-generation consoles and the kinds of PC's that will be typical on the market in 2006, and today's high end graphics cards are going to be somewhat low end then

[source: http://www.beyond3d.com/interviews/sweeney04/index.php?p=2 ]

 

[Ooh-videogames]

This leads me to another question. Why hasn't MS, Sony, Nintendo created their on advanced engines, wouldn't it reduce development time for 1st party titles?

 

[Wunderchu]

I expect that it came down to one thing..... time

MS and Sony 1st parties were working on Xbox and PS2 games, respectively until sometime last year.. by the time they began transitioning to work on next gen. games, they had 2 options: 1. begin wiriting new next gen. engines from scratch, which could take months to complete, or 2. licence the already working UE3 engine, and begin content creation immediately

. I assume they chose option # 2 ... this was a wise choice, IMO, as making 1st generation titles is always a rush, so chosing this option helps by giving developers more time to actually develop gameplay and content, instead of spending months writing a next gen. engine from scratch...

 

[jvd]

well some like rare are modifing thier existing engines (pdz , kameo )

I'm sure when bungie makes halo 3 they will use that game again and when ms makes froza 2 they will use that engine again .

 

[Wunderchu]

well some like rare are modifing thier existing engines (pdz , kameo )

I'm sure when bungie makes halo 3 they will use that game again and when ms makes froza 2 they will use that engine again .

ya, that's true too .. not all first parties will use UE3

 

[jvd]

HOnestly i don't really know any of ms's other first party titles .

 

[jpr27]

I am suprised that MS being a software company hasnt created an 3dengine to this point though. With their announcement of XNA it might be a precurser to a future 3d engine say for future generation consoles which would work seamlessly with the XNA environment.

The other side of the coin could be that MS fears it would push away developers who prefer to develop their own engines and tools etc. Then again (using UE3 engine as an example) if they could develop a cutting edge engine with XNA that cuts development time and makes it easy to make the most of the consoles hardware. It might bring in new developers who might not have the budget to buy the UE3 or Doom3 engines but could could possibly compete with them on a lvl playing field for less using the MS software structure.

Hmmmm wonder if MS is actually considering this? (if not this generation next? Get developers use to using XNA then seemlessly incorporate a robust 3d engine next gen?) Seem possible or you think XNA will be the most we see from MS?

 

[_phil_]

I am suprised that MS being a software company hasnt created an 3dengine to this point though

3d engine is not the point.It's about tools.And UE3 strenght ,well above feature list is integration and tools.All is there , WYSWYG.

 

[mckmas8808]

Who says that the first party titles haven't created their own engines?

 

[AlNom]

Hey, if they licensed UE3 for Halo 3, I can see them spend less time dicking around with the tech and more time finishing the game in time for the PS3 launch.

 

[Brad Grenz]

I am suprised that MS being a software company hasnt created an 3dengine to this point though.

Don't you remember DirectEngine?

 

[Acert93]

Hey, if they licensed UE3 for Halo 3, I can see them spend less time dicking around with the tech and more time finishing the game in time for the PS3 launch.

MGS did license the engine for inhouse use. Whether Halo makes use of it is another issue... I think Bungie could make a better engine for their specific use/design.

But seeing as Halo is a FPS, and seeing as they could mod the heck out of the engine, I think it would get the ball rolling quickly. But it all really depends how long Halo 3 has been in the works, how high have they aimed, and so forth.

They basically have 2 years from Halo 2 to Halo 3. That is not a lot of time for a cutting edge game that really exploits a system. So I really hope they have been working on it for a while...

 

[jvd]

acert93 bungie didn't make a new engine for halo 2 . So i'm sure they have had coders working on the next engine since halo 1 wrapped up . With the artists and level designers working on halo 2

 

[Acert93]

acert93 bungie didn't make a new engine for halo 2 . So i'm sure they have had coders working on the next engine since halo 1 wrapped up . With the artists and level designers working on halo 2

Maybe. Programmers are needed for a lot of things. Halo 2 had a lot of graphical improvements + is a ton smoother.

And as Epic has noted, traditionally programmers are pretty involved in game developement, even at the map making level, because these engines are not designed to allow the artist to just go to town and do whatever they want. Same goes with Shaders--programmers have had to write those.

That is not to say Bungie did not start an engine a long time ago. But it seems PDZ and Kameo are just upgraded Xbox/GCN engines. I would think that Rare, a dev who has had more time, would have made a new engine before Bungie who had just put a ton of work on getting Halo 2 out the door.

But you are correct. I thought that considering the game size/length and the amount of work done between Halo in 2001 and Halo 2 in 2004 that it seemed "slow going". So either Bungie has the Rare bug (very possible!), or Bungie maybe has been working on Halo 3 longer than we know.

I hope they have been... that would be GREAT. But seeing at how long it takes MS and Rare to churn stuff out is may not be so

 

[jvd]

That is not to say Bungie did not start an engine a long time ago. But it seems PDZ and Kameo are just upgraded Xbox/GCN engines. I would think that Rare, a dev who has had more time, would have made a new engine before Bungie who had just put a ton of work on getting Halo 2 out the door.

well you can't really compare

pdz started life on the gc , moved to the xbox and now the x360. Halo 3 may have started life with the goal of the next generation systems .

 

[Acert93]

That is not to say Bungie did not start an engine a long time ago. But it seems PDZ and Kameo are just upgraded Xbox/GCN engines. I would think that Rare, a dev who has had more time, would have made a new engine before Bungie who had just put a ton of work on getting Halo 2 out the door.

well you can't really compare

pdz started life on the gc , moved to the xbox and now the x360. Halo 3 may have started life with the goal of the next generation systems .

You can compare and here is why: Time.

PDZ has been a next gen title for at least a good year. The reason they did not make a new engine was because that would have meant a ton of time making the engine before they could begin work. So they upgraded the engine instead of starting from scratch.

Same principle applies to Halo 3: Time.

They just finished Halo 2 in November 2004. Gates said the PS3 would be met by the Halo 3 launch. So lets say PS3 launches in March 2006. That is 16 months.

It takes much longer than 16 months to make a cutting edge engine and then get it full of content, gameplay refined, etc... It took Bungie 36 months to upgrade Halo graphically and to create 8 hrs of SP content for Halo 2.

If it takes Bungie 3 years to do an upgrade of a current engine and make 8hrs of content, what can they do in 1/2 that time?

Even if their Halo 3 Xbox 360 engine was feature complete in Nov 2004 (which is laughable due to the lack of final HW... even UE3 is still getting a lot of work done to it), that leaves the Bungie team 16 months to create for Halo 3 what took them 36 months to create with Halo 2.

And it has been said many times over that the new games with the better engines/higher graphical detail do take longer/more people.

So if MS is looking to push Halo 3 out in 16 months it may very well use an upgraded Halo 2 engine. Based on what other MS inhouse devs have done we cannot rule that out. I am not saying this is what is happening, but based on the time frame and how busy Bungie has been--and how long their titles take to get to market--I do not think that can be ruled out. And the Halo engine may not be all bad to refine. It uses Havok for physics already and it is one of the better looking Xbox games. The PC version is also very nice looking. So there is a foundation to work with.

Personally I hope they have been working on it for a couple years. Both Halos were in the work for many years, so it seems Bungie is a company that needs time to make a titles. It seems that both titles took about 3 years to make. So even if they are aiming for a fall 2006 launch, based on their other titles it would make sense that they would have needed to start in late 2003. Certain companies are just slow (Rare, Valve, id, Nintendo's Zelda crew, just to name a few) and other are more prolific. Personally I hope they DO have a new Engine and that they do NOT rush it. Release it when it is done MS.

 

[jvd]

PDZ has been a next gen title for at least a good year. The reason they did not make a new engine was because that would have meant a ton of time making the engine before they could begin work. So they upgraded the engine instead of starting from scratch.

Same principle applies to Halo 3: Time.

They just finished Halo 2 in November 2004. Gates said the PS3 would be met by the Halo 3 launch. So lets say PS3 launches in March 2006. That is 16 months.

You can't really compare as we don't know how big of a team has been working on halo 3 or for how long your assuming that the full team was used on halo 2 or that no one has been working on halo 3. Bungie may have 2 teams and while one team was making halo 2 the other could have been working on halo 3 .

If it takes Bungie 3 years to do an upgrade of a current engine and make 8hrs of content, what can they do in 1/2 that time?

again you believe it was a full team making halo 2 . The bulk of the team could have been already working on halo 3

Ms could have given bungie a rough spec of what they expected x360 to be after they finalized the deal with ati. They could have given them the target features and specs and they could have gone to work around that .

I don't see why they cna't have halo 3 done , I think they would have started in 2004 with the engine which is most likely around the time that the key factors were in place , the xenos plans , the tri core cpu and 256 megs of ram. With that in place they could have started developing it which i think is around the time that rare switched over to the x360 developement . Then factor in that ms wants pdz ready for nov where ms wants halo 3 ready for ps3 launch (Which i'm assuming he means usa launch of ps3 not japan) so if the rumors are true thats march giving bungie 5 months to finish or if i'm correct and sony keeps to tradition we will see the ps3 for holiday 2006 givnig them 10+ months over pdz .

 

[AlNom]

hm... have you seen the making of videos on the LE disc? You can kinda see that they ran into some development troubles soon after the E3 2002 single player demo...

There is also the whole thing about the online stuff too (they had to build it from scratch), but they may not have as much work to do this time since they've got experience from Halo 2.

From the way they did the single player in Halo 2, it seems like they meant to finish the story off for some grand conclusion, but they needed to split it due to all the needed story elements. So, they could have been working on content for Halo 3 the entire time, just waiting for the tech to get up and running on the dev kits.