CryEngine 3

PogMoThoin

Looks utterly amazing

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/beauty-speed-cryengine-3/57638

dreamers75

Now imagine a decent game running that.



yeah me either, keeping thinking about ****ing alien monkey lookalike called Elvis.:mad:


Looks excellent but they all do.

PogMoThoin

The engine will now be used by other developers now consoles are capable of running it. Hopefully the outcome will be a half decent game of some sort

Jim

The most amazing thing about it is the proposed dev tools. Being able to develop for all platforms with no complication....sounds dubious.

Ponster

my gfx card almost melted just playing the vid !

AlmightyCushion

Wow. That looked ridiculously good. Hopefully more developers use this than they did cryengine 2.

KilOit

Not bad for consoles, im sure a Nvidia 295GTX would bring it to a whole new level.

projectmayhem

Jim wrote: »

The most amazing thing about it is the proposed dev tools. Being able to develop for all platforms with no complication....sounds dubious.

It's very possible from a technical aspect, it just takes a lot of time and effort to develop your own compiler that then turns your code into the machine code for 3 (well, 2) different platforms. I assume the system will scale things back from PC to console (draw distance, etc.).

I would love for this to really get adopted and give us real-time proper physics gameplay in console games.

This is exactly the kind of thing Valve said would happen with Source all those years ago...

marco_polo

Was quite skeptical of the all platform approach but it does look very impressive. If it is as transparent across platforms as Crytek say, then I can see a much greater uptake of licences from third parties this time around.

And if the end result is some better quality PC versions of console games (As well as great PC only games of course), then super.

Overheal

Developer tools and licensing costs, and then hardware requirements. thats what it will boil down to.

Multicore eh. Did Cryengine 2 ever really have it?

TomCo

projectmayhem wrote: »

It's very possible from a technical aspect, it just takes a lot of time and effort to develop your own compiler that then turns your code into the machine code for 3 (well, 2) different platforms. I assume the system will scale things back from PC to console (draw distance, etc.).

Having Cell processor development experience I am incredibly skeptical of anyone claiming to have a compiler which generates optimal SPE code from a HLL (if that is what they're claiming).

IBM havent even got a compiler anything close to that.

marco_polo

Overheal wrote: »

Developer tools and licensing costs, and then hardware requirements. thats what it will boil down to.

Multicore eh. Did Cryengine 2 ever really have it?

True I think ultimately the key will be exactly how easy and cost effective it is to target all three platforms 360, PS3 and PC (And truthfully in particular the two consoles). If it brings down the overall cost of porting games signifigantly then the sky is the limit I would say.

Overheal

the problem really seems to be the PS3: Sony's answer to the niggling problem that essentially all that variates consoles is the controller, who has the latest hardware, and a proprietary disc drive. They just went and pulled a stupid with the Cel Processor if you ask me. Making a proprietary processor thats a bitch to code for: oh yes, thats progress.

TomCo

Overheal wrote: »

Making a proprietary processor thats a bitch to code for: oh yes, thats progress.

Its not exactly what you'd call a proprietary processor, you can buy a multi-cell bladeserver from IBM for instance. Toshiba have a Cell enabled TV, and Cell enabled PCI-e cards exist.

The actual difficulty in programming the Cell has been largely exaggerated, there's a bit of spin and industry politics involved too. Multiprocessor techniques carry over from traditional x86 architectures, there are differences but any decent programmer willing to learn the ins and outs will pick them up pretty quickly.

Edit: Also the PPE unit, while slow, codes like any regular x86 (you can literally port your x86 C code to the PPE, line for line, and it'll run fine). Most first gen PS3 titles (and I'd bet some of the current ones) didn't use the 8 SPE's at all - they just relied on offloading work to the GPU.

Overheal

Yeah but thats the thing, most developers wont. Theyre either set in their ways or they dont have the manpower to code for an essentially unique platform. Last generation because of similarities in hardware it was easy and cheap and lucrative for developers to port to all major platforms. Now, not so much.

TomCo

Overheal wrote: »

Yeah but thats the thing, most developers wont. Theyre either set in their ways or they dont have the manpower to code for an essentially unique platform.

Well they better learn fast, programmers who aren't willing to change don't last long. Tis the nature of technology.

marco_polo

*Bump*

Some more CryEngine 3 eye candy from the i3D 2010 demo on March 1st. (While i recognise some of thh the individual words I have no idea what the sentances mean )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEKusqo-l0o

Overheal

Cacaded Light Propogation Volumes for Realtime global Illumination: Means theres no Light-Map, so to speak. Light Maps are as old as sin, and theyre generated when the Map itself is Published/Rendered - all they are is a static layer of Shading that sits on top of the map texture (or in the case of CryEngine2 I believe the Daytime effect was accheived with a pre-rendered dynamic lightmap: but only really worked for Sunlight. The same thing you see @ 30 seconds)

This would be a realtime calculation system: whereby non-static objects would have super-realistic shadows and light reflections.

The Ray Marching @ 2:36 probably an optimized derivative Ray Tracing: A Seriously power hungry operation. You should be able to wiki it. But what it is basically is calculating in several passes how Each Texel (Texure Pixel) interacts with a particular lightsource: First, Direct line texels to the original light are illuminated; then those texels are regarded in the next pass as lightsources themseves based on how much of the lightsource they can reflect. This goes on for X number of passes. Ray Marching is necessary for indirect lighting schemes, shown. Theyve taken it a step farther too, by adding color spectrum to the ray traced light. Very impressive o_O

Next they show one Light Propogation Volume (LPV) grid on the left of the blue room scene, and 3 on the right: A Triple pass.

The final Apartment scene shows what a Full Studio Render scene looks like, and illustrates Realtime is not a perfect lighting solution yet: the power just isnt available.

I shudder to fathom what unholy machine would be required to power such an engine.

PogMoThoin

In his India Game Developer Summit 2010 keynote speech, executive producer Carl Jones revealed that Crysis 2 will have lower system requirements and improved graphics capabilities when compared to Crysis. The statement comes from a report recently published on DNA India website.

http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=852&Itemid=1

I'll believe that when I see for myself I can run it, it was 2 years before I could run the original Crysis with AA and get decent frames. It does look amazing though







Pics from here

Burgo

Pre rendered screens ftl.

PogMoThoin

Burgo wrote: »

Pre rendered screens ftl.

Everyone said that about the screenshots of Crysis before release, but it did actually end up looking like the WIP pics. Crysis is 2 years old and I still use it to showcase my pc when my friends call. It still looks so much better than anything thats come out in the last 2 years, in fact nothing has even come close. No other developer is pushing boundaries.

To get it to run on a console is the ultimate feat, I'm tiring of the Unreal engine that gets used so much, its dated at this stage.

cherryghost

to be perfectly honest, its clear now that Crysis is built on a poorly optimized engine. to say it'll look better on lower spec requirements is perfectly plausible as long as they optimized the engine a bit better

pixelburp

Burgo wrote: »

Pre rendered screens ftl.

The truth would be somewhere in the middle; I'd say those are genuine shots taken from the engine in action, but the scenes are clearly posed (ala Gary's Mod or the like) and then airbrushed & touched up in Photoshop. I'll be interested in the demo anyway, but Crysis the game did nothing for me.

marco_polo

cherryghost wrote: »

to be perfectly honest, its clear now that Crysis is built on a poorly optimized engine. to say it'll look better on lower spec requirements is perfectly plausible as long as they optimized the engine a bit better

Without doubt it was, although they did did seem to make some signifigant performance improvements in CryEngine 2 between Crysis and Crysis Warhead so I am hopeful that they can continue in the same vein.

I totally agree with PogMoThoin share that the Unreal 3 engine (and valve Source engine) are starting to show there age. The Unreal 4 engine will not be seen until "sometime after 2012" so there could be an opportunity for Crytek if they make a good job of this.

As for Crysis itself I thought it was a good game although of course there are number of better FPS around, I think the some of the critcs of its gameplay did go a little OTT, I'd give it a solid 7.5/10 myself.

*And cheers for the graphics tutorial Overheal

dreamers75

marco_polo wrote: »

I totally agree with PogMoThoin share that the Unreal 3 engine (and valve Source engine) are starting to show there age. The Unreal 4 engine will not be seen until "sometime after 2012" so there could be an opportunity for Crytek if they make a good job of this.

Stop taking silly, Noone will buy the crytek engine due to previous issues with it.

Epic have the engine selling buisness in the bag, even ID cant break them.


As for Crytek yay another game noone can run with monkeys/aliens/elvis in it.

if they actually made a good game fairly sure people would talk about their games more. Looking good means **** if your game sucks. Altho PC fanboys always point to Crysis for points over consolers its still a **** game.

AlmightyCushion

dreamers75 wrote: »

Stop taking silly, Noone will buy the crytek engine due to previous issues with it.

Epic have the engine selling buisness in the bag, even ID cant break them.


As for Crytek yay another game noone can run with monkeys/aliens/elvis in it.

if they actually made a good game fairly sure people would talk about their games more. Looking good means **** if your game sucks. Altho PC fanboys always point to Crysis for points over consolers its still a **** game.

I actually really liked crysis. If it wasn't for that weird bit in the middle

on the alien ship

it would have been great. Some great moments in it as well.

marco_polo

dreamers75 wrote: »

Stop taking silly, Noone will buy the crytek engine due to previous issues with it.

Epic have the engine selling buisness in the bag, even ID cant break them.

Since no gaming companies lisensed the CryEngine 2 I am not sure what problems they could have had with it? Since probably Quake II, Epic have been at the top for a long lomg time at IDs expense, probably for at least 10 years but is that any reason to assume is it in the bag forever? Epic have all but said that the next unreal engine will not be seen untill the next generation of consoles. Will people really be satisfied with another 3-4 years of the Unreal 3 engine games? (Alot of my favourite games of all time, from Deus Ex to Bioshock to Mass Effect have been developed on a version of the Unreal Engine, which has a great story as it happens, but for me that does not excuse a lack of current innovation.)

As for Crytek yay another game noone can run with monkeys/aliens/elvis in it.

if they actually made a good game fairly sure people would talk about their games more. Looking good means **** if your game sucks. Altho PC fanboys always point to Crysis for points over consolers its still a **** game.

Agree that graphics does not a game make, but since I have a few consoles under my TV at this very moment I can only presume this comment was not aimed at me If you come seeking fanboy wars you have come to the wrong place sorry.

L31mr0d

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Everyone said that about the screenshots of Crysis before release, but it did actually end up looking like the WIP pics.

+1

Crysis WIP shot:

http://jordanlegg.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/crysis-face.jpg

Crysis in game screenshot that I took:

http://leimrod.com/wp-content/gallery/crysis-warhead/00058.jpg

The problem with Crysis has always been the graphics card drivers and not the game engine itself. Crysis hasn't been patched in years, but every time I run it with newer graphics card drivers I get an extra few FPS. The game now runs around 20fps faster than when I first ran it with my current PC (which hasn't been upgraded in around 2 years) When you are going from 20fps to 40fps the difference is HUGE.

People tend to always jump on the game for running poorly but no one bothers to question how nVidia and AMD are optimizing their drivers and how they are managing to do it so badly. I just accept now that I won't get to see close to the true performance of a new graphics card until a year after it has been released and the drivers have matured.

wayne040576

L31mr0d wrote: »

+1

Crysis WIP shot:

http://jordanlegg.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/crysis-face.jpg

Crysis in game screenshot that I took:

http://leimrod.com/wp-content/gallery/crysis-warhead/00058.jpg

The problem with Crysis has always been the graphics card drivers and not the game engine itself. Crysis hasn't been patched in years, but every time I run it with newer graphics card drivers I get an extra few FPS. The game now runs around 20fps faster than when I first ran it with my current PC (which hasn't been upgraded in around 2 years) When you are going from 20fps to 40fps the difference is HUGE.

People tend to always jump on the game for running poorly but no one bothers to question how nVidia and AMD are optimizing their drivers and how they are managing to do it so badly. I just accept now that I won't get to see close to the true performance of a new graphics card until a year after it has been released and the drivers have matured.

What areyour system specs? I have an AMD phenom and an 8800gt (about 2 yrs old) and it has always struggled to play it even on medium settings. I was planning to upgrade to a gtx295 but haven't got around to it.

AlmightyCushion

wayne040576 wrote: »

What areyour system specs? I have an AMD phenom and an 8800gt (about 2 yrs old) and it has always struggled to play it even on medium settings. I was planning to upgrade to a gtx295 but haven't got around to it.

I have a q6600, 4GBs ram and a 4870 1GB and I could play crysis warhead at 1920x1200 maxed out with no slowdown. Can't remember what I could play crysis at.

PogMoThoin

wayne040576 wrote: »

What areyour system specs? I have an AMD phenom and an 8800gt (about 2 yrs old) and it has always struggled to play it even on medium settings. I was planning to upgrade to a gtx295 but haven't got around to it.

8800gt not good enough for max settings I'm afraid.

I can also max it with a 4870x2

marco_polo

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I have a q6600, 4GBs ram and a 4870 1GB and I could play crysis warhead at 1920x1200 maxed out with no slowdown. Can't remember what I could play crysis at.

Have a HD4870 myself (@1080p) and the original crysis is the only game that I have had ever had to lower settings for. Warhead ran like a dream with everything maxed out.

AlmightyCushion

marco_polo wrote: »

Have a HD4870 myself (@1080p) and the original crysis is the only game that I have had ever had to lower settings for. Warhead ran like a dream with everything maxed out.

Yeah I think I left mine at the recommended settings for crysis which was pretty high as it was and didn't bother upping them at all. Must play it again actually. I loved running about in the jungle and stumbling on to a new settlement of people.

wayne040576

I'm hoping the gtx295 goes down in price a bit when the new nvidia cards come out. Only thing is the size of the bloody things. Like trying to fit a brick into my case.
I think my phenom cpu is not the best either. Mad that a 2 year old game is still a huge benchmark test for machines.

L31mr0d

wayne040576 wrote: »

What areyour system specs? I have an AMD phenom and an 8800gt (about 2 yrs old) and it has always struggled to play it even on medium settings. I was planning to upgrade to a gtx295 but haven't got around to it.

The 8800GT was mid tier 2 years ago so it's well into the low tiers now. It's ok for running games at around 1280x1024 but anything more than that and it will really struggle.

I have a 4870x2, which has been a great investment. I haven't encountered a game yet that I couldn't just notch everything up to max. It was bittersweet though as it has pretty much killed my hobby of building PC's as I have no need to upgrade anymore.

Next build will probably be a DX11 rig that supports Stereoscopic 3D.

wayne040576

L31mr0d wrote: »

The 8800GT was mid tier 2 years ago so it's well into the low tiers now. It's ok for running games at around 1280x1024 but anything more than that and it will really struggle.

I have a 4870x2, which has been a great investment. I haven't encountered a game yet that I couldn't just notch everything up to max. It was bittersweet though as it has pretty much killed my hobby of building PC's as I have no need to upgrade anymore.

Next build will probably be a DX11 rig that supports Stereoscopic 3D.

I haven't bought an ATI card in years. I don't have anything against them, just back then their Linux drivers were very bad so I shifted to Nvidia.

L31mr0d

wayne040576 wrote: »

I haven't bought an ATI card in years. I don't have anything against them, just back then their Linux drivers were very bad so I shifted to Nvidia.

I'll be switching back also. The physx and CUDA support are big enough carrots to make me switch sides again. Plus, I think a lot of games use nVidia for their test bed, I'll sometimes have to wait for ATI to release a hotfix after a game is released to make their cards compatible and optimized to run a game.

marco_polo

cherryghost wrote: »

to be perfectly honest, its clear now that Crysis is built on a poorly optimized engine. to say it'll look better on lower spec requirements is perfectly plausible as long as they optimized the engine a bit better

The offical recomended requirements for Crysis 2 are out, three years down the line and still it is a 8800GTS. Seems promising that they have a much more refined engine on their hands.

Looks like we can look forward to more better with nVidia splash screens at the start though :rolleyes:

EDIT: See 2 post down.

L31mr0d

marco_polo wrote: »

The offical recomended requirements for Crysis 2 are out

You sure? I'm pretty sure those are the requirements for the original Crysis, and there's no mention that it's referring to Crysis 2 from that link you provided.

marco_polo

L31mr0d wrote: »

You sure? I'm pretty sure those are the requirements for the original Crysis, and there's no mention that it's referring to Crysis 2 from that link you provided.

Oops confused myself, wrong link

http://www.product-reviews.net/2010/03/11/crysis-2-pc-impressive-details-regarding-system-requirements/

Appears to be a few screenshots I haven't seen before at the bottom here, as well as some posted earlier in the thread.

http://www.softsailor.com/news/20060-crysis-2-system-requirements-new-crysis-2-screenshots-released.html

Plus an off screen video from the same GDC 2010.

http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/28333

PogMoThoin

L31mr0d wrote: »

I'll be switching back also. The physx and CUDA support are big enough carrots to make me switch sides again. Plus, I think a lot of games use nVidia for their test bed, I'll sometimes have to wait for ATI to release a hotfix after a game is released to make their cards compatible and optimized to run a game.

Nothing You can't do through software. I've a few cores here lying idle, leave my gpu concentrate on what its already at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a06hAe747Do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cy1ty4nvmc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XFvW-B5K8w

L31mr0d

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Nothing You can't do through software. I've a few cores here lying idle, leave my gpu concentrate on what its already at

The problem is the game has to support it. Take Arkham Asylum, the physx effects really added to it imo, the smoke, cobwebs, debris and paper... etc, and I'm sure there where a load of other visual effects that utilized physx.

If I had the option to use a software alternative I would, but the options aren't there. The way it is at the moment, if the game uses Physx there is no alternative for ATI users. Havok isn't hardware dependent either so if it works with ATI it will work with nVidia.

L31mr0d

btw... new Crysis 3 HD demo

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gdc-10-crysis-2/63009

dreamers75

At the 4th time of asking can they actually make a good game rather than a cracking tech demo that noone actually buys.


Pogs pc in 2016 will be showing off the highlights of this game for years after

Overheal

The thing is - they license this Engine out, correct?

For all the thousands of man-hours that went into CryEngine 1+2, these are the titles that made it to market:



How long can they sustain that? Are they really making a significant profit on all of this development or what?

PogMoThoin

dreamers75 wrote: »

At the 4th time of asking can they actually make a good game rather than a cracking tech demo that noone actually buys.


Pogs pc in 2016 will be showing off the highlights of this game for years after

Crysis Wars was good, could run on any average gaming pc when it was released, its just Crysis had this stigma attached to it that You needed a mammoth pc to run it. The ability to cloak added some great fun to the game, a campers wet dream, me & L31mr0d had a few nights at it over hamachi

In 2016 a netbook will run it, but 2 years after release I don't see any other developers pushing boundaries on pc, we should be miles ahead.

L31mr0d

dreamers75 wrote: »

At the 4th time of asking can they actually make a good game rather than a cracking tech demo that noone actually buys.

What are you talking about. Crysis went platinum less than 3 months after it's release. I believe close of year 2008 it was at around 3 million. Every time it goes up for sale on Steam it hits No.1 on their top sellers list.

People are still buying it in their droves. When anyone with a new PC asks "what game should I play first to see what this thing can do" the answer is almost always "Crysis". It may be the "Avatar" of the gaming world, but people are still flocking to see that film, and people are still buying Crysis.

AntiVirus

L31mr0d wrote: »

What are you talking about. Crysis went platinum less than 3 months after it's release. I believe close of year 2008 it was at around 3 million. Every time it goes up for sale on Steam it hits No.1 on their top sellers list.

People are still buying it in their droves. When anyone with a new PC asks "what game should I play first to see what this thing can do" the answer is almost always "Crysis". It may be the "Avatar" of the gaming world, but people are still flocking to see that film, and people are still buying Crysis.

Thats what happened with a friend I work with last month, he splashed out and built a PC with top of the range hardware . The first games he bought where Crysis and Cysis Warhead, he did buy them to show off his PC but he loves both games. So yes, people are still buying the games.

I just checked on metacritic and Crysis averages 91% :pac:

PS: I thought the game was great :pac:

Elessar

L31mr0d wrote: »

btw... new Crysis 3 HD demo

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gdc-10-crysis-2/63009

This. THIS is the reason I built a large, noisy, hot gaming PC. To be able to see and play the cutting edge in computer graphics. To feast my eyes on the WOW factor. Very few games have ever had me just stop playing in the middle of a game and just stare at the screen. Crysis was one, Battlefield Bad Company 2 was another last night. Looks like crysis 2 will be the next one.

And here I was thinking maybe I should have just bought a PS3 and saved the hassle.

L31mr0d

Elessar wrote: »

And here I was thinking maybe I should have just bought a PS3 and saved the hassle.

Consoles have their uses though in regards to pushing the boundaries of visuals. Consoles may be limited in regards to their ability to produce effects that globally affect the in game environment, but they make up for this in other areas.

Take Uncharted 2, the level of detailing throughout that game is staggering. Now other developers could easily accomplish this on the PC, but it requires a lot of development time, it is simpler to just create a world and enable support for features that impact on the players experience globally (like lighting, reflections, bump mapping... etc) The world in Crysis looks amazing, but the detailing is lacking. Any given hut you walk into has the usual empty banana boxes, watermelons and plates... they are all the same.

Uncharted 2, having its hands tied by the hardware limitations of the console, decided to improve in whatever areas it could, areas that the PC is usually lacking in.

Also, take Demon's Souls as another example, they went the other route and knowing the hardware limitations of the PS3 concentrated on the general atmosphere of the world to great effect.

So there are pros and cons to both. A true gaming fan will spread his tastes across PC and consoles to experience the peak in this current generation of games across all formats.

Elessar

L31mr0d wrote: »

Consoles have their uses though in regards to pushing the boundaries of visuals. Consoles may be limited in regards to their ability to produce effects that globally affect the in game environment, but they make up for this in other areas.

Take Uncharted 2, the level of detailing throughout that game is staggering. Now other developers could easily accomplish this on the PC, but it requires a lot of development time, it is simpler to just create a world and enable support for features that impact on the players experience globally (like lighting, reflections, bump mapping... etc) The world in Crysis looks amazing, but the detailing is lacking. Any given hut you walk into has the usual empty banana boxes, watermelons and plates... they are all the same.

Uncharted 2, having its hands tied by the hardware limitations of the console, decided to improve in whatever areas it could, areas that the PC is usually lacking in.

Also, take Demon's Souls as another example, they went the other route and knowing the hardware limitations of the PS3 concentrated on the general atmosphere of the world to great effect.

So there are pros and cons to both. A true gaming fan will spread his tastes across PC and consoles to experience the peak in this current generation of games across all formats.

Having never heard of Uncharted 2, I just watched the video review on Gametrailers. And yes, I agree it looks very impressive. I tend to trust gametrailers with their reviews so I imagine this game is very good indeed. Almost makes me want to buy a PS3.

But where consoles are let down is mainly in texture resolution. With the limited video RAM most textures are very low resolution, and I suppose coming from a PC gaming background I am spoiled by decent textures and the ability to have lots of them on screen at one time. There are exceptions of course, especially when the lighting is so good against the textures that it really doesn't matter - Gears of War for example.