Competition for UnrealEngine3 and Reality Engine

And once again, Epic has struck again. And I don't mean with a brilliant engine, don't get me wrong, UE3 looks great. But showing the engine off this far ahead is merely a huge PR stunt, everyone goes 'OMG teh UE3 *drool*' while it will be just 'one of the engines' in the year it's used in games. I honestly can't see why Doom 3 or X-Ray would have trouble doing this, but just not on this hardware, they will however in 2006/2007. And I'm sure Source will have received its share of modifications by that time too.
 
The Silhouette said:
all of your morons taking blind stabs at what speed the Unreal 3 engine was running at are WRONG. It was running at 10 to 15 FPS on a very high end computer with a 6800u.
Apparently Tim Sweeney said it runs 25-30 fps in a webchat. Is he a good enough source for you? :)

This is quite interesting, btw:
http://www.beyondunreal.com/content/articles/95_1.php

also the Unreal 3 engine looks nice, but not as good as half you idiots think. You'd relize this if you took time to examine the screenshots and see the flat textures, and low poly areas.
They're still developing it.

All the Source engine would have to do is incorporate Displacement Maps and Paralax mapping for more geometry, and real time shadowing to be onpar with the U3 engine.
There is no real problem in implementation - but the new stuff is shader reliant in a way that old cards simply can't run. That is what makes it a 'new generation' of engine - it's hard to come up with a map that looks great on the new one and decent on a DX8 card. Just a matter of time.
 
i wonder what they'll calll the new Source engine... maybe they'd give them similar names, like Entity or something like it, or maybe they'll be classy and go for ''source V. 2.0'' and so on...
 
MoFo said:
i wonder what they'll calll the new Source engine... maybe they'd give them similar names, like Entity or something like it, or maybe they'll be classy and go for ''source V. 2.0'' and so on...

Source Engine build *four-digit number*
 
I think that these power render engines are great, you start developing them early to create the graphics in the future so you have the time in the world to create the content without woring your game will meet up to the graphics standard in that time, because when you for example have an engine like unreal engine 2 you can create content sure, but you spend more time to enhance the engine time after time to meet the graphic standard, and other games out there are raising the bar continiously, so you are having to spend alot of time trying to upgrade the art when another killer graphic game is released. you as a developer dont want your game to fall behind.
 
The problem with Valve, is that they take to long to do stuff, I mean 7 years....
 
Adrien C said:
The problem with Valve, is that they take to long to do stuff, I mean 7 years....

Of course, developing source took up a lot of those seven years.
 
You're both wrong.

Dead-Inside said:
Actually no, it's a completely new engine. You know nothing of what you're talking about, apart from Half-Life being built on the Q2 engine.

And he did mean 5 fps.


The original Half-Life was built from the Quake (not Quake II) engine.
 
well one of the new nvidia cards, epic says, is the only thing that can run UE3 with out horrible frame rates
 
riles said:
Is VALVe working on a nex gen engine such as UnrealEngine3 or Reality Engine for 2006+? Do you think they should even worry about that?

They already made one. Source. They'll just update it when necessary.
 
Spartan said:
They already made one. Source. They'll just update it when necessary.

yeah i kinda got that message from the 3 pages prior to your message. but still... have you seen UE3? its insanely high detailed...
 
UE3 does look amazing... now. Take in mind that we aren't going to be playing anything on this engine for quite some time. When a game is finally released on the engine, who knows what the new standard will be at that time? id software probably is probably working on something as we speak. Most likely, a couple other developers are as well.

I remember when the first video of Doom 3 was shown to the world. Everybody's reaction was the same: "OMFG THAT RAWKS SO HARD HOLLY BUTTSECKZZ I WANNA PLAY NOW". When the game finally shipped, everybody still thought the graphics were good, but the impact they made was nowhere near as big.

There's little point in getting hyped up about the engine as of right now, since we don't know what the competition will be in the future. Comparisons are currently pointless.
 
So you mean, that the minimum requirments for it will be a 6800 Ultra 256 Mb ?
 
The unreal engines are beautifully coded. From core to scripts, it's all tied together in one perfect package.

Open up the HL1 sdk. Bleugh! A hacked-together game on a hacked-together engine!
 
Source will easily be upgraded.
For one of the videos they needed DUAL 6800'S, a top of the line machine for smooth framerates.

How UE3 works.
-It renders a 5,000(or more\less) polygon model.
-It renders a 2,000,000 polygon(both in 3d studio max)
-For the game it shows the 5,000 one and normal maps all the detail on the 2,000,000 onto the 5,000 one or something to that.

Overall, valve can spend a year upgrading source and it can be just as good. When you see those super high polygons, that does not mean source can't render them in there current state. But why would they want to? Why would they want to so only like 2 PEOPLE IN THIS WHOLE WORLD CAN PLAY IT!
 
The Silhouette said:
all of your morons taking blind stabs at what speed the Unreal 3 engine was running at are WRONG. It was running at 10 to 15 FPS on a very high end computer with a 6800u.

also the Unreal 3 engine looks nice, but not as good as half you idiots think. You'd relize this if you took time to examine the screenshots and see the flat textures, and low poly areas.

All the Source engine would have to do is incorporate Displacement Maps and Paralax mapping for more geometry, and real time shadowing to be onpar with the U3 engine.

your also pretty stupid if your comparing an Engine of today to an Engine that wont be used till earliest at the end of 05.


Either your nicer or your banned. Clear?
 
to the guys touting Source over Unreal because source is editable...

you're clueless as to the Unreal modding scene arn't you? It's almost as large as Half Life's modding community! Hundereds of full fledged mods, thousands upon thousands of mutators and maps....in one year! :D
 
A2597 said:
to the guys touting Source over Unreal because source is editable...

you're clueless as to the Unreal modding scene arn't you? It's almost as large as Half Life's modding community! Hundereds of full fledged mods, thousands upon thousands of mutators and maps....in one year! :D


Yeah, and about 3 decent mods. At least for ut2k4. Besdies, Source was designed to be easily upgradeable. Hell, why doesn't soemone email Gabe and ask him if Source will match U3 in 05.
 
FictiousWill said:
The unreal engines are beautifully coded. From core to scripts, it's all tied together in one perfect package.

Open up the HL1 sdk. Bleugh! A hacked-together game on a hacked-together engine!

Unreal was nicley put together, but that doesn't mean everyone can come to grasp of how to use it. I've tried on several occasions just to map for UT and well I'm here aint I?
 
A2597 said:
to the guys touting Source over Unreal because source is editable...

you're clueless as to the Unreal modding scene arn't you? It's almost as large as Half Life's modding community! Hundereds of full fledged mods, thousands upon thousands of mutators and maps....in one year! :D

ive found about 3 mods that i like from ut2k4. sure lots of mutators but the total conversion mod community for ut2k3 or 2k4 is not nearly as large as half-life's
 
Back
Top