Cry Havoc / Reality Engine looks very tasty!

ytinupmi

Newbie
Joined
Sep 5, 2004
Messages
214
Reaction score
0
Rendering Technology:

The Reality Engine is a true next-generation toolset for developing games in the competitive 2006+ timeframe, where near-photorealism will be expected, and the growing demands on artists must be met with more efficient pipelines and tools that can make the most of your time and resources to meet tight schedules.
Rendering Technology

- Built with DirectX 9.0 from ground-up to take full advantage of cutting edge technology developments, while fully scalable to DirectX7/8 generation hardware.
- Per-Pixel Lighting and shading with support for PS3.0, PS2.X, PS2.0 and PS1.1. Shading includes dynamic projection mapping, normal mapping, Phong specularity, per-pixel reflection mapping, refractions, virtual displacement (parallax) mapping, animated textures, mix/detail shaders, fabric, anisotropic scattering, water, and other configurable pixel & vertex shaders.
- Revolutionary Precomputed Radiance Transfer (aka "Realtime Radiosity") support, allowing for Real-Time Subsurface Scattering and Soft Shadowing.
- Unified dynamic world lighting and shadowing, including day/night cycles. Heavily optimized for maximum performance in huge, complex scenes.
- Per-pixel Occlusion Culling. No more portals, zones, vis-gen waiting times, or manual occluders! Occlusion is fully automatic, fast, and accurate to the pixel.
- High-Dynamic Range Rendering Using Floating-Point buffers, allowing for Tone Mapping, Exposure Adaption, and Blue Shift, for camera/eye perceptual rendering.
- Image Post-Processing (stackable) including Depth of Field, Night Vision, Motion Blur, Light Blooms, Volumetric Lighting, and non-photorealistic rendering.
- Open-ended world structure places no limits on environmental design, with full artist-driven and procedural Level-Of-Detail support.

Physics:

- Advanced high-performance physics engine for efficient constraint resolution of thousands of rigid bodies, supporting multi-primitive, arbritrary joint linkages, stacking, breakage, and particle physics.
- Ragdoll character animation, allowing you to mix physics with animations for dynamic effects such as character damage.
- Integrated physics editing inside of Reality Builder, supporting creation of optimized collision primitives for models and skeletal animated meshes; constraint editing; and interactive physics simulation and tweaking in-editor.
- Fully integrated support for physics-based vehicles, including player control, AI, and networking.


Read more about the engine here:
http://www.artificialstudios.com/engine.php

Check out the screens of the engine in action:
http://www.artificialstudios.com/screenshots.php

Check out the video tech demos of the engine here:
http://www.artificialstudios.com/techdemos.php

Now about the game.

Platform: PC
Release Date: 2005

Cry Havoc is being designed on Artificial Studio's Reality Engine. It's conceived as a multiplayer 4-team First Person Shooter based on modern war tactics, combined with a deep Real Time Strategy layer. Through success in teamwork and combat, FPS players advance up the ranks of their own team, gaining more RTS decision-making capability along the way. The primary objective, like traditional RTS games, is to defeat all the enemy teams by choking their resources and destroying their bases. The methods are unique to Cry Havoc, with fast-paced FPS action, upgradable character abilities, 3D real-time base construction, and advanced vehicle physics on land, sea, and air. Battles take place within seamless environments powered by the Reality Engine, including detailed natural landscapes, moody close-quartered interiors, and large-scale urban warfare. Cry Havoc has recently finished its preproduction stage, and is currently in playable state for internal development.

Official website here:
http://www.cryhavoc-game.com/

very very tasty indeed.
 
:dozey: It's like... every game that's coming in 2006 is going to be badass because of this new technological new engine crap. Man so many cool games to get.

Damn 40 FPS w/ 9700
 
Apart from its insanely gorgeous bump mapping it looks average.
 
It looks more like a computer animated movie than it does photorealistic.

Unreal3 looks photorealistic ;)
 
Well I prefer style in front of realism in terms of graphics engines, so I'm not impressed... There comes a time when you have to ask yourself: Why do I need a 1000 poly can with bumpmapping and per pixel lighting??? :p
 
I don't think it looks or sounds all that impressive. It's doing what other engines are doing already really.

Meh we'll see I suppose.
 
dawdler said:
Well I prefer style in front of realism in terms of graphics engines, so I'm not impressed... There comes a time when you have to ask yourself: Why do I need a 1000 poly can with bumpmapping and per pixel lighting??? :p

Quiet you!

I say this about a lot of things, but choice is deffinately the way to go. I'm sure you could take a realism engine and stylise it with relative ease. Its just having the option to do so you know?
 
The "real-time radiosity" part got me interested though. But probably just a hack to simulate stuff (maybe just softshadows and no indirect lighting)
 
The videos were meh. Some things looked to plastic, and without enough detail. I guess it could be optimized though..

...but I'm sticking with Unreal Engine 3 for my "OMG, TEH AWESOME" award.
 
It looks like it's got some good lighting effects, but the physics don't really seem as good as the physics in HL2 (The Havok engine, right?).

With some work on the physics, and some work on the textures... Everything looks shiny. Bricks are NOT SHINY!
 
I saw this awhile ago, it seems interesting. And of course TheDarkElf isnt "amazed" by it, no engine to him is amazeing. You could show him a picture of real life and he can point out why it isnt impressive.
 
Yeah, the physics aren't nearly as realistic as Source's physics. The books and the fire stokers bounced an awful lot, and the world gravity level wasn't nearly as high as it should have been. And then that last picture frame that gets knocked off somehow ends up standing upright on one edge after making nearly a dozen of those little "hops" that look characteristic of this engine's physics module.

The lighting, however, is damn good.
 
I was happy with the first pic. The one with the lights, bricks and stone road...but from there it wasn't that great. Looks good, but not entirely revolutionary.
 
Does it have sub surface light scattering?
No ?

Ok then........................*wanders off*
 
SAJ said:
Does it have sub surface light scattering?
No ?

Ok then........................*wanders off*

According to the site, yes, yes it does.
 
It looks like..plastic. The lighting effects seem alright but other than that it doesn't impress me too much. It's nothing compared to u3 engine
 
Also, about the phsycis, everything seems to move too slow. Doesn't look right.
 
Wow, some of you are expecting perfect graphics and physics...tough crowd.
 
'Tis is a reality engine and thar graphiks are like a bilge rat.
 
cereal said:
Wow, some of you are expecting perfect graphics and physics...tough crowd.

then they'll be massively letdown by HL2 (well shit thats a given, seeing how high these fanboys have gotten their hopes for HL2, they can't go anywhere but down)
 
Tough crowd indeed. Had a bad day or something?

As for myself, can I just say WO-FUC*ING-W I'm very impressed by what I'm looking at, the soda can screen being the best.
 
ytinupmi said:
then they'll be massively letdown by HL2 (well shit thats a given, seeing how high these fanboys have gotten their hopes for HL2, they can't go anywhere but down)


Well if this engine is supposed to compete with U3, well there is no competetion. U3 wins hands down.
 
Death.Trap said:
Well if this engine is supposed to compete with U3, well there is no competetion. U3 wins hands down.

how so? what technical aspects does U3 possess that Reality Engine doesn't?
 
cereal said:
Wow, some of you are expecting perfect graphics and physics...tough crowd.

I agree, you guys are being to hard, when I saw the movie, I was almost drowning such as when I saw unreal 3 tech movies, yea they will clean up little details later because it still in early stages. But from what i saw, i liked it alot, so what if the brick shine, im sure if you stick a flash light on a clean surface brick on a side angle its going to shine too, but common you have to admit, from games of today other then hl2 and d3 graphic two year from now is going to be a big step, and i can only imagine if they do hl3 and its a new engine. :D
 
ytinupmi said:
how so? what technical aspects does U3 possess that Reality Engine doesn't?


Well if you compare the demos, U3 just looks a TON better. Thats probably a matter of opinion though. As for techincal aspects..well I havn't read up on them. Maybe they could get rid of the plastic look and bring the physics up to normal speeds then it would look a lot better.
 
Death.Trap said:
Well if this engine is supposed to compete with U3, well there is no competetion. U3 wins hands down.

The video was using a 9700 Pro. The U3 Demo used a 6800 Ultra. You can put 2 and 2 together. ;)


http://cryhavoc-game.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10 said:
We're about to release a tech demo showing off all the engine features. Whereas Epic used a not-yet-released card in their Unreal 3 tech demo, this entire demo runs perfectly on a Radeon 9700. So to answer your question, the requirements are in-line with a game with our expected release date, they certainly aren't over-demanding. A DirectX9 card is ideal, with a DirectX8 one being acceptable.
 
Looking better is an art direction.

Not technical this has the features that we have seen from U3 it's just there art is crappy.
 
Death.Trap said:
Well if you compare the demos, U3 just looks a TON better. Thats probably a matter of opinion though. As for techincal aspects..well I havn't read up on them. Maybe they could get rid of the plastic look and bring the physics up to normal speeds then it would look a lot better.

there goes your credibility.
 
ytinupmi said:
there goes your credibility.

Like I said, it's a matter of opinion. I personally think that U3 looks better. But the engine is in it's early stages, if it has the same capabilities as the U3 engine, thats great. But by watching the tech demo it just doesn't appeal to me.

I'm not trying to say that the U3 is BETTER, thats not my point.
 
It's not photorealistic, but it's very impressive none the less.

I wonder what the modified Source engine will look like when HL3 rolls around
 
:dozey: yay, another developer that thinks bump maps are meant to replace polygonal detail instead of add detail.

and isn't it funny, they can't even create their own content!
http://www.humus.ca/3D/index.php?start=8
the brick texture is right off of that self shadow bump mapping/offset mapping demo and I bet the code is too.
and the stony ground texture is off of a different one of his demos(that didn't have offset mapping)
 
Back
Top