REAL Unreal Engine 3 Pic

We've started derailing the topic, let's put it back on track :thumbs: .

Tredoslop said:
I would love to see the Unreal 3 engine implemented in a 3rd person beat 'em up action game like Seven Samurai 20XX or Ninja Gaiden.
Click to expand...

thehunter1320 said:
lol... that'd be fun! and cool floating physics when u jump into the air
Click to expand...

Either way this engine's still a far ways off and will only work on the next-gen consoles. I'm personally more excited to see how they utilize the Source and Doom III engines in the upcoming games, that WWII game from Gearbox looks especially promising. Needless to say though this new engine looks especially impressive and needs to be put to use with some quality developers.
 
[highlight]*OCybrManO rubs his eyes.[/highlight]

... that's a game? :E
 
fizzlephox said:
Needless to say though this new engine looks especially impressive and needs to be put to use with some quality developers.
Click to expand...
That got me thinking about Thief: Deadly Shadows. Does anyone else think that game looks like ass? It uses the Doom 3 engine but it doesn't look anywhere near the same quality as Doom 3. The more advanced the engines get the more skillful the artists have to be to make use of their power.
 
Thief3 doesn't use the Doom³ engine, it uses an heavily modified Unreal engine. Unreal2 engine, or Unreal Warfare, I don't know the name I don't keep up with Unreal tech. It uses the same engine that was used in DE:IW. But it most surly does not use Doom³ tech, hence why it doesn't look as good as Doom³.


Whats interesting is that Carmack always said that Doom³ tech was about 2 years ahead of the rest, and now that we see the first engine to rival it's graphical capabilities is two years away. Carmack's track record for predicting how things will go is impeccable. He also has always said that Doom³ tech will set the standard for 5 years to come, and I'm sure he is right there aswell. By the time this new Unreal tech comes out on the market, the Doom³ engine will have evolved a great deal, and most likely surpass it. But right now Carmack has to focus on making it playable with hardware that is on the market and has been on the market for a while, something the developers of the unreal3 engine don't have to worry about.

The techdemo was amazing BTW. As I've always said, old technology like lightmaps and projected shadow maps are dead. The Source engine won't last very long. I know the developers say that Source is made to incorperate new capabilities as they are made available, but they weren't referring to the main capabilities these new engines will have. In order for Source to rival the lighting technology of the Doom³ engine or the Unreal3 engine, Source would have to practically be re-written.
 
I thought it was one of the games that licensed the Doom 3 engine because of the lighting? Oh well... I wonder how I got that mixed up.

Anyway, to make a game look good on the Doom 3 engine you will have to be able to do high and low-poly modelling very well... if not, you're pretty much screwed because the Doom 3 engine depends on normal maps to look good.
 
Pseudonym_ said:
In order for Source to rival the lighting technology of the Doom³ engine or the Unreal3 engine, Source would have to practically be re-written.
Click to expand...

Not to start a discussion here, but don't you think the lighting system (which the whole engine is based around) of Doom 3 needs to be heavily modified as well? The approach of UE3 is totally different and much more advanced it seems. I don't think it's possible for the shadow system Doom 3 has, to incorporate softshadowing and shadows that have an opacity and edgehardness based on the distance to the lightsource.
 
... and the UE3 engine showed some raytracing/caustics being done with that glass object.
 
PvtRyan said:
Not to start a discussion here, but don't you think the lighting system (which the whole engine is based around) of Doom 3 needs to be heavily modified as well? The approach of UE3 is totally different and much more advanced it seems. I don't think it's possible for the shadow system Doom 3 has, to incorporate softshadowing and shadows that have an opacity and edgehardness based on the distance to the lightsource.
Click to expand...

Both HL2 and Doom 3 could have this method implemented, there both written with a modular desighn like most things.

I'v seen UE3's method of lighting in a tech demo and basically all it is, is a stencil shadow with a shader applied to it and both HL2 and Doom 3 have stencil shadows. The hard thing to implement would be a real time GI approximation which I think UE3 uses, although I'v seen this done in tech demo's as well.

EDIT: UE3 doesn't use ray traceing it simulates it with pixel shaders, HL2 does this as well. As for the caustics they could be a projection, but it's more likely there done with shaders as well.

BTW that video didn't have the outdoor scene with the fields and the windmill, that was reported on gameing sites from the showing at GDC. Hopefully we will get to see that at E3.
 
I'll be frank, if a bit offtopic: 99% of game players don't freaking care about the method used to implement shadows. Theres a reason Half-Life is still being played, and its that the engine is ridiculously adaptable. Source's strength isn't really in its graphics, visually its just another point in the development of them. But thats not what really is going to count in the long run.
 
G0rgon said:
Please, could someone tell me whats going on in here ?

I am so confused right now, which one is better and why? (D3 or UE3)
Click to expand...

UE3, easily. Maybe by that time, Doom 3 is on the same level or has surpassed it, but that's purely speculation and UE3 is obviously the more powerful one right now. Not that it's strange, because they're engines from two different generations.
 
I am most impressed with the caustics than anything else. The are perfect.
 
Direwolf said:
I'll be frank, if a bit offtopic: 99% of game players don't freaking care about the method used to implement shadows. Theres a reason Half-Life is still being played, and its that the engine is ridiculously adaptable. Source's strength isn't really in its graphics, visually its just another point in the development of them. But thats not what really is going to count in the long run.
Click to expand...

I do care, I'm a tech enthusiast. However I don't care that they don't care, also people like better graphics and physics, even those who don't want to know how they work.
 
I'm really waiting for games with Unreal 3.0 engine.
 
When you watch the video about the UT3 engine you a monster standing infront of a light source with all kinds of colors reflecting on him... I am wondering if that is possible with the Source engine?
 
its interesting to see Epic (usually lagging behind other devs on the graphical side) displaying the NExt NEXT Gen tech, we havent even gotten the Next Gen tech... STOP TEASING US YOU BASTARDS!

seriously.. nothing by Epic has really impressed me... but wow... if Epic have an engine that advanced and beautiful Im wondering what the other devs have up their sleeves.
 
Mr. Redundant said:
its interesting to see Epic (usually lagging behind other devs on the graphical side) displaying the NExt NEXT Gen tech, we havent even gotten the Next Gen tech... STOP TEASING US YOU BASTARDS!
.
Click to expand...

we got the next Gen tech. He said it during the presentation Nvidia6800 ;)
 
I could not edit my prev post. Sory

Epic ran the demonstration on a system with a 2GHz CPU from AMD using next-generation hardware from Nvidia (a system in another room ran the demonstration using next-generation ATI hardware). Even with that powerful silicon, the demonstration struggled at times. However, it's clear that this technology will be used to power the next generation of PC games, as well as games for the upcoming generation of video game consoles. And if these games can look anywhere near as good as what we saw in today's demonstration, the future could look stunning, indeed.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/03/24/news_6092217.html
 
sharp said:
When you watch the video about the UT3 engine you a monster standing infront of a light source with all kinds of colors reflecting on him... I am wondering if that is possible with the Source engine?
Click to expand...

If it's not, I'm almost certain Valve will update Source later on to implement it.
 
sharp said:
When you watch the video about the UT3 engine you a monster standing infront of a light source with all kinds of colors reflecting on him... I am wondering if that is possible with the Source engine?
Click to expand...

Yes but maybe not by the same method, I'v just installed a new OS so I don't have any sound but I think he said (the speaker) that it used a projection map in which case HL2 can do that no trouble, infact as you can write your own shaders and put them in the source engine you could probably do most of the shader effects that were in the video. Whether or not source would handle them correctly is a different matter.
 
Yes the lighting model in U3 engine is more advanced than that of the Doom³ engine, and the reason is as I have already stated. Id has to worry about Doom³ being playable on hardware that has been on the market for a while already, while the U3 developers don't have to worry about hardware limitations at all since their game is years off. you heard the guy say that the reason the technology hasn't been shown until now is because the 6800 is the first card to be able to render it at decent framrates.

Doom³ technology will have evolved to surpass U3 technology by the time U3 tech comes out. Carmack has already predicted Doom³ is ahead of the rest by about 2 years and this unveiling of new U3 technology only proves it.
 
sharp said:
When you watch the video about the UT3 engine you a monster standing infront of a light source with all kinds of colors reflecting on him... I am wondering if that is possible with the Source engine?
Click to expand...
It is called caustics. And yes, it is possibel on Source, but barely up to the level of the Unreal 3 engine. Caustics are a bitch to render, so obviously this next gen engine can do it. :E
 
ray_MAN said:
It is called caustics. And yes, it is possibel on Source, but barely up to the level of the Unreal 3 engine. Caustics are a bitch to render, so obviously this next gen engine can do it. :E
Click to expand...

That was a projection texture. They are basically used to fake exactly those kinds of lighting effects by projecting a texture onto any surface, particles floating through the air, characters, or whatever you like. Still impressive though.
 
Didn't Source do basically the same thing in the Bloodlines video with the lights in the hallway. Lol, anyone know what I'm talking about? So yes, I think Source can do that, but it wouldn't look as good as it does in the U3 engine.
 
ray_MAN said:
It is called caustics. And yes, it is possibel on Source, but barely up to the level of the Unreal 3 engine. Caustics are a bitch to render, so obviously this next gen engine can do it. :E
Click to expand...

Those weren't caustics.
But caustics (real raytraced caustics, not the shader faked caustics of the video) won't be used until hardware can do realtime Global Illumination.
 
To clarify, here is an example of a projected texture in the Unreal engine as it is today (taken from the UDN)

Projection

and here is an example of caustics in a pre-rendered scene (look at the light streaming through the vase)

caustics

Projection textures are not caustics. However they are often used to simulate them, among other things.
 
Hmmm with all this new tech and fancy graphics (looks Unreal! *waits for a slow clap*) does this mean we shall all need badass connections to play games like UT2010?

That tech demo looked amazing, can't wait to see games utilising that! Rainbow Six with that engine *slobbers*
 
Pseudonym_ said:
Yes the lighting model in U3 engine is more advanced than that of the Doom³ engine, and the reason is as I have already stated. Id has to worry about Doom³ being playable on hardware that has been on the market for a while already, while the U3 developers don't have to worry about hardware limitations at all since their game is years off. you heard the guy say that the reason the technology hasn't been shown until now is because the 6800 is the first card to be able to render it at decent framrates.

Doom³ technology will have evolved to surpass U3 technology by the time U3 tech comes out. Carmack has already predicted Doom³ is ahead of the rest by about 2 years and this unveiling of new U3 technology only proves it.
Click to expand...

And you think UE3.0 is going to not evolve in that time? DX9 is the lowest level that UE3.0 runs on, there targeted level is SM 4.0 or DX next. Also I don't think D3 is much ahead, if atall, of the X-ray engine or the X engine, infact for all we know the source engine could be capable of way more than we expect.
 
You don't need to have a complete photon mapping or GI system to use caustics. You could only trace the rays that actually hit the reflective/refractive object if you wanted to... which would save a lot of rendering time. All you would need is a simple per-pixel lighting system and an exception (possibly just a shader) if the surface happens to be reflective or refractive. Caustics can be done in real-time on a few items at a time (which is all that is usually needed)... but a full photon-mapping lighting system is a few years down the road. Whether or not the caustics in UE3 are accurate none of us can say at the moment seeing as we have only a short video taken of the presentation.
 
OCybrManO said:
You don't need to have a complete photon mapping or GI system to use caustics. You could only trace the rays that actually hit the reflective/refractive object if you wanted to... which would save a lot of rendering time. All you would need is a simple per-pixel lighting system and an exception (possibly just a shader) if the surface happens to be reflective or refractive. Caustics can be done in real-time on a few items at a time (which is all that is usually needed)... but a full photon-mapping lighting system is a few years down the road. Whether or not the caustics in UE3 are accurate none of us can say at the moment seeing as we have only a short video taken of the presentation.
Click to expand...

How would you know which rays are hitting the object... you can't make the object give out rays, because they have to pass through it.

There is such a thing as a GI approximation which could be used in conjunction with pixel shaders to produce caustics, in fact you don't really need GI. To fake the patters you see that are caused by light going through water or glass, you only need to know the lights vector (and therefor the angle at which it passes through the object) and a nifty pixel shader to create the pattern.

In HL2 the reflection/refraction uses a method similiar to that. Except it's the angle of the camera that matters or the vector of the light passing through the water to the camera.
 
I can't wait to get Geforce 6800! but it is too expensive for me ;(
Do you know does the 6800 work in HL 2 with highest details?
 
Glo-Boy said:
The stuff that Nasa has for it's simulations is basically photorealistic - so I hear.
Click to expand...

No simulators are photorealsitic, already simulators have like 3-4 comps running them (for the small ones).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
BabyHeadCrab
RIP Valve, Epic here we go!
Replies
12
Views
5K
Lizardizzle
Lizardizzle
Chris D
Forum update
Replies
8
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
HL2.NET HORROR SLAP
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MuToiD_MaN
Seems we'll have new Half-Life game. What's some life events you've had since Orange Box in 2007?
Replies
24
Views
3K
Shem
Shem
Back
Top