New Unreal Engine 3 screens. yummy. [56K no!]
- Thread starter xexex
- Start date
- Status
100Bullets
Member
Holy Shit
Error Macro
Member
Pjero said:
So true. 1,500,000+ polygons per scene is not enough...
Outdoor Miner
Member
Wow, if this does not impress most of you, we're going to have a lot disappointed over the next 5 years. Simply unreal*.
*pun intended
*pun intended
Pjero said:
In most games, you're going to be doing more than running around looking at trees. Should they go with high poly trees and cut the polycount on everything else to make up the difference?
('Sure, the enemies are all about ten polys apiece, but that's OK--did you see those trees, man?')Mama Smurf
My penis is still intact.
The leaves are great.
I have to agree with the plastic trees comment. It's more obvious with some than others though, so hopefully anyone talented will be able to avoid the plasticy look.
I guess it's all down to normal mapping. At least it's getting less and less obvious as systems develop. Or maybe as developers get used to the technique, I dunno.
I have to agree with the plastic trees comment. It's more obvious with some than others though, so hopefully anyone talented will be able to avoid the plasticy look.
I guess it's all down to normal mapping. At least it's getting less and less obvious as systems develop. Or maybe as developers get used to the technique, I dunno.
I'm not just looking at the rock, but the rock is an eyesore all the same.Dr_Cogent said:
Overall, yeah, it's pretty neat. That doesn't mean I can't comment on what needs to be improved for me to really be blown away.
If games next gen look like this, then yeah, I will be underwhelmed as Sal Paradise Jr said. It's impressive, but not nearly the leap I was hoping for (CONTEXT: I know not all games will be running on this engine, I haven't seen it in motion, bad art direction, just an environment, etc. -- I'm just responding to the screens and comments at hand).
Error Macro said:
True, true... we need some uber VS-h/w... something like... like... Cell...
OmniGamer said:
This is the only shot that looks bad to me.
I found that one quite impressive(minus the area close to the camera, maybe some higher rez max LOD textures would help...), just cut the lower half, and its Cg-like, IMHO.
TheQueen'sOwn
insert blank space here
If you're not going to do it very well why do it at all?
Cut down the variation of trees and improve the ones that are left.
Cut down the variation of trees and improve the ones that are left.
human5892 said:
What the hell do you expect, man? Gahiggidy's holograms?
Seriously, if you're expecting photorealistic humans and organic environments in real time next gen, stop now. It's not going to happen. We're getting much closer, and I can see it happening about two console generations from now, but we've still got a ways left to go. Some of you really need to start lowering your expectations to more realistic levels.Hmmm...I need to teach some graphics whore courses or something.
If you didn't notice the HUGE jump in technology...just take a look at the self shadowing and the shadows on the ground.
Secondly, note that the rock (probably a static mesh) has the shadows applied to it! It's pretty crazy, especially when compared to today's engines!
Tellaerin said:What the hell do you expect, man? Gahiggidy's holograms?
IAWTP.
These screens are the beginning of a process. Some of you clowns need to quit acting like the proverbial little kid in the backseat yelling: "are we there yet". Appreciate it for what it is, and understand that the improvements will come with time and experience.
Pimpbaa
Member
Some of these comments amaze me (like too plastic). You have to start somewhere people! You can't just go from shitty current gen trees to trees indistinguishable from real life. The graphic whorism in this thread makes me think some of you are from the future where the ps4 and xbox 720 are already out.
human: I agree with the sentiment that the textures should be higher res, and that we shouldn't expect anything less.
Accepting those kinds of textures in a game for next gen...would mean that we have low standards.
But I do accept them in this situation, and the biggest reason is that I think that this technology is mostly for creating some backdrop elements of the background. Now, if a level featured you walking through such a forest and you had to hide behind them and stuff...they should definately boost the texture quality. But if it's just for a backdrop for a racing game...then this kind of quality is acceptable.
What I've always wanted to do was code a modular crowd generator, that can generate a crowd of people for sports games. Using polished models with great LOD models, and animations that don't take up much RAM, I'd texture these people with semi-low quality textures so that everything looks razor sharp and clear from a distance. I wouldn't have HL2 quality textures for the crowd's face since I wouldn't need it, unless the game needed a supercloseup of the crowd (like in ESPN NHL and NFL games), as compared to games like Winning Eleven.
Accepting those kinds of textures in a game for next gen...would mean that we have low standards.
But I do accept them in this situation, and the biggest reason is that I think that this technology is mostly for creating some backdrop elements of the background. Now, if a level featured you walking through such a forest and you had to hide behind them and stuff...they should definately boost the texture quality. But if it's just for a backdrop for a racing game...then this kind of quality is acceptable.
What I've always wanted to do was code a modular crowd generator, that can generate a crowd of people for sports games. Using polished models with great LOD models, and animations that don't take up much RAM, I'd texture these people with semi-low quality textures so that everything looks razor sharp and clear from a distance. I wouldn't have HL2 quality textures for the crowd's face since I wouldn't need it, unless the game needed a supercloseup of the crowd (like in ESPN NHL and NFL games), as compared to games like Winning Eleven.
Go Go Ackman!
Banned
The real test of Unreal 3's Engine will be it's boobie-bounce physics capabilities, and I for one am excited to see it in action!
Project Midway
Member
Next gen cant come soon enough! 
human5892 said:
Unless it's a game like Myst, you should have more important things to do than standing around nitpicking the texture quality of bark.
The thing you seem to be forgetting here is that in most UE3 games, these landscapes are going to be populated--you're going to have playermodels and other meshes running around the environments you're seeing here, not just a lone character wandering around in a forest somewhere. That being the case, I'd rather see the trees stay just the way they are in those screenshots, and have the developers use the resources this frees up for characters and items you'll be interacting with. It's a better use of limited resources than lavishing detail on something most (normal) people are going to consider nothing but background, anyway.tahrikmili
Member
Anyone who isn't wowed by these trees.. please do try and show me a tree that looks half that good in ANY published game?
I mean, the trees in MGS3 look like PURE SHIT compared to this.. and there are some PS2 whores here bitching about the trees' bark textures looking ugly. Some people..
I mean, the trees in MGS3 look like PURE SHIT compared to this.. and there are some PS2 whores here bitching about the trees' bark textures looking ugly. Some people..
I'm not forgetting that, and I completely agree -- I'd rather have better-looking characters than beautiful rocks. That still doesn't make that rock look good, though.Tellaerin said:Unless it's a game like Myst, you should have more important things to do than standing around nitpicking the texture quality of bark.
Well, considering this engine is brand-new and can't even be run on current consoles, I don't see what the point of begging that question is.tahrikmili said:
EternalDarko
Member
UNREAL ENGINE TREE
mm, leafy.
mm, leafy.
tahrikmili
Member
human5892 said:
My question was not constrained by consoles. Take any decent new graphics engine available for PCs today - Source, CryTech, whatever - trees in each look VERY inferior compared to this.
And this new engine isn't exactly 5 years newer than the ones I named before. Yet, it's exceptionally advanced compared to them.
Mama Smurf
My penis is still intact.
You know, I think maybe what's making me think this doesn't look as good as I'd hope isn't really to do with the engine.
I think it's more to do with what they've done with the engine. The trees are just sort of placed there, seperated and not looking at all natural (in the way they're situated I mean). There's no impressive amount of foliage on the ground (a few bushes, some little plants) or fallen leaves etc. It just comes across to me like the trees have just been placed on a field, rather than looking like they've actually grown there.
If I compare it to, say, the opening area in RE4, you can maybe see what I mean:
Now obviously, UE3 is technically better. Larger trees, sharper textures, leaves on the trees etc. But thanks to the leaves on the ground, the placement of the trees, the basic of design of the trees...I actually prefer RE4's look.
Of course, the good thing about all of that is it's design and artistic choices. Give the RE4 team the UE3 and we'll get the best of both.
I think it's more to do with what they've done with the engine. The trees are just sort of placed there, seperated and not looking at all natural (in the way they're situated I mean). There's no impressive amount of foliage on the ground (a few bushes, some little plants) or fallen leaves etc. It just comes across to me like the trees have just been placed on a field, rather than looking like they've actually grown there.
If I compare it to, say, the opening area in RE4, you can maybe see what I mean:
Now obviously, UE3 is technically better. Larger trees, sharper textures, leaves on the trees etc. But thanks to the leaves on the ground, the placement of the trees, the basic of design of the trees...I actually prefer RE4's look.
Of course, the good thing about all of that is it's design and artistic choices. Give the RE4 team the UE3 and we'll get the best of both.
Mama Smurf said:If I compare it to, say, the opening area in RE4, you can maybe see what I mean:
Now obviously, UE3 is technically better. Larger trees, sharper textures, leaves on the trees etc. But thanks to the leaves on the ground, the placement of the trees, the basic of design of the trees...I actually prefer RE4's look.
Of course, the good thing about all of that is it's design and artistic choices. Give the RE4 team the UE3 and we'll get the best of both.
Hell yeah, RE4 is the hottest looking game this gen!
Buggy Loop
Gold Member
Might be technologically impressive but its so off at the same time, its everything i hate about normal mapping, everything looks like it dipped in oil.
^^^ That looks organic, upgrade the texture resolution, polygonal leafs and more randomness in the tree's aspects and you've got a pretty damn good next gen forest
Battlefield 2 has it pretty good aswell
^^^ That looks organic, upgrade the texture resolution, polygonal leafs and more randomness in the tree's aspects and you've got a pretty damn good next gen forest
Battlefield 2 has it pretty good aswell
Yeah people tend to forget to put these demo into context. If RE4 was made with that engine, it would shit all over the present RE4. The power of the engine + the nice RE4 art = this is how you have to see it.
And i say like some others here: plug back your old Xboxes and PS2z to see how those trees are OMGWTF so incredibly better than what you can see this gen.
Let me tell you that you can DREAM about this quality next gen. Afterall, maybe some people here have deformed expectations for next-gen too.
Anyway, reality is: this looks incredible, it's many times better what we see in games now AND the best looking games next will have this graphic quality.
And i say like some others here: plug back your old Xboxes and PS2z to see how those trees are OMGWTF so incredibly better than what you can see this gen.
Let me tell you that you can DREAM about this quality next gen. Afterall, maybe some people here have deformed expectations for next-gen too.
Anyway, reality is: this looks incredible, it's many times better what we see in games now AND the best looking games next will have this graphic quality.
tahrikmili
Member
You mean this looks.. more organic?..
It's just a cylinder with a repeating low rest bumpmapped texture and low-res alpha textures for leaves ffs - they can't even be anti-aliased using msaa to make them look better.. I mean, look at those leaves - the trees doesn't even have branches!
then look here..
Real time shadows? Check
Physics for leaf movement? Check
Assymetrical trunks? Check
Assymetrical branches? Check
Polygonal leaves? Check
High quality textures? Check
Displacement mapping? Check
I mean, come on.. This tree techdemo uses pretty much everything current development toolkits/technology can possibly offer. And it totally shits over those Rebel Strike / Battlefield 2 screenshots.
Granted, Battlefield 2 has very photorealistic urban landscapes and characters.. The trees just don't measure up to this, though.
It's just a cylinder with a repeating low rest bumpmapped texture and low-res alpha textures for leaves ffs - they can't even be anti-aliased using msaa to make them look better.. I mean, look at those leaves - the trees doesn't even have branches!
then look here..
Real time shadows? Check
Physics for leaf movement? Check
Assymetrical trunks? Check
Assymetrical branches? Check
Polygonal leaves? Check
High quality textures? Check
Displacement mapping? Check
I mean, come on.. This tree techdemo uses pretty much everything current development toolkits/technology can possibly offer. And it totally shits over those Rebel Strike / Battlefield 2 screenshots.
Granted, Battlefield 2 has very photorealistic urban landscapes and characters.. The trees just don't measure up to this, though.
Pimpbaa
Member
Buggy Loop said:
Why do people continue to think normal mapping makes things shiny (or plastic)? Normal mapping is just more advance bump mapping. It's the specular lighting that makes it look shiny (which is often used with normal mapping to make it more pronounced). Regardless, even if the shininess is excessive, it still looks better and more realistic than lighting techniques before it.
Those trees look amazing... Sure, there could be some improvements, and a lot of the backgrounds, especially the rocks look like shit, but this is a nice step forward towards making environments much more organic. Still, this has got me excited about 3d again. I originally was very dismayed to think about series like Baldur's Gate and other prerendered/2d games being presented in 3d because I thought they would lose a flair that all out 3d couldn't provide. But seeing that graphics such as this and better will be possible on next generation consoles, 3d will most likely make the gameworld MORE immersive.
Man you guys are so laughable. I pretty sure God is thinking about suicide while reading this topic " my poor creation, what have i done!? "
HELLO, those graphics shits all over what is done now. Wait for this power to be applied in a game envirronement, a designed envirronement with an art direction and all. God damned is it THAT hard to look at things and understand their context???????
HELLO, those graphics shits all over what is done now. Wait for this power to be applied in a game envirronement, a designed envirronement with an art direction and all. God damned is it THAT hard to look at things and understand their context???????
- Status