Now that is damn lovely.
edit: I'm crazy aren't I?
Even if it was purely static, it's huge win development wise because what would usually take hours to bake now takes fractions of a second.And that is all you are getting. Until I've got a video I'm not going wow either way. I will argue that this isn't something to be used as a reason for the tech to exist. Until we've seen it in action. Right now I'm seeing menial jumps. Impressive in their own right, but until I see differing colored lights playing with one another, these particles breaking down, and flowing in the wind, or their interesting approach to liquids I can't say this is a huge technical breakthrough.
No engine in 2005 had HDR rendering as good as this. Not even close. Only the Wreckless programmer tech demo but that's it.Because those screens look like something that can be approximated in a 2005 engine.
You of don't have to be impressed by these screenshots. But dismissing them is stupid. Just knowing that will get that quality and it won't be pre-calculated but dynamic is huge.The common depiction is of separate colored spheres altering the light bouncing from one to the other. But we approximate that through prebaked lightmaps. Until altered in realtime we could just be looking at one of those approximations.
This is my only argument. So yes, technically I'm bitching that we haven't seen it in motion.
If it's any consolation to those toes I've been stepping on I'm fully willing to admit I'm wrong when the vid is released.In the difference between that and the first mountain pic you can already see how important lighting and changes in light will be to the overall effect. Which makes me want the video all the more. I think that will look quite 'wow'.
Funny enough I'm talking about UE3 in 2012 when I talk about engines developed in 2005.Even if it was purely static, it's huge win development wise because what would usually take hours to bake now takes fractions of a second.
No engine in 2005 had HDR rendering as good as this. Not even close. Only the Wreckless programmer tech demo but that's it.
You of don't have to be impressed by these screenshots. But dismissing them is stupid. Just knowing that will get that quality and it won't be pre-calculated but dynamic is huge.
The new pic shows GI on the mountains quite nicely as well, much more apparent than on the previous one.In the difference between that and the first mountain pic you can already see how important lighting and changes in light will be to the overall effect. Which makes me want the video all the more. I think that will look quite 'wow'.
With proper sized images.. and tech papers.Lets see the vid Epic.
They've actually been pretty forthcoming with the tech side. Just don't want anyone to see it motion until the next Xbox is revealed at E3.With proper sized images.. and tech papers.
One more new pic and some info on development
Really?They've actually been pretty forthcoming with the tech side. Just don't want anyone to see it motion until the next Xbox is revealed at E3.
To the public very little as of yet.Really?
The Wired article didn't have single detail about the implementation methods used for rendering pixels to the screen, nor did it have about the GI.
If there has been anything else shared to public I would love to know..
One more new pic.
DerZuhälter;37968741 said:This might even pass as CG.
Epic: Please focus on creating an A.I engine for the next generation of machines. Thank you.
Signed: Developer
No prob.To the public very little as of yet.
Sorry, kind of scatterbrained today. Which might be why it's taken me pages to explain my point to shadowlark. Far as I know me and him rarely disagree outright. A few combative viewpoints, but we seemed positively angry for a moment there.
Might?
One more new pic.
in the past, game developers employed a trick known as staged lighting to give the impression that light in a game was behaving as it would in the real world. That meant a lot of pre-renderingprogramming hundreds of light sources into an environment that would then be turned on or off depending on in-game events. If a building collapsed in a given scene, all the light effects that had been employed to make it look like a real interior would remain in place over empty space. Shadows would remain in the absence of structure; glares that once resulted from sunlight glinting off windows would remain floating in midair. To avoid this, designers programmed the light to look realistic in any of that scenes possible situationsone situation at a time. You would have to manually sculpt the lighting in every section of every level, Bleszinski says. The number of man-years that required was astounding. UE4 introduces dynamic lighting, which behaves in response to its own inherent properties rather than a set of preprogrammed effects. In other words, no more faking it. Every light in a scene bounces off every surface, creating accurate reflections. Colors mix, translucent materials glow, and objects viewed through water refract. And its all being handled on the fly, as it happens. Thats not realisticthats real.
Then the twist: Willard reveals that both the cinematic scene and the following tech demo havent been running off a game file but in real time from within UE4′s game editor. Its like finding out that the actors on TV are actually tiny people living inside your set. It also helps him show that changes can be made to the games design and code, recompiled and executed nearly instantlya technical feat that has been simply unheard-of in game development. And just like that, the silence in the room becomes reverent. The videogame industry has changed.
No tesselation/displacement on environment or a character.
Dynamic GI.So in non-marketing-speak I'm guessing this means dynamic shadows and deferred rendering. Haven't most other engines been doing that for years?
@the high-res shots
Not the generational leap some were expecting. Just looks like a high-end PC game. Also, the textures are pretty bad.
I'm sure this is all due to the art style, though. It's technically impressive, but visually? Just a PC game on ultra with nice lighting.
Didn't see this posted yet.
http://www.abload.de/img/ue4_03pyifk.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]
Can't wait to see this part in action. I bet it's a hell of a display.
Didn't see this posted yet.
That is..... an eye sore. I mean, it's not ugly, it's technically impressive, but it's too much at once. making it an eye sore.
Didn't see these posted yet.
Didn't see these posted yet.
http://www.abload.de/img/ue4_03pyifk.jpg[/IMG
[IMG]http://www.abload.de/img/ue4_042fd3v.jpg[/IMG[/QUOTE]
These 2 really show off the particles and GI. And I like all the motion blur that is applied per particle.
[quote="Metalmurphy, post: 37969667"]Still not impressed from what's supposed to be next gen screens.
For next gen I imagined each one of those fire particles be a light source and stuff like this... this is just what we have now but more.[/QUOTE]
I can't really tell from these pics, but it looks like the particle near the monster's legs is bouncing light on to it.
@the high-res shots
Not the generational leap some were expecting. Just looks like a high-end PC game. Also, the textures are pretty bad.
I'm sure this is all due to the art style, though. It's technically impressive, but visually? Just a PC game on ultra with nice lighting.
Not digging this one.
particles are an obvious feature they want to push
Not digging this one.