Unreal Tournament 3 Gameplay Performance and IQ @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,674
Unreal Tournament 3 Gameplay Performance and IQ - The multiplayer juggernaut Unreal Tournament III is upon us! We're run it through the [H] video card gauntlet finding the best gaming on newer video cards and which ones have IQ issues. We have interesting results to show using GeForce 8800 GT, GTX, and GTS as well as Radeon 3850 and 3870 video cards.

Unreal Tournament III is more of the same in a long and fabled franchise. It brings nothing new to the table in terms of gameplay, but you may have to pull your jaw off the floor when you see those visuals. Plus, it runs remarkably well on just about any ~$200 video card made this year.
Click to expand...

PLEASE DIGG TO SHARE!
 
Something has me confused here. On the first page, you state this:

As impressive as UE3 is, it is not without its limitations. Most infamously, it is conspicuously lacking AA support on DX9 and DX10 hardware currently
Click to expand...

....yet, you clearly tested this game with AA enabled.
 
GuruX said:
Something has me confused here. On the first page, you state this:



....yet, you clearly tested this game with AA enabled.
Click to expand...

UE3 refers to the engine which doesn't support AA on DX9 and DX10 hardware currently in UT3, only thanks to NVIDIA's driver team have they given us the ability to enable AA from forcing it from their control panel on NV GPUs.
 
Nice evaluation. I must say, I was pleasantly surprised when I turned up detail all the way and set the resolution to 1920x1200 on my new HD3850 and it ran well. Looks pretty good, too... just seems a lot like Gears of War and not a lot like UT :/ This is in looks, not gameplay, though... gameplay is definitely UT-like.

GuruX: It doesn't support enabling the option in-game, they had to force it on in the nVidia control panel.
 
Good review, but I have to disagree with what was said about the graphics. UT3 is far from looking good IMO. This actually seems to be a UE3 specific problem, since all the games that use it, suffer from this washed out look. This may look good on consoles, but it definitely doesn't look good on PC. As to the UI, I couldn't agree more. UT is a PC franchise and Epic should've shown more respect for those that supported them and made them what they are today. Instead, they decided to please consoles only. As to what Epic said about "fixing it in a patch", that's hardly a good thing. At least not after the nazi forum moderation that went on the official forums, regarding this issue. Complaints just reached a level, where they couldn't ignore it anymore. That's not good and among the other things I already mentioned, they lost a customer i.e. me.
 
Thank you sir! This game is the reason I'm upgrading... so by the looks of it my Q6600 / 4 GB of memory / 8800GT should run it just fine @ 1280x1024 with decent settings.
 
Great review for a great game. I would have liked to have seen comparisons between single core, dual core and quad core CPU's though. Had read a while back on Anandtech that the game makes good use of multiple cores and it would have been nice to see another site review that feature. I'm kinda burnt on FPS games myself, but a group of friends still hold monthly LAN parties and UT3 was just what the doctor ordered... :D
 
Silus said:
Good review, but I have to disagree with what was said about the graphics. UT3 is far from looking good IMO. This actually seems to be a UE3 specific problem, since all the games that use it, suffer from this washed out look. This may look good on consoles, but it definitely doesn't look good on PC.
Click to expand...

One of the few options available from the UI is to adjust the post processing, turn it to vibrant.

That said despite having the hardware to run maxed out I prefer the cleaner world detail 1, texture detail 5. Others keep most stuff on but turn off the blur effects, which seem to induce headaches in a good proportion of people.

Incidentally the beta patches have been out for a while - currently onto beta 4. Amongst other things they de-noobify the ui a bit (at least you can set the mouse accurately) and the server browser is better (but still not there yet).
 
sbuckler said:
That said despite having the hardware to run maxed out I prefer the cleaner world detail 1, texture detail 5. Others keep most stuff on but turn off the blur effects, which seem to induce headaches in a good proportion of people.
Click to expand...

personally im inclined towards the lower world detail + no motion blur effects regardless of my hardwares ability to handle the gfx (it does pretty damn well with that demo though!). it rids the "fog" crap from the environment. that same "fog" blur miasma whatever seems to help with the whole no AA thing though.. but i prefer the sharpness only present in its absence to the "incidental" AA.
 
the 3850 is sent from god by my option, i got a lot of friends, they are freakin poor cause they are so stupid that they dont work, they where still running 9800 pro and p4 2.8 ghz 1 gb ddr memory (4x256 mb rofl) at pc2100, now theyve decided to upgrade, and its very easy with a 3850 to keep the performance very high, and price very low, and the 3850 did seriously show it really good here, however, i think it got more on store for us, but depends if ati driver team can push out abit more of it.

Ati driver team is the bottleneck for ati.
 
AtkinS said:
the 3850 is sent from god by my option, i got a lot of friends, they are freakin poor cause they are so stupid that they dont work, they where still running 9800 pro and p4 2.8 ghz 1 gb ddr memory (4x256 mb rofl) at pc2100, now theyve decided to upgrade, and its very easy with a 3850 to keep the performance very high, and price very low, and the 3850 did seriously show it really good here, however, i think it got more on store for us, but depends if ati driver team can push out abit more of it.

Ati driver team is the bottleneck for ati.
Click to expand...

and the rest of the system mentioned will be a bottleneck for that HD3850 as well....sounds like your friends need a new hobby they can afford
 
nice review, i just finally installed my copy that I got a few weeks back and enjoyed playing it myself with all the settings maxed out. Looks great on a 37 inch lcd!
 
sbuckler said:
One of the few options available from the UI is to adjust the post processing, turn it to vibrant.

That said despite having the hardware to run maxed out I prefer the cleaner world detail 1, texture detail 5. Others keep most stuff on but turn off the blur effects, which seem to induce headaches in a good proportion of people.

Incidentally the beta patches have been out for a while - currently onto beta 4. Amongst other things they de-noobify the ui a bit (at least you can set the mouse accurately) and the server browser is better (but still not there yet).
Click to expand...

I have tried all the options available in the demo (I don't own the full game) and it made no big difference. It still looks washed out.
 
"This goes to show, you can’t really look at raw framerates anymore to judge how a game performs, with features such as FPS smoothing the entire dynamic of gameplay performance changes. It is now more important than ever to concentrate on gameplay performance rather than how many average framerates a video card achieves over another in a game."

READ: Benchmarking ftl.
Thanks, [H] for the review, I'll be picking it up today after work.
 
Silus said:
I have tried all the options available in the demo (I don't own the full game) and it made no big difference. It still looks washed out.
Click to expand...

The game looks GREAT to me... i don't under this "WASHED OUT" issue..

I have a 8800GT and a 2nd machine with a 7900GS... both of them don't looked "WASHED OUT"

But the 7900GS does take a beating though..:D

But i would like to see this "WASHED OUT" effect you are seeing... plz show me


Edit: I am buying 1 more copy when i goto lunch today heheheh
Just like Doom3 and Quake...
 
[RIP]Zeus;1031776163 said:
The game looks GREAT to me... i don't under this "WASHED OUT" issue..

I have a 8800GT and a 2nd machine with a 7900GS... both of them don't looked "WASHED OUT"

But the 7900GS does take a beating though..:D

But i would like to see this "WASHED OUT" effect you are seeing... plz show me


Edit: I am buying 1 more copy when i goto lunch today heheheh
Just like Doom3 and Quake...
Click to expand...

Here's a good example:

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031699676&postcount=10
 
Found a typo on page 4 under "Apples to Apples"

In this case, that was all three of our Performance class video cards: the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB, the ATI Radeon HD 3850, and the ATI Radeon HD 3970.
Click to expand...

also, dugg :)
 
Great article.

I haven't gotten this game yet (I think it's under my Christmas tree :)),so I had no idea they ripped out Assault mode! :eek: NOOOOO!!!! That was my favorite mode... :(
 
As a big UT fan I love this game but the removal of BR and AS are a bit disapointing, after VCTF BR and AS were the next most popular game types on my clan's server with Invasion falling in 4th which is also removed.
 
I don't get it, why did epic and everyone else out there hype up the DX10 UT3 engine, yet there is no (real) DX10 out of the box.
 
The AA performance on G80/G92 isn't surprising. I'd have to assume that it's getting sucker-punched into shader resolve, which certainly isn't the best way to do MSAA resolve on G80/G92. 4x looks good though.

And, maybe it's just me, but it looks to me like 2xAA isn't actually functioning correctly. I don't see anywhere where aliasing is diminished. Post-processing aside, there should be something going on there, but it looks quite clear to me that absolutely nothing's happening. Wondering if it's possible that 2x is glitched and is only working on the backbuffer rather than on the g-buffer. In other words, a performance hit for no visual benefit.
 
Silus said:
Here's a good example:

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031699676&postcount=10
Click to expand...

The over usage of distance fog combined with the really aggressive post processing settings makes it look like the whole level is filled with gas or something. UT3 has been designed in such a way that higher graphic settings directly impact gameplay. Sure things like might look "ZOMG next gen!" to the casual observer, because of the bloom and fog effects, but from a functional perspective, it's awful. This might fly in an RPG or something, even if it does give me a headache, but it just makes everything too hard to see for a fast fps like UT. Honestly, I think the Source engine with dynamic lighting would have been a much better choice for this game. I really don't know what they were thinking.
 
phide said:
The AA performance on G80/G92 isn't surprising. I'd have to assume that it's getting sucker-punched into shader resolve, which certainly isn't the best way to do MSAA resolve on G80/G92. 4x looks good though.

And, maybe it's just me, but it looks to me like 2xAA isn't actually functioning correctly. I don't see anywhere where aliasing is diminished. Post-processing aside, there should be something going on there, but it looks quite clear to me that absolutely nothing's happening. Wondering if it's possible that 2x is glitched and is only working on the backbuffer rather than on the g-buffer. In other words, a performance hit for no visual benefit.
Click to expand...

2X AA does actually work in the game if you force from the NV control panel, I myself have looked at AA in the game a lo, cause at first glance it doesn't look like it is doing much, but upon zooming in you can in fact see the expected AA sample patterns on object edges, it is harder to notice on some objects than others though.

If you go to this evaluation, at the very bottom, we have a good comparison of NoAA vs. 2X AA vs. 4X AA - http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQxMCw0LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

This screenshot makes it pretty clear - http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTE5MzQzMjA0MzdoSkVhYTExQVVfNF8xM19sLnBuZw==
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
The over usage of distance fog combined with the really aggressive post processing settings makes it look like the whole level is filled with gas or something. UT3 has been designed in such a way that higher graphic settings directly impact gameplay. Sure things like might look "ZOMG next gen!" to the casual observer, because of the bloom and fog effects, but from a functional perspective, it's awful. This might fly in an RPG or something, even if it does give me a headache, but it just makes everything too hard to see for a fast fps like UT. Honestly, I think the Source engine with dynamic lighting would have been a much better choice for this game. I really don't know what they were thinking.
Click to expand...

UE3 does allow a high order of geometry/model detail and texture detail with high performance, so it does have that going for it. The engine isn't so bad, but I do wish they would have included AA support, it is almost 2008 for crying out loud, any next gen game/gaming engine should have that IMO.
 
I find your comment on competitive gamers a bit off.

It's not only frame rate that counts it's the fact that less details = better. Most strip out every bit of graphical extra they can. Frame rates aside the less clutter on the screen the easier it is to identify the target and make a clean shot. If you watch some league events in either Unreal or Quake you'll notice that the details are completely stripped through editing the ini (or config in quakes case) to the point where it's about as bland as quake2.

Your bash on the UI is well deserved, it blows. But then again you could always nuke extras faster in the ini then the UI.
 
Brent_Justice said:
This screenshot makes it pretty clear
Click to expand...
Ah, that one does. The 0x/2x comparison shot doesn't seem like it's showing any difference, but I might have to take another look at that one.

Brent_Justice said:
The engine isn't so bad, but I do wish they would have included AA support, it is almost 2008 for crying out loud, any next gen game/gaming engine should have that IMO.
Click to expand...
What's strange is that Gears has the DX10/AA path, but UT3 (technically released later than Gears to boot) doesn't. I thought Epic was a little lazy for only including 4x with Gears, but the laziness with UT3 is truly "epic". I'd guess that they basically just informed NVIDIA that UT3 wouldn't support any AA out-of-the-box so that NVIDIA could handle it from their end, but that's still leaving AMD owners out in the cold for now. This just reminds me of Bethesda not allowing HDR+AA even though some hardware at the time it was released fully supported it.

Gears should have at least supported both 2xAA and 4xAA in DX10, and UT3 should have at least done the same (which means a real DX10 path). 8xAA support could have come later. Sweeney said that they were going to support AA in DX10 via custom resolves for UE3.0, and I passed that on quite a few times to naysayers, but even titles shipping out of Epic HQ are basically giving us nothing or next to nothing in terms of AA support.

I'm glad that NVIDIA's on top of things, at least.
 
Thanks for the review. I have been holding off buying my hardware for a while, and was hoping someone would compare the different ranges.

Unfortunately hardware wise seems like everyplace sells out as soon as a new review posts on the net.

As far assault being removed, it was stated very early on that AS and BR were gone. You CAN make an assault style map using Warfare, the exercise is left to the community though.

It's funny, some people wanted 2k3/2k4 to be old gameplay with better graphics, and now that UT3 IS same game better graphics, people complain.

As long as the gameplay is solid (and it is according to most) then the rest can be grown over time. With the great UT mod community, no doubt the game will live on for quite a while.

The other thing I noticed is that some graphics changes require exiting and restarting the game, that was not true in the past. I find that a step back, especially for those of us that like to fiddle with everything to see how it impacts things.
 
Edit: NM, what I get for reading this @ work and not having time to read the text too :D
 
^ If you read the text this is explained, and on the exact same page scroll dowon and read under the section "Unleashing Unreal Tournament III"
 
Nice review as always.
Been a member of Epic forums for many years and also here.
Active in the community since UT99.

The game overall has not been well received and been perceived as
"not done" from where I stand.

Many players are finding that the ONLY way to get any performance is
to tweek there INI files massively, then pray there system responds decently.
Some have, like myself spent way to much time digging for things that give the
best play with the best graphics. Were not programmers or beta testers
of INI files. Your article brought up one tweek, but trust me you WILL need many
to get it right if your a veteran like me.

This could all have been avoided, had Epic given us the tools up front in the
UI to make changes. In essence the texture and detail sliders have dumbed it
down for the console crowd. Not what we expected after UT04 and its great
UI.

Where is the in-game documentation explaining the slider settings to the
common folk? Well, nowhere except on 3rd party websites like Tweakguides
and by users like myself who have spent the time to figure it all out. Time I'd rather
be playing then fiddling.

As for gameplay, its top notch and in the UT tradition. This does not disappoint.

It looks like the first of many patches is going to be released very soon solving
a lot of these issues. Until then, many past community people I know are taking
a wait and see attitude.
 
how does the fps smoothing off feel though? does it jitter at all? I kinda like the option as it feels buttery on default :)
 
I really don't like this game bundling all the settings together the way it's doing. It's being way over simplified where a gamer doesn't have as much choice. A player may want the best textures and world detail but not want HDR/bloom or motion blur. With this game, that's not possible. I really resent the game makers treating gamers like dummies and deciding what the game player wants without them being able to make the choices themselves. I wish Hardocp would have spend some time talking about this practice (which is unacceptable to me) that game makers are doing more and more but they didn't seem to mind it.

The more ingame settings the better. The game should be at the game player's convenience, not the game maker's.
 
Pretty nice article but....


With the "Enthusiast Class" the highest playable average FPS are 38.9, 34.6, 33.9 and on the "Performance Class" the highest playable FPS are listed as 53.8, 52.5,46.3, this seems VERY inconsistent between the two classes as the difference is huge.

The "Highest playable" is very subjective as we all know, some people are happy with 20FPS and others are still complaining at 40FPS.

I do questing the value of the highest playable FPS section. I believe a straight GPU performance comparison would be of higher value scaling with a few different resolutions and IQ.
 
xvioz said:
Thank you sir! This game is the reason I'm upgrading... so by the looks of it my Q6600 / 4 GB of memory / 8800GT should run it just fine @ 1280x1024 with decent settings.
Click to expand...

Heck, I stress-tested a 2.8GHz P4 with a Geforce 6800GT and 1GB of RAM by running it at 1024x768 and 1280x1024 with the UT3 demo, and it ran just fine at the #3 setting. I played bot-matches for a solid hour without issues.

The game is fun, but it's also not that taxing by current standards, making it a great choice for even mid-level systems. A modest dual-core with a midlevel graphics card (i.e., Radeon 3850) ought to do just fine at 1280x1024.
 
AtkinS said:
the 3850 is sent from god by my option, i got a lot of friends, they are freakin poor cause they are so stupid that they dont work, they where still running 9800 pro and p4 2.8 ghz 1 gb ddr memory (4x256 mb rofl) at pc2100, now theyve decided to upgrade, and its very easy with a 3850 to keep the performance very high, and price very low, and the 3850 did seriously show it really good here, however, i think it got more on store for us, but depends if ati driver team can push out abit more of it.

Ati driver team is the bottleneck for ati.
Click to expand...


Funny. I didn't know the 9800 came in a PCI-E flavor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top