CryEngine3 3-5 times Crysis

W

wolf2009

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
1,767
Crytek president and CEO Cevat Yerli in an interview says "The future will start for Crytek in 2009 when they begin to develop CryEngine 3, "but will only become visible in 2012." The next CryEngine, says Yerli, will "exceed the quality and quantity of Crysis by 3-5 times by 2012, but at a non-linear, flat cost development."

Read the full interview here

GTX680 and HD8870X2 have to be afraid of this , right ? :D

Expect to see PhysX fully implemented in CryEngine3 as Nvidia ( their main sponsor ) has bought PhysX and Nvidia wouldn't want to miss a chance to show off PhysX with a big name developer ( Thats from me, I'm getting so excited at the thought of what CryEngine3 with awesome graphics and kick ass PhysX could do ).
 
I'm surprised they didn't start development of v3 when Crysis was already in the works. I guess I'm just used to the style of John Carmack, who seems to start on the next engine in theory by the time the current games in development are nearing the end of the completion cycle.

2012 is a far way off & by then we might just have ray tracing technology to mess with.
 
CrimsonKnight13 said:
I'm surprised they didn't start development of v3 when Crysis was already in the works. I guess I'm just used to the style of John Carmack, who seems to start on the next engine in theory by the time the current games in development are nearing the end of the completion cycle.

2012 is a far way off & by then we might just have ray tracing technology to mess with.
Click to expand...

meh, their current engine is enough till then imo.
 
Lets hope they actually make a good, fun game out of the next engine, please. Also, don't let the MP go to shit, because that reduces the incentive for a lot of us to buy the game :rolleyes:
 
stoney_titan said:
meh, their current engine is enough till then imo.
Click to expand...

True... they probably can keep updating it just like Valve does with the Source Engine.

Though... Source is highly scalable, while CryEngine2 seems like a massive sabre-tooth tiger... I hope Warhead shows a great improvement with scalability.
 
Well, he just said not too long ago, Crytek is going multi-platform, do you see next gen consoles being so powerful to run something like this?
 
CryEngine 2 hasn't even fully been tapped, bad coding or not, the engine itself is capable of some increadible graphical effects, if they were used to the fullest extent. I wish there were more games using the CryEngine.
 
So how exactly do you know how much better it will be before you even start development on it...

This is just typical PR nonsense.
 
Its 4 years off... thats a bloody long time from now. Think what has happened in the past 2 years of computing let alone 4 years. Imagine the uber-graphics cards we'll all have by then. Though I'm sure Crytek will be able to design an engine to bring it all to its knees anyway. :p
 
GibsonEX said:
Well, he just said not too long ago, Crytek is going multi-platform, do you see next gen consoles being so powerful to run something like this?
Click to expand...

Sure. In 4 years next gen consoles will likely have just come out, meaning they will pack about the same power as a midrange desktop with a high end GPU, just like previous consoles have
 
This just shows how out of touch Crytek is. We still have yet to see a solid AAA title with the cryengine2. Crytek thinks these are still the 90s and early 2000s when they think everyones going to license their engine and make great games.
 
Krenum said:
Maybe next time they can optimize it.
Click to expand...

Wow, I'm really getting sick of reading this same point over and over.

I can hardly wait until insulting CryEngine developers from your armchair isn't cool any more.
 
Surly73 said:
Wow, I'm really getting sick of reading this same point over and over.

I can hardly wait until insulting CryEngine developers from your armchair isn't cool any more.
Click to expand...
Post #25
pjbliverpool said:
The problem I have, is that I don't think Crysis is unoptimized.

I mean, twice now, broadly speaking, this gen and last gen, Crytek produced the best looking game on any platform. Its not like they're a bunch of morons....
Click to expand...
Post #30
Arnold Beckenbauer said:
Aren't they? :LOL:

http://www.abload.de/img/screenshot0043jsf.jpg

Crytek did a lot of strange/sick things to avoid rendering of invisible pixels (their "Z-first" pass is pure madness), but on the other side for a DX9 game Crysis uses too much geometry and the games causes too many drawcalls, and this can kill performance on Windows XP computers (ok, the most players have a dual-core CPU, what reduces the driver overhead).
Four years ago:
Show me the island
We probably all agree that Far Cry's Cry Engine can render some very complex environments. We won't try to dispute that fact. However, unfortunately, Cry Tek doesn't deserve much praise regarding efficiency in using gamers' PC's scarce computing resources. You're in for some unpleasant surprises if you capture and analyze Far Cry's communication and the graphics API, using the proper tools.

The concerns start with the crosshair. It's composed of five small lines and the engine renders these lines separately, one by one. In terms of CPU load it doesn't make much difference how much geometry is rendered per API call but it sure does matter how many API calls are made in total**. This is but the first sign of CPU time being spent carelessly. More of the same - with more significant performance implications - can be observed in the engine's terrain rendering. Terrain is split in tiles, which isn't a bad idea actually. However, each of those tiles is split again, into strips, which get rendered individually. Thus the CPU has to do a lot of unnecessary work to render each tile, even though one call per tile would have been perfectly sufficient.

This isn't a big deal as long as the CPU is much more powerful than the GPU. [...].
Click to expand...


http://www.mitrax.de/?cont=artikel&aid=24&page=10

My question is: Did Crytek this time everything possible to avoid unnecessary CPU work?
Click to expand...
Makes you wonder...
 
damonposey said:
This just shows how out of touch Crytek is. We still have yet to see a solid AAA title with the cryengine2. Crytek thinks these are still the 90s and early 2000s when they think everyones going to license their engine and make great games.
Click to expand...

False.

Crysis = a AAA title that makes use of CryEngine2.

It's sold in the neighberhood of 1.5-2 million units in 9 months time (which is tremendous for a PC only game).
Furthermore, it has received a metacritic / gamerankings average score of 91%, placing it as the 6th highest ranked PC game of 2007.
 
Obviously he was referring to a licensed title, not an internally developed title.

Context.
 
TheBluePill said:
What other titles use Cryengine2?
Click to expand...

These will all be using Cyrengine2:

Games using the CryEngine2:

Crysis - Crytek, Finished, Release November 16, 2007 in Europe and the U.S. (2007).
Crysis Warhead, the expansion to Crysis, will use an upgraded version of the engine.
Game based on new intellectual property- Crytek, in development (TBA).
New, possibly non-fps game- Crytek, in development (TBA).
Entropia Universe - signed a license agreement on July 25, 2007. Expected to be ready late-2008.[4]
Merchants of Brooklyn[5] - Paleo Entertainment, in development (TBA).
The Day by Reloaded Studios[6]
Blue Mars - Avatar Reality, inc., in development (TBA).
Forged by Chaos - Panzar Studio, in development (TBA).
Vigilance (Military Training Game) - The Harrington Group, Inc. (Not for public release).[7]
New, MMORPG - XMLGames, in development (TBA).[8]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryEngine_2#Games_using_the_CryEngine2
 
Hamidxa said:
False.

Crysis = a AAA title that makes use of CryEngine2.

It's sold in the neighberhood of 1.5-2 million units in 9 months time (which is tremendous for a PC only game).
Furthermore, it has received a metacritic / gamerankings average score of 91%, placing it as the 6th highest ranked PC game of 2007.
Click to expand...

For a game that apparently sold 1.5-2 mil units. These game-monitor stats are pretty embarassing to say the least.

And you still cannot enable Parralax Occlusion Mapping with AF . What is the point of "Very High" if it's going to disable AF?

By any chance is your real name Cevat Yeri? :eek:
 
Am I the only gamer that thinks Crysis was crap? IMO COD4 looks just as good if not better than Crysis and doesn't run like it was made by a couple kids in a basement. Not to mention that Crysis held my attention for about 5 minutes.
 
Sixthsense said:
For a game that apparently sold 1.5-2 mil units. These game-monitor stats are pretty embarassing to say the least.

And you still cannot enable Parralax Occlusion Mapping with AF . What is the point of "Very High" if it's going to disable AF?

By any chance is your real name Cevat Yeri? :eek:
Click to expand...

Crysis' success has more to do with the single player aspect of the game, the beauty of the engine, and the ever-growing mod community which continues to pump out some incredible stuff for it, more so than the multiplayer component of the game.

As for POM and AF despite whatever technical limitations that may preclude them from working in unison, i personally never cared much for the performance hit or the effect itself, as sometimes it can distract and even detract from the rest of the graphics, but that is up to personal preference of course:

crysispomws0.gif


Case in point, I prefer the POM off look versus the POM on look in this scenario.
 
crawlgsx said:
Am I the only gamer that thinks Crysis was crap? IMO COD4 looks just as good if not better than Crysis and doesn't run like it was made by a couple kids in a basement. Not to mention that Crysis held my attention for about 5 minutes.
Click to expand...

COD4 while looking nice looks nowhere near as good as Crysis.
Perhaps if you play Crysis on medium only, but once you hit High and especially Very High, then it leaves everything out there in its dust, nothing can even touch it at that level.
 
I guess, but if it does look nicer, it wasn't enough to wow me into playing a really boring game. I still believe the game does NOT look good enough to run as bad as it does.
 
crawlgsx said:
I guess, but if it does look nicer, it wasn't enough to wow me into playing a really boring game. I still believe the game does NOT look good enough to run as bad as it does.
Click to expand...

You should use my custom config file, it allows for Very High looks at nearly High performance levels. ;)

That changed many people's opinions of how great it can look AND perform.
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1265845
 
3-5 times better than Crysis is approaching Reality.

That is firmly in Square Soft Movie Quality..

At the rate we are going, we will have true photo-realisim in real time by 2020.
 
TheBluePill said:
At the rate we are going, we will have true photo-realisim in real time by XXXX.
Click to expand...

Haven't we always been saying something along those lines?

"Wow, with texture mapping this game looks so much more realistic. I bet we'll have photorealism soon!"

"Wow, with hardware T&L this game looks so much more realistic. I bet we'll have photorealism soon!"

"Wow, with bump mapping this game looks so much more realistic. I bet we'll have photorealism soon!"

Ever wonder why Pixar makes nothing but cartoons? Even with a massive Renderman farm at their disposal, a realistic human depiction is still the hardest thing to get right. Sure the HumanHead demo looks pretty good, but he didn't have hair. I have a feeling light/blonde hair is going to be one of the hardest hurdles to overcome. Accounting for the way light scatters through all those translucent strands is going to be rough.

But to be less antagonistic, you might be right. 12 years will hopefully correspond to a lot of progress. Virtualized memory and 'infinite' geometry are only a few years away if the Carmack has his way, and interactive GI will hopefully follow soon. I'm sure by 2020 we'll at least have tech demos that are hard to tell from 'real life', but whether we can pack all that fidelity into a game at interactive framerates by 2020 is perhaps less likely.

I wonder what new features for CryEngine3 are in the works.
 
its gonna require the equivalent of 12 4870 X2's to run 1600x1200 very high with 4x AA. Fact.
 
LawGiver said:
its gonna require the equivalent of 12 4870 X2's to run 1600x1200 very high with 4x AA. Fact.
Click to expand...


Nah..

Every 18 Months it doubles in Power roughly..

So in 3 years, 4870x2^2, to another power in 18 months after that.. So 4x the 4870x2's power.. Then 8x its power at 4.5 years out..

So in 12 years.. we could have video cards that are 256x more powerful than what we have today..

12 Years ago(Actually, it will be 12 year in october), (1996) 3dfx released their first video card, it was 90mhz, had 4-8mb of ram and a 3.6gb mem bandwidth.. all at 640x480!!

11 Years Ago, nVidia Released the Riva 128, It had 1 Pipeline at 100mhz, 4mb of SGRAM.. Its was an 800x600 monster..
 
TheBluePill said:
Nah..

Every 18 Months it doubles in Power roughly..

So in 3 years, 4870x2^2, to another power in 18 months after that.. So 4x the 4870x2's power.. Then 8x its power at 4.5 years out..

So in 12 years.. we could have video cards that are 256x more powerful than what we have today..

12 Years ago(Actually, it will be 12 year in october), (1996) 3dfx released their first video card, it was 90mhz, had 4-8mb of ram and a 3.6gb mem bandwidth.. all at 640x480!!

11 Years Ago, nVidia Released the Riva 128, It had 1 Pipeline at 100mhz, 4mb of SGRAM.. Its was an 800x600 monster..
Click to expand...

Ah.... brings back memories. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top