news about unreal engine3

[sykkopat]

beyond 3d had a interview with Tim Sweeney of EpicGames about the new unreal engine3.looks like when the game is comming out in 2006,the r420 and nv40 will not be any good to rune the game.you need the power of r500 and nv50 to run it good.

You have mentioned that UnrealEngine3 - what you're currently working on - is :

"… the name for the next major step in Unreal technology, aimed at DirectX9 hardware as the absolute minimum spec, and scaling (way) upwards from there."

Could you briefly clarify (perhaps with a summarized list of DirectX9 features) what is meant by "DirectX9 hardware as the absolute minimum spec" since there appears to be different interpretations of "minimum DirectX9 spec" from a hardware perspective?

"By DirectX9 minimum spec, we mean we're going to make a game that brings today's GeForce FX's and Radeon 9700+'s to their knees at 640x480! We are targetting next-generation consoles and the kinds of PC's that will be typical on the market in 2006, and today's high end graphics cards are going to be somewhat low end then, similar to a GeForce4MX or a Radeon 7500 for today's games."

http://www.beyond3d.com/interviews/sweeney04/

 

[Kek]

Yeah.... "Graphics=gameplay"

 

[harmonic]

Maybe in 2 years I will care about what kind of video card it will run on.

 

[Moehawk]

Like they know how powerful the graphics cards will be in 2 years.

If this holds true, they will be cutting a lot of there market right out of the picture. Not everyone upgrades their cards every year or even two years.

 

[angrybusdriver]

Originally posted by Kek
Yeah.... "Graphics=gameplay"

He's not talking about the game, he's talking about the engine.

Unreal Tournament, Unreal Tournament 2003, Unreal Tournament 2004 are just showoff games. They are not meant to have amazing gameplay, just showoff games for the UT2kX engine.

Do you blame them? The engine IS pretty nice.

 

[Brent_Justice]

I like the Unreal Engine. It along with the Quake Engine, i've been following for quite a while. Both are popular, and good.

Look forward to them adding DX9 effects in the U3 engine, imagine all the pretty games coming after, using that engine.

 

[Merlin45]

Originally posted by Moehawk
Like they know how powerful the graphics cards will be in 2 years.

If this holds true, they will be cutting a lot of there market right out of the picture. Not everyone upgrades their cards every year or even two years.

they will have to guess, like every good game developer, guess where the cards will be in 2 years, then design accordingly. everyone does this, it isn't unusual at all.
anyway, I don't know why this is supprising, if you want to play current games, you need current hardware, this is nothing new.

 

[Vagrant Zero]

Exactly. People need to stop bitching about hardware trends. No one's forcing you to upgrade to play the latest games so quit your bellyaching, especially if you want computer games to stay competitve with their console counterparts [seeing as how the net gen consoles won't be the ass they are now hardware wise {I don't think the ps2 was EVER impressive}].

 

[zDmn]

Originally posted by angrybusdriver
He's not talking about the game, he's talking about the engine.

Unreal Tournament, Unreal Tournament 2003, Unreal Tournament 2004 are just showoff games. They are not meant to have amazing gameplay, just showoff games for the UT2kX engine.

Do you blame them? The engine IS pretty nice.

Have you ever really talked with the designers of the ut2003/2004 engine? Did they really tell you personally that they made the game simply to show off graphics capabilities? I also dont believe you played either of these games before. If you did, you would prolly know the game play fuckin owns too.

 

[Kek]

I like the gameplay of original UT, though it's not without it's bugs and flaws, which, for the life of me, I can't understand why they were never fixed with a patch.

Anyways, my point about the gameplay was, I really like to play with a high, stable framerate. I really can tell the difference between 90 and 120fps. Really, I can. I don't like to see flickery movement on my screen, I like it all to run smooth. I feel that when the framerates are high for all players, this increases the amount of overall skill that is possible.

The new UTpure is out, and one guy was complaining that it lowers his framerate "GG UTpure gives 50fps". I'm sure a lot of people consider 50fps to be "good", But this guy is serious about his game, so he would like to see the framerate higher. I know I'd complain about 50fps too. Some people might say it's his fault for having an older computer.. but, consider that his computer is about 10x as powerful as UT's required specs. Also consider that not everyone can afford to shell out loads of cash for a new machine every year. And I consider it to be a shame if an otherwise very talented gamer can't play because of financial issues. That just sucks

I guess my idea of an "improved" game engine is one that runs smoother, has improved netcode, and takes most of the luck factor out of the game, and introduces more skill. I guess I am in the minority these days though.. maybe most people only care how pretty the graphics are. I like it to be more about skill and to have everone on as even a playing field as is possible. Not fair that someone should win just because of the speed of their machine, this is why I think a game engine should scale down to work with slower machines too.

Anyways, who knows.. in 2 years I may not even care. Or I may enjoy the enhancements. I've never judged a game based on graphics alone though. We'll see in 2 years.

BTW, I play UT with low world details, and high player details, just so that players stand out more. So you can see I'm happy with lower quality graphics. But, as I said, I'm probably in the minority.

 

[angrybusdriver]

Originally posted by zDmn
Have you ever really talked with the designers of the ut2003/2004 engine? Did they really tell you personally that they made the game simply to show off graphics capabilities? I also dont believe you played either of these games before. If you did, you would prolly know the game play fuckin owns too.

yes, I have played every unreal since the start. No where in my post did I state my opinion of any Unreal game.

I own Unreal Gold, Unreal Tournament, Unreal Tournament 2003 and Unreal II.


Oh, and would it help you if I started every sentence with "in my opinion" ?

 

[DoggyDaddi]

Im not bitching about playing the LATEST games.. Im bitching about hardware and OS changes that PREVENT you from enjoying the games you ALLREADY have.

It's been 3 years since I was able to play Aliens vs Predetors (the first one). It is the absolute best game I have ever had. It was scarier and harder to play then anything else thats ever come out (provided you chose Colonial Marine and never cheated). When I moved up from 98SE, a K6-III 450, and a Matrox G-400 MAX, to XP-Pro, an 8500 128mb (full retail ATI), and XP-1600+ I lost the ability to play AvP.

Some of us don't give a rats ass about games that come and go with fleeting pretty pictures. Remember 'Giants'?, 'Black & White', and a host of others? They got boreing fast didnt they? I would still be playing with my Tribe online, making new maps and having tornaments if I could with AvP.

New Technology is worthless if we fail to respect what made it possible, and abandon the things that made us want to do better and more in the first place.

I cant play Unreal worth a crap now either, and Im running XP-Pro, a AIW 9600 Pro and Barton 3200+ 400 fsb.

Originally posted by Vagrant Zero
Exactly. People need to stop bitching about hardware trends. No one's forcing you to upgrade to play the latest games so quit your bellyaching, especially if you want computer games to stay competitve with their console counterparts [seeing as how the net gen consoles won't be the ass they are now hardware wise {I don't think the ps2 was EVER impressive}].

 

[jnex26]

Originally posted by Kek
I like the gameplay of original UT, though it's not without it's bugs and flaws, which, for the life of me, I can't understand why they were never fixed with a patch.

Anyways, my point about the gameplay was, I really like to play with a high, stable framerate. I really can tell the difference between 90 and 120fps. Really, I can. I don't like to see flickery movement on my screen, I like it all to run smooth. I feel that when the framerates are high for all players, this increases the amount of overall skill that is possible.

The new UTpure is out, and one guy was complaining that it lowers his framerate "GG UTpure gives 50fps". I'm sure a lot of people consider 50fps to be "good", But this guy is serious about his game, so he would like to see the framerate higher. I know I'd complain about 50fps too. Some people might say it's his fault for having an older computer.. but, consider that his computer is about 10x as powerful as UT's required specs. Also consider that not everyone can afford to shell out loads of cash for a new machine every year. And I consider it to be a shame if an otherwise very talented gamer can't play because of financial issues. That just sucks

I guess my idea of an "improved" game engine is one that runs smoother, has improved netcode, and takes most of the luck factor out of the game, and introduces more skill. I guess I am in the minority these days though.. maybe most people only care how pretty the graphics are. I like it to be more about skill and to have everone on as even a playing field as is possible. Not fair that someone should win just because of the speed of their machine, this is why I think a game engine should scale down to work with slower machines too.

Anyways, who knows.. in 2 years I may not even care. Or I may enjoy the enhancements. I've never judged a game based on graphics alone though. We'll see in 2 years.

BTW, I play UT with low world details, and high player details, just so that players stand out more. So you can see I'm happy with lower quality graphics. But, as I said, I'm probably in the minority.

What res and refresh rate do you run.

 

[xSteathx]

Originally posted by sykkopat
beyond 3d had a interview with Tim Sweeney of EpicGames about the new unreal engine3.looks like when the game is comming out in 2006,the r420 and nv40 will not be any good to rune the game.you need the power of r500 and nv50 to run it good.

If that is true, that will be the biggest mistake EpicGames will make. Just because no one will buy top-of-the-line graphic cards for one game, also some people that already own a good graphic cards like fx series and the 9x00 series might not have enought money to buy better ones (like me). They better do some good optimizations for the graphic cards.

 

[RAutrey]

Originally posted by Kek
The new UTpure is out, and one guy was complaining that it lowers his framerate "GG UTpure gives 50fps". I'm sure a lot of people consider 50fps to be "good", But this guy is serious about his game, so he would like to see the framerate higher. I know I'd complain about 50fps too. Some people might say it's his fault for having an older computer.. but, consider that his computer is about 10x as powerful as UT's required specs. Also consider that not everyone can afford to shell out loads of cash for a new machine every year. And I consider it to be a shame if an otherwise very talented gamer can't play because of financial issues. That just sucks

Unfortunately, that's the pitfall of progress my man. It's never gonna change but I for one, don't want it to either. Look how far things have come in the last ten years. Really the best you can do is pick and choose upgrades wisely. The good news is that we have Brent and the gang to give us information we need to make our determinations.

 

[RAutrey]

Originally posted by xSteathx
If that is true, that will be the biggest mistake EpicGames will make. Just because no one will buy top-of-the-line graphic cards for one game, also some people that already own a good graphic cards like fx series and the 9x00 series might not have enought money to buy better ones (like me). They better do some good optimizations for the graphic cards.

What? The thing is they are talking about two years down the road. This is a lifetime as it relates to pc hardware product cycles. It is doubtful that most posting in these forums will be running the current technology in in 2006 in anything other than a backup rig.

Additionally, this is the path that id has taken with their engines and we see how big of a mistake that was. Plus, concessions will be made for older cards, they always are.

 

[Kek]

Originally posted by jnex26
What res and refresh rate do you run.

Right now I run at 1024x768 and have 120Hz refreshrate, which is limited by my Radeon 9700, not my monitor. (I am annoyed that the card doesn't go higher, since my older Ti4200 did). I used to use 800x600, and was happy with how the graphics looked, but began experimenting, and sort of stuck with this. I won't go higher on resolution, because I use a crosshair which I made myself, 1 pixel wide, and when I go above 1024x768, the game doubles up the width of the pixels on crosshairs, for some reason, undermining the whole reason I made that crosshair in the first place (thinner, easier to see where I aim).

I would experiment again with a lower resolution again, but for some reason, my FOV seems closer in UT if I use a lower res, and I've already spent enough time fine-tuning what FOV I use.

 

[Kek]

Originally posted by DoggyDaddi
Im not bitching about playing the LATEST games.. Im bitching about hardware and OS changes that PREVENT you from enjoying the games you ALLREADY have.

It's been 3 years since I was able to play Aliens vs Predetors (the first one). It is the absolute best game I have ever had. It was scarier and harder to play then anything else thats ever come out (provided you chose Colonial Marine and never cheated). When I moved up from 98SE, a K6-III 450, and a Matrox G-400 MAX, to XP-Pro, an 8500 128mb (full retail ATI), and XP-1600+ I lost the ability to play AvP.

Some of us don't give a rats ass about games that come and go with fleeting pretty pictures. Remember 'Giants'?, 'Black & White', and a host of others? They got boreing fast didnt they? I would still be playing with my Tribe online, making new maps and having tornaments if I could with AvP.

New Technology is worthless if we fail to respect what made it possible, and abandon the things that made us want to do better and more in the first place.

I cant play Unreal worth a crap now either, and Im running XP-Pro, a AIW 9600 Pro and Barton 3200+ 400 fsb.

Seems that your beef is with Microsoft, not games developers. I do agree with you 100% though, they should try to retain compatibility.

Also, your problem with Unreal, I am guessing it's the XP mouse issue. It's why I use Windows 2000 instead of XP. XP doesn't have anything I need, really, and it screws up the "feel" of the mouse in UT. No fixes solved it 100% for me.

I know a player who is really good, one of the best around I think, and he uses Windows XP. He had to disable direct input in UT, do some other tweaks. But most of it has to do with "getting used" to it. He got used to it, but I don't want to even try. If you ate turds every day, I doubt they would start to taste good, and I think the same goes for playing UT on a system with Windows XP as the OS. I'm not going to bother.

BTW, have you considered running a dual boot, and having Win98SE for old games, and Windows XP for the new stuff?

 

[Kek]

I was just thinking... For single player games, I don't mind so much if I have lower fps. I'm just thinking of the competitive aspect of the games. But to be honest, no game has come out in the past 4 years that I would want to be involved with competitively anyways. So if most people enjoy maxing out their hardware, then it's ok with me.

BTW, I remember though, having a system with new technology, and UT2003 ran quite sluggishly. Right now my system is using a 1 year old video card (R700 non-pro) and AthlonXP 2500 @ 2.2GHz. The new Legacy of Kain: Defiance game runs for the most part at 120fps for me, sometimes dropping to 60fps, sometimes rising to 140, but I have not seen it drop lower (using fraps). The game gets good fps, and I am using anistroscopic filtering to boot. Not only that, but the graphics are awesome, IMO. Now I just wonder why we can't have this kind of performance for every game.

I'll admit, graphics are nice, but playability is more important to me. That's just my 2 cents on the matter. I think that at a certain point, graphics did improve playability, for example, I tried playing Quake 2, could barely tell what items I was picking up, since everything looks so grey. But I'll tell you this, the mouse movement felt smooth as silk and that in itself makes the game a pleasure to play.

 

[oqvist]

People they are talking 2006!

What video cards did we have 2002? Geforce 3:s??? Don´t you think those struggle with todays games?

Graphics IS important. Especially for PC gaming since that is what separates us from the consoles. Way higher IQ makes everything that much more enjoyable.

I can´t imagine playing ugly CS at 100 fps for the rest of my life. Life has go on you know?

And the visuals are what made the Unreal games big anyway. What do you think Unreal would be if not their gorgeous visuals? What about DOOM? Yes it got great gameplay but would it be such a hit with mediocre visuals?

But then I play games to have fun not trying to own everyone in multiplayer.

 

[haroldmeyer]

In two and half years, I hope the fuck they have newer game engines and higher tech all the way around. Who would want things to stay the way they are? I started playing Pong in 197?,and I've always looked forward to better things to come.Bring it on!!!!

 

[Kek]

Originally posted by RAutrey
What? The thing is they are talking about two years down the road. This is a lifetime as it relates to pc hardware product cycles. It is doubtful that most posting in these forums will be running the current technology in in 2006 in anything other than a backup rig.

Additionally, this is the path that id has taken with their engines and we see how big of a mistake that was. Plus, concessions will be made for older cards, they always are.

Heh I just noticed that. Interesting thing is, back when I had Tbird 850 and Geforce 2 GTS 32MB, UT ran at just over 100fps average in the default maps. But Q3 ran at well over 200fps with the same hardware. I'm not sure what paths iD and Epic were taking back then, but seems that Q3 makes better use of hardware accelleration.

Some people I know think even running UT on a Thunderbird 1.4GHz puts you at a disadvantage to someone who has over 2GHz, and UT's minimum specs were like a P233 with sofware rendering or P200 if you had a 3D video card? Also, Epic abandoned their game years ago, meanwhile Q3 is still being updated. Epic now wants to turn their game into an EA sports style game, and sell a new version every year. They can suck it. I'm not going to pay them to fix all the mistakes they made in the first version, they should patch their own screwups for free. I look forward to the next iD game...