http://pc.ign.com/dor/articles/96517...rl_032309.html
Is that Magpul Masada the guy was holding in the video?
Printable View
http://pc.ign.com/dor/articles/96517...rl_032309.html
Is that Magpul Masada the guy was holding in the video?
I...I... I shat my pants and I need some new ones. Thats epic Im going to need a new praphics card.. D:
I'll be honest, I'm less than impressed. It looks very much along the quality of CryEngine 2. While I do like the improved shadows when in the forest and the better physics engine, the fact that Crytek decided to make the engine console friendly certainly shows. :(
Seems to be a bit too much like CE2 at the moment. If you play close attention, that includes framerates as well. Eh, hopefully it's in an extremely early stage.
Actually, looking at the HD trailer of this, CryEngine 2 looks substantially better than what is shown here. Advanced lighting seems to have been dumbed down, texture resolution has gone way down in some areas, and RTR has been dropped in places.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean-Luc
I was about to post this.. :)
Frankly, it looks like CE2 in new environments at some spots, and UT3 in the deep urban areas. Not as impressed as I expected, but that' what happens when the engine has to be dumbed down for the consoles :/
That and the water looked like ass.
Sounds less like CE3 and more like CE2 for consoles.
It really annoys me that they are calling it cryengine 3. It's obviously what Ifafudafi said, CryEngine 2 for consoles.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by itszutak
I won't be purchasing the next Crysis game unless it LOOKS better than the first two. I honestly didn't like the story that much, it was cool, but unless the new game looks a lot better as well it won't have my buy. Fucking consoles, why do they have to ruin everything?
Because that's where the money is at :downs:
Cmon guys I thought you were all smarter than this. The engine is simply the same tech but multiplatform, which is a big step for them. It does have enhancements and does have more improvements, and lots of development I think earns it the title for a new edition of their engine.
And to say "errrr it looks like cry engine 2" is just fucking stupid. Cry Engine 2 is probably the most amazing looking graphics engine anway, so...
What they were obviosuly showing was the console visuals, which viewed in a comparative basis, those visuals are amazing.
A bit harsh, but alright. I can't speak for everyone here, but when I heard "CryEngine 3", I logically assumed it was the next step in the progression of engines, which would mean there would be improved visuals (look at the progression of the Unreal Engine, or the Source engine, or multiple others), rather than what can essentially be called an engine downgrade so it will work on a different platform.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneO'Roo
^^Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean-Luc
Call it 2.5 if you will, but it definitely shouldnt be 3. Revision control has gone to wack.
Also, geeze that guns takes up nearly half the screen. :eek:
I think it looks overall better, but not as drastic a change as it was from CryEngine1 to 2. Guess they had to cut corners for the consoles. Either way it still looks great, and I'll probably play whatever game they go and make on it.
I hate to say it, but you are provably wrong. Lemme show you a comparison shot of CryEngine 2 vs CryEngine 3Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuki
CryEngine3:
CryEngine2:
You'll notice that depth of field has been removed, the lighting is less realistic, the shadows have been taken down severely, the foliage detail has plummeted, and the texture resolution has also taken a hit.
At this point, it hardly looks better than what Unreal Engine 3 can put out.
You're comparing one part from a tech demo video, to something in a completed game.
The new stuff the video shows looks quite nice, especially the rocks, physics and water.
However it is just a video and I'm not making any final decisions on this until there's a released game that I can effectively compare it to. Just goin on what I see.
I'll just wait for idTech5.
I understand where you're coming from, but I'm pretty sure that's all that Jean is doing himself. Going by what he sees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuki
Are they going to improve the visuals for the PC version? Crytek said in an interview that if they to make a future game multiplatform, there would be two teams with one focusing on a PC version and the other the console release.
One can only hope.
The GDC06 Tech demo for the original crysis was much more impressive than this imo.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by 343guiltymc
Look at the first CoD. Infinity Ward made Call of Duty for the PC. It rocked. Treyarch made a spin-off called "Call of Duty:Finest Hour" for the consoles. It sucked (IMHO). Now lets look at CoD4. Infinity Ward made it for both the PC and the Consoles. It looks fantastic on both, it played well on both, and they only needed one team to do it.
I doubt that CryTech will get another game out before the Eighth Generation of Consoles. I'm going to make a prediction that those will be announced this summer, possibly at E3. They will probably be equal to today's high-end PC's. I say developing a game even for those consoles will give us breathtaking graphics that can beat Crysis (possibly). I think having the same team work on both the Console and the PC can give great results.
I wouldn't be suprised if they are already developing for the Xbox 6π or the PS4.
If this is really rendered real-time on consoles, then it is fantastic- my old computer, which had a comparative performance level, suffered trying to play Crysis at the lowest detail setting.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneO'Roo
But it's a step down from Cryengine 2 overall and has a fairly misleading name. Many of the shaders have been removed or weakened, and it tends itself to look like an Unreal clone at times.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneO'Roo
Everyone's upset by the lack of improvement. CyEngine 2 was simply so powerful that the only thing that Crytek could have done was improve memory handling and decrease the power of the engine.
Also, noting what Dane says, I think that Crytek is going to be working on a more fun game. Crysis and Warhead were only made to show off the visuals CryEngine 3 had. A marketing technique to developers if you will.
Now with Cryengine 3 coming out with more possibilities for consoles, CryTek is using that marketing to sell their new engine to developers- In the near future, look to see what engine companies that develop games like "Gun" and "Halo" are using. (not saying bungie will use CryEngine 2 or 3 or anything but check the box on the next Halo game after Recon comes out)
Now note, that the next installment of Crysis or game made by Crytek will greatly have the Fun factor improved.
Extended trailer: http://www.crymod.com/thread.php?thr...6c57bcb1b3b481
after having watched the HD download...im starting to like this tech demo, thats all it is at the moment a demo of what the tech can currently do, it raises more interest than that onlive thing in the thread in tech discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by 343guiltymc
Saw a lot of choppy framerates on both the ps3 and the 360 there. As long as they keep it going on pc I don't care.
I noticed that the PS3 version looked slightly better visually, but the 360 version looked like it had higher framerate. Both still pretty choppy though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuki
Ive never seen a game look that realistic on a game consol apart from a PC. Well not on an xbox 360.
For what it is, I find that it looks pretty damn impressive. It's really unfortunate that they can't concentrate their efforts on making an amazing looking PC version.
Well, they don't need to. A quick look on some of the TODs on crymod tells me that the cryengine 2 looks pretty slick.
Yea, I still like CE2 more than CE3 at this point. Nothing new and revolutionary in CE3 except for optimization is seems.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freelancer
Pretty interesting but less than amazing really.
So the fact theres a huge performance boost, and improved quality in noticeable places, and slightly scaled back quality in the less noticeable places is completely irrelevant to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Freelancer
ok got it
Why would you like CE2 more ?
I like this burger more because it's the same as that one without fries??
PS: There's more features than what is shown :ssh:
I'm happy to see this. Can't get a new graphics card for my pc, so my xbox will be filling in for all my newer games that my pc can barely run, and so far it looks very nice. Choppy though, it looks like it's at 20-25fps.
http://www.psu.com/CryEngine-3-vs-Un...a006835-p0.php
Comparison between Unreal Engine 3 and CryEngine 3
CE3 wins in most respects, but what really is saddening is the fact that 99% of all comments are "UE3 SUCKS. LOOKS DATED."
Hate to say it, but I still maintain that Gears of War 2 is one of the finest looking games out there.
Everyone is just getting on the :bandwagon:
I don't think it's the bandwagon so much as that it actually does look better. ;)
Seriously though, the only thing I saw UE3 beat CE3 at, in that article, was the water effects.
Really? I disagree
I believe UE3 wins in both of the following:
[shot]
So, we're stuck on Crysis without the CryEngine 3? This sucks.
Both engines have there ups and downs and have a unique feel to them. I don't really see one as a better engine.
I have to agree with you, but the problem with UE3 is how unnatural it's lighting and atmosphere is (save for the first pic, which looks quite good).Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean-Luc
Your also comparing the wrong things in those renders - the UT3 shots were for closer, detailed objects while the CE2/3/whatever shots were farther away. The best comparison would be to have the same exact objects ingame at the same distance with the same textures/shader setups (if possible) and compare it that way.
Both are very pretty looking tbh, but I don't think that Crytek should be calling their "new" engine CE3. Call is CE2 for consoles or CE2.5 or whatever, but this is hardly worthy of another version number.
Not that it really matters, it would be less misleading though.
The CryEngine3 picture shows Parallax-Occlusion mapping, whereas the UE3 picture shows modeled and textured decorators.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean-Luc
UE3 is getting a lighting upgrade, so I'd say it has CryEngine3 beaten on that.
I don't like the way UE3 renders some materials, such as concrete, brick/mortar, and other rough surfaces. In GeoW and UT3 they all look too shiny and plastic-y to be rough materials. Game devs need to get this in their heads.
One thing I've always, ALWAYS hated about CE2 was the shitty, fake AA they put on all of the edges. It just makes everything look crappy and takes away from the realism, and I hate seeing it back in CE3. Whenever possible, I make that my first config change- to get rid of that fake AA.
That, alone, is enough to make me prefer UE3.
The problem with CE2's AA is the fancy rendering method for foliage interferes. True MSAA will make objects look nice, but trees n' shit will still be jagged. Fake Edge AA will blur everything but make it a lower quality.
The first thing I want to see in CE3 (the real one, not this console port) is getting that fixed.
Maybe in those shots but the rest of them look better in CE3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean-LucReally? I disagree
I believe UE3 wins in both of the following:
[shot]
Always a fan of a CryEngineX jungle. The GDC06 one was the best though >:(
Damn, that picture of the jungle in the CE3 shot is awesome. I always disliked the lightning in CE2.
Lighting in CE2 while under trees was somewhat too light. However, in that particular screen, it's far too dark. Unless you're in the rainforest, that light canopy of trees there will not cause objects underneath to go near pitch-black.Quote:
Originally Posted by 343guiltymc
It will if the sun is that low on the horizon, as in that screenshot. Taken from the other angle, it would be a lot lighter.
Imo, CE2 and CE3 seem to try to make it look as photorealistic as possible, whilst the UT3 engine seems to try to make the visuals as asthetically pleasing as possible.
Hmm. Just looked through the pictures.
Some clarification:
CE2 (With an as-of-that-time unreleased TOD):
http://www.psu.com/media/cryunreal/cryunreal_01.jpg
Pre-release UE2:
http://www.psu.com/media/cryunreal/cryunreal_05.jpg
The other shots are mostly CE3, as far as I can tell.
Here's my radical theory: They're two different engines, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, and neither is truly superior to the other in all respects.
CE3 (or CE2, at least) has the capability to render just about every graphical effect known to man, and therefore can support more detailed, realistic environments than UE3. UE3, on the other hand, has the benefit of age and experience, having been optimized and tweaked as much as possible to squeeze every last bit of performance, if at the cost of detail. From the CE3 demo we had, framerates seemed to be an issue, and while it's an early stage of development, it's pretty clear Crytek will probably need to cut back a bit on the pretty if they're to make it smooth.
CE3, due to the nature of Crysis (and Far Cry, to an extent) also is designed to render foliage as realistically as possible, whereas UE3 has generally been confined to more static, lifeless environments. UE3's got the edge with urban and/or interior environments, as evidenced by Jean-Luc's screens, whereas CE3's a little better at large, open environments, as shown in the jungle comparison. The face one doesn't count, since the UE3 shot there is from the first Gears of War; the current build of UE3 allows for much more complex faces.
Personally, I'd wait until we actually see some games on CE3 before any opinions are finalized, but at the end of the day, both engines really aren't any better than the other at everything; while they trump each other in some respects, they also naturally fall up short in others.
I think it's a fair comparison since I saw that screenshot of the faces since before the release of CE2. I think they just took the pic and slapped the text "CE3" on it. So basically it's a comparison of faces rendered on old engines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ifafudafi
CE2 still had much more complex face rendering features than UE3; the point is that as of the CE3/UE3 comparison (which this is about as far as I know) it wouldn't be a fair comparison, unless CE3's cut back on some detail.
I would preffer realistic detail to astheticly pleasing any day of the week.
Gears of War was a good game and all but i preffer crysis with its lighting system and style.
The day i see a completely real life looking game with plasma weapons would be the day i die happy, i think Crytek might have seen the Doom film and thought "maybe we can do that...may be can make games look that good.
It demonstrates the lack of research and complete bias of the author.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ifafudafi
For one, the screen was a pre-render for CE2; even in the game the faces look nowhere near as detailed.
For two, they took a UE2 screenshot from the medium-quality version of GOW released on the xbox.
But GoW was made on the Unreal Engine 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by itszutak
The first one? I'll look this up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amit
E: Yep, made in UE3. I still believe it's a bit biased, or at least poorly written-- half of the screenshots aren't even CE3, and the comparisons are uneven.
Yeah, those faces posted here are CE1, not 3. I've been seeing those faces since before DX10 was released to the public. They were showing off what DX10 can do.
What about mods? I don't know about UE3 but I've seen some pretty neat things made for CE2.
Well, UE3 has tons of mods, probably more than crysis does. And UT3 didn't lose any of it's user base due to dropped support and in the case of wars and warhead, a promised SDK that took waaay too long to be released.
What settings do you have to play at to make their faces look that nice?
I've put object and texture to very high, played at like 5 fps, and pycho in warhead still looked crappy...though his suit was uber detailed.
Up your Shader quality. Also, nice bump.
Even if it did drop some quality to come to consoles, it's going to be the best console graphics ever. Since my pc is crap for high end gaming, I say YAY! Make it for consoles!
And as for unreal vs cryengine, which has more procedural technology? That's the one I like.
I would very much like to not see that happen. Just more stuff for people to hate about.Quote:
Originally Posted by VickJr
Procedural technology?
http://media.xbox360.ign.com/article...10/vids_1.html
God, the PS3 version looks awful. All the popups even at close distances.
So much for the ps3 with its theoretical advantage over the x360:v:Quote:
Originally Posted by 343guiltymc
:caruso:
this is awesome
Can we seriously do that? Make content in cryengine 3 on the computer, and play it on our console's?
The lighting is better on the 360 too...I guess you can chalk that one up to the 360 being easier to code for.
[whine]Awww, quit bashing my console of choice![/whine]
Anyhow, I'm quite interested in what Cryengine 3 will be capable of on consoles once they're finished with it. Granted, I'll likely get anything CE3 on the PC if I'm going to get it, but I'm also curious about what Crytek can push out of console hardware.
As am I, especially considering that PCs from 2008 could barely handle CE2, and that the 360 is from 2005...it's all up to the optimisation on this one.
I think the reason the ps3 version doesn't look as good as the x360 version due to the fact that ps3 is harder to code for, due to it having 8 asymetrical cores, and not having access to D3D, (unlike the x360) which ends up causing them to have to recode most of the rendering system, and probably isn't as properly optimized.
Plus, the PS3 doesn't have as much RAM.
Xbox 360 has 512 MB of RAM -- 32 MB dedicated to the OS
PS3 has 2x256 MB of RAM -- 96 MB dedicated to OS.
Thanks for the info John Carmack.
Isn't 2x256=512?
Oh the amount dedicated to OS.
Btw, about the ram....
The 360 has slower ram, and it is all shared
The ps3 has 256mb vram, and 256 xdr ram
Vram is like 700mhz
and the ram is 3.2ghz (ohshi)
And vram/ram can be shared if/when needed.
I said that already...=|Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyong Kawaguchi
Also, PS3 basically boils down to a modified GeForce 7800GTX and a Cell processor with 256MB of XDR. On the other hand, the XBOX 360 is essentially a modified Cell (called the Xenon) with a modified Radeon R600 (in this case closer to the HD2k series versus the HD3k). The Xenos (graphics card) only has 10 MiB of embedded DRAM, and the system memory is 512MB of GDDR3 which is shared by both the system and the video card. In concept, the PS3 is simpler, but due to the Cell processor and the fact that the 360 has DirectX, the PS3 is harder to code for.
Yes, but the Cell fetching from GDDR3 and the videocard fetching from XDR introduces serious lag... so you need to assume some things about what memory will be at what capacity when.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syuusuke
You don't need to do that in the xbox 360 since it's all in 1 pool (except the 10MB eDRAM but that's okay since it's only used for things like -- framebuffers and specific applications that do not rely on where the player is and what he/she's nearby) {{Well it could be used for more but... you know -- don't see the point personally}}
And you also don't need to do that in the PC because just about everyone has more RAM than you can possibly know what to do with :p
Ftfy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
PS3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Games monthly mag
CPU= 3.2ghz Cell Powerpc cpu
Graphics= Nvidia RSX 550 550mhz
Memory= 256mb XDR@3.2Ghz + 256mb DDR3@700mhz [non shareable]
Overall performance= 2 terraflops
System bandwidth= 25.6Gbps
Xbox 360:
Cpu= 3.2Ghz Powerpc cpu
Graphics= Ati 500mhz
Memory= 512mb DDR3@700mhz
Overal bandwidth= 1Terraflop
System bandwidth= 22.4Gbps
I've gotten that straight out of my copies of games mags from when the consoles came out and they were comparing specs.
By todays standards the memory and the gpu's dont seem too impressive but considering the original xbox ran on 64mb and a 733mhz celeron their a world ahead of past generations.
Zeph: but yeah, in the meantime of me working myself to death, why dont you go to the crysis board, find the thread about CryEngine 3 and troll the guy who says the console versions look more pixelated than the PC version for making that decision based on a video recording of a computer monitor on the internet that has been compressed into a flash video.
This is a long thread so I can't be fucked looking through it but yeah what Zeph said
well, cya :v:
http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/articles/...o2_081709.html
Man what's with this whole Console oriented focus here? I'm more interested in seeing how far they've pushed PC hardware compared to CE2 and whether and how the new engine will support DX11. Seriously, I don't see how they can claim that the PC and PS3 visuals are identical looking at more of those popups in urban areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by =sw=warlord
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_'Reality_Synthesizer'
Try again. It has 24 pipelines, which puts it in line with the 7800GTX or 7800 Ultra. I don't remember how many the 6800 had, but I think it was 12.
I seem to remember the 6800 ultra had SLI capability did it not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
One source for you to look at.
http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6125...html?type=tech
If you wish to post your source that proves me and everything i have saying what i have said, wrong then go ahead i look forward to it.
The consoles were based on "current" hardware of the time, the 7800 was released in 2006 which is a little late in the game for including into the playstation 3.
Click Here
And Here
And Here.
Last I checked, gaming websites and magasines tend to screw up big time whenever it comes to hardware specifics. They are wrong about the 6800, I've seen that kind of thing before. nVidia themselves said it was a G70/71 based GPU, also known as N47, which is the basis for the GeForce 7800 series. The RSX was the first chip to actually come out using N47, where as the PC versions were a refinement. Thus, the PC versions are actually more powerful. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they weren't entirely based on what was actually available at the time. Hell, even the R600 in the XBOX 360 wasn't actually available to PCs at launch. And neither was the Cell available to other markets for that matter, being specifically designed for the PS3 and tweaked for the 360.
Thus, everything you were saying is wrong. :v:
Before, the ps3 used 96 mb for system, it was lowered to 74mb as of 1.80, and is now lowered in the 2.80 update, but to my knowledge, it is not known exactly how much yet, but it is close to the 32mb the 360 uses.
Ps. the ps3 might be getting software backwards compatibility.
Heavy on the MIGHT get it. I've heard so much since I got my PS3 about software b/c that I've given up on b/c being true until Sony themselves come out and say "Hey, we've got working software backwards compatibility with PS2 for all Playstation 3s and it'll be part of firmware 3.00!" I don't believe they've said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyong Kawaguchi
As for all this about the PS3, it's definitely true that it takes longer to code for more processor cores (if I remember correctly, though, the PS3's cell processor has one core reserved for XMB, and one disabled, though I can't remember the details). Please correct me if I'm wrong.
In the end, if they can get a damn good approximation of Crysis visuals at a good, stable frame rate on the consoles, then way to go Crytek!
The ps3 has 8 cores, 7 for game usage, 1 for redundancy, all of them running at 3.2ghz
Also, sony filed a patent for a formula for software emulation of the ps2 onto the ps3 recently, so the might is a little closer to probably.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyong Kawaguchi
Not all of them.
From what i've read one core runs at 3.2ghz and the rest of the other cores are dependants on that one main core.
The sub processors spread out of the information.
Of course, what you've read has already been proven to be wrong before...but I digress, that is actually correct this time.
Ahh yes, I'd forgotten that they were calling them SPUs (sub-processing units, I assume?). Still, must make it difficult, writing that many parallel lines of code.
The PS3 will probably have more graphical difficulties than the 360; every multi-platform game between the two consoles has always looked better on the 360... but if they can make it beautiful and very playable, it's a win for everyone on either console.
this makes me want to buy a new Graphic card
POTY
Synergistic Processing Units...Quote:
Originally Posted by Varmint260
Basically the Cell is a hyperthreaded (though the IBM equivalent of Intel's little trademark) PowerPC processor with a bunch of little "special" cores around it.
Think of it like OpenCL -- doing programs that use the CPU and the GPU together... that's basically what Cell is like... in concept.
***
Also, that's because Microsoft
1) Has more... and continuous... RAM (512+10MB versus 256+256MB)
2) Has more consoles on the market -- so they spend more time on the product that'll be looked at by more eyeballs
and
3) Is closer to the PC architecture... making cross-platform games easier... and developers be able to use prior knowledge, rather than learn the new beast.
...
And the PC beats the hell out of both... at PS3's launch, videocards were 3x more powerful than the RSX chip in the PS3... nVidia (PS3's chip developer)'s CEO even said so in an interview... though he also said Intel makes videocards for machines you bought 5 years ago... and that his house is full of Macs without a single PC in sight.
