The next Unreal engine...

In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati Kevin C. wrote:

wrote in message
...

They are targeting average video cards, it's just that they're targeting
the average cards of 2006.
That's somewhat contradictory with his statement that he wishes the Intel
video chips would go away.

The exact quote is "The only thing more we could wish for is for the
badly underpowered integrated graphics chips from Intel and others to go
away or improve enough that they aren't such unfortunate handicaps for
game developers." I see no contradiction there.

Whether you choose to believe it or not, most people do not own high
end GPUs today, nor will they tomorrow. Even above the casual gamer,
there are many folks who are still running GF2-era devices.

I'm perfectly aware of that, but what kind of performance do you expect
from today's high-end games running on that level of hardware? There are
plenty of games out today that won't even run on anything lower than a
GF3.

In 2006 I imagine that just as many people will still be running the
GF4s and Radeons that are in their computers today, the same cards
that Mr. Sweeney has targeted to exclude.

Quite possible, but they shouldn't expect all progress to halt just to
accomodate them. Also, how many new computers will be sold with
GeForce4s then? Keep in mind that this engine is what Epic hope other
developers will be using for years after its release, meaning that
limiting it to old hardware makes even less sense. And hey, if a
developer wants to support old machines in 2008 they can still license
the UT2003, Quake3 or any other engine!

-a

On 26 Feb 2004 09:46:27 -0800, (John) wrote:

A good interview with Tim Sweeney on the development of the future
Unreal 3 engine:

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


He says "...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".


I'm slightly confused about one point: one of the major new features
of UT2004 is a software renderer. All by itself its rather confusing.
I mean, at this point, who doesn't have SOME sort of 3d acceleration
card? There's probably what, 3, maybe 4, people who are going to
actually use the software mode?

It just seems like a contridiction to currently be pursuing a market
that died 5 years ago, which in your next project plan to cut out
everyone who hasn't upgraded in the year previous to release.

wrote in message
...
The exact quote is "The only thing more we could wish for is for the
badly underpowered integrated graphics chips from Intel and others to go
away or improve enough that they aren't such unfortunate handicaps for
game developers." I see no contradiction there.

If these "unfortunate handicaps" are what the average system is running,
there's your contradiction. Mr. Sweeney wants to deliver his graphics
engine; how many computers can actually run it is only relevant insofar as
the bottom line. If Mr. Sweeney was interested in targeting average systems,
his quote would have been "The only thing we could wish for is to be able to
come up with clever algorithms and optimizations that would allow our engine
to run smoothly on second-tier hardware".

I'm perfectly aware of that, but what kind of performance do you expect
from today's high-end games running on that level of hardware? There are
plenty of games out today that won't even run on anything lower than a
GF3.

FYI, I play Mechwarrior 4 Mercenaries and Age of Mythology on a Voodoo3. I
have no complaints about the quality of graphics. It _could_ be nicer,
certainly, but it doesn't _need_ to be. That is, I've seen UT2k3 on a GF4
and I didn't think the small improvement over UT was worthy of a $200
upgrade. The games I can't play on a Voodoo3 are surprisingly narrow.
Namely, they're all FPSes that require hardware T&L or some equally useless
feature that adds little or nothing to picture quality, much less gameplay.

Quite possible, but they shouldn't expect all progress to halt just to
accomodate them. Also, how many new computers will be sold with
GeForce4s then? Keep in mind that this engine is what Epic hope other
developers will be using for years after its release, meaning that
limiting it to old hardware makes even less sense. And hey, if a
developer wants to support old machines in 2008 they can still license
the UT2003, Quake3 or any other engine!

And nobody said otherwise! But at the same time, that doesn't mean that Epic
and Mr. Sweeney are gunning for the average system, if you care to get back
to that point.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:12:28 GMT, drocket wrote:

I'm slightly confused about one point: one of the major new features
of UT2004 is a software renderer. All by itself its rather confusing.
I mean, at this point, who doesn't have SOME sort of 3d acceleration
card? There's probably what, 3, maybe 4, people who are going to
actually use the software mode?

Maybe that is aimed at Laptop users. Laptops often have pretty
powerful CPU's but with abyssmal video chipsets.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

(John Lewis) wrote in message ...

And in 3D open-space games such as H&D2, Far Cry etc,
a whole lot to do with AI as well. Replaying a level with
scripted AI, and knowing exactly where the enemy will
appear and how they will react gives zero re-play value.
So a vote for "intelligent AI", such as that in Far Cry,
H&D2 also seem to have elements of intelligent AI.

Playing the Far Cry Demo, indeed the AI is very good. If you just took
over a little campment 2 or 3 show up behind you that came from the
hill! Now THAT is AI, if you hear weaponfire as normal player down the
hill you stand on... what do you do..do you go down to fight whatever
attacks or do you stay behind.

And then you see that a few go down and a few stay behind. Also if you
attack a boat on the water and run inlands they will follow you, but
not blindly but the one will cover the other!

And when there's 2 guys sitting beside each other in a boat you can snipe
one's cranium off and the other just looks around whistling and scratching
his sack ...

--
:
: She's got a tongue like an electric eel
: and she likes the taste of a *man's* tonsils ...
:

Andrew spamtrap@localhost wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 01:08:25 -0000, "K" wrote:

There has only been two occasions when I've installed a gfx card and said
'wow' to myself. The first was playing Unreal and Q2 on a Voodoo 2, the
other was after I got a GF3 and seen all the Q3 engined games in high-res
with all the candy. All the cards since then have only done what the GF3
did, just faster. In other words there has been little in the way of
innovation. What has been long overdue in the graphics industry is a next
'wow' card.

Far Cry on a 9700 Pro graphics card gave me a "wow". Even seeing the
rain on water in Morrowind in a GF4 was a "wow" moment for me. There
has been a lot of innovation in hardware and software since the GF3.

Far Cry is very hard on my ati 9500 Pro, I can't put the settings on
high without ending up with.. that jaggy feeling. And I don't use
aniso and fsaa!

On medium I can though play it fine, and it's a treat indeed! Very
nice done... shaders..ouch... heavy on the card, but very nice to see!

Yes, the 9500 Pro is already older... but still it has enough
performance to .. get reasonable results!

I hope the games get so heavy that my card can't play them well on
resolutions I want, why... eye candy... shaders... action... nature
that looks..almost as real! I want it, even if that means I have to
upgrade my whole pc!

Within 2 years the games will be elevated higher and what we find
beautifull then is the norm! Then .. then the hardware will be so
powerfulli can play games very freaking smoothly!

And yes it's time games get more heavy, it's time the USE what DX9
offers them! So, I wait then I upgrade and I play the games...

Tim Sweeny is waiting for Carmack to announce specs for his
next engine before the Epic team "begins innovating".

That's exactly what the developer of UT2004 said on the Screen Savers last
night. Its to support laptops.

JK

"Andrew" spamtrap@localhost wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:12:28 GMT, drocket wrote:

I'm slightly confused about one point: one of the major new features
of UT2004 is a software renderer. All by itself its rather confusing.
I mean, at this point, who doesn't have SOME sort of 3d acceleration
card? There's probably what, 3, maybe 4, people who are going to
actually use the software mode?

Maybe that is aimed at Laptop users. Laptops often have pretty
powerful CPU's but with abyssmal video chipsets.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

OnePunchMickey wrote in message ...
And when there's 2 guys sitting beside each other in a boat you can snipe
one's cranium off and the other just looks around whistling and scratching
his sack ...

Maybe if you snipe...

If you use an assualt weapon he hears you and will go by boat to you
and will try to find you on land.