This demonstration was interactive, so it wasn't recorded frame by frame.
Lollerskates.
Realtime, like no other (Cryengine2)
- Thread starter Lyon85
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 6,674
- Location
- East Sussex
Are those...... kettles? 0o
Teapots! They get used a lot as a homage to CGI's roots, it was the first 3D model ever made.
”Lollerskates. ”
What’s so funny? The questions are perfectly fair. First there was lots of talk of them showing a none PC engine at the GDC. It very well could be a supercomputer or other none desktop PC setup. Lots of news site where reporting they where planing a none PC showing of the engine at GDC.
Second they had very strange wording “This provides full interaction with the level while the physics demonstration is proceding” that could be marketing speak for the level is fully interactive in that you can move the camera around and spin it.
There is a very good possibility this is a scripted pre render physics demo. Think of one of the ATI or Nvidia demos where the same thing always happens only you spin the camera around. It might not be frame by frame but it could be on rails. If its on rails with pre renders physics its far less impressive, but still impressive.
What’s so funny? The questions are perfectly fair. First there was lots of talk of them showing a none PC engine at the GDC. It very well could be a supercomputer or other none desktop PC setup. Lots of news site where reporting they where planing a none PC showing of the engine at GDC.
Second they had very strange wording “This provides full interaction with the level while the physics demonstration is proceding” that could be marketing speak for the level is fully interactive in that you can move the camera around and spin it.
There is a very good possibility this is a scripted pre render physics demo. Think of one of the ATI or Nvidia demos where the same thing always happens only you spin the camera around. It might not be frame by frame but it could be on rails. If its on rails with pre renders physics its far less impressive, but still impressive.
You, plucking at every straw you can.
I am not plunking at straws I want more info due to the lack of it and due to them tricking everyone last time around.
It’s not clear at all if it’s on the PC, on a supercomputer or even on a PS3. It’s not clear if its gameplay physics, effect physics or pre rendered physics.
Asking questions instead of making assumptions on how it works is not plunking at straws.
“That isn't pre-rendered, it looks to be running at about 25fps to me and I really doubt they would render it at such a low framerate.”
I didn’t mean pre-rendered as in it’s done at 1fps then put together to look like 25fps. I meat pre render as it’s on rails. The physics might be all be pre done and happen the same each time. Think of the Ruby demo or the Eve Nvidia demo each time you watch it the same thing happens but its classed as interactive as you can spin the camera around. The physics and pre flight path of everything are pre planed I those demos. House of the Dead games work on the same principle the game is on rails with the same background graphics all the time.
Pre render physics on rails are not that impressive as it’s no use for a normal game. It’s only good for cut screens for the most part. It’s not something you could use during gameplay in something like Crysis or Half Life 2.
I just want to know if it’s real physics, effect physics or pre renders physics. Also was it shown on a PC or something else?
It’s not clear at all if it’s on the PC, on a supercomputer or even on a PS3. It’s not clear if its gameplay physics, effect physics or pre rendered physics.
Asking questions instead of making assumptions on how it works is not plunking at straws.
“That isn't pre-rendered, it looks to be running at about 25fps to me and I really doubt they would render it at such a low framerate.”
I didn’t mean pre-rendered as in it’s done at 1fps then put together to look like 25fps. I meat pre render as it’s on rails. The physics might be all be pre done and happen the same each time. Think of the Ruby demo or the Eve Nvidia demo each time you watch it the same thing happens but its classed as interactive as you can spin the camera around. The physics and pre flight path of everything are pre planed I those demos. House of the Dead games work on the same principle the game is on rails with the same background graphics all the time.
Pre render physics on rails are not that impressive as it’s no use for a normal game. It’s only good for cut screens for the most part. It’s not something you could use during gameplay in something like Crysis or Half Life 2.
I just want to know if it’s real physics, effect physics or pre renders physics. Also was it shown on a PC or something else?
Last edited:
What I'm saying is that I think you're just making excuses.
Besides I don't think they'd make such a big fuss out of it if it was pre-rendered.
There comes a time when making a game so it looks `that good` will cost so much to develop and require so much time to put together, that it really wont be viable in todays highly competative games industry.
You cant sell a game for more than £30ish, the actual PC owners who'll have the hardware to play such games will be limited. You're not going to make any real profit from any game that takes years to make, specially FPS and `boys` type games.
The only real games that still make publishers any REAL money are things like Sims and WOW, that have wide appeal. So in the future, you wont see your favorite war game or alien slaughter FPS with these amazing graphics. The first photo realistic games - amazing games will probably be MMORPGs and other subscription based games, games that might actually create some profit compared to the amount of work that went into them.
You cant sell a game for more than £30ish, the actual PC owners who'll have the hardware to play such games will be limited. You're not going to make any real profit from any game that takes years to make, specially FPS and `boys` type games.
The only real games that still make publishers any REAL money are things like Sims and WOW, that have wide appeal. So in the future, you wont see your favorite war game or alien slaughter FPS with these amazing graphics. The first photo realistic games - amazing games will probably be MMORPGs and other subscription based games, games that might actually create some profit compared to the amount of work that went into them.
“What I'm saying is that I think you're just making excuses.”
Making excuses for what! All I am doing is asking how it’s done. I don’t see how I am making excuses by asking how they did it and on what system they did it on. What am I even meant to be making excuses for?
Making excuses for what! All I am doing is asking how it’s done. I don’t see how I am making excuses by asking how they did it and on what system they did it on. What am I even meant to be making excuses for?
Thing is... with something like this it's hard to tell what's actually being rendered and what's just a photograph/texture. Even before you even get on to the animation part. It'd be quite 'easy' if you had access to that street and took loads of photos and mapped it all out, to then have a realistic looking model, before you even lit it all. As an example, the first time the hiding man appears, the side of the car you can see practically looks like one polygon with a photo strapped to it.
Don't get me wrong, it's looks great. But take away the OMG loads of kettles, and you get a scene that's not hard to fake for a short sequence. There's a lot more to be said for artistic direction, an eye for detail and cinematography, than there is for (an admittedly) capable game engine.
I'd expect it to require far less hardware than most people are thinking. And most comments (including some of mine) are 100% irrelevant til we know what hardware it did run on. Don't jump on Pottsey when he poses perfectly reasonable questions
Again i'll say - it looks well executed. Who did it? Sorry if I missed that part, was it actually Crytek?
Don't get me wrong, it's looks great. But take away the OMG loads of kettles, and you get a scene that's not hard to fake for a short sequence. There's a lot more to be said for artistic direction, an eye for detail and cinematography, than there is for (an admittedly) capable game engine.
I'd expect it to require far less hardware than most people are thinking. And most comments (including some of mine) are 100% irrelevant til we know what hardware it did run on. Don't jump on Pottsey when he poses perfectly reasonable questions
Again i'll say - it looks well executed. Who did it? Sorry if I missed that part, was it actually Crytek?
Ulfhedjinn what is your problem? The questions are perfectly reasonable. What’s unreasonable about them? Perhaps they were not worded in the best possible way but they are still valid questions that most would want to know the answer to.
Before GDC all the talk was that Cryteck would be showing the CryENGINE 2 on non PC hardware. Now GDC has passed I would like to know if it was PC or other hardware.
Before GDC all the talk was that Cryteck would be showing the CryENGINE 2 on non PC hardware. Now GDC has passed I would like to know if it was PC or other hardware.
Last edited:
chicken looked still the same as in cryengine1 lol but anyway we cant handle normally cryengine. what about cryengine2 i hope they modify better then first one as we cant play crysis with ultra high + aa and af with top end hardware
but anyway we cant handle normally cryengine. what about cryengine2 i hope they modify better then first one as we cant play crysis with ultra high + aa and af with top end hardware
chicken looked still the same as in cryengine1 lol
Far Cry was Cryngine 1, Crysis is Cryengine 2
well it looked bit better but as i said chicken is the same