Thirith on 15/9/2002 at 10:52
I downloaded the UT2003 demo yesterday, mainly for one reason: I wanted to see what the engine is capable of doing, since two of the games I'm looking forward to most use new Unreal engine.
Yup - I mean Tetris: The Next Generation and Deer Hunter 5!
>:)
Nah, actually, I'm talking about Deus Ex and Thief 3. Now, I'm wondering whether anyone here has played the demo and has any thoughts on the engine and DX2. Here's a couple of mine:
- Lovely amount of polygons that still run smoothly at 1024x768 on my Athlon1800+/GF3 Ti 500, and even though the textures are not at the highest detail level they look great. DX2 and Thief3 should definitely look good!
- Bump mapping - was it used? Every now and then I thought it was, but without dynamic lighting (weapon effects excluded) it's so difficult to know whether a polygon is bumpmapped or whether it simply uses detail textures. Looking forward to *good* use of bumpmapping in making the DX2 world look and feel more realistic. Anyone see the video of that rusty searchlight? Drool... :)
- Great smoke and fire effects, and great (static) lighting - should work brilliantly for DX2.
twisty on 15/9/2002 at 14:45
>>- Great smoke and fire effects, and great (static) lighting - should work brilliantly for DX2.
If your not aware already, you will pleased to know that they have rewritten the renderer for both T3 and D2. This includes full dynamic lighting, that will look infinitely better than than the lighting used in the UT2003 demo.
As far as the bump-mapping is concerned, I was a little dissapointed with the textures used in the demo. They looked very flat, in my opinion.
Thirith on 16/9/2002 at 08:15
Twisty: Yup, I am aware of some of the rewrites they're doing for T3 and DX2 - thanks though. I think that especially the dynamic lighting will make a huge difference; there's bits in the UT2003 demo where light is used to great effect, but even there it's quite obvious that the light mapping is static (e.g. the fan shadows on Asbestos, a map that otherwise probably is closest to the kind of look we may expect in DX2). Have you seen that video where they shoot at a lamp and it starts to swing, the shadows reacting accordingly? That sort of effect not only is terrific eye-candy, it should also help immersion a lot. (I tried shooting all the lights in the UT demo, but it seems that the Karma engine was only used for ragdolling dead players...)
As far as flat textures are concerned, I can't say I agree with you - I definitely thought that for instance the dunes or the floor panelling in the goal room on BR-Anubis looked anything but flat, as did most of the detail textures you get when you are close to the polygons.
Cyborg on 16/9/2002 at 13:40
Good engine I can say. UT 2003 Demo runned on the internet with no lag. With almost best quality. Means, Textures normal, others maxium.
Phydeaux on 16/9/2002 at 21:23
More then eye-candy and detail, I'm impressed with the speed. So glad they ditched that Glide crap for Hardware T&L. DX2 and T2 will likely drag down the speed some with all the stuff they add to the world (compare UT to DX1), but it should still be nice and fast.
Quote:
Yup - I mean Tetris: The Next Generation and Deer Hunter 5!If only you were kidding...
santaClaws on 17/9/2002 at 21:37
Quote:
Originally posted by Thirith still run smoothly at 1024x768 on my Athlon1800+/GF3 Ti 500still? you're mocking me. damn, i can't afford a new computer!
Amorpheus on 17/9/2002 at 22:10
I think you have about a year to start saving for DX2. ;)
Quote:
Originally posted by Phydeaux DX2 and T2 will likely drag down the speed some with all the stuff they add to the world (compare UT to DX1), but it should still be nice and fast.
DX1 was made from Unreal, and was quite bad technically. Now that they know more about the Unreal engine and had a much better version to start from I expect DX2 to be very smooth. :cool:
twisty on 18/9/2002 at 10:38
Quote:
Originally posted by Thirith As far as flat textures are concerned, I can't say I agree with you - I definitely thought that for instance the dunes or the floor panelling in the goal room on BR-Anubis looked anything but flat, as did most of the detail textures you get when you are close to the polygons. As far as those areas are concerned, I agree. When I'd made my post earlier, I hadn't played the other 2 maps as I didn't realise they were included in the mp section. However, I'm interested in knowing if any of the graphical tricks used in the maps utilised displacement mapping?
Thirith on 18/9/2002 at 12:13
From what I've heard and read, I don't think they used displacement mapping. On the whole, what they did use was a whole truckload of polygons in order to get rid of the good old chunky look we all love about the Dark Engine, System Shock 2 and Thief. :)
At least in the demo, there aren't supposed to be any of the tricks that would necessitate anything higher than, let's say, a GeForce2. Also, I suspect that some of the 'whoa, cool' effects are actually 'cheated', such as the fan shadows (animated lighting texture rather than real-time shadows) or the water reflections (definitely *not* dynamic). Then again, I imagine that they wanted to keep some cards up their digital sleeve for the final product.
(Yesterday, I started up Asbestos and tried sneaking through it pretending to be Alex D. How sad can you get? :) )
Cyborg on 18/9/2002 at 16:30
And... The texture resolution was about 1/3 to the real.
