What is the latest greatest graphics engine now?

[tweakboy]

Alright, well, is there a demo I can download to see what they look like?

Yes I believe there is a Far Cry 3 video footage in game. Ill dig it up for you

Opps looks like someone already posted links to the videos. Thanks for the heads up buddy.

gl

 

[glen]

I was sort of blown away by Skyrim, but I have friends who say that it really is not that impressive, or should render faster. I remember being blown away by Unreal. That really was an impressive leap at the time. So, what are some of the best ones out now? Witcher 2?

 

[tweakboy]

Is there a playable demo of any of these?

No playable demo and don't expect one any time soon. Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3 are 2013-2014 releases.

Also Im sure the games will fly on current cards.. 460 1GB or 5xx or 6xx series.

Because the engines are well optimized for raw speed and FPS. So you don't have to break the bank to play these games at nominal fps. gl

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Yes I believe there is a Far Cry 3 video footage in game. Ill dig it up for you

As has been stated before Far Cry 3 is not using any of the engines listed so far in this topic. It's using the Dunia Engine.

 

[Obsoleet]

'Latest and greatest' would probably be Frostbite2, that said-

Say what you will about Rage, but the engine shows a ton of potential.

+1 for idtech5.

 

[Pottuvoi]

For instance Square's demo is amazing but the games that have used it look pretty average, although you could argue this is due to them limiting texture sizes for 'consoleisation'.

There is no game out which uses Luminous engine.

 

[lehtv]

Not exactly a game engine, but more of a tech demo from NVIDIA:

A New Dawn (1080p youtube trailer)

Download here and test the demo on your own PC.

This doesn't run anywhere near smoothly with a GTX 680 and there's only one character in a limited area being rendered.

 

[Silverforce11]

As has been stated before Far Cry 3 is not using any of the engines listed so far in this topic. It's using the Dunia Engine.

And its all aboard AMD's GE express.

AMD, spreading the DX11 Forward+ love around, realistic lighting rendering without the nasty lack of proper AA support.

 

[Red Hawk]

Effective MSAA without a huge performance hit does indeed sound enticing.

 

[Mastercommander]

Frostbite 2 and CryEngine

Upcoming UE4 will be a big player as well

 

[Siberian]

The Samaritan demo using UE3 shows how the improved that engine

 

[An00bis]

Sounds like you just suck at the game and want to cry about how everyone cheats. No, everyone just got the upgraded scopes and better weapons and you don't put in the time to do it yourself. You want everything handed to you on a silver platter like CoD.

No, it's a [bad] game, 1942 had no unlocks, if anything, the fanbase is filled with more noobs than other games since it relises on OP unlocks to make the game more "fun" and crap. Just be honest, the game is a [pile of rubbish], and comparing CoD to BF3 is like saying "[redacted for the sake of humanity]".

A typical experience in bf3: Spawn, get killed. Spawn, rage, get in tank, feeling like a badass? nope, jet rammed into you. Get in Jet, dropped to 1% by every AA gun in the game, jet rams you and finally kills you. Go infantry, go near a flag, enemy starts shooting, get behind cover, think you're safe? nope, you haven't heard about bf3's new lag features, you get headshotted while you're taking cover by the masterful bf3 players. Don't even get me started on the smaller maps that are complete pieces of linear [rubbish] filled with smoke grenades and m320 explosions in almost every square meter they have, and they don't have a lot of those since BF3 has tiny maps even in the maps they advertise as being the largest.

Also, premium? are you kidding me? is this CoD? 4 maps for 20$ or something? what the hell... If this game had modding enabled people would've probably made some really great maps, for free, not this [rubbish]. I feel like some kind of thief, I paid for the full game and I only got a small percent of it, the rest being offered just to the premium race, not to peasants like me who didn't properly thank EA and DICE for their digital perfections. [Holy] hell. I have more fun in TF2, a f2p game, hell, I have a LOT more fun in it than in this crap. Last time I'm buying an EA or DICE game, it was the only one anyways lol.

And no I'm not mad, even though I got [defeated] multiple times by haxors and pros who hit you behind cover and only have 1kdr (and because we totally hate the cod fanboys because they're kids and stuff we don't actually care about kdr, nooooooo... PS: don't do on the forums if you dont do stat-padding and have 3kdr+, you'll get flamed to death) this is a [bad] game, I'm ashamed to have bought it, I could've donated this money to AIDS research or something, or buy my mother a present... I had lots of fun in bf1942 but it looks like this franchise turned into a CoD [redacted] copy. I want ww2 not modern [warfare] filled with angsty teens and 12 year old kids.

Oh lol, at least one thing made me laugh, the destruction in the engine. Ahahahahahahaha, even Duke Nukem 3D in 1996 had better destruction, in one level you could destroy an entire building and in most levels destroy walls to get access in secret areas, in BF3...

you shoot a tank shell at a building and a few bricks fall in specific scripted areas, WOW! if you're lucky those bricks could kill people, WOW!!!!!!!
What a sucker I was, I first saw the trailer for this game thought the destruction was good... looks like it's [terrible]. Well, I'm off to play Duke Nukem 3d, I wanna blow up some stuff properly. In a 1996 engine, not in a [poor] 2010 engine or in whatever year this game was spawned from the depths of hell.

This game and CoD were parodied really well in this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7r9RqWBdl8.

 

[poohbear]

No, it's a [bad] game, 1942 had no unlocks, if anything, the fanbase is filled with more noobs than other games since it relises on OP unlocks to make the game more "fun" and crap. Just be honest, the game is a [pile of rubbish], and comparing CoD to BF3 is like saying "[redacted for the sake of humanity]".

A typical experience in bf3: Spawn, get killed. Spawn, rage, get in tank, feeling like a badass? nope, jet rammed into you. Get in Jet, dropped to 1% by every AA gun in the game, jet rams you and finally kills you. Go infantry, go near a flag, enemy starts shooting, get behind cover, think you're safe? nope, you haven't heard about bf3's new lag features, you get headshotted while you're taking cover by the masterful bf3 players. Don't even get me started on the smaller maps that are complete pieces of linear [rubbish] filled with smoke grenades and m320 explosions in almost every square meter they have, and they don't have a lot of those since BF3 has tiny maps even in the maps they advertise as being the largest.

Also, premium? are you kidding me? is this CoD? 4 maps for 20$ or something? what the hell... If this game had modding enabled people would've probably made some really great maps, for free, not this [rubbish]. I feel like some kind of thief, I paid for the full game and I only got a small percent of it, the rest being offered just to the premium race, not to peasants like me who didn't properly thank EA and DICE for their digital perfections. [Holy] hell. I have more fun in TF2, a f2p game, hell, I have a LOT more fun in it than in this crap. Last time I'm buying an EA or DICE game, it was the only one anyways lol.

And no I'm not mad, even though I got [defeated] multiple times by haxors and pros who hit you behind cover and only have 1kdr (and because we totally hate the cod fanboys because they're kids and stuff we don't actually care about kdr, nooooooo... PS: don't do on the forums if you dont do stat-padding and have 3kdr+, you'll get flamed to death) this is a [bad] game, I'm ashamed to have bought it, I could've donated this money to AIDS research or something, or buy my mother a present... I had lots of fun in bf1942 but it looks like this franchise turned into a CoD [redacted] copy. I want ww2 not modern [warfare] filled with angsty teens and 12 year old kids.

Oh lol, at least one thing made me laugh, the destruction in the engine. Ahahahahahahaha, even Duke Nukem 3D in 1996 had better destruction, in one level you could destroy an entire building and in most levels destroy walls to get access in secret areas, in BF3...

you shoot a tank shell at a building and a few bricks fall in specific scripted areas, WOW! if you're lucky those bricks could kill people, WOW!!!!!!!
What a sucker I was, I first saw the trailer for this game thought the destruction was good... looks like it's [terrible]. Well, I'm off to play Duke Nukem 3d, I wanna blow up some stuff properly. In a 1996 engine, not in a [poor] 2010 engine or in whatever year this game was spawned from the depths of hell.

This game and CoD were parodied really well in this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7r9RqWBdl8.

dude u need to chill the hell out, gaming is obviously not for you. There are 10s of millions of people that play BF3 and enjoy it, like me & many others on this forum, and just walk away accepting some of its flaws. U seem really riled up over this, just chilax!

Anyways, game aside, the graphics for BF3 are my favorite of any game that is out, it plays smoothly and looks almost photorealistic. To each his own i guess.

 

[toyota]

I finally bought BF3 today and I dont find the graphics all that impressive when actually playing the game. in many areas the shadows are horrible as you can see them just filling in on the buildings as you walk. really other than the lighting, it looks only a little better than most other games IMO.

 

[at80eighty]

damn never saw Luminous before - sick stuff
overall (imo) i like where Cryengine 3.5 is headed, but Frostbite 2 seems to have better lighting.

 

[Pottuvoi]

Effective MSAA without a huge performance hit does indeed sound enticing.

Forward+ does have similar penalty for MSAA as tiled deferred renderer, perhaps even bigger in some cases. (extra shading due to the over writing and shading in quads.)

Bigger advantage on going to forward+ is ability to have different kinds of complex materials easily and ability to render & light transparent geometry easily. (IE. Flashlight cone on slightly dirty window.)

 

[ViRGE]

Hasn't it always been that way? And then the games come out, and it's never as good as the original tech demo's, or enough time has passed that it's not that impressive anymore.

I remember the first time i saw the 2005 E3 Killzone 2 trailer. I think i literally shat my pants. But by the time the game actually came out, it wasn't that big of a deal anymore.

The biggest problem basing your views on trailers is that trailers lie. They're very often rendered at higher resolutions and/or supersampled, which is far beyond what the final game will be able of running at with modern hardware. Furthermore trailers are quite nearly by definition cherry-picking scenes; you're getting the best possible view of the product while the unsightly material is neatly stowed away.

To really judge an engine you need to have the final game. That's the only way you can kick the engine's tires, as it were. Nothing shatters that cinematic feel like walking to up a wall that's composed of a 256x256 texture, splashed across your 1920x1080 monitor.

 

[Silverforce11]

Forward+ does have similar penalty for MSAA as tiled deferred renderer, perhaps even bigger in some cases. (extra shading due to the over writing and shading in quads.)

Bigger advantage on going to forward+ is ability to have different kinds of complex materials easily and ability to render & light transparent geometry easily. (IE. Flashlight cone on slightly dirty window.)

Your second point is why Forward+ is superior, on a deferred renderer, if you implement MSAA and add complex materials, your performance will tank hard. In BF3 and frostbite 2, the devs have fine tuned MSAA to only apply on features that minimize performance loss, which is why it "only" incurs a 25% perf hit.

With Forward+ you can have many many materials and it does not get exponentially taxing on the hardware.

Also, BF3 looks great because of its lightning system, its amazing in some scenes where a burning tank renders light onto the rising smoke particles which relfect the light. To see it in fluid motion is my "WOW" moment for BF3. Otherwise the rest of the graphics are decent but not fantastic.

For those with radeons should get the AMD Demo on Forward+ Leo: http://developer.amd.com/Resources/...RadeonHD7900SeriesGraphicsReal-TimeDemos.aspx

There's an education part in it.

 

[BFG10K]

Forward+ does have similar penalty for MSAA as tiled deferred renderer, perhaps even bigger in some cases. (extra shading due to the over writing and shading in quads.)

Not from what I've read about it. Forward+ doesn't need to implement a costly (in terms of performance and memory usage) G-buffer to do MSAA, unlike deferred rendering.

AFAIK the performance hit from the G-buffer is more than performance hit of the Compute Shader used to cull the lights, especially as the MSAA level rises.

Also AMD's Leo slides show forward+ running faster than deferred rendering, which means even if MSAA had the same performance hit with both techniques, forward+ would still come out faster.

 

[Pottuvoi]

Also, BF3 looks great because of its lightning system, its amazing in some scenes where a burning tank renders light onto the rising smoke particles which relfect the light. To see it in fluid motion is my "WOW" moment for BF3. Otherwise the rest of the graphics are decent but not fantastic.

Nice little detail is that BF3 uses standard forward rendering for a smoke and lights it on vertex level.

 

[NTMBK]

None of that deferred rendering crap with FXAA as the defacto AA mode without a functioning MSAA path.. its a disgrace going way backward without proper AA.

Hopefully Apple-style pixel densities will become the norm- when you have that many pixels, there's no need for AA.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I'm pretty sure that Forward+ rendering will be pretty big, the ability to get true MSAA back instead of these really shitty Post processing "anti-aliasing" methods (AKA Blur filter) will be nice, but also the ability to support thousands of dynamic lights in a scene with a wider array of object materials should be the major driving force behind this adoption.

Ultimately I fear it will be the consoles that drive the direction of "progress", we've seen an entire generation of console ports and the death of PC exclusives, the only real hope there is that AMD won the contracts for GPUs in both next gen consoles, so we might see them try and push Forward+ adoption. Either way the hardware rumoured in these boxes isn't not looking good...it's potentially another 6+ years of lowest common denominator development ahead of us and desperately searching for extra uses of all the GPU power available to PCs, multi-monitor, 3D...whatever next.

Just FYI Nvidia cards can now run the AMD Forward+ tech demo, I've already tried it, I think the interactive demo didn't work properly on my 580 but the scripted path one did.

 

[Silverforce11]

Hopefully Apple-style pixel densities will become the norm- when you have that many pixels, there's no need for AA.

That would be amazing. But maybe in 6+ years til its affordable in large screens.

In the meantime, we have MSAA which works great and lets use it.

 

[Sable]

Euclidian Unlimited Detail engine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4

LOL!

edit:

Boo, MisterMac beat me to it.

 

[Sable]

Luminous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Cr7mdYrI2g

Wow.