PDA

View Full Version : The next Unreal engine...


John
February 26th 04, 06:46 PM
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 also like the part where he says he wishes the Intel integrated
graphics chip would just "go away."

faster_framerates
February 26th 04, 07:07 PM
I'm sorry, but what is the benefit of excluding a market of consumers with
average video cards?

How about an engine that runs great and looks beautiful on a large range of
systems? I'm all for progress and a more cinematic look, but Joe Consumer
shouldn't have to upgrade his computer every six months and stay on top of
hardware issues just because he wants to play the latest game release.

This is why people settle for consoles.

- f_f



"John" > wrote in message
om...
> 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 also like the part where he says he wishes the Intel integrated
> graphics chip would just "go away."

Frank
February 26th 04, 07:44 PM
id love to see the gameplay evolving as much as they plan
to do with the grafix. im not going to buy me one of those cards
just to play another bunnyhopping fragfest. jaw drops quickly
with grafix and fx, but the need to play the game again and
again has as much or more to do with a decent gameplay.

cu


frank

February 26th 04, 08:04 PM
In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati faster_framerates > wrote:
> I'm sorry, but what is the benefit of excluding a market of consumers
> with average video cards?

They are targeting average video cards, it's just that they're targeting
the average cards of 2006. It will be closer to 2006 when the engine is
finished, and targeting even high-end cards of 2003 in a project that
starts in 2004 is just a waste of time and money. A 24-month upgrade
cycle is not completely unreasonable for videogames.

> This is why people settle for consoles.

I take issue with the "settle", but that's another argument for another
time.

-a

John Lewis
February 26th 04, 09:11 PM
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:44:59 +0100, "Frank" > wrote:

>id love to see the gameplay evolving as much as they plan
>to do with the grafix. im not going to buy me one of those cards
>just to play another bunnyhopping fragfest. jaw drops quickly
>with grafix and fx, but the need to play the game again and
>again has as much or more to do with a decent gameplay.
>

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.

And, of course there is no substitute for clever and
interesting level-design with unexpected game-play
and plot twists having multiple endings, such as
Deus Ex 1.

John Lewis

>cu
>
>
>frank
>
>

Kevin C.
February 27th 04, 12:41 AM
> wrote in message
...
> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati faster_framerates
> wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but what is the benefit of excluding a market of consumers
> > with average video cards?
>
> 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. 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. 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.

Bora Ugurlu
February 27th 04, 12:53 AM
Am Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:41:36 GMT, "Kevin C." >

>That's somewhat contradictory with his statement that he wishes the Intel
>video chips would go away. 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. 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.
>


He meant to say 'at maximum detail level'.. Then the high end cards
would come to a crawl. Not many people play with details maxed out. So
they get in, say, Ut2k4 decent framerates with a Ti4200 (which I
have). If I turn on all the details with 4xAA and 8x Anisotropy then
it's a slide show. That's what he meant.

K
February 27th 04, 02:08 AM
"Kevin C." > wrote in message
om...
>
> That's somewhat contradictory with his statement that he wishes the Intel
> video chips would go away. 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. 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.

Well sucks to be them. It's about time software started pushing the limits
of hardware again. There was a time when people were very happy to get
>30fps from Quake 2. Now all you see is people concerned that they are only
getting 90 fps in UT2003, etc. If in 2006 people still choose to hold on to
their GF4s and Radeons they are going to be left out on new titles, and they
only have themselves to blame. You cannot expect the software developers to
stand still for the benefit of those who are unwilling to upgrade.

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.


K

rms
February 27th 04, 02:57 AM
> 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.

Playing Vietcong I'm continually astounded in the variety of AI
placement and behavior that this game offers. For instance I'm now trying
to complete one of the quickfights (Arroyo). It's quite difficult, and I've
restarted the level literally dozens of times, and each time the initial AI
placement and behavior is slightly different. Very impressive.

rms

Andrew
February 27th 04, 07:59 AM
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.
--
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.

February 27th 04, 08:11 AM
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

drocket
February 27th 04, 09:12 AM
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.

Kevin C.
February 27th 04, 10:54 AM
> 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.

Andrew
February 27th 04, 12:13 PM
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.

Dark Avenger
February 27th 04, 02:13 PM
(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!

OnePunchMickey
February 27th 04, 04:05 PM
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 ...
:

Dark Avenger
February 27th 04, 05:21 PM
Andrew <spamtrap[email protected]> 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...

Jiffy Lube
February 27th 04, 08:00 PM
Tim Sweeny is waiting for Carmack to announce specs for his
next engine before the Epic team "begins innovating".

John Hall
February 27th 04, 09:48 PM
That's exactly what the developer of UT2004 said on the Screen Savers last
night. Its to support laptops.

JK

"Andrew" <[email protected]> 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.

Dark Avenger
February 27th 04, 10:01 PM
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.

cowboyz
February 27th 04, 10:16 PM
"Dark Avenger" > wrote in message
om...
> 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 they weren't friends and he just doesn't care.

Nick Vargish
February 28th 04, 12:02 AM
"cowboyz" > writes:

> Maybe they weren't friends and he just doesn't care.

If I'm sittin' in a boat with a dude I hate, and his head pops like a
balloon, I would sit up and take notice. I don't care if he's been
boffin' my wife, I'd be concerned for my own noggin.

Nick

--
# sigmask || 0.2 || 20030107 || public domain || feed this to a python
print reduce(lambda x,y:x+chr(ord(y)-1),' Ojdl!Wbshjti!=obwAcboefstobudi/psh?')

Xocyll
February 28th 04, 01:22 AM
"Kevin C." > looked up from reading the entrails of the
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>
> 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.

I beg to differ.
I upgraded from my Voodoo3 when I bought Morrowind, since the voodoo
didn't do 32bit color.

Now it resides in the old system.

While the whole 16 vs 32 bit color thing never seemed to make much
difference to me, there are games that really look like **** in 16bit
(or maybe the GeForce3's 16 bit color sucks.

X2 in 16 bit looks horrible.

>> 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.

There's "average" and then there's "average gamer's".
Gamers will tend to have a much better video subsystem than non-gamers,
because it's a feature that _matters_ to them.
Non gamers generally don't care about video features, if they even think
about it all, because it's not something they need for e-mail, word and
web browsing.

Designing for systems that weren't really _designed_ for gaming isn't
particularly useful since you aren't going to be selling many copies of
a game to non-gamers.

It's really no different than a "you must be this high to ride on this
ride" signs you see at midways, fairs and carnivals.

They shouldn't have to design the rides to accommodate the size and
tolerances of 6 year olds, when it won't be 6 year olds riding it.


The whole argument seems to boil down to: Game devs should write their
games so that they are playable on systems owned by people who don't
care about gaming, and/or who bought systems without considering how
they would perform with games.

Frankly I think that's bull****.
They bought a system without thinking, they got something that doesn't
play games well - it's their own fault.

Some idiot buys a Geforce 4 MX420 thinking it's a gaming card, why
should the devs care?

[I briefly considered buying one since they were cheap. Less than a
hour of reading online reviews convinced me the MX series were useless,
substandard crap for gaming.]

It's not like the information about the GF4MX cards wasn't _widely_
available on the net before he bought it and easily findable through
google.

He bought crap because he couldn't be bothered researching.

This is exactly the same kind of person who will install a game and NOT
actually check to see if the system can support it, has the proper
drivers, directx, etc and won't read the documentation and/or manual.
Then they'll whine and bitch to tech support and on web boards when it's
really _their_ stupidity to blame for their bad experience.

Gee I wonder why game devs don't want to cater to people like that.

Makes as much sense as limiting the max speed on freeways to what a
moped can achieve.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

Xocyll
February 28th 04, 01:35 AM
Nick Vargish > looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>"cowboyz" > writes:
>
>> Maybe they weren't friends and he just doesn't care.
>
>If I'm sittin' in a boat with a dude I hate, and his head pops like a
>balloon, I would sit up and take notice. I don't care if he's been
>boffin' my wife, I'd be concerned for my own noggin.

Maybe he'd just said "Hey Nick, watch this."

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

Nick Vargish
February 28th 04, 05:03 AM
Xocyll > writes:

> Maybe he'd just said "Hey Nick, watch this."

I've learned to look away whenever someone says that.

But then, I've got kids, so it's just common sense.

Nick

--
# sigmask || 0.2 || 20030107 || public domain || feed this to a python
print reduce(lambda x,y:x+chr(ord(y)-1),' Ojdl!Wbshjti!=obwAcboefstobudi/psh?')

Darthy
February 28th 04, 10:01 AM
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:07:00 -0600, "faster_framerates"
> wrote:

>I'm sorry, but what is the benefit of excluding a market of consumers with
>average video cards?

The same reason we're still NOT playing with our ATARI 2600 or 8bit
Nintendo anymore. Or why not use your Pentium100 to get on the
internet? Why are you using Outlook Express 6 or IE6, when IE 3
would work just fine?

More graphics requires more hardware power.

>How about an engine that runs great and looks beautiful on a large range of
>systems? I'm all for progress and a more cinematic look, but Joe Consumer

The same reason that a Honda Civic cannot race with INDY or NACAR
races... its an AVG car for AVG functions.

>shouldn't have to upgrade his computer every six months and stay on top of
>hardware issues just because he wants to play the latest game release.

Uh... screw them... its called PROGRESS.

>This is why people settle for consoles.

And consles they can have. but wait, new consoles come out every 4
years or so...

--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Darthy
February 28th 04, 10:06 AM
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:07:00 -0600, "faster_framerates"
> wrote:

>I'm sorry, but what is the benefit of excluding a market of consumers with
>average video cards?
>
>How about an engine that runs great and looks beautiful on a large range of
>systems? I'm all for progress and a more cinematic look, but Joe Consumer
>shouldn't have to upgrade his computer every six months and stay on top of
>hardware issues just because he wants to play the latest game release.

PS: HALO, (A crap game) - looks fine on a modern DX9 card and most
DX8 cards...

It DOES play on a GF2 card.... It looks like ugly mono color crap
that makes Unreal (1) look good.

If a MODERN game could work magic and look just as good on a GF2mx as
an ATI 9800XT - ****, nobody would ever need to buy a new video card!
But it doesnt happen that way, does it?

When UNREAL first came out, IT MADE ME GO OUT AND BUY A 3DFX Voodoo(1)
card! just for that game... then other games followed which looked
great on that card as well.

My price on the Voodoo1 was $125 (4mb card) - its in a friend's
brothers computer I think. - and its was a good price (The Voodoo2 was
$250+) In horse power, it was very state of the art back then...
but by todays standards, it makes the GF-FX5200 or ATI9600se LOOK like
BMWs....

Think UT2004 would work on a Voodoo1 card?


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

February 28th 04, 10:09 AM
In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati Kevin C. > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...

> If these "unfortunate handicaps" are what the average system is
> running, there's your contradiction.

For games, systems with integrated graphics are low-end - both in terms
of graphics performance and the system overall.

> 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".

That would be trading graphics performance for CPU performance. Your
vintage hardware would still be struggling, the bottleneck would just be
different.

> 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.

The number of games that require shader support is growing, and it's not
just FPSes (eg. Prince of Persia). T&L let you offload calculations onto
the graphics hardware, which has slowed the rate of increase in CPU
minimum requirements. Shaders let you do all sorts of effects, but they
haven't really been taken advantage of so far - both because the
technology is relatively young and because developers want to support
old hardware that don't implement them.

>> 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.

But an average-spec system then will have far better shader support than
any graphics card available now. The old cards will be sitting in the
old computers they were originally bundled with, and they're not going
to be the driving force in the game market.

-a

Darthy
February 28th 04, 10:24 AM
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:12:28 GMT, drocket > wrote:

>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?

Theres this kid, son of a client.... He thinks Counter Strike is hot
**** on his TNT-M64 P4 system.

I told him I couldn't play CS, its too old, looks like crap, plays
like crap... when compared to UT2004 or other modern games.

I'll be giving him a crap load of my screen shots. ;)


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Darthy
February 28th 04, 10:31 AM
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:54:27 GMT, "Kevin C." > wrote:

>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

GF4 what? GF4mx cards are actually GF2 technlogy. UT-Classic is
about 1/10th the graphic detail of UT2003/2004.

If you played UT2k3 on the GF4mx, the settings are WAY low. Go to the
unreal.com site, check out the screen shots... that is WHAT I see or
better on my setup.... in 1280x1024.

>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.

heheh... yeah, right. That's just you. I've owned a 3 Voodoo3
cards (more than one system), I still have one of them that I just
want to hang on to, a piece of history. but since then, I've
upgraded to the TNT2-Ultra > GF2mx (both played UT better than the
Voodoo3) > GF3 > GF4 TI4200 > ATI9800Pro.

I've only recently retired UT-Classic. which I played almost
everyday since it came out, I haven't played it in weeks since I DLed
the UT2004 demo... the UT-Classic was getting WAAY old.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Kevin C.
February 28th 04, 01:07 PM
"Xocyll" > wrote in message
...

Not that your points weren't valid but:

> Designing for systems that weren't really _designed_ for gaming isn't
> particularly useful since you aren't going to be selling many copies of
> a game to non-gamers.

I think Maxis would disagree.

Again, it's a matter of perspective. "Gamers" probably go through dozens of
games in a year. Having the right hardware is of critical importance to be
able to play every new release and therefore it seems to us an "obvious"
thing that people must upgrade if they expect to play the newest games.
Despite that, "gamers" only constitute a small minority of people who buy
games. And granted, if a game developer is more interested in the niche
market than in the mass market, it's entirely their choice, but here we
simply disagree on what is meant by "average".

Kevin C.
February 28th 04, 01:07 PM
"Darthy" > wrote in message
...
> GF4 what? GF4mx cards are actually GF2 technlogy. UT-Classic is
> about 1/10th the graphic detail of UT2003/2004.

Yes, I'm aware of the two product lines. Though since you brought it up,
that makes an interesting point for me. GF2 technology is still being sold
TODAY. So what was being said about (real) GF4s not being around in 2006?

> >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.
>
> heheh... yeah, right. That's just you. I've owned a 3 Voodoo3
> cards (more than one system), I still have one of them that I just
> want to hang on to, a piece of history. but since then, I've
> upgraded to the TNT2-Ultra > GF2mx (both played UT better than the
> Voodoo3) > GF3 > GF4 TI4200 > ATI9800Pro.

And? Are you saying that you saw an increase in picture quality due to
hardware T&L? I'll make it even easier: are you saying you saw an increase
in picture quality? Because it's almost universally accepted that UT looks
better in Glide, for which it was optimized (you can ask in
alt.games.unreal.tournament if you want to take a poll). Throwing in better
GPUs might have given you a higher framerate and/or resolution, but I said
_picture quality_, which is neither of the two.

Asestar
February 28th 04, 10:10 PM
> The same reason that a Honda Civic cannot race with INDY or NACAR
> races... its an AVG car for AVG functions.

Well.. according to NeedForSpeedU, my civic can :) It might even win..

Mr. Brian Allen
February 28th 04, 10:21 PM
> 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.

Beyond Good and Evil is doing that for me. The sense of speed in the
hovercraft looter missions and the look of the water is just amazing.

Mr. Brian Allen
February 28th 04, 10:32 PM
> Playing Vietcong I'm continually astounded in the variety of AI
> placement and behavior that this game offers. For instance I'm now trying
> to complete one of the quickfights (Arroyo). It's quite difficult, and
I've
> restarted the level literally dozens of times, and each time the initial
AI
> placement and behavior is slightly different. Very impressive.

I played Swat 3's singleplayer aspect for probably 4 months until the
multiplayer patch was released in late 2000. That game had awesome AI too.

Mr. Brian Allen
February 28th 04, 10:36 PM
> Theres this kid, son of a client.... He thinks Counter Strike is hot
> **** on his TNT-M64 P4 system.
>
> I told him I couldn't play CS, its too old, looks like crap, plays
> like crap... when compared to UT2004 or other modern games.

Man, no kidding. I played CS religiously for 2 years, but when I started
playing multiplayer COD in December, it was over. It's painful to play CS
now.

Philip Callan
February 28th 04, 10:37 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Asestar wrote:
|>The same reason that a Honda Civic cannot race with INDY or NACAR
|>races... its an AVG car for AVG functions.
|
|
| Well.. according to NeedForSpeedU, my civic can :) It might even win..
|
|
My Impreza can kick its ass :) Now if I can just get a WRX Rally edition....
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFAQQot5sKixANmEMgRAsCtAKDAlUOrMTGkWu/oSwebZOpAEhhnVgCfcaWZ
2VJT6f+Kt0CfCLeKD3Nq4kQ=
=A9v1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bateau
February 28th 04, 11:09 PM
_.--""--._ On
." ". 27 Feb 2004 13:01:14 -0800
| . ` ` | in
\( )/ comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
\)__. _._(/ Dark Avenger
// >..< \\ spoke
|__.' vv '.__/ 9
l'''"''l lines
\_ _/ to
_ )--( _ the
| '--.__)--(_.--' | great
\ |`----''----'| / undead
|| `-' '--' || skeleton
|| `--' '--' || god
|l `--'--'--' |l of
|__|`--' `--'|__| giant
| | )-( | | ascii
|| )-( \|| who
|| __ )_( __ \\ replied...
||' `- -' \ \\
||\_ `-' _/ |_\
/_\ _)J-._.-L( /`-\
|`- I_)O /\ O( `--l\\\|
||||( `-' `-') .-' |||
\\\ \ / / ///
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
/ \ / \
|_()I()._|
\ /\ /
| / \ |
| | \ \
| | \ \
| | \ \
| |-nabis\ \_
| | /-._\
|.-.\ //.-._)
\\\\ ///
\\\\-'''
``''

>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.

He should always react if someone in his LOS gets shot. Does this game
have those goldfish guards that forget that they've been attacked if you
leave them alone for 30 seconds? I can't believe developers ever decided
to do that. I don't care if a guy I shoot goes and alerts the whole map.
That should be part of the challenge.
--
.-'`-.
/ | | \
/ | | \
|___|_|__ |
||<o>| <o>`|
|| J_ )|
`|`-'__`-'|/
| `--' |
.-| |_
.-' \ / | |`-.
.-' `. /| | \
/ ````' | | \
|_____ | | L
.-' ___ `-. F F | | ||`-.___
.'.-' | `-. `. J J / | || _.>
/ /| | |`. \ | | |/ | ||_.-'
/ / | | | `. `. F F | |==============================
J / | | | \ L J J | | `:::::::. `:::::::.
FJ | | | |L J/ / | \ :::::::. :::::::\
J |() | () | () | () | J L/ | | ::::::: :::::::L
| F | .-'_ \ | | LJ | / L :::::::: :::::::J
| L | / \\ | | | L | | :::::::: ::::::::L
| L || ):|| | | | /| L :::::::: ::::::::|
J | ||:._.'::|| | | |----' | | :::::::: ::::::::| .---.
J | |J:::::::|| | | | _/\ | :::::::: ::::::::| /(@ o`.
LJ | \:::::/ | | | |---'\ | | :::::::: ::::::::| | /^^^
J L | `-:-' | | | F | \ | J :::::::: ::::::::| \ . \vvv
LJ()| () | () | () | F F | \ \--._L :::::::: ::::::::| \ `--'
J \ | | | | J J \ | | :::::::: ::::::::| \ `.
\ \| | | | / / | | | :::::::: ::::::::| L \
\ \ | | |/ /| | | .-'| :::::::: ::::::::| | \
`.`. | | .'.' | | |/ /`L :::::::: ::::::::| | L
| `.`-.____|.-'.-' | | | <`. \ :::::::: ::::::::| | |
| | `-.______.-' | \| |_`::\ `. :::::::: ::::::::| F |
| J\ | | | | /: \::. \:::::::: ::::::::F / |
| L\|--| | _.--|:: `::\ `.:::::: .:::::::J / F
J J |\\|-.____ |__.-' |: \::. \:::: ::::::::F .' J
L \| >|| `--' J |' .`::\ `.:' .::::::::/ .' F
J |//JJ | L |---. .--\::. \---. .---. <---< J
L |< |J |\=/| ( _ \=/ _ `::\ `. \=/ _ \=/ _ \ /
J |\\|J | | / )_) | (_) \::. \ | (_) | (_) | /
\ |--|J |//\\ / //\ //`::\ `./\ //\ / .'
\| |L ` )/ )` `' '|`---// `---// `\::. \ `---// `---' .'
VK________| L_\ ' /___/ ' | |___//______//_____`::\ |___//_________.'_________
F F J`` -'| | | | | \:_|
`-' | "" | J ` |
| | L | |\ |\ /| /| |\ /|
| | \ | | \ | \ // // | \ || |\
J | `. | ||\\ ||\\ // // ||\\ || ||
L F )`---\ || >> || \\ / | << || \\ || ||
| J / `. ||// || || //|| \\ || || || ||
J J ( `-. |// | \ || |/ || \\ | \ || || ||
`-.__/ `---. `. |<< ||\\|| || >> ||\\|| || ||
| J `. ) ||\\ || \ | || // || \ | || ||
/ | `-----' || >> || || || // || || \\ ||
/ F ||// || || || << || || \\||
J J | / |/ || |/ \\ |/ || \ |
J | |/ \| \| \| \|
`-.-' K I N G O F T H E M O N S T E R S

drocket
February 28th 04, 11:38 PM
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:48:58 GMT, "John Hall" >
wrote:

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

It STILL doesn't make much sense to me. First off, most notebook PCs
come with a 3d card anymore. Not a good one, true, but I'm sure that
it would still be a whole lot faster than software mode.

Then, to run a game like UT2004 in software mode, you're going to have
to drop your resolution to something like 640x480. Considering that
most notebook PCs have a LCD screen with a resultion of 1024x768, the
picture is going to look like crap when you stretch it out (and if you
bought a notebook PC with a resultion of 1280x960 (which could just be
doubled), you probably got one with a decent 3d card.)

Finally, I can't image the god-awful pain that it would be to play a
3d shooter with a notebook interface. Once again, I suspect we're
down to 3-4 people using software mode...

And it still doesn't make sense that they're targetting their current
game at a tiny, tiny market (people who want to play 3d shooters on a
notebook), but with their next game, they're planning to cut out a
large chunk of the market (anyone who doesn't have a high-end
videocard from the next year or so. And that's going to include the
entire notebook market they're currently trying to cater to.)

Xocyll
February 29th 04, 06:51 AM
"Kevin C." > looked up from reading the entrails of the
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>
>"Xocyll" > wrote in message
...
>
>Not that your points weren't valid but:
>
>> Designing for systems that weren't really _designed_ for gaming isn't
>> particularly useful since you aren't going to be selling many copies of
>> a game to non-gamers.
>
>I think Maxis would disagree.
>
>Again, it's a matter of perspective. "Gamers" probably go through dozens of
>games in a year. Having the right hardware is of critical importance to be
>able to play every new release and therefore it seems to us an "obvious"
>thing that people must upgrade if they expect to play the newest games.
>Despite that, "gamers" only constitute a small minority of people who buy
>games. And granted, if a game developer is more interested in the niche
>market than in the mass market, it's entirely their choice, but here we
>simply disagree on what is meant by "average".

"Gamers" are far more than a minority of the people who are going to be
buying the games that would _require_ newer hardware.

You don't need much of a system to play the Sims, you certainly don't
need a new video card, probably not even within 3 or 4 generations of
new.

You do need a good video system to play the latest shooter with state of
the art graphics.

If Maxis were producing a game like Unreal or DOOM3, I bet they wouldn't
be supporting every possible graphic chipset no matter how underpowered.


Bottom line: If the game is going to run like crap on a low end system,
why support that system?

How many sales are you going to make to people with low end systems when
the game runs badly?
How much did it cost in extra development time?
How much is it costing for tech support?
How much "bad advertising" are you suffering from people who are having
a horrible game experience on their low end system and are telling their
friends and posting on your web forums?

Are you ever going to make enough sales to the low end to make back your
expenses?

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

Andrew
February 29th 04, 08:03 AM
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:38:55 GMT, drocket > wrote:

>And it still doesn't make sense that they're targetting their current
>game at a tiny, tiny market (people who want to play 3d shooters on a
>notebook), but with their next game, they're planning to cut out a
>large chunk of the market (anyone who doesn't have a high-end
>videocard from the next year or so. And that's going to include the
>entire notebook market they're currently trying to cater to.)

I dare say they have good reason to believe there is a bigger
potential market than you do, I can't imagine they went to all the
pain of writing a software renderer just to satisfy a couple of users.
--
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.

drocket
February 29th 04, 08:05 AM
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:03:26 +0000, Andrew <[email protected]> wrote:

>I dare say they have good reason to believe there is a bigger
>potential market than you do, I can't imagine they went to all the
>pain of writing a software renderer just to satisfy a couple of users.

So why are they planning to dump them (and a large percentage of
desktop users) in the next version?

Walter Mitty
February 29th 04, 05:44 PM
"Kevin C." > brightened my day with his incisive wit
when in om he
conjectured that:

>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> In alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati faster_framerates
> > wrote:
>> > I'm sorry, but what is the benefit of excluding a market of
>> > consumers with average video cards?
>>
>> 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. Whether you choose to believe it or
> not, most people do not own high end GPUs today, nor will they
> tomorrow.

Yes they will. The "average" will be higher capabilities than today.