Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A better 3D engine for GeForce/Radeon

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
October 16, 2001 12:37:59 AM

All over the internet I am reading 3D hardware manufacturers are moving too fast (for game developers to keep up)... Raw speed of a Radeon 8500 or GeForce 3 card is stunning by any measure - but on use of its full features we are being royally screwed!!!

Guys and Gals once a year video card updates are not too fast, game graphic engine updates are way too slow!!!! Every game developer is just re-creating the wheel way too much and not expecting the game end-users to notice.

Why should we all pay the game industry 20 times for each major company to develop identical game graphic libraries? Not to mention the excessive lead time waits and that this flawed software development model will only make things far worse every year as 3D cards continue to advance!!!! The software development model is just plain wrong and inefficient for the future!!!

You are all using less than 30% of the power of your GeForce or Radeon cards!!!! See the Dinosaur Island Demo from www.crytek.com - that only uses 3 extra features on a GeForce 1 or 2 card and another 2 features I am assured on a GeForce 3 - but it simply blows you away. Its stunning!!!

This is a major problem in a mega industry - it is solvable, it just needs appropriate attention, consistent demand from the gaming community and co-ordination between game developers and hardware manufacturers.

****

Really all we are asking for is a scalable, extensible game graphics engine - no more or less. The trouble to date is that Video graphics are all too hard coded and not spilt in to a high level algorithm library and a lower level performance/execution library that scales the games performance and characteristics to yours and any Hardware card. If you can build it for the top of the performance curve - you can certainly scale it for the bottom of the curve to, you just have to plan to do it this way.

***

Coordination. The two major video card developers (Nvidia and ATI) should state their yearly intentions of new features to be added to their flagship cards and their expected performance levels. The game engine developers should also state their prioritised list of features to add to their graphics engines each year (e.g John Cormack wants realistic shadows but eschews improved enemy bot A.I.). Folks should then cross check these development plans all tie together well. Then industry could then organise their resources to get there much sooner.

Think about it - they have to do this anyway - eventually - I am just advocating getting it far better organised from the onset.

Carrying this idea forward a common forum or consortium should work collaboratively on how to solve (i.e. define the effective algorithms needed) remaining graphics problems for realistic real-time animation.

The bar on graphics is getting higher each year. GeForce added not just a hell of alot of raw speed, it brought fabulous features that have not nearly been exploited yet.

But the cats out of the bag now!!! Once folk have seen Dinosaur Island or Aquanox I predict the demand will be rampant for Game Developers to stop doing it solo (the old world business model) and to compete more effectively by strategically co-operating!!!

That's my thoughts - once you see what a GF or Radeon card can REALLY do - you'll demand this too!!!

More about : engine geforce radeon

October 16, 2001 6:04:48 AM

sounds good to me...i am going to download this demo and see what it does on my geforce2 pro...
i have been thinking this for a while, but you stated it very clear, and pointed out many flaws in the game produciton industry, and yes, they definately need to be remedied soon...because people are buying these video cards, and the latest and greatest offerings from amd and intel, but the game can only get faster freamerates, not greater gameplay, and better looking games!
sure, maybe running quake3 arena in 1024*768*32 at 192 frames per second looks good, but that is the quake3 engine, and dont get me wrong, it is a good one, but i know a geforce3 or a redeon8500 can be done wayyy more justice...
either the chip manufacturers need to push the gaming industry to take heed to the new technology, or the gaming industry needs to push the chips manufacturers to give them the info...
either way, i think that if they all work together, then they will be able to produce quite a show for the gaming community...and let people get more for their money when it comes to video cards, and games themselves.
GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER PEOPLE!

-DAvid

-Live, Learn, then build your own computer!-
October 16, 2001 3:06:57 PM

Thanks :) 

I note the game Aquanox finally sells on 5 Nov 2001. This game is built on the new Krass engine - which I read is fully optimised for the GeForce 3.

I have no idea how a submarine base world game will sell - but God I hope it is a knock out that causes everyone to sit up and notice!!! I hope it raises demand for GeForce cards and games that FULLY support all their capabilities!!!
Related resources
October 17, 2001 2:44:04 AM

you know what sucks...last night i downloaded the dinosaurs demo, and i used download accelerator plus, and it fuxed up, and when i tried it again, the site wouldnt load...maybe too many people trying to download...
and then i tried it today...and it is still not loading...
i will try again later tonight...
i was looking at the movie of it tho, and i will tell you that i saw some very impressive things in there....and as far as taking advantage of geforce capabilities, it is doing that...
supposedly, my geforce2 pro can make water and reflect off it, and do a pretty good job, but i have yet to see something actually do it other than the nvidia demos...
but i have never been able to find the nvidia demo that has the reflecing pool...
there is just the video on nvidia's site...
too bad because the other demos are awesome...
maybe now game designers will make real window reflections instead of putting a simple animation on the black polygon...
they need to get their act together otherwise platforms like the xbox and playstation2 will take over the main gaming arena...
i sure hope that doesnt happen...
computers are so much better than consoles, but they are wasted..
it is like when the playstation2 first came out! the game developers hadnt learned how to make games for it, but now the games that are coming out for playstation look amazing...and as far as computer gamers have, not too many games actually look that great...
i mean max payne looks good, but still, things look kinda chunky...you know?

-DAvid

-Live, Learn, then build your own computer!-
December 16, 2001 7:02:46 AM

i think, pb is hardcore gamers want frames & not quality
see doom, halflife,unreal,diablo

what is the interest of those games ?
fight & kill ?

& buy blinded, a GeForce XXL to have 250 frames/sec
although view is well at 30 frames

the GeForce 3 is compatible with directx 8 but developers don't use all capacities of directx 7

but a good game maybe developed in 2 or 3 years

what's aboot unreal ?



EasyInfo :cool:
I would like to Invest for my PC !!
ok, buy nothing.
December 16, 2001 4:13:24 PM

I care about quality. I'm thinking that w/ Gmax, I'll just take a few games, edit the figures and stuff so that they look very real, and good quality. Then, if possible (if Gmax will let me), I may read some stuff about DX8 optimization and the GF3's programmability, and do something there.

What if your life moved.....2 inches to the left?
December 16, 2001 6:56:49 PM

That's why some people prefer game consoles over PCs. Their games are supposedly more optimized that their PC counterparts.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
December 16, 2001 10:25:28 PM

192 frames. What for ?

Quake 3 & geForce3 or Radeon 8500. What for ?

see my first reply...

EasyInfo :cool:
I would like to Invest for my PC !!
ok, buy nothing.
December 17, 2001 3:12:59 AM

i dont know about you, but once you get it above 45-60fps, then you are in playable territory...
i would much rather play a game that looks REALLY GOOD, and only goes at 32fps, than play a game that looks like crap and plays at 200+fps......i dont know about you....but to me, when something looks more realistic, then it is more fun/playable to me.
like when i can tell what i am shooting at, it is easier to play.
heh...but that might just be me.


-DAvid

-Live, Learn, then build your own computer!-
December 17, 2001 4:07:59 AM

sorry, but you understand my words in reverse thrust


EasyInfo :cool:
I would like to Invest for my PC !!
ok, buy nothing.
December 17, 2001 4:15:26 AM

sorry, i must have..heh.

-DAvid

-Live, Learn, then build your own computer!-
December 17, 2001 12:05:33 PM

or i don't understand well

Quake3 need 192fps & geForce3 or Radeon 8500


EasyInfo :cool:
I would like to Invest for my PC !!
ok, buy nothing.
December 17, 2001 12:52:05 PM

192fps is child's play. Get a P4 2GHz and you'll be getting 250fps!!

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
December 17, 2001 1:05:20 PM

yes & with a 1 Thz, you have 2592 frames/sec

ok but what for ?

to call friends u'r the best ? :cool:


EasyInfo :cool:
I would like to Invest for my PC !!
ok, buy nothing.
December 17, 2001 9:46:49 PM

Right on!

What if your life moved.....2 inches to the left?
December 17, 2001 9:48:15 PM

(that ewas in response to HonestJohn's thing about how games should look sweet).

What if your life moved.....2 inches to the left?
December 17, 2001 11:45:48 PM

Of course, the main problem is that good games can take about 2 years to develop. Do you remember what video cards were around 2 years ago? I think that the vodoo 5 had just hit the market. Can you tell me what video card will be common 2 years from now? Can you tell me what special hardware features will be available for me to exploit? Other than Aquanox can you tell me any game released today that will not play on a vodoo 5?

I don't think that even the CEO of Nvidia knows what his video cards will be capible of in 2 years. Nvidia releases a new video card every 6 months. That means that in 2 years 4 generations of video cards will ahve come and gone! I'll bet that in 2 years when you're playing the latest game on your 10 GHz computer with the Gforce 7 video card, that you'll be saying the exact same thing as you are today.

Finally, Nvidia and ATI are in bitter compition. If Nvidia tells programmers today what features are expected out tommorow, you can be sure that when tommorow comes ATI will have the same features, plus a few of its own. Sure that may be great for us consumers, but for Nvidia it is very very bad.

I can see this happening, but not until one video card manifacturer controls 80% or more of the market. When that happens reasearch and production will slow down and the game developers will be allowed to catch up. If you don't believe me then take a look at Sound Blaster. Once they had established a virtual monopoly new product cycles started taking longer and longer to develop.

--------------
Knowan likes you. Knowan is your friend. Knowan thinks you're great.
December 18, 2001 6:37:28 PM

that all makes sense, and i agree...
and that is why it is possible for people to get over 200 fps on their computer. because the game engine is so old...
the quake3 engine, going by the date on the back of the copy of quake3 that i have, came out in 1999. that is about 3 years ago. which is a signifigant time when you are talking about computer technology. i mean think about the major advances in the last year and a half..
they released the 1ghz+ processors, the p4, the athlonxp, the geforce3, the radeon8500, the geforce ti series, and the gf2 pro, and ddr has become pretty much standard on video cards, and systems..
we are talking some major speed here.
and the quake3 engine was made 3 years ago.
but that is beside the point....
they need to figure out a way to shorten the dev time for games, because i would much rather play a game that takes advantage of some hardware dx8 features, and looks sweet as hell.
i mean, when max payne came out, i was goin nuts, photo realistic textures?
that was great.
sure, that game was pretty much all bark and no bite when it came to game time, but it was pretty dam good.
and now there is ghost recon.
that game looks friggin sweet as sweet can be.
sure, of course they can push it farther, but this is getting better.
but whatever...
i can live with it right now...ghost recon keeps it fun.

-DAvid

-Live, Learn, then build your own computer!-
January 13, 2002 5:01:13 AM

I think this post has missed one very important point.

Game developers don't want to make games that run on the latest and greatest hardware. And why? Because they want EVERYBODY to buy their games. If the developers made games that looked so sweet on the GF3 or Radion and used all the features. They'd look and run like A$$ on anything else. They want games that every one can buy. That means games that will run on boxes built five years ago. Furthermore to make it look sweet on the latest hardware and look good on the older stuff requires double the amount of work and money. So what happens? You get a compromise games that incorporate a few new features here, a few there, it's easy and justifiable to reprogram a game to run without a single new feature. But to reprogram for all the new features. It doesn't make sense. There's nothing wrong with the development cycle of games. And even if it was shortened to 6 months. The games still wouldn't live up to the hardware. They're not supposed to. Bottom line it comes down to making money.
!