Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Unreal 3 Engine Demo @ E3 + PS 3.0 = wow

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 16, 2004 4:40:11 AM

Being one of the lucky ones to get to go to E3 this year, I got to talk to some of the lead engineers at the NVidia booth (very friendly and informative guys, by the way) plus I got to see the Unreal 3 engine demo (On the GF 6800). All I have to say is WOW. Whatever youve heard or read about PS 3.0, when you actually see it in action, its is mind blowing. The 3d effects they can get from shading using no actual 3d mesh is insane (the most amazing being the effects on a brick wall made of a flat pair of polys). So, coming from a self-proclaimed ATI fanboy, maybe PS 3.0 is a bigger deal than ATI lets on. According to one of the modelers working on the engine, there are a dozen games scheduled to use the engine (and thus PS 3.0) by christmas. Let me tell you, I wish everyone could see the amazing models shown in the demo, and the 50+ FPS they were running at. Simply stunning.

PS The ATI guys there didnt know sh*t about hardware when asked. I was very disappointed. Plus i thought it was interesting that the demo machines NVidia had out were single slot (w/o the huge refrence heatsink) GF 6800 ultras. I asked around about that little detail, and most of the Nvidia guys there were as suprised as I was. Maybe theres a smaller GF6800 Ultra in the works?

"Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my drive?"
P4 3.0 HT, Intel D865GBF, 512MB Crucial PC3200 DDR, WD 36GB Raptor 10,000RPM, BBA Radeon 9600PRO

More about : unreal engine demo wow

May 16, 2004 4:49:45 AM

Quote:
Let me tell you, I wish everyone could see the amazing models shown in the demo, and the 50+ FPS they were running at.

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam..." target="_new">Yep</A>.

-----
Wanted: Wet Nurse needed for 25 yr old male. Will not mind if taken advantage of.
May 16, 2004 4:54:53 AM

looks sweet

"This Steel ain't stainless, Your bloodstains are all over this steel."

<A HREF="http://www.cameronwilliamson.com" target="_new">-={Messianic Maniac.}=-</A>
Related resources
May 16, 2004 5:14:04 AM

Doesnt exactly show them in action, does it. Nor does it show the dynamic light transmission effects you could only see in a demo. You could make a PS 2.0 image look almost exactly the same, only with many times more coding and a hit in performance. So yeah, hopefully someone will get ahold of a capture from the real demo.

"Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my drive?"
P4 3.0 HT, Intel D865GBF, 512MB Crucial PC3200 DDR, WD 36GB Raptor 10,000RPM, BBA Radeon 9600PRO
May 16, 2004 5:25:29 AM

Sheesh! Everyone knows that. MAYBE if this thread was in the GAMES section you would know!

But NOOOO, it has to be in the graphics card section.

Sheesh!

<font color=red>_______________________________________________</font color=red>
Nov. 6, 1971: "I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals"

- John Kerry, a Presidential Candidate
May 16, 2004 6:05:58 AM

Since the topic is about the graphics of the game more then it's about the game itself, it's more appropriate for it to be here in the graphics card section then it is in the games section. Not to mention games and graphics cards go hand in hand so theres few things about one that don't also relate to the other. But in this case the Graphics card section is most appropriate.

<font color=blue>_______________________________</font color=blue>
Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 1gb DDR400, MSI GeforceFX5900 XT.
Aquamark=<b>36077</b> 3DMark03=<b>5322</b>
May 16, 2004 6:53:42 AM

"dynamic light transmission effects"

This isn't a difficult statement to comprehend. The "dynamic light" or movement of light or the changing of the light intensity, "transmission" or transference of light from a source to the surrounding textures, "effects" or the resulting visuals based on the methods used to portray the desired look. In other words hes talking about the way the lighting moves or changes based on the viewers movement which can only be seen through motion and not from a still image.
Someones acting like an idiot and it ain't the poster of this thread.

<font color=blue>_______________________________</font color=blue>
Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 1gb DDR400, MSI GeforceFX5900 XT.
Aquamark=<b>36077</b> 3DMark03=<b>5322</b>
May 16, 2004 4:28:52 PM

Its the ability for a translucent material to allow light to pass while also reflecting shadow changes from behind the surface to show through. It also allows hilights of intermediate details (i.e. the wings of a dragon in the demo allowed some light to go through, while the veins were opaque)

"Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my drive?"
P4 3.0 HT, Intel D865GBF, 512MB Crucial PC3200 DDR, WD 36GB Raptor 10,000RPM, BBA Radeon 9600PRO
May 16, 2004 6:33:44 PM

Thanx for replying Vimp...you moron. What you just described is a standard transform & lighting function that was available in the first GeForce cards.

Do you have any other "make believe" technological catch phrases that you'd like to tallk about?

<b>Before the nVidiots blow this out of perportion, I'd suggest any of you interested watch the Unreal 3 demonstration yourselves</b>
<A HREF="http://www.fileplanet.com/files/140000/140731.shtml" target="_new">Click me</A>

<A HREF="http://rmitz.org/AYB3.swf" target="_new">All your base are belong to us.</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2216718" target="_new"><b>3DMark03</b></A>
May 16, 2004 7:48:50 PM

Quote:
Its the ability for a translucent material to allow light to pass while also reflecting shadow changes from behind the surface to show through.

The effect your describing is IMO, sub surface scattering. Programmers use a mathematical formula that calculates how light is absorbed and dispersed beneath materials like marble or skin. Ray tracing can take those type of effect's even further.
This <b>is not</b> an nVidia specific effect. Tim Sweeny(Epic) has mentioned enough times at Beyond3D that their latest Unreal engine will not take vendor specific paths.

<A HREF="http://rmitz.org/AYB3.swf" target="_new">All your base are belong to us.</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2216718" target="_new"><b>3DMark03</b></A>
May 16, 2004 8:15:35 PM

'Transformation' not 'transmission' was the word you were looking for. This tells us nothing about PS3.0. You have no idea how they program that $hit and what shaders they're using. It could all be fully possible with PS2.0, you wouldn't know. What we're currently seeing as far as PS2.0 effects does not represent an inherent limit of quality with PS2.0, it reflects a quality/performance compromise determined by game developers. The Unreal 3 engine would obviously go beyond this quality, as it reflects a quality/performance compromise aimed at a later date in time. Truth is you have no idea how this relates to PS3.0 and PS2.0. Everything you saw could be done in PS2.0, albeit probably with some performance hit. If ATI can pull off the effects using PS2.0 (with that performance hit) faster than nV can with PS3.0, ATI wins.

And as far as subsurface scattering, ATI even has a new demo that highlights this effect for its x800 series.

Me: are you saying I can't provide?
Me: cause I know I can provide.
Me: oh and I can provide money too;)
Rachel:) : why do we need money when we can just stay in our room and have sex all day?<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Willamette_Sucks on 05/16/04 04:18 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 16, 2004 8:26:04 PM

Actually GW, dynamic lighting has continued to progress since it was originally developed. Just because the industry comes up with specific terminology to describe their specific methods of achieving various aspects of dynamic lighting does not mean that simply using the phrase "dynamic lighting" is refering to old technology. Almost all the lighting effects in games such as Farcry still fall under the deffinition of dynamic lighting. Your simply acting like yourself (which I think says enough) to find error in his not having used the specific industry terminology despite the fact that he had no reason to do so other then to sound more proffesional.

Now I wasn't even implying that he was correct in suggesting that such effects were only possible by means of SP3 or not since I really wouldn't know. All I was doing was defending his choice of words, since you, being the way you are, chose to belittle him on something even though what he said adequatly described what he meant to say. Although it just so happens that in this case he was refering to a specific aspect of dynamic lighting that involves translucent effects which he should have been more specific about if he wanted us to know what he was refering to.

<font color=blue>_______________________________</font color=blue>
Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 1gb DDR400, MSI GeforceFX5900 XT.
Aquamark=<b>36077</b> 3DMark03=<b>5322</b>
May 16, 2004 8:31:28 PM

Thank you for emphasizing my point GW.

<font color=blue>_______________________________</font color=blue>
Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 1gb DDR400, MSI GeforceFX5900 XT.
Aquamark=<b>36077</b> 3DMark03=<b>5322</b>
May 17, 2004 4:50:13 PM

I dont recall ever saying that it was a vendor specific effect. It is a vender specific implimentation. Plus, yes, most of these effects are possible with PS 2.0, HOWEVER the amount of extra code is significant enough to make it unsuitable for the hardware to perform the same as a PS 3.0 enabled card(ATI or Nvidia). If you dont believe me, then you need to talk to the Epic representative who demoed the engine who works with it on a daily basis. I spent a good amount of time talking with him about PS3.0 vs. 2.0 and from what he told me I am convinced it is the way to go. Why would a software company take more time to place extra code into their software using PS2.0 when the performance would suffer anyway? They wouldn't. Thats why PS3.0 is a good thing, and yeah, looks like Nvidia came around supporting it first. And as for all of this word mincing...the whole phrase about the dynamic lighting I used was quoted from the actual presentation.

Quit flaming and callig people Nvidiots. Ive never owned anything but ATI and I am impressed by this effect. Are you such a fanboy you cant step back and realize that not supporting PS 3.0 was a bad thing for ATI?

PS. According to a few engineers from Nvidia I talked to, YES there are effects that PS 3.0 can produce you cannot obtain in PS 2.0, and they were demoed at a closed door E3 presentation (it had something to do with a ground wave effect after a nuclear explosion in game)

"Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my drive?"
P4 3.0 HT, Intel D865GBF, 512MB Crucial PC3200 DDR, WD 36GB Raptor 10,000RPM, BBA Radeon 9600PRO
May 17, 2004 7:52:06 PM

Quote:
Thank you for emphasizing my point GW

Good one! Problem is that he is such a chronic prick that he will never even give your words a single thought. You see, in his feeble pathetic mind he is always right about everything.

Quote:
you need to talk to the Epic representative who demoed the engine who works with it on a daily basis. I spent a good amount of time talking with him about PS3.0 vs. 2.0 and from what he told me I am convinced

Yeah, messrs. Graphic Card Gurus, you will do good arguing about the taste of Caspian caviar with those who actually TRIED it. He was there, in case this meaning eluded you. Were you there?

Quote:
there are effects that PS 3.0 can produce you cannot obtain in PS 2.0, and they were demoed at a closed door E3 presentation

Yes, guys: Let the arrogant know-it-all a$$holes have it. I am with you all the way. <font color=red>Only next time don’t be so polite and apologetic.</font color=red> They are not choosing words when they attempt to humiliate you.

<font color=green>"The creative powers of English morphology are pathetic compared to what we find in other languages." (Steven Pinker, The Language Instinct)</font color=green> :cool:
May 17, 2004 10:11:24 PM

Quote:
I dont recall ever saying that it was a vendor specific effect. It is a vender specific implimentation.

What 'effect' are you talking about here that nVidia is using?
Quote:
Plus, yes, most of these effects are possible with PS 2.0, HOWEVER the amount of extra code is significant enough to make it unsuitable for the hardware to perform the same as a PS 3.0 enabled card

Again....what effect's are you talking about?...name them!
Quote:
If you dont believe me, then you need to talk to the Epic representative who demoed the engine who works with it on a daily basis

Tim Sweeny from epic was just interviewed about the new Unreal engine, and one thing he mentioned really stuck out....<b>THE ENGINE WONT BE READY TILL AROUND 2006!...</b> we'll all probably have pixel shader 4.0 card's by then.
Quote:
I spent a good amount of time talking with him about PS3.0 vs. 2.0 and from what he told me I am convinced it is the way to go

I'm happy for you.
Quote:
Why would a software company take more time to place extra code into their software using PS2.0 when the performance would suffer anyway?

Do you know how high the instruction count is on ps2.o or 2.b? Developers arent going to use ps3.0 just for the sake of it, their going to use it when they are limited by 2.0, which we will see very few instances of.
Quote:
And as for all of this word mincing...the whole phrase about the dynamic lighting I used was quoted from the actual presentation.

Document it or stfu about it.
Quote:
Quit flaming and callig people Nvidiots.

I've tried...I cant....if it helps though, I think your an alright guy, and am glad you made this post.
Quote:
Ive never owned anything but ATI and I am impressed by this effect.

<b>WHAT EFFECT!?!!!?</b>
Quote:
Are you such a fanboy you cant step back and realize that not supporting PS 3.0 was a bad thing for ATI?

I like nVidia...I bought a 5700Ultra about three months ago, so I'm not really a fanboi.
Quote:
YES there are effects that PS 3.0 can produce you cannot obtain in PS 2.0

Correct...and I can name off most of them if you'd like.
:) 


<A HREF="http://rmitz.org/AYB3.swf" target="_new">All your base are belong to us.</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2216718" target="_new"><b>3DMark03</b></A>
May 17, 2004 10:19:04 PM

wow...

lmao.

"This Steel ain't stainless, Your bloodstains are all over this steel."
<A HREF="http://www.cameronwilliamson.com" target="_new">-={Messianic Maniac.}=-</A>
<font color=green>{FLM}</font color=green>
May 18, 2004 1:37:57 AM

*blink-blink* nappy time perhaps?

Xeon

<font color=orange>Scratch Here To Reveal Prize</font color=orange>
May 18, 2004 5:43:49 PM

The only problem I see with all yoru argumentation is that the DEMO you saw was PS3.0 enabled and did not compared to PS2.0???

If they Unreal engine is only PS3.0, it will surely not hit any store shelves for a year at least. There is too much NON-PS3.0 GPU out there.

And if Unreal Engine 3 is able to use PS2.0 and PS3.0 nVidia will probably never compared PS2.0 and PS3.0 in "promotions booth". Do you remember a few weeks ago when they compared PS3.0 with PS1.1. This was an unfair comparison, because nVidia know that PS2.0 can match PS3.0 in most case.

I agree with you that X800 miss PS3.0, but by the time PS3.0 title will hit the market nVidia 6800 and X800 will be outdated anyway. Frankly GeForce 4 TI and Radeon 8500 can still run most of the today's game even if they are only PS1.1/1.4 capable.

For the next 12-18 months we will not see any game that REQUIRE PS3.0 (many will probably support it). So I have no doubt that today's X800 buyer will not be disapointed for a year at least.

I can't wait to see how 6800/X800 will perform in their 299$US version. Because if nVidia manage to have a better product in this price range, I will probably get it. Because at equal price/performance/quality, the next thing to look at is feature and nVidia have PS3.0.

--
Lookin' to fill that <font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> shape hole!
May 18, 2004 11:27:06 PM

I agree that not implimenting PS 3.0 right now on the X800 seems like it makes sense, when you use the logic that no game will use it for a while. But what happens when those games do come out, are we forgetting the legacy of products that retailers have to deal with? Think of it this way, as the X800 ages, its price will have to come down, as well as the price of any competing product released at approximately the same time. How will the fact that the X800 doesnt have PS 3.0 play out in this scenario? The price of the Nvidia 6xxx would be about the same, and would contain those features. I think ATi may have done more damage than realized when you consider them trying to sell these high priced cards at a time frame where the games do have (need?) PS 3.0 capability. Gotta remember that its not the bleeding edge technology that keeps companies afloat, its the ability to sell products at release and on down the road.

"Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my drive?"
P4 3.0 HT, Intel D865GBF, 512MB Crucial PC3200 DDR, WD 36GB Raptor 10,000RPM, BBA Radeon 9600PRO
May 19, 2004 1:19:39 PM

You are right to some extent, but I really think that the next generation ATI card (R500) will come to the market sooner than we think. And when the price of GPU will fall ATI X??? will probably be cheaper than GeForce 6??? because of the lack of PS3.0, but it's not sure.

Did nVidia sold they GeForce FX at lower price because they don't support DX9.0 very well they have image quality issue? NO. Most video card buyers really don't know anything about technology behind them.

We just start to see PS2.0 intensive games on store shelves, so I doubt that X800 will ever suffer from their non PS3.0 design. GPU life span is shorter than game development cycle.

--
Lookin' to fill that <font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> shape hole!
May 19, 2004 5:45:32 PM

Based on everything I've heard about PS3 its only significant advantage over PS2 is that it can do the same effects but more efficiently. Meaning developers will have an easier time putting in PS3 over PS2 and it should result in better performance. That being the case, if that is infact true, the X800 series really shouldn't have anything to worry about since the only likly disadvantage they'll have of not having PS3 support is that they may run slightly slower then they would have if they did when PS3 games start to become the standard. They shouldn't be missing out on any new visuals though.

<font color=blue>_______________________________</font color=blue>
Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 1gb DDR400, MSI GeforceFX5900 XT.
Aquamark=<b>36077</b> 3DMark03=<b>5322</b>
May 19, 2004 6:34:53 PM

The "effect" i was referring to was the ability to show 3 dimensional detail from a flat set of polygons, probably by per pixel shading. I dont know if thats PS 3.0 or not, but I had never seen anything like it before. Granted I am no graphics know-it-all like GW.

Ill believe the engine wont be ready until 2006 when there aren't a dozen games out this christmas using it. I find it hard to believe the 2006 comment when game developers are relying on that engine for this holiday season.


"Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my drive?"
P4 3.0 HT, Intel D865GBF, 512MB Crucial PC3200 DDR, WD 36GB Raptor 10,000RPM, BBA Radeon 9600PRO
May 19, 2004 6:49:42 PM

Quote:
I dont know if thats PS 3.0 or not, but I had never seen anything like it before. Granted I am no graphics know-it-all like GW

Damn :lol:  I LIKE this guy. I only wonder how long before he loses his cool. Hang in there, brother, not everyone here is obnoxious.

<font color=green>"The creative powers of English morphology are pathetic compared to what we find in other languages." (Steven Pinker, The Language Instinct)</font color=green> :cool:
May 19, 2004 6:55:19 PM

Unreal 3 engine by the end of this year?! Not a friggen chance. I would guess that next year's holdiay season will be graced with its presence, but I will not put money on it (i.e., I have some doubt of its completion by the end of 2005).

Anyway, you are apparently good at wishful thinking, or being misinformed.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
a b U Graphics card
May 19, 2004 11:38:57 PM

I think you are confusing incorporating aspect of the Unreal Engine 3 (not Unreal 3 Engine) into game developemnt, and using all aspects of the engine in a game.

Supposedly there are already aspects of the engine in UT2K4, but that's different than adding the most advanced parts. It could be more efficient coding or layout, or even the ability to incorporate different model sources that get added to these games you are talking about, but that doesn't mean that every single feature will be implemented in these early examples.

As for the advantages of SM/PS 3.0, I'll believe that when I see it. Performance wise, sure could be, but still no real idea as to the extent of that performance gain, as for moving to where PS3.0 is more the focus than PS2.0, I doubt you'll see that for some time, as the sheer weight of the PS2.0 communbity is far too big, and the perception that they are missing out because the programmers didn't do enough to bring them equal quality/playability wouldn't go over well for anyone. Just look at the reaction to the early HL2 stuff, and how everyone accused Valve of this and that, despite their efforts. Ifyou found all the R9XXX and FX5XXX owners being at a significant disadvantage you would see similar complaints about the efforts of the game developers.
While this may not be justified it's the most likely reaction. By mid to late 2005 it would be a different story as you'd be well into the era of the next gen with even another generation either in the product stream or nearing launch. And of course by that time everyone will be fussing and fighting over DX10, DXNEXT, or DXCrystalPepsiFree whatever it's finally called.

I'm sure the latest unreal engine has alot to offer, but I doubt it's a killer app just yet. No one wants to cut off their GF4ti (or R8500/9000/9100/9200) market, let alone their DX9/PS2.0/R3XX/NV3X market.

You may see some added features, but just like FarCry and a few others, this may mostly be shinier water or bumpier walls. Sure everyone would like them, but it better not cause a serious performance impact.

I'm sure demos will show the impact these features have far sooner than any game will.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
May 20, 2004 12:21:18 AM

I can't say that I share your speculation on PS3's implementation. Theres no reason, aside from it being additional work, for developers from here on out to not implement PS3 in their games. Seeing as PS3 dosn't add any new effects to the industry that PS2 can't accomplish, no one should feel like they are missing out on additional eye candy. And its not as if implementing PS3 into a game will prevent them from also implementing PS2 since they already have to implement even PS1 if they want people with older hardware to enjoy the games graphics as best they can. I see no reason for any game from now on to not have PS3 implemented into it.

<font color=blue>_______________________________</font color=blue>
Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 1gb DDR400, MSI GeforceFX5900 XT.
Aquamark=<b>36077</b> 3DMark03=<b>5322</b>
!