UT 2oo7, what is original?

I cant wait for this game because in an acrticle i read (i cant find it now) epic was acctually trying to improve the game not the eye candy, and playability is the most important thing aswell as a good storyline. I think this game is going to be humongous, i mean ofcourse it is its part of the UT franchise, but it will be better than anything that has come before it in terms of playability. anyone else waiting for this game?, not many game threads comming up anymore so i felt like posting something random.

Add a reply

Register or log in to remove.

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3140119&did=1
found it.

Reply to TenaciousleyDead

Quote :

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3140119&did=1
found it.

EXCELLENT ARTICLE!!

Thanx, i love UT2k4....I dont play online because i dont have the time to get good enugh. but the ranking system they have would be nice so i could have a chance to win withou playing 100hrs a week.

This game is going to bankrupt me....It sounds like its going to be a gpu hog....but most of all a cpu hog with all the AI functions and voice commands.

I wonder if they will have support for dual cores to help with that task.

Reply to pickxx

One thing I've found about the Unreal games is that while they look great on top spec, the engine is usually very scalable for all machines. That's something many people forget about most developers - remember the year of "Will my machine run Half-Life 2?" - is that they have to scale their engines to fit all consumers, not just the top 5% that runs out and buys the GeForce 7800 the moment it's released.

In order to make your bread your game needs to be able to run on that proprietary-RAM stuffed Dell Dimension that 95% of the rest of the world is running. To this end Epic have done quite well in the past, and I'd say they'll be doing the same in the future.

Reply to Aaron McKenna

Yeah, i get what your saying but most games are CPU starved as it its....Granted a 3200+ and a 7800GTX makes thigns look great.

but with the focus in UT2K7 on AI and voice command....i wonder how much CPU will be left for physics and such.

I'm sure they will iron it all out...Yes there was panic about HL2 that turned out to be rubbish. HL2 can be played with a 9600XT very easily....but for every HL2 there are well more like FEAR, Doom3, and BF2 that dont scale nearly as well.

HL2 is a rarity, bad programming code can ruin everything....look at the sim's or WoW or some other games that arn't that graphicly intense as HL2 but have much higher required specs for decent "pretty' gameplay.

Reply to pickxx

Although many people seem to like what ValvE did with HL2 to make it run decently (and it's even worse in CSS) I find it objectionable that they did not provide many options to users to modify that behavior.

I am specifically referring to how HL2 handles shadows and dynamic lightsources. I know that Source is capable of many if not all of the gimmics that FEAR is showing off, but they've optimized the engine such that it is running very well on mediocre hardware. The price is too high though, apparently the optimizations they did are not easily configurable so as a high end user I have no real control over that. For example when playing CSS I'm not seeing my own shadow!! My opponents can see it, so I can't really see where my shadow is giving away my position. Very annoying. FEAR has that covered nicely and I am sure that you can do it in Source, they just chose not to use a player model, and not to render the shadow, for performance reasons.

And then when they find the time to put in new features, they put in HDR (which is easily configurable) instead of proper shadow handling. O well, maybe I'm just picky.

Reply to BigMac

Thats a fair complaint.....If hey are going to build a next gen game and allow users with crappy video cards to play they should make it with a long list odf things to edit. I mean a like 5 basic swtiches that turn on and off things....but under them you can configure your setup to turn specific things on an off for the users who want more control....thats reasonable.

FEAR is a good game, but honestly it can blow me. I hate how my 6800GT can only do 10x7 with medium settings.....its the only game that sucks on my computer. the rest i can do 16x12 low or 10x7 high and be alright.....BF2 i can get away with most things high and a couple things turned down to medium...but still.

I dont play a lot of games, but the ones i like to play the most are UT2k4, AoE, and Spades(alright not a graphical game but i like to play it so eat me...lol)

I played AoE online for about 6 months, and i got decent at it, but i got bored after a while because its an all or nothing game. you are either 100% in the game going as fast as possible clicking and using keyboard shortcuts or you are dead.

I played UT2k4 online 4 times, i am alright....but i get killed 75 times in 10min. I refuse to play on servers that are too good for me and get taunted. I dont mind losing if i learn.....but i need something like a ranked sysem where i could play other n00bs

and spades....i am a stright up spades ninja....no joke, yahoo spades i can play for HOURS. I usually end up with stupid partners but when i get a good parner i win about 95% of the time. I am a Spades GOD!

Reply to pickxx

Quote :

FEAR is a good game, but honestly it can blow me. I hate how my 6800GT can only do 10x7 with medium settings.....its the only game that sucks on my computer. the rest i can do 16x12 low or 10x7 high and be alright.....BF2 i can get away with most things high and a couple things turned down to medium...but still.

I don't think your GT is killing you with FEAR, I think it's your 2800 cpu or your 1Gb of mem. I have a 6800GT with a 3500+ and 2Gb of mem and it's running pretty well. It just the soft shadows that it can't handle.

Reply to BigMac

There is a difference between running pretty well and well....
10x7 medium settings i am rocking 60fps and never below 40.

I would like to have high settings or max setings at 45fps and never below 30....but i can't it hovers around 30 and drops to 15 sometimes....not cool.

Most games i do very well in considering i have a crap ass cpu....dont hate my ram....it can do 2-2-2-5 upto 275FSB. (tested in a friend machine, my cpu couldn't do that...lol)

Reply to pickxx

Werid on the fear demo i played at 1280x1024 on high settings i got around 35fps constant. but im having this weird problem in quake 4 where the game like every 4 seconds pauses not fully but like lags its weird i think im running my ata100 drive on ata33 cables lol but im to lazy to fix it. maybe its just my page fileing..hmmmm. anyone else playing q4? im sure ill be able to run ut2k7 at 10x7 on high settings maybe not the physics cause of my 3200xp, but my 6800LE (unlocked 12p and 8v) overclocked to 390 core.

Reply to TenaciousleyDead

Well that sounds like pagefiling....

By the time UT2k7 comes out the agiea physic acard will be ou as well.....i think

Reply to pickxx

o ya to hmmm maybe itd be a good idea so i could have a shitty proc..but i think theyre really spendy.

Reply to TenaciousleyDead

the physics cards look to be about $200-$250 last i read.

I dont know how much or what it will increase as far as frame rates or quality of the game....so i m holding off on that.

Lets hope it is actualyl worth the cost.....

Reply to pickxx

it wont help the graphics just the physics so like instead of having stale grass it will sway in the wind or still trees, when it comes down to it its pretty unneeded unless your a big spender.

Reply to TenaciousleyDead

but think about it like this....all games are cpu limited with a 7800GTX....But with the physicis card about HALF of the load the cpu has would suddenly dissapear. That would give more cpu resources for other tasks and could feed the GPU more....hence driving performance up. Its possble, and its been talked about....i am just curious how much of the physics load can be offloaded and how much headroom the 7800GTX's have with a CPU that can keep up.

Reply to pickxx

Yet you dont have a 7800gtx i know what your saying but theyre not gonna take advantage of those physics because of the average gamer who cant afford a proccesor and one of those cards. but ya if you want even MORE fps then definentally get it.

Reply to TenaciousleyDead

I dont have one now.....but in about a year i should have enough money for a nice OC'd dually AMD to around 3Ghz, a top of the line card (8800GTX or 2800XT or whatever) A physics card, some nice ram....That setup should be alright to play games...lol

but almost all Gpu's are cpu limited right now....NOBODY has a 6600GT with a Fx57. So the physics crd will help somewhat....maybe 1fps, maybe 5, maybe 30....who knows how this will all work out when a game is properly coded for the physics card and a dual core setup....when the GPU can be fed more....more can be done with it....i am just curious HOW much more.

Finally in the next year or two cpus will finally start to catch up wih gpus....gmes will be coded for dual core, 64bit, and physics cards....Both ATI and Nvidia going to whole new articture for the cards comming out Q1 06.......if they are great cards.....we could be on the verge of a quantum leap in gaming.

Reply to pickxx

great i just finished my machine 4 monthes ago and expected it to last 3 years lol.

Reply to TenaciousleyDead

lol, what do you have?

Reply to pickxx

amd athlon 3200(2500) no upped voltage. asus a7n8 deluxe, 1Gb OCZ Performance, 6800(unlocked LE),antec truepower 450 watt. built for 379.00 dollers thats the power of shopping.

Reply to TenaciousleyDead

Thats crazy good performance for under $400

Reply to pickxx

Dang... Mine cost me $997 to get about the same performance overall because it's so much older...

Reply to GyRo567

ya im starting on my second comp though, its a AMD Duron 1.8Ghz (reaches 200mhz buss speed) so basically its a 2400 if i ovcerclock it a little more. im thinking a 9800pro? not 6600gt the proc will bottleneck it. any suggestions?

Reply to TenaciousleyDead

I think you should be fine with the 6600GT...

Reply to pickxx

Yeah, 2.4 Ghz/2400+ (though the older core may hold you back?) is about the level where the 6600 GT can be utilized.

It's only like 25% more than a 9800 Pro, right? 15% more than a 9800 XT? Something like that, give or take.

Reply to GyRo567

Quote :

I dont have one now.....but in about a year i should have enough money for a nice OC'd dually AMD to around 3Ghz, a top of the line card (8800GTX or 2800XT or whatever) A physics card, some nice ram....That setup should be alright to play games...lol

but almost all Gpu's are cpu limited right now....NOBODY has a 6600GT with a Fx57. So the physics crd will help somewhat....maybe 1fps, maybe 5, maybe 30....who knows how this will all work out when a game is properly coded for the physics card and a dual core setup....when the GPU can be fed more....more can be done with it....i am just curious HOW much more.

Finally in the next year or two cpus will finally start to catch up wih gpus....gmes will be coded for dual core, 64bit, and physics cards....Both ATI and Nvidia going to whole new articture for the cards comming out Q1 06.......if they are great cards.....we could be on the verge of a quantum leap in gaming.

Now what is the viability of a separate physics card? When multicore cpu's pick up (meaning games will start to utilize it, specific optimizations for it) they can just handle that on a separate core. I don't see the need for specific optimisations for physics as opposed to graphics. Even further down the line, I foresee a challenge to the video guys to stay ahead of general multicore solutions. I can see some (more) specific gpu design coming onboard (onchip) in general multicore cpu's.

In terms of programming good utilization of multicore will become quite a challenge. Lots of opportunities to differentiate yourself from the competition. Let's see if the hardware vendors can come up with some proper (sw) tooling to help out the application/game programmers.

Reply to BigMac

Quote :

Now what is the viability of a separate physics card? When multicore cpu's pick up (meaning games will start to utilize it, specific optimizations for it) they can just handle that on a separate core. I don't see the need for specific optimisations for physics as opposed to graphics. Even further down the line, I foresee a challenge to the video guys to stay ahead of general multicore solutions. I can see some (more) specific gpu design coming onboard (onchip) in general multicore cpu's.

In terms of programming good utilization of multicore will become quite a challenge. Lots of opportunities to differentiate yourself from the competition. Let's see if the hardware vendors can come up with some proper (sw) tooling to help out the application/game programmers.

Well i dont know...i mean honestly i am trying to be optimistic...but i dont know what the Agiea card is going to do. I mean i know what it SAYS its going to do, but i dont know....

Having a physics card is going to help gaming if it turns out to work. Because then programmers can use the card for physics and use the dual cores for AI and sound and they can build more complex models for gameplay. Its hard to think of a time when cpu's wouldn't be used 100% when gaming. Programers could just dump stuff onto it.

Dual cores should help games in a HUGE way....but even a dual core will hold back some SLI'd 7800GTX 512s....lol and in about a year those cards wont be top of the line anymore....by 1 maybe two generations.

SLI and CF are going to make sure dual cores are used...lol

Reply to pickxx

I wasn't talking dual core, I was talking multi-core. Like inside the XBox 360 I think there's already 4 cores, not too sure it is on one chip but then again, from a programming perspective there not much (none?) difference programming for multi core or multi processor. The Cell (PS3) will have 6 cores if I'm informed correctly.

The only reason for having dedicated hardware for dedicated jobs (graphics, physics, sound) is if they can do stuf that you really cannot do efficiently in a general multicore design. Now graphics is pretty specialized at the moment, so the gpu is here to stay for a while and if it is up to NVidia and ATI that will remain the case.

For physics processing I do not see the need of dedicated hardware, just an extra core/processor will do (or additional cores if the need arises).

Same holds for sound. The only reason why I still have a separate soundcard in my system is because of the extra features that I really dig (latest EAX compliance etc). At the moment most mobo's have an integrated sound solution but it still involves an extra chip, this could just as easily be handled in an extra core.

Reply to BigMac

is all there gonna do is add more cores lol thats the solution, 3 northbrides(being sarcastic).

Reply to TenaciousleyDead

Well i think you are missing what the cards do.....

You are right, the physics card does nothing more then a CPU does. But why are graphics cards fater at graphics then a cpu? Because they are optimized for it....they also have a specialized launguage to use to hlep programmers. The more complex the onboard language the more the gpu can do and the faster(is optimized correctly.)

The physics card would have physics calulations programs hardwired.....So it can handle WAY more at once because it only does one thing, and it does it quickly

Yes one extra core could do that....but it would be slower then a physics card because it wouldn't be optimized specificaily for physics calcualtions. It would be a regular core and the code would be longer and more complex to do the same thing.

Assembly line....Yes 35 guys can make 1 car a day, but its faster to specialize in one thing, and be SUPER good at it.....and you end up making WAY more then 35 cars.

The GPU, physics card, and Sound card are little workers who can't do everything but what they can do.....they do better then everyone else.

I dont see everything going multicore and losing cards....i see MORE cards comming. The GPU is here to stay, th Sound care is here to stay, and honestly i think the physics card (if it can do what it says) will be here to stay....along with other cards not yet in production.

It's hard to beat specialization.....you would need something innovaive that would change how comuting is done. Cell cpu's look like they are headed in that direction...but i dont know, because i dont like to read abuot thigns 20yrs away (which is when i forsee that tech comming out in a form that is usable and very fast.)

Reply to pickxx

Quote :

Well i think you are missing what the cards do.....

Not really You just interpret current events differently.

Quote :

I dont see everything going multicore and losing cards....i see MORE cards comming. The GPU is here to stay, th Sound care is here to stay, and honestly i think the physics card (if it can do what it says) will be here to stay....along with other cards not yet in production.

It's hard to beat specialization.....you would need something innovaive that would change how comuting is done. Cell cpu's look like they are headed in that direction...but i dont know, because i dont like to read abuot thigns 20yrs away (which is when i forsee that tech comming out in a form that is usable and very fast.)

There is another way how specialization is beaten: if the generalization approach is not too much worse in terms of performance, that it is way cheaper than specialization, no need to develop the specialized hardware, and thus cost reduction.

Look at how it's going in soundcard land: more and more people are relying on the onboard solutions instead of the card. The soundcard is becoming a niche market. Depending on how well the multi-core designs will do, this will also happen to the other cards. That's the trend I'm seeing, not more cards. We'll see who got it right, later. Btw at the moment onboard solutions are still handled by separate chipsets but they are certainly more integrated in the design.

Reply to BigMac

ya ofcourse theres gonna be another branch of performance cpus for the gamers and regular ones for office work ect. there already are but they are more generalized. with the comeing of new technology there will different branches and highly different prices as things become more specialized. what was it that computers are only 10% efficent, if we could learn to better optomize applications we could do things like run hl2 on a 300mhz cpu.

Reply to TenaciousleyDead

Quote :

I cant wait for this game because in an acrticle i read (i cant find it now) epic was acctually trying to improve the game not the eye candy, and playability is the most important thing aswell as a good storyline. I think this game is going to be humongous, i mean ofcourse it is its part of the UT franchise, but it will be better than anything that has come before it in terms of playability. anyone else waiting for this game?, not many game threads comming up anymore so i felt like posting something random.

I burned countless hours on the orignal Unreal Tournament and then I was disappointed with 03 but 04 editor's choice edition redeemed the franchise for me in a BIG way; 04 has been superb fun.

Yep, I'm with you, UT07 is one of the few games I could give two shites about at the moment.

Reply to BomberBill

cant wait for unreal 3 to thats gona be awesome, the mod community at oldunreal.com is still trying to revive the first one but epic wont relese the core files cause they think that everyone might start buying the first unreal LOL.

Reply to TenaciousleyDead

Forum Games General : Games General Discussions - UT 2oo7, what is original?

Please mind

Become a fan

UT 2oo7, what is original?

Forum Games General : Games General Discussions - UT 2oo7, what is original?

Please mind