Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
http://www.projectoffset.com/technology.html
IMO, looks somewhat like those PS3 renders.....amazing stuff.....
IMO, looks somewhat like those PS3 renders.....amazing stuff.....
I expect an announcement about Duke Nukem's change to this engine shortly.
That looks fantastic, though the tiger hill think was weak for some reason. The characters, and the last scene were awesome though.
Doube D said:speakin of engines, theres a rumor that sony will outsource its killzone ps3 engine to devs for a special low price if they make the game exclusive.....
OG_Original Gamer said:Why not say its a engine for development, would have made alot more sense then giving dodgy answers on rather or not the demo was realtime or target video. Interesting rumor to say the least.
Mr Nash said:The cool thing about the engine is how it can take a model made up of millions of polygons, and squish it down to a few thousand, yet the image still looks amazing. The fact that only three people worked on all of this is very impressive. Their last game, Savage (PC), was pretty damn good and it only had 7 people on the team.
Yeah, the unreal engine is adept at doing that too. Like what was said earlier, the most impressive thing to me was that I confused the mesh model for an actual 3d plaster model. Now that's impressive.Doube D said:I believe that particular method is old news (normal mapping)? not sure
Mr Nash said:The cool thing about the engine is how it can take a model made up of millions of polygons, and squish it down to a few thousand, yet the image still looks amazing. The fact that only three people worked on all of this is very impressive. Their last game, Savage (PC), was pretty damn good and it only had 7 people on the team.
thorns said:If it's true that unreal engine costs $800,000 , it would be really nice to have some way cheaper alternatives.
Borys said:Yup, read on some dev's site that it costs up to $1M.
Luckily there were always some alternatives (Mr Carmack).
This engine looks dope, that's true next-gen stuff, amazing.
I cannot wait till Epic buys them out and kills the project
I cannot wait till Epic buys them out and kills the project
robertsan21 said:sorry for sounding like a retard when i am asking this question
but what do you mean when you say
robertsan21 said:sorry for sounding like a retard when i am asking this question
but what do you mean when you say
Doube D said:Umm, epic buys them out (pays them for the tech) and either hires them to update UE 3 or just stay out of the way?
Doube D said:actually I am wondering... how exactly would you go about creating a game engine (graphics, physics...) from scratch? I mean there are so many variables involved...
Ironclad_Ninja said:3 guys did this. Three!
I highly doubt that.Dr_Cogent said:So what? The Doom 3 engine was done by what? 2 guys?
I don't think it's really that huge of a deal.
Foreign Jackass said:I highly doubt that.
jboldiga said:The days of the lone-engine-programmer-hero sitting in front of a monitor with a cup of coffee in one hand and a cigarette in the other are over. There is too much involved in writing an engine on your own (trust me I know) the smart thing to do is do what Epic does and thats write your own Renderer, AI, and Network code as well as their tools but outsource everything else. For example Epic outsource their physics (Novadex) and their texture utilities (Kaldera - texture baking/normal maps, Pixomatic - texture compression) and I think even their sound. They also have a team of 30 devs dedicated to just the engine. However I dont think people should count out Renderware, its cheap and flexible enough to let you extend it yourself. I have worked with it and they do a lot of retarded stuff but for the most part anything you dont like you can rip out. UE 3.0 is just too freakin' expensive, if it was up to me I would write my own engine for next gen especially the renderer since we now have high level apis for ALL the consoles for once (opengl, dx9).
Bravo, Riz! Great explanation.RiZ III said:Normal mapping gives you per pixel normals [among a lot of other things, normals are used for lighting calculations]. So instead of having per vertex lighting based on the average of all the surrounding triangles, you get per pixel lighting based off of some map, namely the normal map. You can take a really hi poly models, and take the normals off if and make a normal map and apply it to a much lower poly character and it will look almost as good. Or you could just create a random normal map. Kind of like going from per triangle lighting, which gives a faceted look, to per vertex lighting which gives a much more round look. Take that to per pixel lighting which is based off of a much higher polygon object and it looks amazing.
capslock said:Um, am I missing something? From the screens on the website it doesn't seem superior to the UE3 engine, in fact, it looks a tad worse to me.