Crysis engine real-life comparison

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-09-2006, 03:10 AM
Cobalt

I could tell pretty easily. The grass sprites were rubbish but if you look at the valley the floor looks very flat and has almost no depth as if all the details were done in textures with normal/bump/parallax maps. Also notice how the engine still has the fundamental problem with current HDR: It makes everything look very bright rather than realistic.
06-09-2006, 03:32 AM
Smurfy

Very good, i could have really belived the beach was a photo, the shed is slightly more obvious because of the grass as said before, but the trees in it are very good.
06-09-2006, 04:17 AM
OmegaMerc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobalt

I could tell pretty easily. The grass sprites were rubbish but if you look at the valley the floor looks very flat and has almost no depth as if all the details were done in textures with normal/bump/parallax maps. Also notice how the engine still has the fundamental problem with current HDR: It makes everything look very bright rather than realistic.

http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/8986/negative1nn.jpg

:rolleyes:
06-09-2006, 04:45 AM
Hicks

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3NZ0

No :eek:
D'amm that looks good.

Shame it wont be remotly playable on my rig.

On a 4400+ 2GB ram and a XTX? of Course it will man.
06-09-2006, 04:59 AM
v_rr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobalt

I could tell pretty easily. The grass sprites were rubbish but if you look at the valley the floor looks very flat and has almost no depth as if all the details were done in textures with normal/bump/parallax maps. Also notice how the engine still has the fundamental problem with current HDR: It makes everything look very bright rather than realistic.

:stick: :stick: :stick:

If you found any other game in the world more realistic than this tell something.....

That game only uses a portion of code in Direct_X10. Imagine when they release the next game full Direct_X10 :eek: ;)
06-09-2006, 05:31 AM
Stuperman

WOW, that is impressive, is it prerendered? or real time?

I like this comparison because it shows how overdone and generally bad HDR looks.
06-09-2006, 05:51 AM
Turok

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richie P

May well be old news but video previews can be found here

http://uk.media.pc.ign.com/media/694/694190/vids_1.html

The video interview on the second page is the most interesting, with the tech demo on page 3 is a bit smaller download. I'm really looking forward to this game :D

I would use www.GameTrailers.com for those videos if they are not available in HD in a download site. GameTrailers has higher videos with higher resolutions, and usually has videos that no one has. Make sure to watch the HD version if it has it.
Here is the link for the Crysis section:
http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=2509

BTW, I have a really large HD version (1280x720) of that Tech demo on page 3 on that IGN site. It doesnt have sound, tho. They also released a second tech demo called "CRYTEK_GDC_VIDEO_2006" which is also a large HD video (1280x720) and it has sound too. I dont remember where I got it, but I dont think it whoever had it was asked to remove it.
Was released a long time ago in www.gamershell.com , but they were asked to remove it. Luckly I got it before it was removed :p:

My only complains about the graphics is the grass, and the shape of the volumetric clouds. They fixed the repeating water, tho. If you look at the first Tech demo, the water didnt look as real and had a repeating texture pattern (Looked like FarCry's water). The second tech demo shows a more natural looking water. I hope they do the same with the grass and the cloud. If they find a way to make the grass more bend and random, and the clouds more stretched and scaled, then the engien will be even closer to virtual reality :)

If anyone that watches the HD Crysis videos starts to complain about the low texture resolutions and the jaggies, what did you expect from two x1900xt running a engine that benefits a lot more from Unified Shaders and SM4 standards?
They have to reduce the resolution a lot so it looks playable. Even with the verry low resolution, this engine is the best in graphics so far, so dont be so picky :stick:

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAMMAN

as i said my next upgrade will be my graphics card...in 6-7 months, before crysis is even released.

If your next-gen card is going to be a SM4 card, I would hold up until this game releases, which is probably in between 2007 and 2008.
The r600 will be the only one dominating in SM4 unless nVidia releases something else soon afther it. The g80 will most likely be SM3 with close to SM4 features, but wont get SM4 certification.
If you have the money to upgrade to that next-gen card and update half a year later for the other next-gen card designed to run in Crysis demand in performance, then go ahead with the r600 for now :p:

Quote:

Originally Posted by v_rr

:stick: :stick: :stick:
If you found any other game in the world more realistic than this tell something.....

That game only uses a portion of code in Direct_X10. Imagine when they release the next game full Direct_X10 :eek: ;)

We dont know that yet... unless you have any proofs.
There are no SM4 cards yet to show true SM4 in real-time. And as far as I know, SM4 doesnt have a huge difference in graphics. Its mostly a performance improvement and it also makes game development easier.
The Crysis engine was built using the DirectX 10 or 9.0c API, but SM4 screenshots are still unknown atm. If they ever showed SM4 screenshots, that means they have a r600 and by looking at the screenshots you would be able to guess how well the r600 is going to run in this game.

EDIT: That reminds me that Halo2 for PC will probably be the ONLY SM4 game that the r600 will take advantage at the moment. Im guessing they have to redo a lot of the Halo2 engine for the PC since they are forcing SM4 standards (which are strict) on a SM2 engine. Halo2 for PC will probably have better graphics while running smoother than in SM2 or SM3, because SM4 could be used to replace some of the effects mimiced by the Xbox SM2 engine version, and it will most likely take advantage of Unified Shaders and other stuff.
Some will probably buy Halo2 with a r600 just to mod it to run with SM4 effects and use it for SM4 benchmarking in more complex moded enviroments :p:
06-09-2006, 06:18 AM
Turok

BTW, those who were wondering if this is going to run well on real-time E3 gameplay, look at the videos that I posted for Richie P
http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=2509

Looks pretty smooth to me. I dont know what hardware they used on those presentations, tho. If you google it, there's probably someone that found out what they were using to run those gameplay footage.
06-09-2006, 06:26 AM
RAMMAN

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turok

If your next-gen card is going to be a SM4 card, I would hold up until this game releases, which is probably in between 2007 and 2008.
The r600 will be the only one dominating in SM4 unless nVidia releases something else soon afther it. The g80 will most likely be SM3 with close to SM4 features, but wont get SM4 certification.
If you have the money to upgrade to that next-gen card and update half a year later for the other next-gen card designed to run in Crysis demand in performance, then go ahead with the r600 for now :p:

r600 will probably come too late for me, and while g80 will most likely release in time, power consumption is a worry plus im not exactly made of money, i never spend over $350usd on a single part.x1950 xt/x will likely lack the performance i need.besides my single core p4 would cripple an r600/g80 lol :slap: .
perhaps a cpu/mobo upgrade is in order instead followed by the graphics card upgrade in another 6 months :confused: 6 months is 6 months.i should probably ask on this forum what to upgrade then.
06-09-2006, 06:45 AM
Cobalt

I'm not trying to say it isn't the best thing out yet but in my eyes it is still far from photo-realistic.
06-09-2006, 10:14 AM
3NZ0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hicks

On a 4400+ 2GB ram and a XTX? of Course it will man.

realy?

awsome:woot: :toast:
06-09-2006, 10:17 AM
perkam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobalt

I could tell pretty easily. The grass sprites were rubbish but if you look at the valley the floor looks very flat and has almost no depth as if all the details were done in textures with normal/bump/parallax maps. Also notice how the engine still has the fundamental problem with current HDR: It makes everything look very bright rather than realistic.

Try playing DOD:S with full hdr...its a pity the allies didn't have sunglasses standard issue during world war ii.

Perkam
06-09-2006, 01:22 PM
XS Janus

Quote:

Originally Posted by perkam

Try playing DOD:S with full hdr...its a pity the allies didn't have sunglasses standard issue during world war ii.

Perkam

LOL! Excessive HDR is for losers! :D
________
Zx14 Vs Hayabusa
06-09-2006, 05:18 PM
STEvil

campers love players who use HDR ;)
06-09-2006, 07:28 PM
Ominous Gamer

Quote:

Originally Posted by XS Janus

LOL! Excessive HDR is for losers! :D

I don't know, seems to me HDR is just another way to prove which gamers haven't actually experienced a sunny day in Florida.:rolleyes:
06-09-2006, 08:02 PM
Dillusion

is that dx9 or dx10
06-09-2006, 08:20 PM
Entity_Of_One

Quote:

Originally Posted by XS Janus

I thing we are 1 generation away from real lifelike nature.

I agree, it is indeed close on the horizon. If you look at how far photo-realism in gaming has come in just the last 2 years, it's gone from incredibly flawed and obviously fake-looking to something like this, where the visual line between a real photo and this rendered gaming experience is becoming extremely thin (though not quite gone). In the near future that line is destined to dissappear, resulting in a literal meaning of photo-realism in gaming. It's certainly exciting to watch the progression.
06-09-2006, 08:21 PM
[XC] Lead Head

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dillusion

is that dx9 or dx10

Dx9
06-09-2006, 08:47 PM
Turok

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dillusion

is that dx9 or dx10

As I said above, the screenshots are DX9 since there isnt a DX10 video card to take the screenshtos atm.
The difference between DX9 and DX10 is mostly performance and ease of development anyway.
The Crysis engine was coded to run on DX10, so expect higher quality screenshots from a SM4 card like the r600, since the performance increase will allow a increase in IQ without lagging.
06-09-2006, 09:26 PM
Richie P

Hardware: We saw the game running on an Intel Extreme Edition dual core processor, 2GB of RAM and X1900 CrossFire

Here
06-09-2006, 10:14 PM
STEvil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

I don't know, seems to me HDR is just another way to prove which gamers haven't actually experienced a sunny day in Florida.:rolleyes:

A sunny day is a sunny day anywhere. HDR is a fanboy gimmick.
06-09-2006, 10:57 PM
Flexkill

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEvil

A sunny day is a sunny day anywhere. HDR is a fanboy gimmick.

:ROTF: :clap: :toast:
06-09-2006, 10:59 PM
Flexkill

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmegaMerc

7800gt's don't even run smoothly on the newer games of today :(

lol , you guys kill me....7800 GT is plenty for games right now!:slap: :fact:
06-09-2006, 11:13 PM
OmegaMerc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flexkill

lol , you guys kill me....7800 GT is plenty for games right now!:slap: :fact:

Sure it is when you sacrifice some stuff on certain high end games.
06-09-2006, 11:31 PM
RAMMAN

yeah, in call of duty 2 i cant turn on AA+shadows @ 1280x1024 and still get acceptable fps.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page