Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 47 of 47

Thread: PC Game Alan Wake: Programmed for Quad Core (1 Core for physics!)

  1. #26
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,313
    boot clipping through the ground has nothing to do with DX10 or physics.. imho.

    And, for the record, I think the technology used to achieve certain effect in game is poor metric of comparison. There are many many games which were very successful using "old" technology.

    And, there are considerable number of visually impressive games that utterly failed. Afterall, the wow factor of spectacular visual imagery wears off pretty quickly when you're frustrated by the controls, ackward gameplay, lack of objectives or direction, and plot that kills braincells faster than beer.

    24/7: A64 3000+ (\_/) @2.4Ghz, 1.4V
    1 GB OCZ Gold (='.'=) 240 2-2-2-5
    Giga-byte NF3 (")_(") K8NSC-939
    XFX 6800 16/6 NV5 @420/936, 1.33V

  2. #27
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA, USA
    Posts
    2,883
    Actually from a programming standpoint this annoucement is rather negative than positive.

    When you change a program to take advantage of multiple CPU/cores, there are two ways:

    1) in a main program, find some "other" work for the other processors to do, "on the side" so to speak.

    2) split up whatever single thing you are doing right now so that it is SMP-capable. Do the same work on all processors (just on different moving chunks of data).

    The second way is utterly superior in actually utilizing all processors at all times but difficult to implement.

    The annoucement posted above admits that they are even proud to do 1). Of course that's still better than doing nothing,
    Last edited by uOpt; 09-29-2006 at 09:32 AM.

  3. #28
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    681
    I saw it live and I´m 99% sure it`s D3D10

  4. #29
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Flying through Space, with armoire, Armoire of INVINCIBILATAAAAY!
    Posts
    1,939
    Quote Originally Posted by JuanFlaiter
    I saw it live and I´m 99% sure it`s D3D10
    Again, it's just bump mapping. A lot of very well-done bump mapping, but still no cigar.
    Sigs are obnoxious.

  5. #30
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    1,620
    Those add-in physics cards are highly over-rated. Although they are more powerful than a CPU core, a cpu core, like core 2 duo, can be more than adequate for small-mid number of objects.
    Except not many people really rate Physics Cards at the minute, aside from Ageia.

    Personally, i've been waiting for this game for about 2 years now, can't wait for it to come out.
    Conroe E6300 ES
    2x1gb Ballistix PC8000
    Asus P5W DH Deluxe (1705)
    Manli Geforce 7950GT 512mb
    Hiper Type-R 480w
    Samsung SP250

    "What did the quantam duck say?" "Quark Quark"

  6. #31
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Herbert's House in Family Guy
    Posts
    2,381
    im thinking of getting Q6600 and OC it to somewhere near 3.6GHz 400fsb (best case scenario), but 3.2GHz at least i hope
    E6600 @ 3.6
    IN9 32x MAX
    EVGA 8800Ultra
    750W

  7. #32
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,313
    Quote Originally Posted by iddqd
    Again, it's just bump mapping. A lot of very well-done bump mapping, but still no cigar.
    you sound pretty sure... why?
    how do you differentiate bump mapping from:
    specular maps,
    environmental bump mapping,
    normal maps,
    parallax mapping (photon mapping),
    displacement mapping,

    24/7: A64 3000+ (\_/) @2.4Ghz, 1.4V
    1 GB OCZ Gold (='.'=) 240 2-2-2-5
    Giga-byte NF3 (")_(") K8NSC-939
    XFX 6800 16/6 NV5 @420/936, 1.33V

  8. #33
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Flying through Space, with armoire, Armoire of INVINCIBILATAAAAY!
    Posts
    1,939
    Quote Originally Posted by ***Deimos***
    you sound pretty sure... why?
    how do you differentiate bump mapping from:
    specular maps,
    environmental bump mapping,
    normal maps,
    parallax mapping (photon mapping),
    displacement mapping,
    TBH I don't see anything special; looks like plain old environmental bump mapping to me.

    They may claim it has ray tracing for all I care, it still looks like a higher res version of FarCry.
    Sigs are obnoxious.

  9. #34
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    1,196
    Guess it's just me but those screenshots look similar to the ones they showed last year. That being said I would assume it's DX9.

  10. #35
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,313
    Quote Originally Posted by iddqd
    TBH I don't see anything special; looks like plain old environmental bump mapping to me.

    They may claim it has ray tracing for all I care, it still looks like a higher res version of FarCry.
    well, now that you mention it, every single game made in the last decade can be reduced down to just colourful textures on polygons. Isn't that all that it is?

    24/7: A64 3000+ (\_/) @2.4Ghz, 1.4V
    1 GB OCZ Gold (='.'=) 240 2-2-2-5
    Giga-byte NF3 (")_(") K8NSC-939
    XFX 6800 16/6 NV5 @420/936, 1.33V

  11. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Leics UK
    Posts
    3,735
    Remember that this isnt the final game its just a pre-release to show off the fact the came up with 4 tasks for quad core processors...

    Clipping bugs and textures are the sort of things that they are likely to be working on at the moment... and these things are MUCH less noticable when your playing the game than when looking at stils.

    IMO, it looks pretty nice.
    Quite clever that they managed to get some sort of quad core implimentation going. Maybe quad core might be some advantage in games. But this game might still be a year or more away.

    As for AGEA... I think this sort of thing is going to HELP them not hinder them.
    There biggest problem will be having games made that take advantage of there cards.
    Although there cards are expensive at the moment... they may be able to drop the cost allot if they can sell volume. Most people are AT MOST going to have dual core CPU's when games like this release. If those non quad core people can get a decent FPS boost by buying a good value physics card then they might go for it... plus the performance freaks like us will probably buy quad core AND the physics card... this is XS after all!
    Remember that "most" games players lag at least 1-2 years behind technolody, just look at the hardware stats valve produces for HL2.

    http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html
    Last edited by Holst; 09-29-2006 at 02:30 PM.

  12. #37
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Flying through Space, with armoire, Armoire of INVINCIBILATAAAAY!
    Posts
    1,939
    Quote Originally Posted by ***Deimos***
    well, now that you mention it, every single game made in the last decade can be reduced down to just colourful textures on polygons. Isn't that all that it is?
    Yes, but you can't say that FarCry looks exactly like Quake III. Even if you use exactly the same textures (and quality) and same polygon count, Quake III doesn't have the same shader effects that FarCry does, that make it look more realistic. Such as bump mapping, for example. So no matter how high quality the content for Q3 will be, it won't look as good (until you implement the newer techology, which is theoretically possible with the Q3 source code up for grabs).

    But I just can't see anything new in these screenshots. Sure, they have more polygons. But I still see the same problems as in FarCry (such as grass sprites popping out of flat and shiny earth in the foreground).
    Sigs are obnoxious.

  13. #38
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,313
    Quote Originally Posted by iddqd
    Yes, but you can't say that FarCry looks exactly like Quake III. Even if you use exactly the same textures (and quality) and same polygon count, Quake III doesn't have the same shader effects that FarCry does, that make it look more realistic. Such as bump mapping, for example. So no matter how high quality the content for Q3 will be, it won't look as good (until you implement the newer techology, which is theoretically possible with the Q3 source code up for grabs).

    But I just can't see anything new in these screenshots. Sure, they have more polygons. But I still see the same problems as in FarCry (such as grass sprites popping out of flat and shiny earth in the foreground).
    First and foremost, you gotta see the whole IDF Alan Wake clip from youtube.. WOW.. took me a while to roll up my tongue, get the jaw back up in position and find and reposition my eyeballs. Compared to exisitng games, their level of sophistication and seamlessness of technology is unprecedented.

    iddqd, in ideal world we would be using much more realistic ray tracing for games, right? Then you could get CGI quality effects of all sorts. But, its very important to note that video game 3D graphics is about using as many shortcuts as possible to achieve as close approximation as possible at playable frame rate to create immersive environment. The how doesn't matter. You pick and tune specific technologies which best suit your purpose.

    Imagine for a second Doom3 without dynamic shadows. While you're at it, remove all shadows. The game is no longer scary or thrilling. The illusion is completely broken.. now its cartoony.

    There are many new exciting special effects features possible on current and next gen hardware, but not all are well suited to this kind of game. Using displacement mapping on the terrain although it would provide very high level of detail, would probably be impractical computationally. Likewise, it would be inappropriate to have colourful alien light distortion effects like in HL2. And BFG and rail gun special effects are obviously ill-suited for a game like Alan Wake.

    Finally, although the IDF guys are quick to showcase quad cores, that *ONLY* 4x performance of single core. Pretty much everything in 3D graphics is exponential. double the resolution of some texture, and you're using up 4x as much space. An extra level of tessalation of tree objects and their polygon count doubles. Apply to the world scene and suddenly you have the burden of processing millions of new polygons. I hope you guys know what I mean.

    24/7: A64 3000+ (\_/) @2.4Ghz, 1.4V
    1 GB OCZ Gold (='.'=) 240 2-2-2-5
    Giga-byte NF3 (")_(") K8NSC-939
    XFX 6800 16/6 NV5 @420/936, 1.33V

  14. #39
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    582
    oh damn, Looks so real.
    Thanks

  15. #40
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Upstate, NY
    Posts
    5,425
    Only engine that will top Source engine in efficiency and amazingness imho. I cant wait for that game
    Core i3-550 Clarkdale @ 4.2GHz, 1.36v (Corsair A50 HS/F) LinX Stable
    MSI H55-GD65 Motherboard
    G.Skill 4GBRL DDR3-1600 @ 1755, CL9, 1.55v
    Sapphire Radeon 5750 1GB
    Samsung F4 320GB - WD Green 1TB
    Xigmatek Utgard Case - Corsair VX550

  16. #41
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Herbert's House in Family Guy
    Posts
    2,381
    well i wanna see somebench between Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad on that game see what the differences are
    E6600 @ 3.6
    IN9 32x MAX
    EVGA 8800Ultra
    750W

  17. #42
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,313
    Quote Originally Posted by NickS
    Only engine that will top Source engine in efficiency and amazingness imho. I cant wait for that game
    IMHO source engine is pretty lame.
    I'd take Doom3 engine or Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory engine over it anyday.

    source engine water is too reflective, and poor portrail of waves. Lights arent dynamic. You cant shoot out lights. Models are fairly low detail (levels too.. pretty blockly.. HL2). Extensive use of specular EVERYWHERE to make stuff shiny. And, some bump maps. The ony significant impressive thing to me is the facial animation synchronization, and animation.

    Back to Alan Wayke,
    Do you suppose only several key objects are "physics enabled" and can thus be picked up by the tornado? wOuld the tornado pull up trees? Does the game support deformable terrain..?

    24/7: A64 3000+ (\_/) @2.4Ghz, 1.4V
    1 GB OCZ Gold (='.'=) 240 2-2-2-5
    Giga-byte NF3 (")_(") K8NSC-939
    XFX 6800 16/6 NV5 @420/936, 1.33V

  18. #43
    sleepin is overrated
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,308
    three letters says it all

    OMG

  19. #44
    c[_]
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    18,728
    send the tornado through a city. with skyscrapers, glass, and cars.. lots of cars.

    please.

    All along the watchtower the watchmen watch the eternal return.

  20. #45
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Surat, India.
    Posts
    1,309
    WOW. Is that even a Game. It looks damn Real, Esp the 2nd one.

    So will a Dual Core have have lower performance then Quad core in this Game ??
    Sound: Asus Essense ST | Wharfedale Diamond 9.1 | Norge 2060 Stereo amp | Wharfedale SW150 sub (coming soon)
    Camera Gear: Canon 6D | Canon 500D | Canon 17-40L | Canon 24-105L | Canon 50mm f1.4 | Canon 85mm f1.8 | Rokinon 14mm f2.8 | Sigma 10-20EX HSM | Benro A3580F + Vanguard SBH250 | Bag full of filters and stuff

  21. #46
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    519
    Quote Originally Posted by STEvil
    send the tornado through a city. with skyscrapers, glass, and cars.. lots of cars.

    please.
    I think they are saving that for an 8-core demo .

  22. #47
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,313
    IMHO, they need to pace themselves. Should have let it be with dual core for 2006. Introduce quad core 2007. Make better version 2008. Introduce octuple core 2009. Introduce better version 2010.. etc..

    otherwise the # cores grows exponentially and die shrinks can't keep up. It costs many billions for die shrink technology, and not enough time for sales.

    Now, Pentium days were good. 1993 to 1997 on about the same architecture (small chip changes).
    Heck even better were i486 days.. 1989 to 1993. If they released a version with slightly higher clock speed, you got all hyped up for Christmas time. Its quite unfortunate that:

    "In May 2006 Intel announced that production of the 80486 would cease at the end of September 2007"
    Last edited by ***Deimos***; 09-30-2006 at 03:25 AM.

    24/7: A64 3000+ (\_/) @2.4Ghz, 1.4V
    1 GB OCZ Gold (='.'=) 240 2-2-2-5
    Giga-byte NF3 (")_(") K8NSC-939
    XFX 6800 16/6 NV5 @420/936, 1.33V

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •