Interesting video of Unreal Engine 4
Ohnojojo
Join Date: 2011-08-01 Member: 113400Members
Join Date: 2011-08-01 Member: 113400Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Some ideas or thoughts to developers</div><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8</a>
I understand that the Spark Engine is brand new and with the deadline just looming around the corner, I don't expect to see vast improvements to the engine's core concepts.
But I think this is just a fun video, an interesting one and might get some creative juices going for things that can be done realistically in the game.
If anything at all, its just nice to watch. Enjoy!
I understand that the Spark Engine is brand new and with the deadline just looming around the corner, I don't expect to see vast improvements to the engine's core concepts.
But I think this is just a fun video, an interesting one and might get some creative juices going for things that can be done realistically in the game.
If anything at all, its just nice to watch. Enjoy!
Comments
I really would love to see a few of the stuff shown in the video in spark, tho no idea what of it is really possible with dx9 (or at least as "easy" to implement for dx9)
We really need particle lighting(or whatever it is called), so steam and smoke doesnt pop out like it does atm, more or less ignoring lightning and shadows.
Also the particle stuff at around 3:20 would be cool effects for the phasegate portal or blink and stuff like that...
Who am i kidding... pretty much everything in this video would be an awesome addition for ns2 :P
edit: (for ppl that like the broken youtube bb code that doesnt let you go fullscreen)
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MOvfn1p92_8"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MOvfn1p92_8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
However, I'm more interested in the trigger system in that video/engine, seems very interesting!
Yeah, that, among many other features, are definitely something Max and I have talked about adding to the engine, for over a year now. However, the silly programmers seem to think that making the game run faster is more important then eye candy right now Psshhh. :P
A lot of these tech features are not necessarily that hard to add to the engine, but it will unfortunately have to wait until post 1.0.
--Cory
How much does it cost ? I guess it will be cheap :)
Lens flare are really stupid yeah.
I thought so... :P
(i remember that something like that was mentioned a few times, together with proper transparency, and this hdr toning/light stuff(and a few other things)... but its nicer when a dev comes by - giving some up to date status on the matter)
Ty Cory.
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qq3mYmzOelI"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qq3mYmzOelI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
As for the UE4, it looks nice. Though will they finally build a proper Unreal Tournament with it I wonder...
As for the UE4, it looks nice. Though will they finally build a proper Unreal Tournament with it I wonder...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I remember correctly using PhysX for fancier and more realistic particle and lighting effects would be restricted mainly to current mid-end or older high-end Nvidia GPU's whilst any rendering through current-gen CPU's would end-up in extremely disappointing performance. As an AMD user I am extremely biased and protest against any cool exclusive features others may get to enjoy but not add any-real gameplay advantage/disadvantage towards, or force Nvidia to support hybrid Nvidia/AMD combinations already; I would even buy an Nvidia GTS 450 if I could get a dedicated PhysX card on the side. :(
I think the realtime GI would have the best impact on NS2
Definitely need more lens flare.
Also, along with proper per particle shadowing and lighitng etc... Object motion blur. So tastey
But: once first games using this tech come out, 2 years will have passed. And there is a reason why, until now, years after a tech demo, games don't look as impressive as the tech demos 4 years ago. For eyample look at the tech demo for UE3 from 2006. Mayn games today don't have this visual quality, yet. Why? Because tech artists are the limit, and the tooling. You need a lot of time from great modelers and tech artists to get the props and models and effects for such tech demos, and if that where a real game, these 5 minute experience (normally running through) would cost too much dev time..
But Nr.2: with this editor they are showing, and this extreme low iteration time, I think it's the first time we can see games with similar quality to the tech demo in a few years. Sure, it's not just the edtor, but also all the other tools you use (esp. 3dMax/Photoshop etc.). But it's absolutely stunning how much dev time Epic puts in it's dev tools, look at there team, most working just on engine and tools, I guess: <a href="http://epicgames.com/files/area/epic-company-photo-2011.jpg" target="_blank">http://epicgames.com/files/area/epic-company-photo-2011.jpg</a>
No wonder UWE searches for a tools programmer. If they want to license spark in any way, the tools got to become more userfriendly. Maybe it's just for the community, but I think it's also to have a potential third income (if the game and the LUA editor are seen as 1 and 2), or at least the option in a not too distant future.