Oh my God! It's full of photorealistic realtime graphics!

Alek · Post by **Alek** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:55 pm

Take a look and try to keep your breath even:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/crysi ... index.html

zelda4evr · Post by **zelda4evr** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 5:12 pm

who made this?

jonas · Post by **jonas** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:02 pm

cool!

@zelda4evr
Its say's it is made by Crytek

ardentcrest · Post by **ardentcrest** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:01 pm

Not bad!

BET Andy's RF2 Can do better

jonas · Post by **jonas** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:31 pm

at least as good! But hopefully rf2 will pass it!

MakerOfGames · Post by **MakerOfGames** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:28 am

Are you people serious? Will RF2 be able to produce similar results? Because that would be sweet! How about it AndyCr? Will RF2 have the capibilities to do this?

Just imagine the game industry even as early as a year from now. These spectacular graphics will become standard!

BTW: There are more screens at IGN. http://media.pc.ign.com/media/694/694190/imgs_1.html

Post by **AndyCR** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:51 am

I was kind of avoiding this thread.

The true answer is I don't know. I'm taking an existing graphics engine, plugging in other types of engines and libraries to make it a game engine, and wrapping a new version of rf around it. I know very little about graphics programming, which is part of why I didn't make my own engine for rf2 (besides time). I personally don't have the skills in art to make such content as that to test. If someone does have good content, I'll be happy to test it in RF2's engine, and might even release a screenshot or two of the results.

Kamazy · Post by **Kamazy** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm

Yeah this game uses the farcry2 engine. (or something "cry2" engine) That thay use for farcry2.
It's preaty good.

MakerOfGames · Post by **MakerOfGames** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:30 pm

AndyCR wrote:I was kind of avoiding this thread.

The true answer is I don't know. I'm taking an existing graphics engine, plugging in other types of engines and libraries to make it a game engine, and wrapping a new version of rf around it. I know very little about graphics programming, which is part of why I didn't make my own engine for rf2 (besides time). I personally don't have the skills in art to make such content as that to test. If someone does have good content, I'll be happy to test it in RF2's engine, and might even release a screenshot or two of the results.

I didnt mean to put you on the spot in front of the whole forums like that but I meant about the RF2 capibilities in a very general sense. I looked up some stuff on the Irrlicht engine and jugding from what I have seen this isn't too out of reach. I think the only thing not recreateable is the ultra high poly counts. Just remember that professional artists worked on everything in the Crysis screens, we are the ones that will determine how pretty games can be made with RF2 with our own skills.

Check out these awsome screens of the irrlicht engine in action.
http://irrlicht.sourceforge.net/images/shots/073.jpg
http://irrlicht.sourceforge.net/images/shots/076.jpg
http://irrlicht.sourceforge.net/images/shots/064.jpg
http://irrlicht.sourceforge.net/images/shots/065.jpg
^the pretty scene behind the windows and lists that are opened.

They came from this list of screens at the irrlicht home page
http://irrlicht.sourceforge.net/screenshots-recent.html

Also, the rock scenes look like they are mainly parallax mapped, I think it is called.(a texture layer that is read by computer to give those stones the 3D appearance that is more than just lighting.) Anyway, thats just an FYI.

Post by **AndyCR** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:03 am

no problem. comments on the shots:

1 and 2: one of rf2's crowning features, parallax mapping (aka virtual displacement mapping, one of unreal engine 3's most vaunted features). those shots actually look a bit ugly compared to what it can do.

3: old, old map. loading quake 3 maps in irrlicht. i guess it looks decent, and probably better than the average rf1 feature, but its still 2 generations behind what it can do.

4: im pretty sure thats just a skycube.

the menus and stuff from irrlicht arent likely to see much use in rf2 beyond error reporting and the like.

one of the things people will notice about rf2 is that it just feels natural. it's rf1, redefined. but it's still rf1. its like rf1 was picked up and had most of it's limits taken away. you dont feel as limited; "ill make this- oh, wait, rf cant do that. oh well." no problem.

i plan on doing a perhaps-public-maybe-private beta soon. dont expect much except maybe a dialog box saying success or failure with a link showing where to submit the resulting log file.

Kamazy · Post by **Kamazy** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:21 am

Seen it..
Irrlicht is just a graphics engine it has nothing to do with games if you want anything you have to program it.
I like RF cuz you need 0 programing to make a game.

[edit]
Irrlicht looks good but isn't practical.
The game i'm making the main question is how many poly how high the texture resolution and how much will that make out of the system.
looks come second or third. Thats why many games look good but play bad.

Post by **AndyCR** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:56 am

That's true. the main reason i focus so much on the graphics of rf2 is because it inherits the gameplay from rf1, which is already pretty complete in that area.

I don't know how you can say Irrlicht isn't practical. It's one of the fastest game engines in existance. Systems which don't support it's next-generation features (ie low end systems that would display them at a very much decreased framerate even if they could display them) simply dont display those features, unlike in Ogre where the program crashes. Irrlicht is, from what ive seen, very much faster than RF1, has greater hardware compatibility, and is quite simple to program for (of which the advantage to the user is more frequent updates and a faster release).

Kamazy · Post by **Kamazy** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 1:13 am

I didn't say is wasn't fast.
I just think it has many thing you just don't need. (Maybe thats why many other people like it)
I'm all for great graphics but irrlicht a over-kill for me.
I'm 100% sure it can make a game that looks like doom 3 but few indi developers want to.
We'r using TV3d which can also make stuff like irrlicht but it's easy to program and more practicle.
I guess it demends on what kind of game you want to make and how much recourses (team members) you have.

[edit]

Here's a screen from our game-to-be.

http://www.geocities.com/kamazys/Ax_liberta01.JPG

As you can see there's no need for most of irrlichts features.
If we did put them it would give a poor frame rate.[/url]

MakerOfGames · Post by **MakerOfGames** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 4:27 am

Wow, if those screens are as dated as you say then Im way behind the times. Maybe its just cause I am a console gamer(Gamecube all the way!) and I have a TNT2 Pro 64Meg graphics card that cant play many new games. If RF2 can do a lot more than in those screens I will be ecstatic!!!

(I will be more than that if my graphics card can play games of that quality!)

Post by **AndyCR** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 4:43 am

It may be overkill for some projects I suppose.

It will of course be able to do anything shown in Irrlicht screenshots, but I want to be a bit hush on RF2's capabilities until a bit later on.