View Full Version : What is left

22nd Apr 2001, 01:48 PM
What things can be improved in U2 or any games that follow so that they are not far from reality?

My opinion:
1. Sky: In outdoor levels the sky should actually be located infinitely far. When you shoot a razor upwards it shouldn't come back to you.
2. Water: It should react more like water. When you shoot on it or someone falls into water there should be waves around. And refraction should not be neglected.
3. Bullets should leave signs on walls and bodies (see quake ]|[, kingpin) and of course some classes (books, chairs etc.) must be destroyable.

I hope to see those in U2. What are your opinions?

22nd Apr 2001, 01:58 PM
All very good things, but they would significantly increase the strain on the system it's all being played on.

22nd Apr 2001, 04:31 PM

1. It's already "fixed" because there is no problem at all. The sky's height is only a matter of level design. You can place CloudZoneInfos under the fake backdropped ceiling and then you won't see projectiles exploding or coming back.

2. Waterrings? Already done...the same effect can be created with projectiles like when you jump into water, again with a little extra time of level design.
Refraction? Think about system resources...:D

3. Bullets leave decals on walls (Have you turned them off?) and pain skins can be used (with some coding tho) because the engine supports dynamic texture usage on models.

22nd Apr 2001, 06:10 PM
Ever heard of a game called serious sam? :)

anyway, visit


and read through the 56 excellent features of the serious engine.

Ps return to wolfenstein has many objects which can be destroyed am i right? You can ever destroy an entire bridge (if you have the firepower :)...)

Evolution or evilution.. ? :)

24th Apr 2001, 12:39 AM
Water Refraction is an absolute must and anyone who says its too much of a strain on the system hasn't taken Data Structures. I started a discussion about this earlier. It is definitely possible.

Waves? well the ripples are easy enough, but waves would require a complete physical model of liquids in gravity. Hmmm..., actually I think this could be done by making the water surface into a grid mesh, where each vertex could move and stretch.

UT does have weapon decals. And in Unreal, you can destroy lots of objects: chairs, barrels, vases, windows, even statues.

24th Apr 2001, 12:00 PM
well about waves in the water..

i'v seen this in these add-ons for games:

opposing force: yep, the water surface moves (there are ripples). Check out the moving water, at the beginning of the game, when you're in that big canyon.

nehahra for quake: you can enable this thru a console command. (since half life uses the modified quake engine, read quake1 engine :)

24th Apr 2001, 01:02 PM
No...I'm not talking about the waves...
But to calculate the reflection of the surroundin area on the rippling water surface. It is possible but the necessary hardware is just getting into the stores now...

24th Apr 2001, 10:58 PM
i like your sig chris :D

like the other unreal games I presume you can backward the detail, so reflections as above can be an option.

25th Apr 2001, 12:35 PM

Simple flat reflections are possible. I'm talking about a "rippling reflection". That would be realistic but would need some decent hardware...

(Looks like it's hard to understand me...:D)

25th Apr 2001, 06:17 PM
oh just go and take a dip in some real water :) there.. ripples .. waves... all you'll ever need..!

(i'm also complicated, sometimes i don't understand what the hell i'm talking about..:)....)

This is all so.. unreal...

1st May 2001, 07:05 PM
And there's another thing. All those poly counts etc. Sure it will be a great improvement this "hundredfold increase for environments" but can't a real sphere or curved surface be constructed? OK I know the answer is no, but why?

2nd May 2001, 12:50 PM
Didn't the quake 3 engine boast about 'true' curved surfaces.

And there was an option in the unreal console...dont know if it did anything or not :)

Again, engines aren't my thing.

As for all the true water characteristics...yeah...all very nice but soon forgotten when playing...unless the game is dull...which I hope it aint :)

Make it real up to a point...but theres no point redesigning and making whole new physics engines to cope with it...time verses the impact of the effect.

Plus I only have a voodoo 3 3k... :D


2nd May 2001, 02:49 PM
time to upgrade kef :)

Anyway, i guess you and me are both different gamers :)
I like gameplay and i also like the special effects and graphics etc. very much. i mean, it'd be kinda silly if computer games would stop evolving.

BUt don't worry kef, i know what you mean (for the record) :-) damn how do you put that smiley with the big grin in your message? :S

know what? unreal warfare for you, unreal2 for me :) how about that?

2nd May 2001, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by NeoNite
know what? unreal warfare for you, unreal2 for me :) how about that?

Sounds good to me. Shame that Unreal Warfare aint going to show up till well after U2 tho. :D

Oh, and the big grin is a ':' and a 'D' :D


2nd May 2001, 03:24 PM
I would not expect Uwarfare to hit till after 64 bit CPUs get here, and maybe new op systems

2nd May 2001, 07:42 PM
tnx kef :D

Actually, i do like mp games, don't take me wrong here :) i'd like playing a game in the likes of unreal warfare heh.. :D
ok enough smileys..

And yes, i bet those games will need some decent HORSEPOWER :) meaning a FIne pc with a damn fine graphics card etc... upgrading.. upgrading.. :S

3rd May 2001, 06:00 AM
Well, just like all the current games, these advanced physical features should be optional. And I think the amount of realism completely changes the psychology of your game when you play. Water was for hundreds of millenia an alien environment for homo sapiens, and making it more realistic would certainly create a greater feeling of danger diving into the depths.

BTW: does anybody know if these games are using floating point math? 'cuz fixed point math can make it hundreds of times faster, esp. if coprocessor supports it. There are many techniques to lower the amount of calculations taking place, such as drastically reducing unnoticable details in the distance (I think U2 does this), having a lower poly-count version of map features when frame-rates drop, etc. I think much higher levels of efficiency and realism can still be reached without another generation of upgrading.

3rd May 2001, 10:13 AM
I know the Uengine pulls accuracy down to around 0.0000001% or so
If it sets its accuracy at only one point, IE 7-8 digitis%, it will be fixed.
I dont think it needs heavy floating calcs.
It would take lots more time to calc that.
I have not seen values running in the 8*10E12^4 range :D

5th May 2001, 02:49 PM
I almost forgot, curvature of perspective. This is the effect that what we percieve as straight lines, are actually curved. Well, in reality (or at least for all practical purposes) the lines are straight, but are eyes see them as curves, which our brains then convince us are actually straight, which they actually are (I hope).

Now If that made any sense at all then don't try the following experiment:
Stand on a railroad platform facing the opposite side of the tracks, straight tracks preferrably. The tracks should look perfectly straight to you. Now turn your head right and look down the path of the tracks. Notice they are all converging in an upward angle.
Next, turn your head to the left, and they are also converging in an upward angle in the opposite direction. In fact the tracks define a huge smile shaped curve.

Now try this experiment: try to stand as perfectly as you can on a single point on the ground and rotate in a complete circle. Notice that the geometry of your view barely changes at all. In fact, if you could look through a single eye that remained perfectly above a point on the ground and spun in a complete circle, the geometry of the view (discounting moving objects) would not change at all.

Now try doing this in any 3-D Viewpoint program. Notice all the lines change as they wrap onto and off of the screen. If you increase your field of view in UT by typing FOV 120 in the console, this effect becomes drammatically pronounced (and can make you very dizzy).

It is the fact that we actually see straight lines as curves that allow us to see a complet 360` vista as a static image.
If the renderer could translate the straight lines in the game map into curves as our eyes would actually see them, the straight line-fish eyed effect would be gone.

I will go so far as to say that we will not have created a true visual virtual reality until we achieve this (well, of course we can do it now, but the calculations are ponderous). Kudos to whovever pulls it off in real-time on a PC first. Or if somebody already has, congrats!

9th May 2001, 06:10 AM
Shadows. That is, silhouettes created by objects in front of a light source, rather than just areas of darker ambient lighting.

This could be computationally expensive, but would probably be the most dramatic increase in realism of any effect, especially in dark match games, as the shadows would shift and stretch as you shine your searchlight around. This would also create superb possibilities in level design.

9th May 2001, 01:26 PM
...and then you get into this room, mirrors all around, a skaarj falls in there too, you see skaarj everywhere, you don't know where to shoot and... you're dead (or your processor collapses):D

I 've tried to make a room like this and I've realized that mirrors need some improvement. For example you can't see yourself when you stand too close and they need to reflect things more accurately.

9th May 2001, 03:19 PM
Hm unreal had it's share of mirrors right?

vortex rikers for example

at the end of "gate to napali" or "napali haven"..

and that big tower, eh.. the level.. there's a big gasbag at the top of the tower, and you can see your reflection in the floor. Very cool. :)

9th May 2001, 05:02 PM
There are a couple of bugs with mirroring surfaces but they'll be fixed.

9th May 2001, 07:55 PM
Give me as much fancy stuff as Unreal had and more, combine with all that terrain etc, and I'll be happy.

10th May 2001, 02:04 PM
Have you seen the terrains in the "unreal2" screenshots?
beautiful :) there's another fps game with terrains like these: venom.
right? it sure felt great walking around in an open landscape like that...

10th May 2001, 03:57 PM
And Halo looks really cool too...

10th May 2001, 04:07 PM
The GeForce3 supports the refraction effects you are looking for, whether they will be used in the new engine or not is another story.

18th May 2001, 06:27 AM
After mulling this around on the back burner of my mind (where all the real work gets done), it suddenly occurred to me that water refraction is mind-numbingly basic. You don't need any light-curvature-ray-tracing technique at all. You simply recalculate the vertexes of each visible polygon in the water in relation to the viewers location. Not only does this not require any souped up hardware or processing power, but compared to many effects, such as fractal animation or dynamic lighting, it is quite trivial. The current Unreal Engine could handle it easily, even in software-rendering.

The only hitch is making sure the polygons line up with the surface of the water, so that there is a clear division between above-water and underwater surfaces. This could be a problem in levels where water gradually rises to fill a pool, for instance, but how often does that happen?

With that said, I will be sorely disappointed if U][ does not have water refraction.