What do you think the new engine should be? [Poll]

[Arethusa]

Indeed. Say what you will about Far Cry, the helos, barrels, etc are handled dynamically. Of all the considered engines, UT2k4 is the only one that really has static objects. Y'know, because it's crap.

Anyway, I really must take issue with those who think the system requirements for the next version of INF shouldn't be much more than what they are now. I mean, honestly, what are you thinking?

 

[(SDS)benmcl]

But there is no point having objects that react to physics in a multiplayer game if those physics can not be replicated across a network without inducing serious lag.

I do agree though that the system requirements will go up. By the very nature of going to a new engine it must.

Who said Half-Life 2 won't run on Linux?

So you are telling me it can because that would be fine with me.

 

[fist_mlrs]

Indeed. Say what you will about Far Cry, the helos, barrels, etc are handled dynamically. Of all the considered engines, UT2k4 is the only one that really has static objects. Y'know, because it's crap.

wrong. static objects are used for pretty much everything in all these engines. applying physics to everything, regardless if it makes sense or not, would be a extreme waste of resources you can't justify. the physics in farcry do only controll the vehicles and a few selected objects and contructs, just as ut does.

making barrels roll down a hill still doesn't make a useable engine. what is truely needed is a good netcode and a effective sdk, both of which farcry doesn't offer yet. eyecandy isn't everything, if all modding you can do is importing new models and tweaking a few vallues the engine is not to be considered. infiltration has allways been a quite large project, and restrictive sdk pretty much rule an engine nonvalid for me.

 

[(SDS)benmcl]

Also you can easily add physic objects to any UT2K4 maps.

 

[rados]

duke nukem forever.


doom
+ nice texturing
+ nice lightning
- medicore mod support
- radiant excuse of a level editor
- no open landscapes
- poor netcode

farcry
+ large outdoor maps
+ nice looks
- if you got the übersystem with a dx8 graphic card
- from what i've seen rather restrictive modding
- poor netcode
- support situation unclear

ut2004
+ netcode
+ easy modding
+ voicetransfer
+ unrealed
- quite restrictive in some areas
- annoying hardwired limits
- poor occlusion control, no terrain lod

halflife
-we don't know **** about it

doom3
+ great hit detection and physics (players don't walk like skaters)
- high requirements
- smoke kills framerate

Take a look at this urban map for Doom 3:
www.tech-x.org


btw, I voted for UT2k4

 

[ravens_hawk]

I know the system requirements are going to go up, that's fine, I just want to make sure you don't need a 3Ghz machine with a Radeon 9800 or FX 5900 to run it smoothly. Consider for Doom 3 its suggested to have at least a 2Ghz machine... that will only go up when you mod it and start making INF type maps.

 

[Derelan]

I know the system requirements are going to go up, that's fine, I just want to make sure you don't need a 3Ghz machine with a Radeon 9800 or FX 5900 to run it smoothly. Consider for Doom 3 its suggested to have at least a 2Ghz machine... that will only go up when you mod it and start making INF type maps.

Alright, i'll give in to your request:

My specs:
-AMD Athlon XP 2000+ @ 1.67GHZ
-Geforce FX 5700 LE 128mb @ 300mhz
-512mb DDR 2100
-7200RPM Western Digital 80GB 8mb cache

My framerates:
UT2k4: 800x600 medium detail
-Full distance (with fog), some effects happening, some shooting: 17.21FPS
-Full distance, high effects, heat-of-the-action,14.57FPS
Doom3: 800x600 medium detail
-Average distance, effects, action: 28.67FPS
-Average distance, heat-of-the-action, shooting, bad guys: 11.20 FPS

These were all inconsistent tests, and cannot be repeated, however they were very long.

 

[Crowze]

Something's very wrong with your setup Dere. Either that or you were running a 16 player botmatch in 2k4 or something. My 2k4 peformance at highest detail 1280x1024 is far greater (20fps difference at least) than Doom 3 at medium 1024x768, although I have a different rig (XP 2500+, Radeon 9700, 768mb ddr400) and Doom 3 does tend to favour the nVidia cards.

 

[Arethusa]

Hawk, you're overlooking the fact that maps in UT99 are, on average, exceedingly simple. The average Infiltration map is much more complex. Likewise, the same would be true of UT2k4 and Infiltration 2. This would not be nearly so extreme with Doom 3 or Half-Life 2 as the baseline.

 

[Crowze]

I disagree, I think that at least the initial maps for Inf 2k4 or whatever they call it should be similar in complexity to current maps. That's the way it started out for Inf for UT - don't go for something exceedingly complex, just something that works and is effective. Things can be done a fair bit quicker that way, too.

 

[Derelan]

Something's very wrong with your setup Dere. Either that or you were running a 16 player botmatch in 2k4 or something.

Yes. Weren't you?

 

[gal-z]

Hmm how about sentrystudios makes a simple poll to see what machines people use so they can get an idea how much system reqs they can afford to demand?

 

[mat69]

I don't think they should think about our machines, but about the best engine for their purposes.
SS sticked years to the UT engine and they will stick at least one year to the new engine, by then the recommend hardware won't be that high.

 

[Nukeproof]

I don't think they should think about our machines, but about the best engine for their purposes.
SS sticked years to the UT engine and they will stick at least one year to the new engine, by then the recommend hardware won't be that high.

I agree, INF UT99 requirements were growing just along with the average player machine. I started playing INF 2 or 3 upgrades back on Celeron @ 450 Mhz and a TNT1 with 16 MB. It would be no pleasure to play 2.9 on it.

I expect the same to happen with the developement on a new engine. There is simply no room for big improvements if you wanne make granny with the most retarded machine happy Those who absolute can't afford any decent hardware will still be able to enjoy 2.9...

 

[Logan6]

Yeah, by the time they release a new inf on a new engine, the average machine will probably be at least 2.5 ghz, probably more, and Im guessing many people will have gone to 64 bit processors. So Im all for Far Cry or HL2 or Doom3 or any of the newer better engines. Face it, UT2004 is the last of the old engines. Its little more than a souped up UT99.

UT99 is an old old engine, but its amazing what the SS team and some of the other coders and mappers have done with it. I just dream what this game would be like on one of the newer engines.

 

[Hadmar]

Feel free to correct me.

Far Cry:
Windows

Half-Life 2:
Windows

Doom 3:
Windows, Xbox, Linux, Macintosh

Unreal Tournament 2004:
Windows, Linux, Macintosh

*edit* Thanks cracwhore

 

[cracwhore]

Face it, UT2004 is the last of the old engines. Its little more than a souped up UT99.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......

I don't know if you've played UT2k4, but it's hardly a "little more than a souped up UT99". You know "Splinter Cell"? Yeah, that's on the UT engine. So is "Theif: Deadly Shadows". Both games have fantastic lighting effects and look pretty damn nice on high detail. Granted, those companies had enough money to license the engine and such, but it's a flexible engine that will run decently on older hardware while still not looking all that terrible on lower detail settings. UT2k4 on it's own looks pretty nice with max detail. Besides that, there's "mutators" and "voicecom". Sure, HL2 will most likely have voicecom, but I don't think FarCry does.

I'd hate to see your critque of other engines you haven't used or seen on a nice computer.

Oh, and Doom 3 is coming out for Mac OSX and Linux.

 

[(SDS)benmcl]

The UT2K4 can be made to do some amazing things. Sorry but the actual UT2K4 is nothing compared to what can be done. When they developed Ut2K4 they hardly pushed the engine to what it is capable of.

 

[Derelan]

Yeah, by the time they release a new inf on a new engine, the average machine will probably be at least 2.5 ghz

Calculated using "time machine 4.0"

 

[Turin_Turambar]

The same can be said about the other engines. It´s true that future games with UT2004 will look 2x more great than the original UT2004, but still the future games with FC or Doom3 engine still will look better.

One has to think in the long term scale with these things. Almost mandatory if we are speaking about Inf.