New CryEngine 3 Trailer Shows How the Next Generation Could Look

[RoyalWelsh]

A little too shiny I thought but it still looks absolutely stunning.

 

[antigodoflife]

While it's still technically impressive, it seems too shiny, I thought the idea was to go for realism in better graphics, and I'm pretty sure we don't put a chrome plating on everything.

Speak for yourself. My chromium batmobile, has shiny Chrome wheels, and shiny chrome interiors... I don't really like to drive in summer weather... BUT iT'S SHINY!

 

[Alon Shechter]

Running this game would really make my machine...
*puts on sunglasses*
Cry.
YYYEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

 

[Saulkar]

One problem I have always had with tech demos is that they show off awe inspiring features that no studio ever bothers to implement into their games. We have the computer power for realtime fluid dynamics but you never see it implemented into games beyond tech demos.

Hahahahahahahahaha! (falls off chair)

seriously where did you get that crap? the best desktop CFD programs you can get look like thin glue rather than water, unnatural is the word.
Yes they would look nice in a computer game but unless the game would be a waste. Especially as the faking it methods of engines like cryengine3 actually looks better at a glance.
Maybe when voxel engines can be run at high enough resolution to look good we might see CFD as a standard game feature; seeing as the voxels have to be drawn and lit anyway the extra calculations to give them convincing movement will be a, relatively, small cost.

Do you know what the most powerful supercomputer in the world runs? Fluid dynamics simulations. It's far more powerful replacement will still be a very, very long way from doing the job properly.

OT, Can we get a SoC type game based in that forest. It would have been a better tech demo than that car.

Seriously do not be a jerk about it. Passive aggressive comments like this are entirely unwanted and unjustified. You can state you do not agree with me, that is perfectly ok but using excesive language to express your dissaproval combined with informal (rude) interjected comments renders one unwillful to talk to you. Realtime fluid dynamics like in this demo:


Generate a far more convincing graphical element than a static polygonal, flat representation of a stream of water with the actual water spray looking like glass dust bunnies. If you do not want or do not have the computing power to run it. That is ok, turn it off in the options menu. End of problem, there are numerous other things featured in tech demos desides fluid dynmaics that have yet to be implemented (or at least properly) in real time. Besides by fluid dynamics you automatically assumed I meant water, fluid refers to anything that flows, like smoke or fire, mist or clouds. All fluid dynamics that have appeared in games before 2008 run on midrange computers today at about 100+ frames per second like warmonger or cellfactor. Not perfect but decent games. They take up computer power yes, but there are those like me who say bring it on.

 

[MrTub]

I still think that the Cry Engine 3 uses way too many shaders, just look from 0:17 to 0:25, the colour looks blurred and the light messes things up, its like the image has some kind of filter rape. Crysis 2 also has that "thing".

I agree. I also noticed that during the Crysis 2 demo that the lights make this kind of in your face effect that blurs everything. It's like being forced to look in the general direction of a light source and you can't squint and your eyes don't dilate. The game looks fine otherwise. I am not gonna lie, I tried that leaked beta, and then I tried the demo, and the demo runs like junk. I don't have the most cutting edge hardware around, but I do have 2 460GTX SLI'ed up, and the demo wouldn't give me more than 30 FPS, where the beta game me 62 FPS. This makes me ask 2 questions. 1.) Is the final game capped at 62 FPS? 2.) Is the demo optimized really poorly? Because it looked the same as that leaked beta. Not as buggy, I'll say that, haha.

PS. Before anyone freaks out, I already have Crysis 2 pre-ordered. So, lick my balls. Also, if they have some sort of annoying DRM surprise, I WILL be downloading a crack for my purchased game.

That you cannot play the demo with steady 60 fps with 460 sli probably means that your cpu cannot keep up or simply cause Nvidia drivers atm do not support Sli on Crysis 2 unless you have the beta version. I've got 480 sli and even with just one I can still play the demo with steady 60 fps and still have some power left.

 

[Odegauger]

oh my god it looks like shit

what is this, 2003?

 

[imnot]

Well, my eyes just had an orgasm with all that scenery porn [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SceneryPorn].

You bastard...

*4 hours later*

anyway thats really pretty :3

 

[Boxinatorizore]

I'm gonna have to start main-lining stream processors for when Crysis 2 comes out.

 

[Unrulyhandbag]

/snip

Sorry if my tone upset you but I'm hardly passive aggressive; I'm all for advancement even if it's only a detail thing. It was the casually flipping out 'we could do fluid dynamics years ago' and the indignation that we don't see it in-game very often that made me laugh not the idea we should integrate such a feature.
The reason for laughter
1) We already have none-liquid fluid dynamics in games - particle physics have been in almost everything since '98. Yes they are very rudimentary hack-jobs but they are there.
2) There's a common attitude in games making that runs "if you can get away with it, fake it." and with good reason.

Most games players don't stop moving for long, so a detailed render would be wasted. They only need something that is reasonably convincing for the glance they pass over your effect. Saving have to be made in any game engine and high expense systems that offer only a small improvement to the atmosphere are always going to be the first features dropped unless you game is based on fluid or soft bodies. Even then it usually gets done in the simplest way, Gish was all fakery when it comes to soft body simulation.

The same can be said for our current water render systems, many of them can simulate rippling pretty nicely if the devs wanted them to but you rarely see even those looking their best much less plugging in fluid dynamic approximation. When it comes to water even the best desktop PC systems are far from convincing. The physx tech demo you posted looks wrong; very cool and a lovely effect that would add to a game but it's not water. Added to that the demo won't even render at all on the majority of PC's. It's just not good enough for the performance trade off.
I wish it were the idea of water pouring around and lapping at pool edges in games would improve my playing no end, I remember spending a good 15 minutes stepping in and out of the water in Outcast to watch the game calculate the rippling and when Unreal came out stopping to stare at the dynamic fire effect and being stunned that it never really repeated.

I mentioned voxels and full lighting in my reply not just anecdotally but as a comparative technology, you build your engine around big complex features not shoehorn them in.
If the physics cards had ever got off the ground then we might have seen basic liquid dynamics and better particle system by now. Unfortunately, with Nvidia folding physx into their graphics iron and stopping it becoming a hardware standard that dream will have to wait a few years. Maybe AMDs CPGPU will see these sorts of features become commonplace but not being an industry standard I doubt it.

 

[Jamous]

Christ this looks insane. :O Dark Sorcerers indeed...

 

[murphy7801]

*imagines Timesplitters 4 being that beautiful*

*orgasm*

You don't need a very high-end machine at all to run this at max spec ATM. Why? Because they don't have a game that even utilizes DirectX 10/11 with CryEngine 3 yet. And if rumors are to be believed, Crysis 2 won't have support for those until later, either. Currently, I do believe the rumors, because I e-mailed several of Crytek's divisions a good three days ago, asking about DirectX support at launch, and they haven't even had the decency to tell me that they can't reveal that information. Not a single peep.

Which is funny, and kind of odd, because Crysis 1 was one of the first games to use DirectX 10.

Well not really since he hasnt done any research that the even demo has a directx11 option on the pc. Main game full support on directx11 11 lighting and tessellation it was in some video card press release ages ago in 2010 which also featured the cryengine 3 which can do those features. I am more amazed how much of a directx 11 drive EA has gone on BFBC2,Battle forge, Dragonage 2, Crysis 2, MOH and the up coming Battlefield 3!

Neither the demo nor the leaked build of Crysis 2 have DirectX support beyond DirectX 9. And given that the leaked build was a late January release, it's unlikely that they have time to add in DX10/DX11 support prior to launch. Crytek doesn't care about black PC people.

there a directx 11 patch coming for the demo soon

 

[Goody]

While it's still technically impressive, it seems too shiny, I thought the idea was to go for realism in better graphics, and I'm pretty sure we don't put a chrome plating on everything.

Speak for yourself. My chromium batmobile, has shiny Chrome wheels, and shiny chrome interiors... I don't really like to drive in summer weather... BUT iT'S SHINY!

That sounds awesome, and CryEngine3 could render it perfectly

 

[Wuggy]

OT: Do consumer pcs yet exist that could run it though...

I think Nasa is working on it.

 

[Mechsoap]

What could best describe my feelings towards this engine is...

Spoiler

 

[Wicky_42]

Man, I loved the real-time rendering/editing/posing from Maya, that was sweet Very shiny, sweet lighting effects... thing was, it all looked like rendered footage - and the tree scene looked like game graphics, which was a disappointment. But real time? With those lighting effects? Pretty sweet :]