Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can The Unigine Engine Get Any Better? Yes, And It Has.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Qaridarium,

    Arma2 screenshots are indeed spectacular. Don't listen to them.

    People just don't want to accept the fact that there are no decent 3D engines for OpenGL. Even Unigine Haven demo looks terrible IMO - everything is bumpy, there is little to be seen in small details.

    Comment


    • #22
      terrible, psh.
      arma2 is outdone by unigine hands down.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by b15hop View Post
        Plus ARMA 1 / 2 suck as far as gameplay is concerned. Crysis at least has good gameplay.
        i don'T talk about the gameplay.

        arma2 beat crysis in graphic quality watch the vehicles for exampel.

        the triangel count in arma2 per vehicle is higher and the textures are just higher resolution.

        arma2 also beats crysis in view distance 10 000m if you hardware is not grandmas old shoes.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
          In your OPINION. The pics you linked aren't as great as you think of them. I'm certainly unimpressed with what you're using as "proof" here- it's nothing that compares to some of the more advanced game engine graphics- not to mention that ARMA II doesn't do it natively to begin with.
          the point is arma2 is a real game and more than 2 year old

          be sure if there is any game with unigine engine we have an real pice of graphic to compare

          real game screenshots are not benchmarks and not techdemos

          and i think the level of quality is very high i don't think an lowcost unigine production can beat an highquality year old game like arma2.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
            the point is arma2 is a real game and more than 2 year old
            Ah, but you changed your point, because you presented those screenshots as:

            Originally posted by Qaridarium
            unigine and dx11 hardware what a waste the screenshots can be beaten by dx9 hardware with ARMA2...
            Honestly, I'm not a gamer neither do I care much about the latest uber graphics developments, but those screenshots, while pretty nice, do not look as good as Unigine's. They play on the same league, I'll give you that.

            Comment


            • #26
              arma2 video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KK6Fo3Y0AU from this video i can say clearly that, lighting sucks, fire and smoke effect aren't better than in crisis or UE 3 (Direct3D based engines). Grass, so ugly can't comment on that. Qaridarium, your opinion on graphics quality aren't good to compare it with any other game engine.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzVE...eature=related the video speaks for itself...

              Now OpenGL based engines that comes to my mind are Id Tech 4 (look out for Wolfenstein by Raven software and Brink by Splash Damage) & 5 (the last on is top quality yet uncomplete), Unigine IS great enough to be compared to against Id Tech 4 & 5, Now think about the differences between OpenGL 2.1 (Idtech 4 (Brink/Wolfenstein) / Unigine Tropics demo) and 3.x and 4.x (Idtech 5 (Rage) / Unigine Heaven demo)...

              Qaridarium stop whining about things we don't have on linux (arma2 isn't native). Most of the time that you comment on something is all about whining. You are definitely pessimist and cynical. We don't need people like you whining about this and that. Last time that you behaved just like this (like a jerk) was on the steam port to linux i think and i thought that you left the forums because you said that this forum was BS and what not. your argument are weaks and most of the time useless. it's like you were comparing apples with planets.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                i don'T talk about the gameplay.

                arma2 beat crysis in graphic quality watch the vehicles for exampel.

                the triangel count in arma2 per vehicle is higher and the textures are just higher resolution.

                arma2 also beats crysis in view distance 10 000m if you hardware is not grandmas old shoes.

                I paid money for Arma2. I actually want my money back on that game. It was crap. It always will be. Sorry but it's true. Just my opinion, like many others here would agree. Do you know what kills the game, it's BUGGY. The game is unfinished and even when patched up, still buggy as hell. To the point that you can't even finish some of the missions. When a game gets so bad that it feels like a chore to finish, you kind of give up really fast. In fact I only got 1/5th the way through before getting frustrated enough to just want to use the CD as a frisbee ~chuck~.

                Unreal 2004 used OpenGL and the game-play feels lovely and smooth. Sure the graphics are older because of texture count and model detail. John Carmack mentioned that simply counting model detail in terms of polygons per character does NOT equate to better graphics. What counts is how well the polygons are put to use. Arma2 wastes polygons by shoving them everywhere. Putting them where they're not needed. All those fanciful trees in that little example you gave us...Sure... Looks good. But uh, screw game play. Screw optimisation too.

                UT2004 has better graphics, because the developers make excellent use of the graphics ability of the OS/Drivers/Hardware at the time. I would argue that it's overall a better game engine even with the dodgy scripting and shonky map editing software. OpenGL is just the API to the hardware anyway, so it wouldn't matter if it was D3D or OGL. The fact that Arma2 is unpolished makes it a very pointless release. Mentioning the API is like comparing the same car painted in different colours. You want something to whine about, whine about PC ports over Console ports rather than Arma2 vs Unigine 3.0...

                Yet ironically, this is another problem with a lot of PC games lately... Too many dodgy console ports that come to PC still feeling like a console game. Even the menu's still include the controller (xbox or ps3) as if the game was just recompiled and shipped away. Yeah very professional.. =( It's getting to the point that even some of the prized PC games have xbox360 or ps3 written all over them. It puts you off wanting to buy such ported games for that reason alone. I don't think marketing understand the psychological impacts of stupid decisions like that. Oh yeah save money but in the end, people don't play games that play like crap on PC. Games specialised for PC are just better full stop. Hell I would argue that even Arma2 is probably another dodgy console port... I wouldn't be surprised.

                The fact that games like UT2004 or Quake games even made it to Linux is a privilege because there is little money to be made by doing so. Otherwise every game developer and their dog would be doing so right now. The consoles seem to be making the money right now so even the PC gamers are suffering. What is this, 6 billion dollar industry in the console market yet only 1 billion in the PC market? What percentage of these are games made on other OS platforms such as Mac and Linux. I'm starting to think that maybe (as much as I hate to say it) Steam will rescue the PC gaming market because it seems to be one of the few things doing well on PC these days. Blizzard would have to be one of the other few niche companies that are otherwise reaping it in. Unfortunately they don't want to know about Linux. Unless of course it's one of their servers that probably run battle.net ... That's another story.

                I don't even know why Arma2 was brought up. It's like apples and oranges to me. If anything it should be two DX11 / OpenGL 4 engines being compared... Not two engines from different generations. Especially not a game that as far as I'm concerned was probably a rushed console port that sold poorly and really didn't make the cut. Hey why not compare the Fallout 3 engine? (http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Gamebryo) Since even that game is a console port. The game doesn't make good use of PC hardware even with a good rig. Fallout 3 doesn't use x64 architecture. If you have 8Gig of ram, you'll find the game won't use more than a few gig. If you hack the binary to make it use more ram, that doesn't help either as it probably introduces memory leaks that the game suffers with already. Not to mention that my cpu usage is at 20% while my nVidia 460 1GB is is being hammered constantly. Even Fallout New Vegas does the same thing. That's just stupid.

                Arma2 is old technology that has little importance on the gaming industry. No one cares about it. Arma2 is a distraction to any other real game engine that should be mentioned instead. </Flame off>.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Setlec View Post
                  arma2 video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KK6Fo3Y0AU from this video i can say clearly that, lighting sucks, fire and smoke effect aren't better than in crisis or UE 3 (Direct3D based engines). Grass, so ugly can't comment on that. Qaridarium, your opinion on graphics quality aren't good to compare it with any other game engine.
                  do you think an video with the name "Over 1500 AI!!! " shows you the max at graphic ?? ? this video is a 'KI demo and nothing more !

                  armaII-OA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwqJXHM9cfc

                  this is an better exampel

                  Originally posted by Setlec View Post
                  sorry on my point of view crisis do not have the better graphic

                  i watch a better locking wood on the arma2 map.


                  Originally posted by Setlec View Post
                  Now OpenGL based engines that comes to my mind are Id Tech 4 (look out for Wolfenstein by Raven software and Brink by Splash Damage) & 5 (the last on is top quality yet uncomplete), Unigine IS great enough to be compared to against Id Tech 4 & 5, Now think about the differences between OpenGL 2.1 (Idtech 4 (Brink/Wolfenstein) / Unigine Tropics demo) and 3.x and 4.x (Idtech 5 (Rage) / Unigine Heaven demo)...
                  idtech5 is a xbox focused lowend graphik engine you can't compare this tiny to an moster like arma2/OA


                  Originally posted by Setlec View Post
                  Qaridarium stop whining about things we don't have on linux (arma2 isn't native).
                  i'm just realistic linux games are year behind and unigine is nice yes but they don't bring us the future they only bring us an 4-5 year old standart.




                  Originally posted by Setlec View Post
                  Most of the time that you comment on something is all about whining. You are definitely pessimist and cynical.
                  if being realistic and realworld focused are cynical and pessimistic yes i'm are!

                  sure how you can watch the world without being cynical and pessimistic?




                  Originally posted by Setlec View Post
                  We don't need people like you whining about this and that. Last time that you behaved just like this (like a jerk) was on the steam port to linux i think and i thought that you left the forums because you said that this forum was BS and what not. your argument are weaks and most of the time useless. it's like you were comparing apples with planets.
                  maybe sure the hole world do not need people like me i know that.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by b15hop View Post
                    I paid money for Arma2. I actually want my money back on that game. It was crap. It always will be. Sorry but it's true. Just my opinion, like many others here would agree. Do you know what kills the game, it's BUGGY. The game is unfinished and even when patched up, still buggy as hell. To the point that you can't even finish some of the missions. When a game gets so bad that it feels like a chore to finish, you kind of give up really fast. In fact I only got 1/5th the way through before getting frustrated enough to just want to use the CD as a frisbee ~chuck~.
                    sure i agree with you but i don't talk about bugs my standpoints are graphic only.

                    i do not have an arma2 licence

                    can you give me your serial number per PM so I'm really happy to have an serial to play online

                    Please









                    Originally posted by b15hop View Post
                    Unreal 2004 used OpenGL and the game-play feels lovely and smooth. Sure the graphics are older because of texture count and model detail. John Carmack mentioned that simply counting model detail in terms of polygons per character does NOT equate to better graphics. What counts is how well the polygons are put to use. Arma2 wastes polygons by shoving them everywhere. Putting them where they're not needed. All those fanciful trees in that little example you gave us...Sure... Looks good. But uh, screw game play. Screw optimisation too.
                    LOOOL sure sure sure you are right ARMA2 waste tons of Polygons but that is what i say!

                    arma2 is an nativ PC game and not an xbox360/ps3 port.

                    thats why arma2 looks good thats why i compare unigine to arma2 because unigine needs an realworld for comparing


                    Originally posted by b15hop View Post
                    Hey why not compare the Fallout 3 engine? (http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Gamebryo) Since even that game is a console port. The game doesn't make good use of PC hardware even with a good rig. Fallout 3 doesn't use x64 architecture. If you have 8Gig of ram, you'll find the game won't use more than a few gig. If you hack the binary to make it use more ram, that doesn't help either as it probably introduces memory leaks that the game suffers with already. Not to mention that my cpu usage is at 20% while my nVidia 460 1GB is is being hammered constantly. Even Fallout New Vegas does the same thing. That's just stupid.

                    Arma2 is old technology that has little importance on the gaming industry. No one cares about it. Arma2 is a distraction to any other real game engine that should be mentioned instead. </Flame off>.
                    arma2 uses 64gb of ram without x64 because of PAE sure you need windows7 or a server edition windows to use this feature for 64gb ram.

                    o yes old technology it can only use 64gb ram and only 10 000m view distance and only blows any highend VGA cards down to hell.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                      the point is arma2 is a real game and more than 2 year old
                      Just for information, ArmA II is just one and a half years old, the stand-alone expansion Operation Arrowhead just five month.

                      As for the Unigine Engine, the screenshots and tech demos look nice. But then again, they usually do. So, nothing special here.

                      Concerning games on GNU/Linux, I'll only start discussing about that when there are any.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X