Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unigine Engine Looks To Wasteland 2

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

  • Unigine Engine Looks To Wasteland 2

    Phoronix: Unigine Engine Looks To Wasteland 2

    The Kickstarter-backed Wasteland 2 game that's already had plans for a Linux client may be powered by the Unigine Engine...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA4NzA

  • #2
    To be frank, my impressions about Unigine so far is that it's a slow engine that doesn't work well for games who want to offer fluid graphics.

    Is it just me?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by RealNC View Post
      To be frank, my impressions about Unigine so far is that it's a slow engine that doesn't work well for games who want to offer fluid graphics.

      Is it just me?
      It's probably a little too early to say one way or the other, since there is only a single game out using it. I don't think you can read much into the tech demos they're putting out.

      Comment


      • #4
        dunno watcha talking about

        Unigine worked really well with beta of Oil rush. Maybe it glitched every now and than, but it was VERY much playable and enjoyable, none the less.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by RealNC View Post
          To be frank, my impressions about Unigine so far is that it's a slow engine that doesn't work well for games who want to offer fluid graphics.

          Is it just me?
          Wasteland 2 is going to be a turn-based, isometric game, so probably not very demanding for any game engine.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by RealNC View Post
            To be frank, my impressions about Unigine so far is that it's a slow engine that doesn't work well for games who want to offer fluid graphics.
            Is it just me?
            Well, not only that, but calling an engine "great" based on nice visuals and a few tech-demos simply doesn't cut it from a developer's perspective.

            If you want developers to start using your engine it must also be easy to use/integrate. How easy or difficult is it to work with this engine, in comparison to well established ones? Engines like UT are a known quantity, due to lots of people using them and giving their opinion. They are also well tested (due to lots of games using them) and you'll probably find lots of additional information about those engines (again, due to lots of people using them already). Can the same be said for Unigine? This situation won't change without anyone taking the bullet, but it's up to Brian Fargo to decide whether he's willing to take that risk.

            Comment


            • #7
              Good news

              That's great news . I really like Unigine. The visuals are great with Unigine (materials look very good). Unigine handles complex lighting and I really don't have to complain about the speed of the Engine. YES: Unigine Heaven is a tough demo. Especially with tesselation on. Oil Rush however can also be played on older hardware. Can't wait for their Valley demo. If Skyrim was made with Unigine

              Comment


              • #8
                They're limited because of promised OS X and Linux compatibility -- not too many engines they could actually use.

                They say they are looking at two different options at present, but won't mention which ones, obviously.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by whizse View Post
                  Wasteland 2 is going to be a turn-based, isometric game, so probably not very demanding for any game engine.
                  It's also going to be the game I was waiting for since 98' (when Fallout 2 appeared)! A masterpiece.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                    To be frank, my impressions about Unigine so far is that it's a slow engine that doesn't work well for games who want to offer fluid graphics.

                    Is it just me?
                    maybe unigine should have a lite version.

                    something that runs even on integrated graphics on most laptops would be ideal (of course depending on the game).

                    also 2d and isometric is very popular again

                    and i think they need to offer 2 choices between paying a license and a revenue sharing model. Developers and indies can choose which one, because not everyone has upfront cash to pay for an engine (because is not always certain if your game will sell or even get finished). Also gets them more advertising if more people are using it. The lite version specially could be very popular with revenue sharing.
                    Last edited by madjr; 04-13-2012, 04:45 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sverro2 View Post
                      That's great news . I really like Unigine. The visuals are great with Unigine (materials look very good). Unigine handles complex lighting and I really don't have to complain about the speed of the Engine. YES: Unigine Heaven is a tough demo. Especially with tesselation on. Oil Rush however can also be played on older hardware. Can't wait for their Valley demo. If Skyrim was made with Unigine
                      It's not news, it's a rumor Michael has latched onto because it's what he does on this blog. They haven't decided on the engine, yet, but have narrowed it down to two.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by madjr View Post
                        maybe unigine should have a lite version.

                        something that runs even on integrated graphics on most laptops would be ideal (of course depending on the game).
                        I'm not talking about integrated. Unigine Heaven works very poorly on a 2500K CPU and a GTX 560 Ti. So the impression I formed about the engine is the same as the CryEngine: good for screenshots, bad for games who want to run at 60FPS.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                          It's not news, it's a rumor Michael has latched onto because it's what he does on this blog. They haven't decided on the engine, yet, but have narrowed it down to two.
                          Are you looking to license the Onyx engine from them? Has inXile decided on an engine?

                          BF: We have narrowed it down to 2 engines (not Onyx) and are now running art tests to make sure it can accomplish the look we want. The other important factor is it needs to be set up so that we don't need high level programmers and artists to get the assets in. There will be SO many world states, quests and interactions for the player that we need to be able to throw enough scripters in to capture all the ideas and outcomes. This is critical.

                          http://nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=61315

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Unigine Heaven is a really demanding benchmark. Using win the dx11 variant seems to be the best optimized codepath. Even the splash screen shows dx11 when you run the opengl code. Even if you disable just the default settings on the selection menu it is basically impossible to get >25 fps @ 1920x1200 with one hd 5670. But at least it scaled well using 2 cards in crossfire setup and dx11. with moderate tesselation it even got more than 40 fps (around 30 with normal). But then the opengl mode... no crossfire support on win, very low framerates. Then i thought opengl could be faster with Linux and crossfire, but: aticonfig --lsch definitely showed that the crossfire chain was correctly setup, but --cfl on (which should show a logo) never showed a crossfire logo. It was lower than 14 fps or so, no matter if cf was activated or not. I had to use 8.96 driver as 12-3 got just nice rendering artefacts. So the conclusion: interesting engine, but hard to use without buying new hardware. My two hd 5670 are the only opengl 4 cards i have got if somebody wonders - but without tesselation i do not really need that engine, it is not that impressive then also it is too slow compared to Unreal engine (at least on win). Maybe fglrx should be optimized for this engine as well as for rage (using wine). Those are the most demanding opengl engines and should work well, which is not the case. Maybe you need a highend gpu for those... Also i want working crossfire for unigine engine (i gave it up later and put in my nv 8800 gts 512 which can even run rage fine with wine - which is very well supported - with a little trick even with xbox pad). Some funny examples with 12-3 driver and crossfire:

                            default without tess:



                            all settings forced to lowest possible:



                            Btw. the used i7 was OC to more than 4 ghz, that should be enough
                            Last edited by Kano; 04-13-2012, 09:03 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Certainly interesting. As I've still yet to see what the Unigine tooling support is like, it's very hard to weigh in on it as an engine. Pretty graphics are the very least important item for a game engine, especially for games that don't plan on puttin in millions worth of art assets, animations, acting, cinematagrophy, etc. Sounds like the Wasteland team understands that. Getting a "validation" of the engine from them would be a good thing for Unigine; hence the only plausible reason they made the offer in the first place.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X