Future game engines?

Post by **DRuM** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:20 am

Thanks for the info eraser.
Well, ok, but I like it when there's a brand new, never before seen engine which makes you go 'wow, look at those graphics!' I guess the days of the id wow factor might be gone then.

Post by **Foo** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:52 am

DRuM wrote:Thanks for the info eraser.
Well, ok, but I like it when there's a brand new, never before seen engine which makes you go 'wow, look at those graphics!' I guess the days of the id wow factor might be gone then.

Back on the point about manpower - It doesn't make sense to create new FPS engines from scratch every time anymore. Back when you had to be pulling off clever tricks to render even a simple 3d scene that made sense, but now it's incrementally improving standards and incrementally updated engines, which makes sense. Re-inventing the wheel and all that.

You can still get 'wow, look at those graphics!' from each iteration of an engine, so long as the FPS multiplayer market continues to run on the current cycle of periodical releases.

Post by **DRuM** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:20 am

Cheers foo

Post by **MKJ** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:12 pm

Mogul wrote:History has shown, and I believe this will be the case again, that Carmack will absolutely blow us away with the next engine.

They are pretty much always the guys who usher in the new generation, and I think the follow up to the DOOM 3 engine is going to be significantly stronger than Unreal Engine 3. But, we may not see it on the market for a couple of years.

i think im the only one now blown away by the doom3 engine. its clumsy, its ineffecient and the end result really doesnt do it for me.
ofcourse i hardly care about gfx :icon14:

Post by **o'dium** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:16 pm

UE3 is where its at.

Its been licenced by far far more people than Doom 3. It looks sexier than anything out there. Its more advanced in physics and interaction, AI etc etc, plus they ahve VERY easy to use tools that ship with the games anyways.

id software have really dropped the ball, they just dont care anymore in my eyes. Doom 3 looks horrible, and i feel it was its own fault. Its like it was nice for all of 10 seconds, and then, boom, it was just plain ugly. So many faults etc... Didn't help the game behind it was rubbish TBH.

Post by **CheapAlert** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 8:52 pm

haha o'dium, isn't that the direction q2e is meant to take?

Foo wrote:
CheapAlert wrote:Source is just a glorified Q1 branch
So's D3

last time I checked, d3 didn't have the player physics, console commands or code syntax as q1. (hl2 heavily did if you do some obvious investigating)

Eraser wrote:UE2 uses havoc,

Wrong. UE2 used Karma, only the Vengeance sub-branch (used and set up by Irrational for their crap games) didn't

Post by **o'dium** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 10:25 am

Q2E is an engine mod adding local mapping and per pixel lighting among other things. Last time i checked, PPL and normal mapping were NOT id software inventions

Besides, Q2E has shifted development over to somebody else. We work full time on OverDose now, our first full MP only teamplay game.

http://www.quake2evolved.com/overdose

Post by **Eraser** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:51 am

CheapAlert wrote:
Wrong. UE2 used Karma

Right, I was mistaken.

Post by **4days** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:32 am

o'dium wrote:Q2E is an engine mod adding local mapping and per pixel lighting among other things. Last time i checked, PPL and normal mapping were NOT id software inventions

Besides, Q2E has shifted development over to somebody else. We work full time on OverDose now, our first full MP only teamplay game.

http://www.quake2evolved.com/overdose

did you design that site? could really use some more contrast between the text and the background.

Post by **MKJ** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:24 pm

i think it looks ok. maybe a tad more. recalibration time?

Post by **4days** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:08 pm

doesn't look anywhere near as bad now the sun's gone down

still, harder work than it needs to be.

Post by **Eraser** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:05 am

yeah i agree, the contrast of the entire site is a bit low

Post by **o'dium** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:15 pm

Either my PC's monitor is way to bright, or you need to up yours

I've checked it on everybody elses in the family and its fine for them and me? Maybe its just because its a dark themed site that people with darker monitors just have trouble...

Post by **Foo** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:55 pm

The basic gray text on black stands out acceptably. However, the menu bar buttons blend to their backdrop colour. You can bump those pieces of text right up to white to make them stand out.

A few basic colour rules to cover this are: Light gray works on black, dark gray works on white. Gray on Gray does not work, though that's true even more on the internet, as you have to take contrast variances into account.

I've done a shit job, but this is what I meant: