Epic Games presents the Next-Gen Graphics-modefied UnrealEngine3 *NEW FEATURE VIDEO*

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alex p.
  • 19 comments
  • 2,674 views
Alex p.

Alex p.

Messages
6,692
Germany
Hanover/Germany
Messages
alexpkas
Epic games presented at the GDC their idea of "Next-Gen-Realtime-Graphics".

Achieved by a rig with 3 580GTX's.

Do you think we will see such graphics on PS4, Xbox3 and Nin..oh wait, no, they're gonna sell at least five years old tech again, so they're out.

UPDATE: Mark Rein said in a recent interview (http://www.1up.com/features/interview-epic-next-gen-plan?pager.offset=0), that they wait for the next-gen-consoles to introduce the UE4, which means the games on that system could (and I think should or must) look better than this tech-demo.

Anyways, take a look at this video, and some pics:

Here's a link, where you can download a direct-feed version of it: http://gamersyde.com/download_unreal_engine_3_real_time_demo_1080p_-19568_en.html

This video here is also direct-feed.


NEW (05.04.11) feature video, showing the demo in-depth: http://kotaku.com/#!5789088/world-exclusive-first-look-under-the-hood-of-the-next-unreal-engine


1.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

2.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

3.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

4.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

5.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

6.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

7.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

8.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

9.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

10.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

11.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
Last edited:
Just the power supply to run a PC with 3 GTX580's would cost more than a current gen console.
 
they look gorgeous indeed.

But we don't need to worry about our PC's.
Look at the road map for nvidia.
Plus till the developpement kicks in with this tech, we Pc gamers have to wait for the next-gen consoles :(.... at least kind of.
Battlefield 3 looks nothing short of amazing
 
So these were rendered with 4.5GB's of video ram then>.......

I do not miss pc gaming at all.......
 
Even if I were to use two of my desktops and my laptop I'd have no chances in hell playing that game. Though it is nice to see what the future is gonna be like.
 
Developers do this every four years or so, all they're really showcasing is how the technology could evolve within the already available environment. It's a great step forward but nothing Futuremark hasn't already done to some degree with 3DMark.

Anyone remember the progressive DirectX9 or 10 tech demos? Multi-sampling AA, Super-sampling AA, Ray tracing (A small Quake 4 demo). I'd want for nothing more than PC games to look like that two or three years down the road....but the processing power needed practically negates, well, all of the practicality.
 
Yeah right now you would need a Full ATX tower case to fit three large 580's with barely enough room for the CPU and other hardware. With such a big case you would be looking at a 40 pounds to 50 pounds heavy computer.
 
nick09
Yeah right now you would need a Full ATX tower case to fit three large 580's with barely enough room for the CPU and other hardware. With such a big case you would be looking at a 40 pounds to 50 pounds heavy computer.
Click to expand...

For all intensive purposes, you wouldn't actually need a third 580. It took several years for SLI and Crossfire to be utilized properly with just two cards. A setup with three GPUs is purposeful (both on paper and in actual gameplay scenarios) but the third card is doing nothing but facilitating the processing headroom (at least, last I've checked). It isn't really loaning it's actual 'horsepower' to anything; it's just increasing theoretical bandwidth by increasing the available VRAM (allowing for resolutions up to 2560x1600 seamlessly, depending on the game and how resource hungry it is), and allowing you to enable more advanced methods of AA and AF.

For a setup like that air cooling is definitely not a viable long-term solution. At all.

If the combinations are more seamlessly binding since I've last checked (I haven't been as up to date as usual, I'm at least several months behind in almost everything) please, feel free to correct me.
 
Im surprised graphics has not reached close to this level already, it seems games look almost the same as they did 3-4 years ago, development slowed a lot due to many PC games now being developed for the consoles with their limited hardware.

Its both a good thing and a bad thing, its good because its meant i've not needed to upgrade my pc for years, its bad because graphics are not moving forward as fast as they could be in games.

Tech demo's like this and the futuremark ones have always been years ahead of games though, but the hardware you need to run them is expensive.
 
Well I'm more interested in what next gen console will be able to do. But if this is UE3 then 4 must be years and years off...

Remember way back when the PS3's gpu was as powerful as 2 6800Ultra's? I guess its possible for consoles to do these graphics..... they just need a ton of video memory..

I do not expect developers to go over board with details far beyond what they do now. The worse looking ps3 games could look 100x better by simply boosting the video memory and quadrupling texture resolution and using 8xMSAA and 1080p60 with high level displacement and normal maps and advanced lighting(high resolution ray traced shadows and self reflection and shadow), . Same geometry....
 
LaBounti
Well I'm more interested in what next gen console will be able to do. But if this is UE3 then 4 must be years and years off...

Remember way back when the PS3's gpu was as powerful as 2 6800Ultra's? I guess its possible for consoles to do these graphics..... they just need a ton of video memory..

I do not expect developers to go over board with details far beyond what they do now. The worse looking ps3 games could look 100x better by simply boosting the video memory and quadrupling texture resolution and using 8xMSAA and 1080p60 with high level displacement and normal maps and advanced lighting(high resolution ray traced shadows and self reflection and shadow), . Same geometry....
Click to expand...

Agree on that.

Concerning this to be the UE3, Epic Games said that the difference between the normal UE3 and this modefied UE3.95 is bigger than the difference between the UE2 and 3.
 
LaBounti
Well I'm more interested in what next gen console will be able to do. But if this is UE3 then 4 must be years and years off...

Remember way back when the PS3's gpu was as powerful as 2 6800Ultra's? I guess its possible for consoles to do these graphics..... they just need a ton of video memory..

I do not expect developers to go over board with details far beyond what they do now. The worse looking ps3 games could look 100x better by simply boosting the video memory and quadrupling texture resolution and using 8xMSAA and 1080p60 with high level displacement and normal maps and advanced lighting(high resolution ray traced shadows and self reflection and shadow), . Same geometry....
Click to expand...

What do you mean "way back when"? :p

The PS3's GPU is still as powerful (or moreso) than a pair of SLI'd 6800 Ultra's, and visual credence isn't as easy as boosting the available VRAM. Look what happened with the G70, nVidia decided to do the exact same thing an launch the GTX 512, which was considerably better than the bog standard 7800GTX but once the R520 (X1900) rolled around, that 'improved' architecture didn't stand much of a chance compared to overall horsepower the X1900 brought to the table - especially once Crossfire was factored in to the mix. Then came the 7900 which would be trampled (although to less of an extent) by the X1950. My point? Simply increasing the available RAM would serve no other purpose than an intermediate buffer. Yeah, it's there for the additional headroom but you're unlikely to use it the way you want to because the rest of the architecture is bottlenecked.
 
I swear that level of graphics is what we thought the ps3 would be like back in the ps2 days before the ps3 was released.... the amount of power to run something that detailed won't come for a while.
 
Terronium-12
What do you mean "way back when"? :p

The PS3's GPU is still as powerful (or moreso) than a pair of SLI'd 6800 Ultra's, and visual credence isn't as easy as boosting the available VRAM. Look what happened with the G70, nVidia decided to do the exact same thing an launch the GTX 512, which was considerably better than the bog standard 7800GTX but once the R520 (X1900) rolled around, that 'improved' architecture didn't stand much of a chance compared to overall horsepower the X1900 brought to the table - especially once Crossfire was factored in to the mix. Then came the 7900 which would be trampled (although to less of an extent) by the X1950. My point? Simply increasing the available RAM would serve no other purpose than an intermediate buffer. Yeah, it's there for the additional headroom but you're unlikely to use it the way you want to because the rest of the architecture is bottlenecked.
Click to expand...

I'm very tech savvy, its obvious they will boost the performance and use newer architecture:sly:. My point was for the next generation the games being designed won't need to push 100billion polygons when whats out now can look better(with the listed features) with the same geometry.
 
Bigbazz
Its both a good thing and a bad thing, its good because its meant i've not needed to upgrade my pc for years, its bad because graphics are not moving forward as fast as they could be in games.
Click to expand...

I only see the good side of it, I turn to console because I am tired of catching up in performance every 2 to 3 years, as a student it is hard to afford a rig that will last.

I think graphics should gradually become less important in the overall gaming experience as well, not making it worse, but I think we have reached a point that we should focus more on story, gameplay mechanics, music and develop other use for this interactive medium.
 
Stories don't come out of the blue on a yearly basis (good ones anyway). To keep manufacturing plants running (so workers don't lose their jobs), they will need to get people to keep on buying their products (regardless if it's good or bad), so long as the manufacturers have something to do. But what if it's not all that great? How are they going to sell it? By attracting your attention, by any means possible (within rules) until its desirable enough for you to buy it just because you want it, no other reason.

Know that feeling you get where things get a lot of hype and then when you get to experience it first-hand, it's a total let-down? This occurs in video games, movies, TV shows, and anything else widely advertised or promoted.
 

Latest Posts

Back