Do go on ^^ (ship damage bit is in the works btw with custom animations for capital and supercapital ship deaths and hull scarring in general).
Do you even know what any of those options are and what they do? A basic aa filter is not the same thing as multisampling, or fxaa, and the post processing does not support dof, or even a basic version of ssao. Shadows are not real time. Ie when you fire a blast shadows are not dynamically created on your drones. On top of that those effects are not even touching 70+ of your feild because its effectively static background. Again, blasts are not reflected, or react with your contrails. Effectively speaking with polygon counts a single ship is equivalent to a single weapon, with things like lighting actually effecting everything in the image when it comes to ARR. As for the "custom animations and hull damage" that was "well under development" as far back as 2010 and we are still waiting.
I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.
To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.
Do go on ^^ (ship damage bit is in the works btw with custom animations for capital and supercapital ship deaths and hull scarring in general).
Do you even know what any of those options are and what they do? A basic aa filter is not the same thing as multisampling, or fxaa, and the post processing does not support dof, or even a basic version of ssao. Shadows are not real time. Ie when you fire a blast shadows are not dynamically created on your drones. On top of that those effects are not even touching 70+ of your feild because its effectively static background. Again, blasts are not reflected, or react with your contrails. Effectively speaking with polygon counts a single ship is equivalent to a single weapon, with things like lighting actually effecting everything in the image when it comes to ARR. As for the "custom animations and hull damage" that was "well under development" as far back as 2010 and we are still waiting.
In terms of raw preformance (bling factor) you'd be right, in terms of how much crap one engine can render vs the other (on the same hardware configuration) you'd be woefuly wrong especially considering EVE graphics have been and continue to be tweaked each expansion whereas ARR will likely not see much innovation of its graphics beyond maybe (?) yearly expansions (?) and to just put the final few nails in: EVE's engine is moving towards integrating both Tesselation and Physx so yeah, which is the better engine overall?
Dust 514 and in the near future World of Darkness (the latter of which you'll be seeing in-game footage of in april if memory serves).
Allright so let us make a valid comparison once we have solid gameplay experince from Dust 514 and as well as WOD? wouldn't that be more prudent? because EVE ONLINE i s not a very good example to show capabilities of the engine.
Arguably it is, you're talking one town/instance, in EVE you can have allot of players on the screen at the same time shooting, throwing crap at each other, various differing types of effects going off, etc, basically space being anything but empty with ships,weapon effects, missiles, drones, wrecks, deployed equpiment,etc, all of which which my laptop can render at medium settings without any issues at 50-60 fps, my laptop is a mid range acer from 2 generations ago (it's got a sandy bridge i5 and a AMD 6650 GPU with 1 gb of ram), to put this into perspective the server supporting the respective instance dies faster than I have to scale back my graphics settings to run it better... we're talking thousands of players within ~255 km of cubic space, compared to that... I will have to say ARR's engine is quaint but woefully archaic.
And yet EVE Online is notorious for horrible lags during fleet fights. All it has do is render ships and even at that it fails. Because there is nothing else to render here..no NPC's, no foliage, trees, mountains, roads, buildings, towns...absolutely nothing except for the ships. And yet it can't even do that properly. So much for such an amazing engine.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.' -Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid." -Luke McKinney
This games engine might not please the picky people, but I think this games engine will be the best of 2013 for an MMO. Running the benchmark on a fairly crappy PC it looks better than WoW on max. During the benchmark where all the people are in the town, the scores don't drop as much as it does on the shadowing and foliage. So my bet is that this game will be able to handle alot of people on the screen without a huge FPS drop.
P.S I refer to WoW cause on a crappy P.C. WoW handles terribly bad.
You are basing this opinion on a benchmark software?
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
Originally posted by jimdandy26 Op needs to pass the pipe and stop taking hits. Seriously. Also, upgrade your frakking pc! People like you are why we are still stuck on dx9.
We're stuck on DX9 cause of consoles, and only companies like NCSoft can afford next gen graphics. This games engine was made with PS3 in mind, I don't want mmo's to be too realistic.
Its surprisingly a massive downgrade from the old FFIV engine. Guess they are catering to a wider market (people with crapper computers) this time around. The first engine rivaled TERA, this one... not so much.
I would have to say CCP's Carbon engine for World of Darkness beats all other graphics I've seen in an MMO to date. It is also used in EVE, but not even close to the extent it is capable of.
I will agree that the benchmark runs extremely well on my system.. however, a lot of newer games do, so it's not a huge deal. I will have to reserve judgement until I am able to run around in game and check it out 1st hand.
In my opinion though, it's looking really good so far.
Originally posted by evilastro Its surprisingly a massive downgrade from the old FFIV engine. Guess they are catering to a wider market (people with crapper computers) this time around. The first engine rivaled TERA, this one... not so much.
Might I ask you to show your work on that one? Not saying I don't believe you but such short absolute statements always red flag me.
Originally posted by evilastro Its surprisingly a massive downgrade from the old FFIV engine. Guess they are catering to a wider market (people with crapper computers) this time around. The first engine rivaled TERA, this one... not so much.
The first engine was coded so horribly that Ambient Occlusion didn't even work properly. It was pretty, but it was a mess.
How exactly does the new engine look worse? I havent played v1 mind you, just seen a few vids and screens but it looks pretty similar to the new one to me. Any comparison pics or videos? Maybe screens from the same locations?
Here's 2 vids of walking about in Gridania
V1 NA Beta
ARR Alpha
I'd say ARR looks better, especially the lighting and shadows. Can't tell the details too much from this resolution but the old version kinda kinda has a Everquest 2 feel to it. Polygnos are there but the lighting feels a bit artificial.
The first engine was a technical mess. It's only saving grace was the incredibly high resolution of the textures and the sheer amount of polygons you could force it to render. If they make those same textures available in the new engine, a lot of people complaining will be asking for some hot sauce to go with their foot.
As for TERA.. I mean, yeah it's pretty and all, but nothing like the top eschelon of comparison that some posters have used. IMO GW2 blows TERA out of the water visually. There is a grainy aspect to TERA's graphics, which I presume are necessary to maintain the performance level required for their combat system to be viable.
That said, I think that ARR looks a lot more like TERA than 1.0 did.
Comments
Do you even know what any of those options are and what they do? A basic aa filter is not the same thing as multisampling, or fxaa, and the post processing does not support dof, or even a basic version of ssao. Shadows are not real time. Ie when you fire a blast shadows are not dynamically created on your drones. On top of that those effects are not even touching 70+ of your feild because its effectively static background. Again, blasts are not reflected, or react with your contrails. Effectively speaking with polygon counts a single ship is equivalent to a single weapon, with things like lighting actually effecting everything in the image when it comes to ARR. As for the "custom animations and hull damage" that was "well under development" as far back as 2010 and we are still waiting.
I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.
To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.
2010? You must've missed the memo 2012.
Also comparing this:
to this:
In terms of raw preformance (bling factor) you'd be right, in terms of how much crap one engine can render vs the other (on the same hardware configuration) you'd be woefuly wrong especially considering EVE graphics have been and continue to be tweaked each expansion whereas ARR will likely not see much innovation of its graphics beyond maybe (?) yearly expansions (?) and to just put the final few nails in: EVE's engine is moving towards integrating both Tesselation and Physx so yeah, which is the better engine overall?
And yet EVE Online is notorious for horrible lags during fleet fights. All it has do is render ships and even at that it fails. Because there is nothing else to render here..no NPC's, no foliage, trees, mountains, roads, buildings, towns...absolutely nothing except for the ships. And yet it can't even do that properly. So much for such an amazing engine.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
-Luke McKinney
You are basing this opinion on a benchmark software?
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
We're stuck on DX9 cause of consoles, and only companies like NCSoft can afford next gen graphics. This games engine was made with PS3 in mind, I don't want mmo's to be too realistic.
Old crappy dual core processor @ 2.1ghz, 3gb ddr2 ram, nvdia 240. This crappy rig can play it pretty well.
Nevermind, don't care to get into this terribly sidetracked thread hahaha.
http://absoluteretribution.enjin.com/ Guild Website and Recruitment link
maybe but i believe within a few months after release ffxiv arr will get a dx 11 client
FOR a regular game thats not an mmos yes
I will agree that the benchmark runs extremely well on my system.. however, a lot of newer games do, so it's not a huge deal. I will have to reserve judgement until I am able to run around in game and check it out 1st hand.
In my opinion though, it's looking really good so far.
Might I ask you to show your work on that one? Not saying I don't believe you but such short absolute statements always red flag me.
Well... glad we settled that one.
The first engine was coded so horribly that Ambient Occlusion didn't even work properly. It was pretty, but it was a mess.
How exactly does the new engine look worse? I havent played v1 mind you, just seen a few vids and screens but it looks pretty similar to the new one to me. Any comparison pics or videos? Maybe screens from the same locations?
Here's 2 vids of walking about in Gridania
V1 NA Beta
ARR Alpha
I'd say ARR looks better, especially the lighting and shadows. Can't tell the details too much from this resolution but the old version kinda kinda has a Everquest 2 feel to it. Polygnos are there but the lighting feels a bit artificial.
The first engine was a technical mess. It's only saving grace was the incredibly high resolution of the textures and the sheer amount of polygons you could force it to render. If they make those same textures available in the new engine, a lot of people complaining will be asking for some hot sauce to go with their foot.
As for TERA.. I mean, yeah it's pretty and all, but nothing like the top eschelon of comparison that some posters have used. IMO GW2 blows TERA out of the water visually. There is a grainy aspect to TERA's graphics, which I presume are necessary to maintain the performance level required for their combat system to be viable.
That said, I think that ARR looks a lot more like TERA than 1.0 did.