Ryandor.com

http://www.ensemblestudios.com/age3imag ... 0-1600.jpg

They say this is an actual in-game screen shot.

So?

What kind of system do you people bet will be required for this?

_________________
Blog: http://www.sydius.org
Web: http://www.sydius.net

Why throw away money for HW on some stupid game, which main attraction is based on graphic, if we have UO?

_________________
Endor Team leader, visit our web site:
http://www.endor.cz/index-en.php

You do realize that is a real-time (with what hardware?) strategy game, right? I would hardly say its only appeal is graphics, either? I have enjoyed all of the series so far ? none of which have had anywhere near as nice of graphics.

As for UO? sure, that would be fine, if you had enough players or a good enough AI to have some noteworthy strategy going on.

_________________
Blog: http://www.sydius.org
Web: http://www.sydius.net

Must? fight? craving? to? make?? RTS??.

*collapses*

_________________
Blog: http://www.sydius.org
Web: http://www.sydius.net

Interesting screenshot. Very nice, but I'm guessing that ingame perspective is totally unsuitable for anything other than screenshots ;P

_________________
-= Ho Eyo He Hum =-

I'm assuming you can rotate the camera... but yeah.

_________________
Blog: http://www.sydius.org
Web: http://www.sydius.net

Yes, eoe was good game, aoe II was good too, but it was only slightly improved first episode with new graphic. I expect, that this version will be the same, only with amazing graphic. So nothing new, nothing interesting.

And there is one rule. Better the graphic is, worse is the gameplay/repleability. Do anyone know ADOM?

Last good game i ve seen was planescape: torment (several years ago), since that time nothing realy good appered. And i seriosly doubt, that somethnig will. Graphic is now the most important thing in game and this time games have nothing good except excellent graphic. If somebody remembers games such Ultima 7: black gate, Ultima: underworls II and so on, he cannot like todays commercial crap.

_________________
Endor Team leader, visit our web site:
http://www.endor.cz/index-en.php

Cool screen shot!
I very much doubt though that this is a real ?in game? shot. Unless its some kind of cut scene from a window or crows nest etc. It?s too big of a shot. Too much detail. But very nice!

I have, like you, also played all the AOE games and love them! I play The Conquerors almost every day. Helps clear my head?

The only version I don?t like is Age of Mythology. Love the graphics, hate the game play. It was the only version I was sorry I wasted my money on.

I can?t wait to try the AOE 3 now. It?s about time they made a new version.

_________________
Dragonfire
http://www.tragena.net
New screen shots added!

It says ?actual in-game screen shot? underneath it on the official web site. The question is? is it really going to support a city that bloody big? I do not think it is the details that are unbelievable; it is the size of the city in the background that gets me. The detail could easily be one of those things where zooming out lessens it? like with the Sim City games.

As for AoM? yeah, I would agree. I am not into that whole mythology thing? I prefer more plausible, realistic battles.

As for graphics being important? that has always been the case since games started using graphics. You cannot say Ultima 7 and UO did not value graphics as much as any game today ? they did ? they had some of the most cutting-edge RPG graphics of their day. I remember a time when a screen shot of UO was met with more awe than this screen shot of AoE III ever could.

_________________
Blog: http://www.sydius.org
Web: http://www.sydius.net

http://www.ensemblestudios.com/age3imag ... 2-1600.jpg

This is more believable, I suppose... You can tell because of the star around the guy. I like the birds.

_________________
Blog: http://www.sydius.org
Web: http://www.sydius.net

Crank up the top resolution, top graphics options, then take a screenshot..
Also, if you look you can tell where it's "background" and not actual 3d render.

So while it could be in-game, it's probably not playable at that level.

regardless, it is a nice shot.

-Ryandor

The city shot I think is a little bit "hype" but the last one you shown is totally more like it and totally possible with the new 256meg PCI Ex2 cards, they can actually do better quality graphics than that...

Some of our work stations have duel opterons running a 512meg video with 3 gigs of memory, the graphics are nice to put it mildly...

The reason I dont think the city pic is real is because of the sheer number of "moving" NPC's in the frame, even a new graphics card would be hard pressed to keep up with the sheer number of poly's in that one frame. I think Ry is correct, they turned it all the way max which would be beyond anything the normal person has to play on.

Dev

_________________
"So...if crazy people don't know their crazy...does that mean your only sane if your know your crazy?"

I think on todays high-end and better middle graphic cards it isnt problem.
There are lot of tricks, to make scene look high polygonaly and amazing, but using only few polygons and smart made textures. Under dx9 are most of this features aviable, so it isnt problem to make it look good a be fast.
Read something about texturing, if you are interested in details.

_________________
Endor Team leader, visit our web site:
http://www.endor.cz/index-en.php

Even without texturing, if the city in the first shot was entirely ?in-game? and not just a backdrop, it would lag even the most modern computers, not to mention tracking each and every little unit within the city (a CPU and RAM issue)!

I will go along with Ry on this one and agree that it is a backdrop, though. The part where your eye can separate the background COULD just be a result of some kind of distance algorithm, but I really do not think a city that large would be possible to play in.

_________________
Blog: http://www.sydius.org
Web: http://www.sydius.net

You dont understand me. You obviously never tried modelling in 3d studio or maya. I ment texturing techniques like bump maping or more advanced technologies like Displacement Mapping so models from few polygons can look like models with thousands od polygons:

http://www.svethardware.cz/sh/media.nsf ... d6006c6f10

http://www.svethardware.cz/sh/media.nsf ... 05_big.jpg


There are many ways, how make simple models look far more complex then they really are.

Btw, todays 3d cards can realtime render scene with 1.5m polygons, fully textured, with lights......

_________________
Endor Team leader, visit our web site:
http://www.endor.cz/index-en.php

Hmm I have both Maya and 3D studio among many other 3d software programs like Blender and cad prog's.

The most graphicly advanced games out right now are Unreal 3 and Half Life 2 which blow all the others out of the water...and neither of them could display the city in the first pic.

1.5 million poly's are nothing on a single screen shot. To play Unreal 3 at full resolution with all the bells and whistles requires duel PCI express cards at 256 megs which less than 1% of America or anyone else in the world has or will have in the near future.

Even with all the advances of the PCI express cards (which are 10x more powerful than any AGP) it is still not possible to show what that single screenshot has in it. Half Life 2 was given the first "11" verdict in Maximum PC history which does a living reviewing software and hardware and the pics from it are not as graphicly detailed as that image.

Static buildings and terrain features are easy to get up to that quality but when you show that many "moving" objects in a single screen you get nothing but a crashed system because none but the highest end systems could begin to hope to show that. It took 147 people casting spells in the same zone with no spawns in EQ to crash their server, I doubt your home PC could handle that load even with the latest poly reducing software and the best bitmapping.

(edit) real time lighting with shadows is still almost a dream, Unreal 2 has it as well as Half life 2 but they use very very tricky methods that are unable to do more than one (yes 1) real time light source in a given area at the same time. That would be the same as trying to figure the first 3 seconds of a nuclear blast....got a super computer?

Dev

_________________
"So...if crazy people don't know their crazy...does that mean your only sane if your know your crazy?"

Real time lighting with shadows? Oh, you mean Doom 3.

_________________
-= Ho Eyo He Hum =-

Well, if you are going to get arrogant, I will tell you right now that I have plenty of experience writing 3D engines. I know all about texturing and what modern hardware can spit out. You need to read my posts a little bit more carefully.

As for real-time lighting and shadows? that has been done for years. What you really mean is ?real time pixel lighting and shadows?, which is a great deal more accurate (well, as accurate as you can get on any display that uses pixels). Even that is no longer a ?fantasy? by any means, though. I bought a book not long ago that described it in newbie terms exactly how to accomplish those things.

A revolutionary new process called ?shaders? have become extremely popular lately, and with them ?shader languages? ? basically, you reprogram how the video card processes things on a low-level, which makes all kinds of never-before-practical things very fast. All of those games you mentioned use these. True, they are not something most newbies bother with, but they are not exactly rocket science, either.

You can get real-time pixel-based lighting and shadows to run smoothly on any card that supports these shaders (and that is most). Where the tricks you spoke of come in is mostly in relation to combining this with super-high polygon levels and very high texture resolutions. That is where you need some fancy tricks up your sleeve. As for one light per scene, that is more or less a limitation of a fast shader program ? it is common practice to support more light sources, but only when coupled with fewer polygons and lower resolution graphics.

Those ?tricks? are quickly becoming more and more available in the 3D programming circles, though, so it won?t be long before most games come standard with them.

So you are both wrong.

_________________
Blog: http://www.sydius.org
Web: http://www.sydius.net

First, read something about that. PCI express cards arent 10x more powerfull than AGP, even 1,2x

Btw, here are screenshots from 3d mark 2005

http://games.tiscali.cz/images/screen.a ... 3dmark2005

this can run real time 25fps+ on most modern cards 3D cards.


About moving persons on ss from age III. They can be sprites, there isnt written, that they are 3d models. Even if there were 3d models, scene isnt so complex as it on the first look looks. Look carefully. And one more thing, with 1,5m polygons on scene you can do amazing things, if you make good texturing.
Art isnt making 100m polygons scene. But 500k polygons scene, which looke like 100m. A thats exactly whats going on here.

"It took 147 people casting spells in the same zone with no spawns in EQ to crash their server, "

This have nothing common with graphic (graphic is client sided!!), but how can server handle large group of peoples and their interactions on one place. Server doesnt need 3d card.

_________________
Endor Team leader, visit our web site:
http://www.endor.cz/index-en.php

*Baits another hook*

A PCI Express Card runs at the same speed as a AGP 16x would. If you look at the stats you will see that they are roughly 10X more powerful than the 8X AGP cards.

I know exactly how they did the graphics after going to their website and "reading" so the mystery is solved and yes they are sprites and yes there is a backdrop which ends at the first row of buildings. To do a 3d screen with that many moving poly's would be possible at that distance since the people would only require less than 30 polys each.

If the comparison of PCI Express cards being 10x more powerful than the older AGP cards is not correct then you should take it up with ZD net and Maximum PC since those are where I got that number.

As for the real time shading/lighting it expressly states it in the review for DOOM 3 that not more than one could be placed in a given area because even a modern PC could not handle the math to figure it out....so if either of you have a beef with the numbers go take it up with the above two companies who do the reviews for a living.

Now the real question "SHOULD" be...how are you going to get those kinds of graphics into UO?

Dev

_________________
"So...if crazy people don't know their crazy...does that mean your only sane if your know your crazy?"

to all: Take a look at Legacy of Kain: Defiance.. and see the miracles that can be done with good texturing (i am not talking any new technologies, just good old plain textures but used really nice). The game runs on PS2 (or GF2 at highest details with no problems .. of course no anti-aliasing) so you can imagine the number of polygons it has.

http://www.legacyofkain.com/main.html

its best to see the trailer as the wonderfully done animations give the right boost of the graphic candy.

My point being, if they made the game look so beautiful on such low end machines.. i would like to see what they can come up with using todays high end machines. (and i am sure they are not the only one).

And also i'd think twice before believing a SS is in-game (not saying those in this topic aren't).. just a lot of 'in-game' shots of games not yet released are often externally rendered with graphics all the way to the max.

ahh Very nice! I like the backgrounds and buildings. The characters look like Japanimation but are still nice.

I'd be happy if UO3d looked like that

Here is the link btw.

http://www.legacyofkain.com/main.html

If you want to see something sweet (even if the game blows ass...) check out some screens of EQ2 running on a duel SLI based motherboard running twin ATI 256 PCI Express cards. DOOM 3 sucks but the graphics rock, that is another where you can see the difference.

I think that within the next 7 years virtual reality will be virtually here!

Dev

_________________
"So...if crazy people don't know their crazy...does that mean your only sane if your know your crazy?"

You are good at catching people, Dev

As for Doom 3, that is true. I did not say it was not. I said that, with fewer polygons, it is easy for even an old machine (that supports shaders) to do multiple real-time pixel-perfect lights.

Basically, for the methods I know about for drawing good lighting and shadows, everything in the scene has to be rendered nx + 2 times for each light, minimum (n = num of lights, x = num of renders required for special effects). Additional passes are required for many special effects and anti-aliasing can really begin to take a toll. I imagine Doom 3 takes at least 4 or 5 renders per frame with just one light! Given the resolution of the textures they use, and the high number of polygons, that is stressful enough. So yes, adding another light would kill off the potential for it to run remotely smooth on even a fast system.

Real-time pixel-perfect lighting is not something magical, though, and many games can have 4 or 5 of these lights in one scene very easily because they are using much lower resolution textures and far fewer polygons.

*tears the hook out of his jaw, and wanders away*

_________________
Blog: http://www.sydius.org
Web: http://www.sydius.net

You were the wrong fish anyways! Besides I've seen pic's of you so I know theres not that much meat on those bones!

Dev

_________________
"So...if crazy people don't know their crazy...does that mean your only sane if your know your crazy?"

That is true. I am loosing weight; too? soon, you will see me in holocaust movies. Not getting free food from working at a burger joint put a stop to the weight I was gaining.

*gets blown away by a light draft*

_________________
Blog: http://www.sydius.org
Web: http://www.sydius.net