Hi all,
My partner told me about this game, and would love you to take a look at this.
http://www.crysis-online.com/Media/Images/
The creators of ( FarCry ) are shining again, how on earth they do this ? If you google movies about, you will be more and more shocked. Every thing is moving litrary, even Vegetation :D.
And of course agian (DirectX 10) :(.
Absolutely everything in that game that they have shown looks ridiculously good. What has impressed me the most however is the physics. For anyone who hasn't seen it, they have smooth body physics running on the foliage. I get scared even thinking about trying to compete with that.
that's just scary…wow
2 words: physics accelerators
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3502375929069803475&q=crysis
http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=2509
sfera said:
2 words: physics accelerators
Looks more like a simple on-contact animation that takes the direction you hit it from into account. All the video's I've seen so far are a bit blurry or small, but the interaction with the smaller foilage isn't that rich either. By the way it looks, visually i'm most impressed by the wind effect, though I doubt that was the hardest to make. But when there's an explosion the fact that the plants move a bit looks even sillier to me than when they are completly static
Silly or not… I think it looks cool as hell and the technology easily surpasses anything I've seen elsewhere such as what's been demonstrated with Unreal Engine 3 and the Offset Engine.
i just looked at the directx 10 footage at incrysis.com and well, i guess those guys at crytek made a pact with the devil or something. it's just insane!
llama said:
sfera said:
2 words: physics accelerators
Looks more like a simple on-contact animation that takes the direction you hit it from into account. All the video's I've seen so far are a bit blurry or small, but the interaction with the smaller foilage isn't that rich either. By the way it looks, visually i'm most impressed by the wind effect, though I doubt that was the hardest to make. But when there's an explosion the fact that the plants move a bit looks even sillier to me than when they are completly static
animations doesnt really explain how the branches and leafs of all the trees bend exactly correct when falling etc.. and the trees/branches can be shot off anywhere..
i'll say it's pure physics
anyway..amazing...and the motion blur really gives the effect of speed and power..
here's the incrysis link: http://incrysis.com/crysis/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=27
have a look at the " Gamespot HD video #x" videos!
What really makes it weird is that big companies like UBISoft, Unreal engine
You can have more info in the forums about the Cry Engine 2.
Outrunner said:
... if every thing that can be done with DirectX, can be done with OpenGl...
now that's not true. directx is more than a graphics api but a acollection of apis: directinput, directplay, direct3d, directsound. opengl is only graphics.
i'm also asking myself why all companies go towards directx, but i always assumed that it's because they don't care much about portability and they are comfortable with all those apis in one package (otherwise they would have to implement it theirself or buy some - if there are such things on the market, i'm not aware of them).
afaik one of the most loyal opengl developers was id software. everything after doom 2 was on opengl.
Ironically Carmack advised Microsoft to create DirectX though 
SDL is an alternative for the whole DirectX package, but not everyone likes SDL
Of course, you can use DirectX for everything except the graphics, and use OpenGL for that. That still gives you a lot more portability. Even jME does this I think (afaik LWJGL/jInput can use DirectInput under the hood, OpenAL maps to DirectSound, etc.)
@mrCoder: the animation is very interactive with the enviroment, I didn't mean to say it's not… but I wouldn't call it's behaviour exactly "correct". When you shoot a palm tree in real life I certainly hope it doesn't look the way it does in Cyris. I doubt they use real physics simulation (hardware accelerated or not) for it. The biggest problem with having so many moving objects using traditional animation would be the bus traffic to update all those vertices, so the logical step is to use vertex shaders. Well, I guess everything is shader based in this engine, and doesn't DX10 have unified shaders? (so vertex shader isn't exactly correct). What gives them the flexibility is most likely that the animation is procedural rather than designed. Of course I'm only guessing here…
Of course I'm impressed with what they technically achieved here, and yeah, especially the screenshots look amazing. When you see it move I'm still impressed with the technology but it doesn't look that "real" anymore.
irrisor said:
well, I think many people try to improve gameplay and e.g. ai but maybe they are not that successful. I remember a comment from Jeff Orkin on his new AI system, that players did not really percieve his (quite smart) actors as smarter than in older game versions, and he said, they would not want to have them smarter . . . Additionally I think visuals sell very well . . .
yep, i think most studios focus on whatever sells. and unlike you have will wright's (or someone elses) big name on it, you don't really know if a new idea will sell. it might even fail anyway (look at molyneux's latest games). a mediocre shooter with excellent graphics (doom3/farcry/...) however will always sell. not to mention that it's much harder to really come up with a new idea and implement it well (look at molyneux again :D).
and now that i mentioned will wright, i think spore looks far more impressive than crysis, gameplaywise. it seems to be a game that otherwise only molyneux would dare to promise, but i think unlike him wright will be able to deliver what he promises. :D
(ok, enough molyneux-bashing, i'll fire up dosbox and play a few rounds of syndicate right away :))
At the Game Developers Exchange in Atlanta this year I sat in on a demo and got to speak with one of the XNA leads at MS. The bottom line is that their marketing seems to really be focused on winning developers with the slogan that 'most desktops run Windows and therefore your tools should be MS' based. Then he jumped into the big XNA push and DirectX came up a few times as well. The fine print around their tools just doesn't seem altruistic. XNA Studio Express seems like a bait-n-switch tactic.
The XNA lead also wowed the crowd with statements like, "this highly experienced C++ developer ported his game in less than 10 minutes". The game was a sphere with budding flowers and butterflies. Look out Crysis! The whole demo reeked of PR with little meat. When asked about portability he spoke of the various versions of Windows and handheld units (whopping percentage there). It does push a game out to a 360 quickly for testing. (wish list: a JDK on the Wii, PS3, and 360 I won't hold my breath.)
For me, it was like a shader/physics/audio fest. Lots of hype but very little in the way of tangible take-away skill.
Besides, I still think the Mac is an untapped potential customer. And that's where OpenGL comes in.
Basically I prefer everything I have seen from the Unreal 3 Engine above the CryEngine 2.
And I must admit I do not expect Crysis to be a good FPS at all, while I think that Unreal 2007 will be awesome.
The reason mostly are the videos I have seen from both games and especially the predecessors of the games.
FarCry was only boring as soon as you got into the shipwreck while the Unreal and Unreal Tournament Series were just great in terms of level design, gameplay and motivation.
In the Google video MrCoder posted you can see how a hut is being destroyed and crashes "physically" correct.
Well I doubt it. It just looks ridiculous. So does the explosion physics for vehicles.
In fact the Physics remind me of those used in FEAR. The surrounding was too responsive and physics just did not seem to work right.
I prefer the way more realistic and believable Unreal Engine which looks way better. And if you have seen the early physics presentation of the Unreal 3 Engine you know what I am talking about. And if you have seen the latest gameplay videos for UT2007 you know that it looks better graphics and animation wise.
directx got such a darn great setup of tools and libraries…all the lovely extentions through the d3dx lib, for example spherical harmonics…and graphics profilers like pix etc…lots and lots of great samples to copy from and lots and lots of documentation…if there were a functional java directx wrapper i would use it right away…
how dare you! :-o
how could we poor linux/mac guys use your fantastic stuff if you'd use directx? i would always prefer portability over some other nice features.
Okay Mr.Coder, when's the DirectX implementation for jME going to be finished? I can't wait to try it out. 
darkfrog said:
Okay Mr.Coder, when's the DirectX implementation for jME going to be finished? I can't wait to try it out. :P
that will be available only in the c# port of jme :D