Albert on 8/8/2009 at 20:41
Functional: yes. But it seems as though even the best graphics card takes a beating when your building a large map and all of a sudden you have this large selection that takes up 2 football fields.
Eabin on 16/8/2009 at 17:54
does it have to be completely free of charge? if not, (
http://www.unigine.com/licensing/) unigine might be interesting. You pay a comparatively (5000-10000$) small amount to get you started, and pay about 5 times the amount should you really ship a game.
it does look pretty gorgeous as well.
Volitions Advocate on 16/8/2009 at 20:52
Someone else posted just a short while ago about another for-cheap engine. but it was around 2-300 GBP. I even downloaded the tech demo but I dont remember what its called...
thief0 on 16/8/2009 at 21:47
Quote Posted by 37637598
My brother and I have been making 3d games for years now,
Hmm, are your games available to the public? any demos available for download? because I would like to try them out. Do you guys have website about your games?
37637598 on 27/8/2009 at 20:52
Sorry for the long delay, I lost internet for a while. We only make games for fun, we've never distributed our work to the public because we never finish anything we start. We never really intend to though. It's all just for fun, experimenting, pushing our limits. We can make amazing graphics, and we can make awesome gameplay, but we've never had a good enough engine to handle what we want to really work with. Top of the line realtime processing of effects and object/poly count, and gameplay code, without the significant framerate impact we seem to run into every time.
Our computers can handle it no problem, but the software we're using to drive it all is out of date, or just incapable. Such as 3D Game Studio A7. It's an amazing engine, a little glitchy, but it did what we needed for a while. Now with nextgen technology exceeding graphics we're capable of making with it, we're looking to move on and keep ourselves up to date so that when the day comes that we find more people with as much free time and talent as we have, we can consider making a project from start to finish. We have a lot of ideas and full games planned out, but we're waiting until something advances. Whether it be the size of our two man team, or the software we use. I've even resorted to trying to torrent some engines just to see which ones will work for me, but I've run into a few viruses this way, and even the ones I've found that seem clean have corrupt files, non working keygens, etc.
I recently ran into a program called FPS creator X10, and it seems to be exactly what I'm looking for in some aspects, though I'm waiting to see more reviews or videos of in-game realtime handling. Plenty of screenshots, but even the screenshots aren't great. They all show off lighting, smoke, and effects, but never high volumes of processing. Also it ONLY works on windows vista, and I'm just not ready to give up my perfectly working XP just yet.
37637598 on 27/8/2009 at 21:16
Quote Posted by Eabin
does it have to be completely free of charge? if not, (
http://www.unigine.com/licensing/) unigine might be interesting. You pay a comparatively (5000-10000$) small amount to get you started, and pay about 5 times the amount should you really ship a game.
it does look pretty gorgeous as well.
I just sent the creators of Unigine an e-mail asking about their physics engine, and whether Unigine will accept external OpenGL and DirectX functions and plugins. It is a bit pricey, considering I'm still only doing this as a hobby, but less expensive than UNREAL and looks to be about as good, if indeed it can work with 3rd party engines such as Havok Physics, Havok Cloth, and various others. Any chance you've seen anything for professional projects come out of this engine?
Renzatic on 27/8/2009 at 21:52
The one thing I don't understand is why you want to spend $5000+ on a dev engine when an open source one will probably do just as well for what you're intending. It's a hobby after all. I'd suggest spending your cash on some good 3D tools and hone your skills with a free engine before jumping feet first into the big buck packages that'll require the aforementioned tools to make stuff with anyway.
37637598 on 27/8/2009 at 23:46
I'm not opposed to using an open source engine, I just want to find the best possible one for the dollar I spend. I've had my head so wrapped around UNREAL ever since I got to try it out, that I want to find something that's close to it as far as compatability, and as customizable. Obviously something open source would be completely customizable, but I want to make sure whatever engine we choose will handle processing as well as Unreal's graphical componants.
Honestly I'm not very certain what it is that determines better visual processing. I know it's pretty much a combination of everything being run at the same time, but efficiently. My brother usually works with the engine and game structure while I make models, sound effects, music, textures, and AI. I know what I need to know to do what I do good, and with as little processing as my models and other resourses need. Now I just need to find the right engine to do it on. The only reason the Quake engine scares me is because I've seen the graphical capabilities that come out of it, as well as the DOOM3 engine, and they're not quite where I want to be. Maybe the creators of those games didn't use the engines to their fullest and greatest abilities, I assume they did considering the game engines were made for the specific games.
Do you have any experience with any of the open source platforms you have in mind?
Volitions Advocate on 28/8/2009 at 00:43
All I can say is I don't think UE is all it's cracked up to be. The engine itself i mean. The tools epic has put together for it, on the other hand, are the best I've ever seen, period. Things like Kismet and the materials editor are something that should've been thought of ages ago.
demagogue on 28/8/2009 at 02:21
Quote Posted by 37637598
The only reason the Quake engine scares me is because I've seen the graphical capabilities that come out of it, as well as the DOOM3 engine, and they're not quite where I want to be.
I think the art design of their games did them no favors ...
But anyway, at least for the Doom3 Engine, what probably most undermines its look is that all the lighting and shadows are in-game processed... You don't have shadows or radiosity baked in like you do e.g., with the Hammer or newer Unreal Engines, so you won't get soft shadows or the nice bleeding of colors with radiosity. But if shadows are really important for your game, the Doom3 way ends up being the side of the trade-off that you want. If not, then you'll like the Hammer or Unreal side; just note that things like soft shadows and radiosity are technically "tricks", a kind of faux lighting not dependent on the actual lighting in the level.
You also have to be careful with the specularity in Doom3 or things can look a little "plastic-y", but if you're careful with it and use it in moderation (like the game didn't do so well), then it can improve the look a lot I think.
Aside from the look, though, you also have to remember how friendly Doom3 is for modification... it gives a mod team a lot of power to push things in it.
