CryEngine3 3-5 times Crysis

[wolf2009]

Crytek president and CEO Cevat Yerli in an interview says "The future will start for Crytek in 2009 when they begin to develop CryEngine 3, "but will only become visible in 2012." The next CryEngine, says Yerli, will "exceed the quality and quantity of Crysis by 3-5 times by 2012, but at a non-linear, flat cost development."

Read the full interview here

GTX680 and HD8870X2 have to be afraid of this , right ?

 

[Canai]

Too bad it'll be designed for consoles.

 

[Sylvanas]

Let's hope they get it right the first time and don't have to release an expansion that contains the optimizations that should have gone into the first.... :/

 

[LOUISSSSS]

pretty sure neither of those video cards will be around in 2012

 

[sneakybit]

So when CryEngine 3 is released in 2012. Will we need a yet to be released GPU from 2016 to play the games based on it?

 

[Cutthroat]

Originally posted by: sneakybit
So when CryEngine 3 is released in 2012. Will we need a yet to be released GPU from 2016 to play the games based on it?

With Crytek`s record I`m sure we will. We can now finally play Far Cry at the highest settings.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Canai
Too bad it'll be designed for consoles.

so.... a 9800Pro level graphics then? (console: n. An outdated PC with DRM, a crippled OS, and no hardware upgrade options, often sold at cost, to allow greater markups on games which are contracted for exclusivity.)

And it is it gonna lag on its target consoles?

If they make the console switch then they are total douches trying to excuse their own failures on piracy... piracy didn't make crisys sell only 1 million copies... the lackluster plot, 6 hours of gameplay max, and playing and looking like crap on a 2000$ machines (in hardware, excluding manufacturer's markup).

lets be honest here... on low resolution, in medium settings, on a top of the line computer TODAY (not back then) I am getting poor frame rate, and poorer graphics. Even a no name game like the witcher manages to surpass it in both FPS and graphic quality... and every UE3 engine based game most certainly does too. Except, if you crank up the graphics, it starts looking better, better then anything on the market... at 0.5 FPS.

BTW... sins of a solar empire. looks great, and plays even on older computers while still looking great, AND fun to play. By a company whose CEO has some very interesting things to say about DRM and Piracy (look him up on the forums... his forum nick is frogboi)

 

[Aberforth]

It's sad to see so many people are single minded. Cryengine is supposed to be the most advanced game engine ever developed, thanks to the innovation and hardwork put by people at Crytek, there is no point in whining or blaming crytek for staying ahead when the hardware side isn't top notch, when it comes to hardware one has a brainstorm every 5 years.

 

[Sylvanas]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
It's sad to see so many people are single minded. Cryengine is supposed to be the most advanced game engine ever developed, thanks to the innovation and hardwork put by people at Crytek, there is no point in whining or blaming crytek for staying ahead when the hardware side isn't top notch, when it comes to hardware one has a brainstorm every 5 years.

I'd hardly call CryEngine 2, an engine in one game only, the most advanced engine out there and 'ahead'- people will disagree with me on that but that's how I see it. UE3 has shown it has much more versatility being available in about 4 games so far and is an all round better engine providing excellent graphics (have a look at the PhysX levels in UT3 they look amazing) in varied environments (both outdoor and indoor/atmospheric) all while maintaining 60 fps on Hish rez + AA with a High end card. This is something Crysis fails to do miserably with AA and high rez out of the question, you have to use Medium to High if you want a moderate gaming experience.

Couple this with the fact Crytek have said their next game, Warhead, will be better optimized than the first and give better playable framerates on a $700 system (Cryteks own words) that in itself means the first was a POS that they are not bothered to optimize an instead want you to buy another game in order to get what you paid for in the first place. UE3>>>> Cryengine. Period.

If they make the console switch then they are total douches trying to excuse their own failures on piracy... piracy didn't make crisys sell only 1 million copies... the lackluster plot, 6 hours of gameplay max, and playing and looking like crap on a 2000$ machines (in hardware, excluding manufacturer's markup).

lets be honest here... on low resolution, in medium settings, on a top of the line computer TODAY (not back then) I am getting poor frame rate, and poorer graphics. Even a no name game like the witcher manages to surpass it in both FPS and graphic quality... and every UE3 engine based game most certainly does too. Except, if you crank up the graphics, it starts looking better, better then anything on the market... at 0.5 FPS.

QFT.

 

[MarcVenice]

Crysis doesn't run that bad, you can do medium/high settings on a HD4870 @ 1680*1050. Would call that a regular resolution, most gamers play at 1680*1050 or less. Or 1600*1200 or less.

And the UT3 engine has appeared in far more game sylvanas Top of my head, BioShock, UT3 , Gears of War, MoH: Airborne, Mass Effect, Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 and Stranglehold. Then there's a dozen more soon to be out games. So as far as licensing goes, the UT engine is top dog, and always has been I think.

Anyways, 2012, 4 years out, by then we'll have larrabee, either hugely flopped, or the miracle real time ray tracing chip we've been waiting for, who knows. Predicting something about an engine that is probably in it's infant stages is pretty lame.

 

[Aberforth]

UE3 maybe good but there are no games that looks as good as Crysis even Far Cry 2- which is the product of clever light tricks on low quality objects, like light diffusion and so on but makes graphics look like a oil painting if you overdo it, where as with crysis they've used extremely high quality textures with so much dynamic things going on in the background that naturally taxes the GPU performance all the time. You must be thankful that current GPU's can even run crysis at very high settings, their engine is definitely optimized I can tell you even though it's years ahead of it's time and with Warhead it will be more polished to run more smoothly on old pc's.

 

[Sylvanas]

@MarcVenice

Crysis doesn't run that bad, you can do medium/high settings on a HD4870 @ 1680*1050. Would call that a regular resolution, most gamers play at 1680*1050 or less. Or 1600*1200 or less.

Sure, but with a High end card and a large monitor (which usually go hand in hand if you spend the $$ on a Top card) it is not playable at all, while UE3 glides through, and looks just as awesome if not more IMO.

And the UT3 engine has appeared in far more game sylvanas Top of my head, BioShock, UT3 , Gears of War, MoH: Airborne, Mass Effect, Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 and Stranglehold. Then there's a dozen more soon to be out games. So as far as licensing goes, the UT engine is top dog, and always has been I think.

You mention a few I didn't know of, even better and even more reason why UE3 is a far better and more flexible engine.

Anyways, 2012, 4 years out, by then we'll have larrabee, either hugely flopped, or the miracle real time ray tracing chip we've been waiting for, who knows. Predicting something about an engine that is probably in it's infant stages is pretty lame.

Yeah, I would think Crytek will wait and see how Larabee plays out next year and I would *hope* they might commence development of a Ray-traced engine if Larabee really is the savior Intel makes it out to be. Epic has stated UE4 has been in development for a while so we always have old faithful to fall back on...and maybe even id might come out with something like what thet Quake3 engine was. The future is bright .

EDIT:
@Aberforth

UE3 maybe good but there are no games that looks as good as Crysis even Far Cry 2- which is the product of clever light tricks on low quality objects, like light diffusion and so on but makes graphics look like a oil painting if you overdo it, where as with crysis they've used extremely high quality textures with so much dynamic things going on in the background that naturally taxes the GPU performance all the time. You must be thankful that current GPU's can even run crysis at very high settings, their engine is definitely optimized I can tell you even though it's years ahead of it's time and with Warhead it will be more polished to run more smoothly on old pc's.

I disagree. It is pretty subjective but I have seen better water effects in Bioshock and just as well done textures in UT3 but with nowhere near the performance impact as Crysis. The argument that shoving everything onto the GPU taxing it and getting a poor result is good is flawed. Intel recently demonstrated Real Time Ray Tracing on ET: QW on a Quad CPU Tigerton setup at below 30fps at 1280x720....the GPU (or CPU's in this case) are heavily taxed but does that mean it's good? No, the result is a slow moving low rez scene that isn't playable.

Also I'd hardly say it's 'years ahead of it's time' when SLI/Crossfire do not scale well after many driver revisions and the same goes for Dual and Quad core scaling. If the game really DID heavily tax the system, an extra 2 cores or extra GPU helping out with the load balancing would do wonders but it doesn't so it lends to the fact the engine itself cannot use the resources properly.

 

[rgallant]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
It's sad to see so many people are single minded. Cryengine is supposed to be the most advanced game engine ever developed, thanks to the innovation and hardwork put by people at Crytek, there is no point in whining or blaming crytek for staying ahead when the hardware side isn't top notch, when it comes to hardware one has a brainstorm every 5 years.

I agree

-CEO Cevat Yerli I believe said not to long a go that if they had named:
- very high was named Ulta high
-high was named very high ,
- medium to high
-to match what other games lool like
people in fact would have accepted the lower settings better ,as playing at medium did not have the bing factor
-But CryTEK has a real threat, did you see the fence boards fall one by one when shot,
you could even shoot holes in the flag Wow! in the Phys demo with the Nvidia drivers not like the lame crysis - driving a tank into a building, or blowing the building apart and you only have to use a second card \psu-second monitor, that can't be used for anything but phys-x ,in three games, what a joke compared to crysis. keep drinking the coolaid guys.

 

[Hauk]

You'd think though, they'd want to make a game that would sell well, beyond the release frenzy. In order to do that, it's gotta be playable by the majority, not the minority, two years after release..

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
UE3 maybe good but there are no games that looks as good as Crysis even Far Cry 2- which is the product of clever light tricks on low quality objects, like light diffusion and so on but makes graphics look like a oil painting if you overdo it, where as with crysis they've used extremely high quality textures with so much dynamic things going on in the background that naturally taxes the GPU performance all the time. You must be thankful that current GPU's can even run crysis at very high settings, their engine is definitely optimized I can tell you even though it's years ahead of it's time and with Warhead it will be more polished to run more smoothly on old pc's.

i have to agree

if you are looking for "realism", absolutely nothing beats CryEngine as in Crysis - today.

My PC in specs below will run the GPU demo on "very hi" - every single setting maxed out at 16x12 - at just over 23 FPS; 20.11 FPS with 0AA/16AF.
- if i drop the resolution to 11x8 it is ~30FPS on very hi

So a HD4870x2 will get it, "very hi" at 19x12 - and certainly if i go for x3, probably some AA/16AF. In a few months, GT290 should be able to do it also.

The ONLY thing that surprises me is the CryTek CryBaby Devs
- WtF did they expect? .. they did the SAME thing with FarCry

and - worst of all - the dummies had no business sense. Instead of polishing it for one more month, they released it - rather buggy - in the middle of about 10 other excellent games. Since it was known as "buggy" on the forums, a lot of people [wisely] waited to buy it. i got it on sale and ONLY because i review HW.

Crysis is really a playable tech demo, imo
- an excellent demo with a "fair" shooter attached to it

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Aberforth
and - worst of all - the dummies had no business sense. Instead of polishing it for one more month, they released it - rather buggy - in the middle of about 10 other excellent games. [/I]Since it was known as "buggy" on the forums, a lot of people [wisely] waited to buy it. i got it on sale and ONLY because i review HW.

Crysis is really a playable tech demo, imo
- an excellent demo with a "fair" shooter attached to it

Actually, they had no choice. Crysis was supposed to be released on Dec 2006 but they delayed it because they wanted to add the "Power Struggle" multi-player feature and DX 10 effects to the game. But in 2007, the game was delayed again and EA forced them to release it as they were reaching the end of the fourth quarter.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: sneakybit
So when CryEngine 3 is released in 2012. Will we need a yet to be released GPU from 2016 to play the games based on it?

and don't forget it will look as good as the early crysis screen shots did

 

[alcoholbob]

A year later, on a 4GHz E8600 and GTX280 manages 12fps during pitched combat...its debatable if Triple-Sli GTX280 fares much better during the minimum framerate streaks...1) if you consider the possibility of microstutter 2) SLI rarely helps that much in minimum framerate.

What's nvidia going to come up with in 2013, 6 x SLI $550 video cards so you can run Crysis 2 at an average of 30fps...

 

[CottonRabbit]

I don't know why people cry so much about Crysis killing their pc's. I ran Crysis on a gtx260 on a custom high/very high config at 1680x1050 with all the goodies like god rays and POM and got between 25-40 fps. If you spend a couple minutes on Crysis forums, you can easily find several very high quality for cheap system configs.

 

[alcoholbob]

All we have is reviewers benchmarks as an authority source. You know in the Bioshock forums a guy claimed that a 9800 Pro ran the game at max settings with no lag.

 

[Aberforth]

I heard Steven Spielberg is a big fan of Crysis.

 

[Boztech]

Originally posted by: Sylvanas

Originally posted by: Aberforth
It's sad to see so many people are single minded. Cryengine is supposed to be the most advanced game engine ever developed, thanks to the innovation and hardwork put by people at Crytek, there is no point in whining or blaming crytek for staying ahead when the hardware side isn't top notch, when it comes to hardware one has a brainstorm every 5 years.

I'd hardly call CryEngine 2, an engine in one game only, the most advanced engine out there and 'ahead'- people will disagree with me on that but that's how I see it. UE3 has shown it has much more versatility being available in about 4 games so far and is an all round better engine providing excellent graphics (have a look at the PhysX levels in UT3 they look amazing) in varied environments (both outdoor and indoor/atmospheric) all while maintaining 60 fps on Hish rez + AA with a High end card. This is something Crysis fails to do miserably with AA and high rez out of the question, you have to use Medium to High if you want a moderate gaming experience.

Couple this with the fact Crytek have said their next game, Warhead, will be better optimized than the first and give better playable framerates on a $700 system (Cryteks own words) that in itself means the first was a POS that they are not bothered to optimize an instead want you to buy another game in order to get what you paid for in the first place. UE3>>>> Cryengine. Period.

If they make the console switch then they are total douches trying to excuse their own failures on piracy... piracy didn't make crisys sell only 1 million copies... the lackluster plot, 6 hours of gameplay max, and playing and looking like crap on a 2000$ machines (in hardware, excluding manufacturer's markup).

lets be honest here... on low resolution, in medium settings, on a top of the line computer TODAY (not back then) I am getting poor frame rate, and poorer graphics. Even a no name game like the witcher manages to surpass it in both FPS and graphic quality... and every UE3 engine based game most certainly does too. Except, if you crank up the graphics, it starts looking better, better then anything on the market... at 0.5 FPS.

QFT.

No, they did the same thing for the original Crysis.

http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=18017

...and UE3 pales miserably in comparison to Cryengine. One need only to spend 15 minutes in the Sandbox or on Crymod.com to realize this, let alone playing thru Crysis on High/Very High settings.

 

[Boztech]

*double post*

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Aberforth
and - worst of all - the dummies had no business sense. Instead of polishing it for one more month, they released it - rather buggy - in the middle of about 10 other excellent games. [/I]Since it was known as "buggy" on the forums, a lot of people [wisely] waited to buy it. i got it on sale and ONLY because i review HW.

Crysis is really a playable tech demo, imo
- an excellent demo with a "fair" shooter attached to it

Actually, they had no choice. Crysis was supposed to be released on Dec 2006 but they delayed it because they wanted to add the "Power Struggle" multi-player feature and DX 10 effects to the game. But in 2007, the game was delayed again and EA forced them to release it as they were reaching the end of the fourth quarter.

Whatever

the dummies were stupid to release it buggy in the middle of the biggest crop of good games in a long time, that all competed with each other for attention.

They did as well as i expected them to do

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: CottonRabbit
I don't know why people cry so much about Crysis killing their pc's. I ran Crysis on a gtx260 on a custom high/very high config at 1680x1050 with all the goodies like god rays and POM and got between 25-40 fps. If you spend a couple minutes on Crysis forums, you can easily find several very high quality for cheap system configs.

Well, that's the problem. 25-40fps is unacceptable to me, especially when games like UT3 aren't that far off in graphical quality but stay above 70fps at all times for me with higher resolution and AA settings.

Crysis does look fantastic and overall is the best looking game out right now, but the engine definitely shows signs of poor optimization. This is especially apparent when you turn down the graphical settings to near their minimums, at which point the game looks like Far Cry, but the performance still remains pretty mediocre.

It's also worth noting that the very high settings in Crysis enable several options that don't do much for image quality but hurt performance a lot. As you said, a custom combination of high and very high settings is the way to go.