[iamshadowlark]

Wrong. The Samaritan demo was specifically meant to showcase what Epic 'wanted to see in the next generation of games'. It's more of an expression of what they can do with a lot of power rather than a testimony of their efficient engine building skills. People expect UE4 to make Samaritan graphics possible on lower end hardware. That's completely wrong. All the drawing operations necessary to render Samaritan in UE3 are exactly the same in number in UE4. If they manage to make UE4 more 'efficient', that won't drop the number of operations that need to happen enough to suddenly make lower end hardware (1200 SPU GPUs) capable of running the game. Simply put, whether we get Samaritan or not on consoles is completely dependent on how crazy Sony and MS want to go. Not on how crazy Epic is going to go. Although a 1152 SPU chip in the PS4 would be pretty sweet, it won't run Samaritan. There's just not enough power. The whole point of UE4 isn't to please gamers with pretty graphics. That's not what Epic makes money from. UE4 is being made to give developers a powerful set of tools that allows game developers to make awesome looking games easier, and they are surely working hard to make UE4 even better than UE3 in that area.

How is what I said wrong? Like I said, Samaritan level graphics are the baseline as to what to expect from UE4. UE4 is supposed to make Samaritan look like crap. I don't know what the hell you are talking about or who exactly you are referring to about with your comment about what people expect UE4 to do on lower quality hardware.

Im also gonna call bullshit on your claim of Samaritan running on UE3 vs UE4. Unless you have profiling data and benchmarks I suggest you stop talking in such absolutes when in reality you are just as clueless as the rest of us.

[DCKing]

You're wrong in the sense that Samaritan isn't about UE4.

And no, I'm not clueless. You can't run Samaritan while doing only half of the graphics operations required. Game engines aren't a magic spell that allow you to get twice the graphics from the same computational power. Those are some big claims by Mark Rein, but Epic alone physically cannot make that happen.

[Kunan]

The point is that Samaritan is meant to be the minimum entry point for UE4. If you are not going make something at that level than it would be pointless to license UE4 when UE3 will be alot cheaper. UE4 is meant to be way more advanced than UE3, Samaritan included.

The point of Samaritan is to convince you to upgrade to UE4 instead of continue using UE3 licenses. The other reasons being their improved tools and more impressive packed in shaders. An engine is meant to scale to your needs, not be a bottleneck on your game.

If WiiU can not fundamentaly run GPGPU code that is needed for UE4, we will have the same problem again. This is possibility if WiiU has Shader Model 4 based GPU. I certainly hope this is not case and we will get all 'next gen' machines with competive feature set. (Hopefully very powerful and with lots of memory as well. ;))

Yes this is quite possible again, and I certainly hope not as well. The main reason I bring up Wii is because its problems with receiving middleware were far more numerous than just its perceived power level.

[iamshadowlark]

You're wrong in the sense that Samaritan isn't about UE4. And no, I'm not clueless. You can't run Samaritan while doing only half of the graphics operations required. Game engines aren't a magic spell that allow you to get twice the graphics from the same computational power.

I never said it was. I said it was a baseline for UE4. There's not much reason to license UE4 if what you are doing is not past Samaritan.

You also said that:

All the drawing operations necessary to render Samaritan in UE3 are exactly the same in number in UE4.

Which is about as vague and shallow of a statement I've seen. There is tons more than "drawing" ops going on, hell drawing is the easy part.

You also don't seem to recall that Samaritan went from running on 3 580s to just a singular Kepler with no appreciable drop in quality. I'd bet my house that UE4 could handle Samaritan alot sounder than 3.

[iamshadowlark]

The point of Samaritan is to convince you to upgrade to UE4 instead of continue using UE3 licenses. The other reasons being their improved tools and more impressive packed in shaders. An engine is meant to scale to your needs, not be a bottleneck on your game. Yes this is quite possible again, and I certainly hope not as well. The main reason I bring up Wii is because its problems with receiving middleware were far more numerous than just its perceived power level.

Ummm no. Samaritan is UE3 and is meant to sell UE3. The UE4 demo is meant to entice developers to upgrade which is why they say things like" it makes Samaritan look like crap."

Speaking to CVG in a frank and insightful interview at GDC, Epic's always well-spoken VP Mark Rein pointed to UE3's ability to power visuals such as those seen in the stunning Samaritan demo, which he said the engine is capable of doing "right now." Rein said: "Samaritan is something you can do right now. In fact, Unreal Development Kit has all the features that powered Samaritan - every single graphics feature you can do. We could have shown another 30 videos. He added: "UE3 is already available for that sort of stuff. I think if you were going to do a launch title for a future console, UE3 would probably be the way to go. And likewise if you were going to do something cross-generational, like Mortal Kombat on PS Vita, Xbox, PS3 and potentially it could be on iPad... that's Unreal. Unreal spans the gamut, it goes from the smallest smartphone platforms up to the highest spec PC you can build and beyond." On Unreal Engine 4 - which Epic hopes to publicly showcase later this year - Rein commented: "The UE4 stuff is very futuristic. UE3 is really the horse for this year."

Epic released everything needed to run Samaritan in the March 2011 UDK and promoted it.

[DCKing]

There's not much reason to license UE4 if what you are doing is not past Samaritan.

You are the clueless one. Game companies don't license an engine for the graphics. Game companies license engines because it enables them to make game easier. UE4 will make PS4 / Durango games (at least) much easier to make. UE4 isn't capable of automatically creating better graphics than UE3 maxed out on the newest graphics technology just because it is one higher...

[iamshadowlark]

You are the clueless one. Game companies don't license an engine for the graphics. Game companies license engines because it enables them to make game easier. UE4 will make PS4 / Durango games (at least) much easier to make. UE4 isn't capable of automatically creating better graphics than UE3 maxed out on the newest graphics technology just because it is one higher...

Again you are implying things that I am not saying. The reason you don't need to license UE4 if its not something advanced is because UE4 is gonna have a way heftier price tag than UE3 and probably a steeper learning curve. Thats why Rein is saying most devs will want to stick with UE3 early on.

[Oreoleo]

Excuse me for being overly flippant but.... duh?

[StevieP]

You also don't seem to recall that Samaritan went from running on 3 580s to just a singular Kepler with no appreciable drop in quality. I'd bet my house that UE4 could handle Samaritan alot sounder than 3.

A resolution drop to 720p and shader-based AA (yuck) instead of 4xAA is quite an appreciable drop in quality. There is a reason it ran on a single 680 and you and I both know it isn't the magical "optimize" button.

[iamshadowlark]

A resolution drop to 720p and shader-based AA (yuck) instead of 4xAA is quite an appreciable drop in quality. There is a reason it ran on a single 680 and you and I both know it isn't the magical "optimize" button.

4xMSAA was a bit overkill and the FXAA they implemented is quite adequate.

It still is quite impressive.

I didn't know about the resolution drop(link?) but considering it ran above 1080p originally, I wouldn't call a drop like that downgrading. Rather dropping it to a practical resolution.

[StevieP]

In what world is *real* AA "overkill" and shader-based AA "adequate"?
720p is the 'practical' resolution that most console games will be running at next gen, across all platforms, sure. But that doesn't mean there wasn't an appreciable drop in quality.

The facts say otherwise.

[iamshadowlark]

In what world is *real* AA "overkill" and shader-based AA "adequate"? 720p is the 'practical' resolution that most console games will be running at next gen, across all platforms, sure. But that doesn't mean there wasn't an appreciable drop in quality. The facts say otherwise.

4xMSAA is overkill. Especially when it balloons your lighting pass to 500MB(from around 100).We are talking about efficient game design are we not.

As the link below the FXAA they implemented is more than suffice for AA purposes.

http://international.download.nvidia...parison-1.html

And yes to the consumer, there really is no appreciable drop. Fact.

[Durante]

4xMSAA was a bit overkill and the FXAA they implemented is quite adequate. It still is quite impressive. I didn't know about the resolution drop(link?) but considering it ran above 1080p originally, I wouldn't call a drop like that downgrading. Rather dropping it to a practical resolution.

A hugely relevant double-drop in IQ is of course downgrading. It doesn't get more clear than that.

4xMSAA is the baseline, not overkill.

And demonstrating FXAA on an edge that FXAA works well with does nothing to show me the actual impact on the quality of moving in-game images. And yes, I do have some idea what I'm talking about.

[iamshadowlark]

A hugely relevant double-drop in IQ is of course downgrading. It doesn't get more clear than that. 4xMSAA is the baseline, not overkill. And demonstrating FXAA on an edge that FXAA works well with does nothing to show me the actual impact on the quality of moving in-game images. And yes, I do have some idea what I'm talking about.

No the resolution drop is not really downgrading. Not when the original demo was at an impractical one.

And of all the impressions I have read, not one mentions a quality drop. I suppose we should see it in motion, but nothing suggests to me that the quality has been dropped on any significant level(disregarding practical changes).

[Durante]

How can you argue that dropping the resolution to 720p is "not really downgrading", when even most "HD" console gamers probably game on a 1080p screen these days?

[iamshadowlark]

How can you argue that dropping the resolution to 720p is "not really downgrading", when even most "HD" console gamers probably game on a 1080p screen these days?

Because 720p(or a variant) is still the target resolution for the vast majority of games and will be for the foreseeable future among consoles?

Im still waiting on the proof that this new demo ran at 720p.

[Backfoggen]

720p with FXAA would suck hard. Hate the way it looks on a bigger screen. Sure the edges are smooth but in motion it still looks weird. Definitely not something I'd expect to see next-gen.

[SapientWolf]

You also don't seem to recall that Samaritan went from running on 3 580s to just a singular Kepler with no appreciable drop in quality. I'd bet my house that UE4 could handle Samaritan alot sounder than 3.

To bring things back around, Epic clearly sandbagged the Samaritan demo by using ridiculous IQ. So it's not apples to apples. Whether UE4 is more optimized for something like the Samaritan demo is an open question that is dependent on how the engine was written and the hardware used to run it. Anyone that can answer that question is under a strict NDA. All we know is that the engine was created with next gen consoles in mind.

[Backfoggen]

This pic is definitely rendered at 720p and it's from Nvidias website.

[iamshadowlark]

To bring things back around, Epic clearly sandbagged the Samaritan demo by using ridiculous IQ. So it's not apples to apples. Whether UE4 is more optimized for something like the Samaritan demo is an open question that is dependent on how the engine was written and the hardware used to run it. Anyone that can answer that question is under a strict NDA. All we know is that the engine was created with next gen consoles in mind.

That and 2500 lines of resolution, no game targets that. Of course it wouldn't be apples to apples. Thats not what I was implying. I agree with the rest of your post too.

Thanks for that backfog

[tranciful]

I could use my 4 year old 8800GTS to render Windows at 2560*1600, but that doesn't mean I would be able to play any games at that resolution. The iPad 3 is still far behind a 360 in terms of power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk2NsTR8c44

Like I said, "the graphics are catching up"

[BurntPork]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk2NsTR8c44 Like I said, "the graphics are catching up"

That looks like a mediocre XBox 1 game. I wouldn't use that to back up such an argument.

EDIT: I just realized I watching it in low quality, but it still only looks like an XBox game. Not even up to Vita yet.

[StevieP]

How does one expect a GPU in the neighbourhood of 30 gigaflops to compete with even a current gen 200-ish gigaflop GPU?

A device with a total TDP of 2w simply can't, when physics still exists, fully replicate a system that draws a multiple of that amount.

[Thoraxes]

That looks like a mediocre XBox 1 game. I wouldn't use that to back up such an argument. EDIT: I just realized I watching it in low quality, but it still only looks like an XBox game. Not even up to Vita yet.

Lol, you should see Resistance Vita.

[BurntPork]

Lol, you should see Resistance Vita.

That's more due to the dev than the hardware.

[tranciful]

That looks like a mediocre XBox 1 game. I wouldn't use that to back up such an argument. EDIT: I just realized I watching it in low quality, but it still only looks like an XBox game. Not even up to Vita yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZIcFNBiadc

I don't remember xbox being able to pull that sort of stuff off

[Proelite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZIcFNBiadc I don't remember xbox being able to pull that sort of stuff off

That's a bit beyond what the Xbox can do, even though Ipad2 has 50% of the flops of the OG Xbox. It must be the new rendering methods.

The framerate is really really bad.

[AndyMoogle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZIcFNBiadc I don't remember xbox being able to pull that sort of stuff off

It's basically an Xbox 1 game with modern shaders and higher res textures. The particle effects are definitely something you'd expect from a last gen game. The animations are horrendous, and not to mention the extremely poor physics. The two cars drive straight into each other and the result is hilarious.

If we disregard the shaders, the game wouldn't even look good on an Xbox 1. Those animations and physics would never be acceptable in a decent last gen game.

[BurntPork]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZIcFNBiadc I don't remember xbox being able to pull that sort of stuff off

In terms of shaders and textures it's better, but not anything else. If that were a big game during the 360 reveal in 2005, I wouldn't have been impressed. Geometry is Wii-level.

[tranciful]

It's basically an Xbox 1 game with modern shaders. The particle effects are definitely something you'd expect from a last gen game. The animations are horrendous, and not to mention the extremely poor physics. The two cars drive straight into each other and the result is hilarious. If we disregard the shaders, the game wouldn't even look good on an Xbox 1. Those animations and physics would never be acceptable in a decent last gen game.

Reminder - this is what halo 2 looked like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLBnBDF3bzE

You're disregarding the big jump in both rendering and texture resolution.



I snapped these from youtube:






Remember, this game runs at over 1080p on iPad3. Nova 3 also has DoF and other effects xbox couldn't handle.

[specialguy]

Remember, this game runs at over 1080p on iPad3.

I'm sure it doesn't run at anything close to that. It'll be upscaling.

[BurntPork]

I'm sure it doesn't run at anything close to that. It'll be upscaling.

Wow, I agree with something you said. O_o

[AndyMoogle]

Reminder - this is what halo 2 looked like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLBnBDF3bzE You're disregarding the big jump in both rendering and texture resolution. [img]http://media.teamxbox.com/games/ss/472/1099797515.jpg[img] I snapped these from youtube: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/i9luW.png[IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/eEhLW.png[IMG] Remember, this game runs at over 1080p on iPad3. Nova 3 also has DoF and other effects xbox couldn't handle.

The game is not rendered in over 1080p; in fact, it's probably less than 720p.

I'm sure the framerate in Halo 2 is much better than in Nova 3.

The animations, physics and a lot of other stuff actually looks better in Halo 2.

The only things Nova 3 has that wasn't possible on Xbox, are the newer shader model and higher resolution textures thanks to more RAM. The amount of polygons being rendered is most likely less than Halo 2.

[StevieP]

The only possible explanation is that Apple has found a way to defy the laws of physics.

[tranciful]

The game is not rendered in over 1080p; in fact, it's probably less than 720p. I'm sure the framerate in Halo 2 is much better than in Nova 3. The animations, physics and a lot of other stuff actually looks better in Halo 2. The only things Nova 3 has that wasn't possible on Xbox, are the newer shader model and higher resolution textures thanks to more RAM. The amount of polygons being rendered is most likely less than Halo 2.

Are you guys just throwing around baseless claims? There are already reports that it supports the iPad3 retina display just like plenty of other games do. iPhone4S, iPad2, iPad3 all easily outperform the original Xbox. They all run at higher resolution and output better visuals -- no idea why you guys are stretching so hard to try and claim otherwise. You guys bring up polycount as if Halo 2 actually had impressive polycounts. Nova 3 framerate looks fine, but you guys will just conjure up more things to bash iOS.

[Proelite]

The game is not rendered in over 1080p; in fact, it's probably less than 720p. I'm sure the framerate in Halo 2 is much better than in Nova 3. The animations, physics and a lot of other stuff actually looks better in Halo 2. The only things Nova 3 has that wasn't possible on Xbox, are the newer shader model and higher resolution textures thanks to more RAM. The amount of polygons being rendered is most likely less than Halo 2.

nvm.

[Proelite]

Are you guys just throwing around baseless claims? There are already reports that it supports the iPad3 retina display just like plenty of other games do. iPhone4S, iPad2, iPad3 all easily outperform the original Xbox. They all run at higher resolution and output better visuals -- no idea why you guys are stretching so hard to try and claim otherwise. You guys bring up polycount as if Halo 2 actually had impressive polycounts.

iPad2: ~30 Gflops. 512mb ram
Xbox: ~60-70 Gflops. 64mb ram.

Xbox still has the iPad2 beat in processing power and that's a fact. That extra ram on the iPad2 and newer shader tech on its GPU makes games look a whole lot better graphically.

[tranciful]

iPad2: ~30 Gflops. 512mb ram Xbox: ~60-70 Gflops. 64mb ram. Xbox still has the iPad2 beat in processing power and that's a fact. That extra ram on the iPad2 and newer shader tech on its GPU makes games look a whole lot better graphically.

I'm not even sure where you get those gflop figures -- when I google, I see Xbox1 rated much lower. Point is, iOS already outputs much better visuals at higher resolution than Xbox1. That much is obvious and it amazes me that this is up for debate.

[Pachterballs]

It'll be more amusing after E3.

why? both MS+SONY won't show their next consoles so wiiU ... well, I don't expect it to have

a) crazy 3rd party support
b) UE4.

[Plywood]

He's just trying to hype his engine.

[Proelite]

I'm not even sure where you get those gflop figures -- when I google, I see Xbox1 rated much lower. Point is, iOS already outputs much better visuals at higher resolution than Xbox1. That much of obvious and it amazes me that this is up for debate.

Xbox GPU was reported at 80 gflops by Nvidia themselves. Real world performance is obviously lower. iOS does outputs much better visuals, not doubt about that.

[pottuvoi]

Xbox GPU was reported at 80 gflops by Nvidia themselves. Real world performance is obviously lower. iOS does outputs much better visuals, not doubt about that.

That wasn't really a programmable flops, so it's pretty much useless. (similar to RSX 2xTflops figure.)

[BlackNMild2k1]

Some people earlier in this thread wanted to know why this has to turn into a debate on whether UE4 is or isn't coming to Wii U... that's because it is rumored to be coming to Wii U.

Other want to argue about how it's not gonna happen and why are people "begging" for it to happen. Maybe because it's rumored to have already happened.

and I really just wanted to chime in with a quote from the anonymous dev that told us about UE4 being up and running on Wii U in the first place after he saw this bit of news.

"Watch man, people are going to be blown away by the Wii U news."

So I don't blame people for wanting to take a "wait and see" or "believe it when I see it" approach, but this isn't just coming from nowhere. It's coming from a dev who says that he has seen it first hand.

[szaromir]

That wasn't really a programmable flops, so it's pretty much useless. (similar to RSX 2xTflops figure.)

Yes, shader performance was 21Gflops.

[Ashes1396]

Is Ue4 is targeting 2 and half teraflops?

[FatalMuzza]

Here's direct shot of Modern Combat 3 on my ipad3, it's a retina game, any pixel counters wish to confirm the Rez?

http://db.tt/Yq3Hg69D

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

So I don't blame people for wanting to take a "wait and see" or "believe it when I see it" approach, but this isn't just coming from nowhere. It's coming from a dev who says that he has seen it first hand.

Is there a way to give any credibility to his words? I mean, can it be confirmed that he is indeed a Wii U dev and not just an anonymous person pretending to be a developer?

[Heavy]

Some people earlier in this thread wanted to know why this has to turn into a debate on whether UE4 is or isn't coming to Wii U... that's because it is rumored to be coming to Wii U. Other want to argue about how it's not gonna happen and why are people "begging" for it to happen. Maybe because it's rumored to have already happened. and I really just wanted to chime in with a quote from the anonymous dev that told us about UE4 being up and running on Wii U in the first place after he saw this bit of news. So I don't blame people for wanting to take a "wait and see" or "believe it when I see it" approach, but this isn't just coming from nowhere. It's coming from a dev who says that he has seen it first hand.

Clearly this is concrete evidence for UE4's existence on the Wii U! Thanks, Anonymous Dev.

[tinfoilhatman]

Xbox GPU was reported at 80 gflops by Nvidia themselves. Real world performance is obviously lower. iOS does outputs much better visuals, not doubt about that.

Is he really saying that Xbox1 has better visuals than the new ipad and latest games......seriously?

Sorry I own both and for the most part the new ipad and retina apps are far far far superior in IQ and resolution

[Koralsky]

Wrong. The Samaritan demo was specifically meant to showcase what Epic 'wanted to see in the next generation of games'. It's more of an expression of what they can do with a lot of power rather than a testimony of their efficient engine building skills. People expect UE4 to make Samaritan graphics possible on lower end hardware. That's completely wrong. All the drawing operations necessary to render Samaritan in UE3 are exactly the same in number in UE4. If they manage to make UE4 more 'efficient', that won't drop the number of operations that need to happen enough to suddenly make lower end hardware (1200 SPU GPUs) capable of running the game. Simply put, whether we get Samaritan or not on consoles is completely dependent on how crazy Sony and MS want to go. Not on how crazy Epic is going to go. Although a 1152 SPU chip in the PS4 would be pretty sweet, it won't run Samaritan. There's just not enough power. The whole point of UE4 isn't to please gamers with pretty graphics. That's not what Epic makes money from. UE4 is being made to give developers a powerful set of tools that allows game developers to make awesome looking games easier, and they are surely working hard to make UE4 even better than UE3 in that area.

Original Crysis on consoles says hello...