Support NeoGAF

[jonnyp]

Epic says they're currently making an actual next-gen game:


http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/03/epic-unreal-engine-demo-gdc/

Please let it be a Blade Runner game!

 

[Blizzard]

Somebody was tossing out some incredible shots of this on in the Screenshot thread a while back. How? I have no idea. But this game needs a PC release, badly. Get it on Steam and I would buy it again, with the quickness.

TheOctagon (what happened to him? did he die or get banned?) is presumably some sort of game journalist with a Steam press account and some sort of 360 debug kit, so I think the shots were from the 360 debug system. I don't know the details but I got the impression it let him get PC-level-ish graphics out of it, or at least tiledshots, something like that.

What I really want in future UDK updates is realtime prototyping, something like CryEngine 3. It's pretty fast in UDK now but baking a big level can take some time, while in Sandbox 2-3 you just press CTRL-G i and boom, you're in a game. I don't know, may be they have improved it in latest UDK revisions. These DX11 features look very tasty to try.

Sandbox doesn't do much (any?) baking, does it? You can play in the editor window, or the popup window, without rebaking things in the UDK, but if you want to actually remake with lighting it will indeed take a bit. The big speedup for testing purposes is if you disable lightmass and just build with crappy lighting on test cycles.

 

[brobban]

Honest question, for you four or anyone else. If you feel this away about UE3 and/or the demo video, and/or last year's demo video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5XahF-3DWo, it's a different style than this year's, might be worth watching), then could you help me to understand this:

I know it may be difficult to quantify or describe a "feel" or "look", but can you try to objectively list which exactly which elements bother you about most/all UE3 games?

I'm trying to learn how to do things with the UDK, and I would like to see if it's possible to avoid the things that always look the same. For instance, if you feel all surfaces are always shiny, say so. If you feel all marines are always bald and fat, then say so. Some things may be engine issues and some things may be design issues, but I am curious what things you strongly dislike even about this year's and last year's tech trailers, that would be in common with both. If I make a UDK game, what would have to be different about it for you to like how it looks?

One thing that I often notice in games using UE3 is that many developers seem to use the same detail map covering a lot of surfaces. I find it strange that they don't take the time to create their own assets. Of course it is not an issue with the engine since it's up to the developers (I'm guessing you're free to use your own detail maps)

 

[Blizzard]

One thing that I often notice in games using UE3 is that many developers seem to use the same detail map covering a lot of surfaces. I find it strange that they don't take the time to create their own assets. Of course it is not an issue with the engine since it's up to the developers (I'm guessing you're free to use your own detail maps)

You'll have to teach me what a detail map is. Are you referring to a normal map or something else?

*edit* Right after I posted I found this on the forums:

A detail map is a texture which is usually added in both the diffuse, and normal slots of the material editor. This map is a small tiling image with very fine details meant to be seen up close. To add this you just use the Add node and add your normal texture with your detail texture and then plug the add node into the diffuse, or normal slot. Just remember you need to get rid of the blue channel for your detail normal map for the best effect. There are many many tricks for getting rid of the tile look if you decide to just tile your base texture. You can use decals world position offset randomization etc... keep on looking around you will eventually find the techniques that work for you.

It also does seem that several detail maps may be built in, so perhaps developers consider it not worth the effort to add them. If you have any examples comparing two different detail maps on something (not necessarily UE3) that would be awesome to help me, or anyone else interested, understand.

 

[subversus]

Sandbox doesn't do much (any?) baking, does it? You can play in the editor window, or the popup window, without rebaking things in the UDK, but if you want to actually remake with lighting it will indeed take a bit. The big speedup for testing purposes is if you disable lightmass and just build with crappy lighting on test cycles.

Sandbox is fully dynamic. You can move the sun, everything will be relit realtime, then you push ctrl-g and you're playing a level you built.

But I think gameplay can be tested without lightmass on, that's ok.

also I like Sandbox interface better than UDK but that's my personal preference.

Jostix/AKka: As a Level Designer, what is the best engine to work with?

Daniel: I have worked with 3 of the industry's top gaming engines.

id Software's Radiant: This engine is all about efficiency. John Carmack is probably the world's leading innovator when it comes to utilizing and implementing cutting-edge technology. The downside to using Radiant is it’s a bit cumbersome to navigate and build worlds. The tools to do so are there and once you learn the ropes (as with any engine) it becomes easier. Also, unless id Tech 5 is changing it, Radiant is based on the “vacuum” approach. When you compile BSP and lighting, it does tracing throughout the entire map. Any “leak” found will result in the compile stopping. This was always a time sink. I certainly hope they’ve moved away from that old technology (Hammer, Valve’s editor, uses the same method).

Epic’s Unreal Engine: There is a reason the vast majority of the gaming industry uses this engine to develop their games. It’s robust, offers a wide range of development tools, has a fairly short learning curve, and produces outstanding visuals. But, nothing is perfect. The engine is still based on the ancient BSP tree model. Couple that with baked lighting and iteration can become very cumbersome. While working on A:CM it took up to 2-3 hours to do a complete rebuild and compile of BSP, lighting and navigation. This is a huge hindrance on iteration.

Crytek's CryEngine 3: As you’ve guessed, I’ve saved the best for last smile I really can’t say enough good things about this engine. The first thing is no compiling! Absolutely every light you see in game is either deferred or dynamic. There is no baked shadows or lighting. This by itself is enough to take the crown, but it doesn’t stop here. CryEngine 3 is NOT based on the old BSP tree model. There is a tool within Sandbox that allows the user to create Solids (CryEngine's version of BSP), but they require no compiling! All of this equals one very important thing - Rapid iteration. While I could go on and on about other features, I do want to mention that Flowgraph is by far the most powerful scripting GUI I have used. It lacks a few key features that Kismet (UnrealEd) has (such as Remote Events Print to Screen debugging). But this is compensated for by the sheer quantity of operations provided (Math, Vec, Int, String, etc). This gives the scripter literally all the tools they need to do what ever your crazy mind can think of.

full interview- http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=31588

 

[brobban]

You'll have to teach me what a detail map is. Are you referring to a normal map or something else?

*edit* Right after I posted I found this on the forums:

It also does seem that several detail maps may be built in, so perhaps developers consider it not worth the effort to add them. If you have any examples comparing two different detail maps on something (not necessarily UE3) that would be awesome to help me, or anyone else interested, understand.

Ok, they use the term "detail texture". But it's the same. It's a tiled image that you use to add detail to a surface when you get up close. For example many games has them on clothes (see Resident Evil 5 and Battlefield: Bad Company where it's easy to see).

 

[Blizzard]

Ok, they use the term "detail texture". But it's the same. It's a tiled image that you use to add detail to a surface when you get up close. For example many games has them on clothes (see Resident Evil 5 and Battlefield: Bad Company where it's easy to see).

Ah, cool. I should do some experimentation.

Thanks for the info, subversus. I have not used the Sandbox editor(s), but I have heard good things about them. I still think Crytek will release the new editor. If they released the latest sandbox/engine stuff free for general use like the UDK, with periodic updates and complete scripting, modeling, documentation etc. support, then I guess I might be forced to try it. Right now the UDK is still more accessible and "packaged" for indie/free games etc. as far as I know.

 

[subversus]

Ah, cool. I should do some experimentation.

Thanks for the info, subversus. I have not used the Sandbox editor(s), but I have heard good things about them. I still think Crytek will release the new editor. If they released the latest sandbox/engine stuff free for general use like the UDK, with periodic updates and complete scripting, modeling, documentation etc. support, then I guess I might be forced to try it. Right now the UDK is still more accessible and "packaged" for indie/free games etc. as far as I know.

They plan to release free Cryengine 3 this summer for PC.

 

[Blizzard]

They plan to release free Cryengine 3 this summer for PC.

Well hey, why did no one know this when someone was suggesting that they couldn't release the editor because map packs in Crysis 2 etc. etc.? D:

Also, I will feel kind of stupid if all my UDK experimentation is wasted because free Cryengine 3 is so much better. =P

 

[subversus]

Well hey, why did no one know this when someone was suggesting that they couldn't release the editor because map packs in Crysis 2 etc. etc.? D:

Watch this interview. It's there. Also movie editor, yummy.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gdc-11-cryengine-3/711319

And you know why nobody really knows or cares? Because Mark Rein works at Epic, not at Crytek. He would sell it to everybody and their grandma.

 

[BigTnaples]

So people in this thread are claiming that,

Mass Effect, Gears, Enslaved, Brothers in Arms, Borderlands, Turok, Mechwarrior, Transformers, Rainbow 6 Vegas, End War, Dust 514, Mirrors Edge, Bulletstorm, Bioshock, Arkham Asylum, Medal of Honor, etc etc etc etc....

All look that same?


Bull.

 

[Jira]

I've done so much mapping in Hammer that I can also say it makes iteration a pain in the ass. Compiling takes up so much time that making even the smallest change would take forever if you wanted to see it on the whole map. Granted you could just use the cordon tool and only compile a selected area, but it still forced you to move entities into the area so you could get the right lighting and even spawn into the map. I'm glad that BSP is going by the wayside, I would have killed for a real time renderer system like CRYengine has/had for Hammer.

 

[NinjaTehFish]

So people in this thread are claiming that,

Mass Effect, Gears, Enslaved, Brothers in Arms, Borderlands, Turok, Mechwarrior, Transformers, Rainbow 6 Vegas, End War, Dust 514, Mirrors Edge, Bulletstorm, Bioshock, Arkham Asylum, Medal of Honor, etc etc etc etc....

All look that same?


Bull.

Well i can tell you with every damn one of those games i knew it was unreal engine the moment i saw the first screen shot. (bar borderlands and mirrors edge for obvious reasons)

so....Nerr

 

[subversus]

I've done so much mapping in Hammer that I can also say it makes iteration a pain in the ass. Compiling takes up so much time that making even the smallest change would take forever if you wanted to see it on the whole map. Granted you could just use the cordon tool and only compile a selected area, but it still forced you to move entities into the area so you could get the right lighting and even spawn into the map. I'm glad that BSP is going by the wayside, I would have killed for a real time renderer system like CRYengine has/had for Hammer.

yeah, Zeno Clash devs were stuck with that too (not exactly the same problem but derives from that one).

. Lighting, again and again...

In regards to the lighting process, we had enormous problems with getting the world to light properly, because of how we decided to use the Source Engine. Source is specialized for building geometry with brushes (box shaped primitives) which are very efficient for creating most types of environments, but for Zeno Clash we needed something much more organic.

This meant we needed to work around brushes and use static geometry exported from 3D Studio Max. But our problem was that Source was optimized for proper brush lighting, not static props. We would have to elaborate a system where we created a new type of model that accepted two UV layers where we would bake lighting rendered from 3D Studio Max scenes.

But since the game is lit in Hammer (the world editing tool of Source) we had to match the lighting of the 3D engine with our 3D Studio Max scenes, which was a huge task. If an artist decided to move the main light source in the world this meant all the baked lighting of the static meshes would be incorrect and need to be re-done, which ended up being one of the most time consuming processes of the game.

At certain moments I can remember how people would hesitate to re-light a scene that was poorly lighted only because of the consequences this would have on the lighting of a level. By not generating a more efficient pipeline to approach this problem we took much longer than expected with the lighting of the world.

 

[Mik2121]

Well i can tell you with every damn one of those games i knew it was unreal engine the moment i saw the first screen shot. (bar borderlands and mirrors edge for obvious reasons)

so....Nerr

You know that the only difference between Mirror's Edge and any other Unreal Engine is that Mirror's Edge used the Beast engine (made by Autodesk) to generate the lightmaps, right? Other than that, everything is made by the Unreal Engine.

The fact that a game screams 'Unreal Engine' is partly because of the lighting bloom. But you can turn that shit off or down a lot, like in the case of Bulletstorm. I don't mind the bloom in Gears of War, but there are many other games that just throw it in because it usually make things look better (eh..) without making it go slower.

But there's way too many people here shitting in this engine, when it's one of the most powerful ones out there, next to the CryEngine 3.

Watch this interview. It's there. Also movie editor, yummy.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gdc-11-cryengine-3/711319

And you know why nobody really knows or cares? Because Mark Rein works at Epic, not at Crytek. He would sell it to everybody and their grandma.

Best thing about that interview is that they are confirming the CryEngine for free this summer. Can't wait to play around with it.

You'll have to teach me what a detail map is. Are you referring to a normal map or something else?

*edit* Right after I posted I found this on the forums:

It also does seem that several detail maps may be built in, so perhaps developers consider it not worth the effort to add them. If you have any examples comparing two different detail maps on something (not necessarily UE3) that would be awesome to help me, or anyone else interested, understand.

Making detail maps is the easiest thing in the world, though. Specially with the new tools like the nDO script for Photoshop. In my case, I'm working in all my detail maps (one for brushed metal, one for normal metal, one for carbon fiber surfaces, etc..).

I might post something here later to show an example. It's really easy and nothing that would take you more than a few minutes to make.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

The things demoed in here for the most part won't reqire a big addon to the existing workflow. Games are already made in Full quality and then you have to generate all the bumps, normal maps, displacement etc from that.

Having spectacular real-time light or reflections or Bokeh DoF or high quality shadows is as far away as a few mouseclicks.

The only real additional work to be done will be implementing the tesselation, maybe some game desginer could educate us further on the difficulty of that. *wink, wink*

You're missing a huge factor which makes that video - and Sonys Killzone 2 'target render' video from a few years back - impressive and realistic.

Animation.

 

[Veidt]

Phenomenal!

Looks almost as good as Uncharted. Really digging it.

GOW was the first game I bought in this gen. And while GOW 2 wasn't nearly as great. I have no doubt that the next one will be even better than the first!

 

[infinityBCRT]

Phenomenal!

Looks almost as good as Uncharted.

You do realize that Uncharted's cutscenes are all pre-rendered, right?

 

[WrikaWrek]

Phenomenal!

Looks almost as good as Uncharted. Really digging it.

What the fuck is this shit?


I mean really? You gotta be baiting.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

What the fuck is this shit?


I mean really? You gotta be baiting.

lol why even pay any mind to that? And the more I do look at this, it is the next step in UE tech but it does have that distinct UE look. Still looking forward to the evolution of this engine as well as other studios attempts (including Sony 1st party next gen offerings).

My main concern is getting a single card solution (on the PC side of things) within the next year and as long as it can do visuals like that then I'm content. I know my modded 6950 2GB is not going to run BF3 or this at at the highest settings without compromise. I am too used to 60fps gaming to not want a single card solution for any game coming in the next year or 2.

This PC gaming makes you feel quite inadequate real fast with all this fancy new gaming tech

On the issue of a CPU - How long would it seem my 4.5ghz OC'd Sandy Bridge last within reason? What I mean is at what point is something like this CPU (while amazing) going to bottleneck me with these amazing looking games in the future? I feel really comfortable but if even something like this isn't going to cut it then damn.

Of course I'm just hypothesizing.

 

[StuBurns]

Well i can tell you with every damn one of those games i knew it was unreal engine the moment i saw the first screen shot. (bar borderlands and mirrors edge for obvious reasons)

so....Nerr

Yeah you can instantly tell, I remember seeing some screens of Singularity and someone had posted it was on idTech 4, and I posted it looks exactly like a typical UE3 game, and it was on UE3.

There are UE3 games that do look different, but I don't know of any non-UE3 games that look like that, if that makes any sense.

EDIT: This was one of the batch...

 

[Man]

There are UE3 games that do look different, but I don't know of any non-UE3 games that look like that, if that makes any sense.

In one of the latest Crysis 2 trailers when the player shoots down an airship with a rocket launcher. Looked distinctly UE3 due to sprite effect or whatever. Back on ground it was all Crysis again.

 

[FoxSpirit]

Yeah you can instantly tell, I remember seeing some screens of Singularity and someone had posted it was on idTech 4, and I posted it looks exactly like a typical UE3 game, and it was on UE3.

There are UE3 games that do look different, but I don't know of any non-UE3 games that look like that, if that makes any sense.

EDIT: This was one of the batch...

Honestly, it's the bloom lighting.

UE3's bloom lighting is so readily aparent using it will instantly give your game "that UE3 look". I wish Epic would do a new version so we would get a more natural looking lighting in most games.
And it's really the dev's fault, noboy forces you to use dat bloom. But they use it anyway because it seems mandatory this gen? I dunno, just seems thoughtless

 

[BigTnaples]

I am sorry but once again I am going to have to call BS on anyone who says they could instantly tell all these games were made with the same engine.

 

[Stallion Free]

Phenomenal!

Looks almost as good as Uncharted. Really digging it.

Yeah, hopefully they can reach Uncharted 2 level visuals with Unreal Engine 4.

 

[Dennis]

Phenomenal!

Looks almost as good as Uncharted. Really digging it.

 

[Lonely1]

Yeah, hopefully they can reach Uncharted 2 level visuals with Unreal Engine 4.

UE4.5 should be close to Uncharted 3. Future is bright.

 

[Veidt]

I honestly didn't mean it like that. lol
I think that looked gorgeous.

I will retract my statement. And say:
It almost looks like UE5!

 

[enzo_gt]

What the fuck is this shit?


I mean really? You gotta be baiting.

Yeah Uncharted trolling in full effect here. I mean the game looks good but this is straight up trolling :|

Edit: Good move, Veidt.

 

[JWong]

About the UE3 rant, I can tell it's UE3 if it's overly shiny.

UE3 games that don't have it just turned off or toned down the spec maps. UE3 packages always come with crazy amounts of spec cranked up.

 

[-COOLIO-]

Well i can tell you with every damn one of those games i knew it was unreal engine the moment i saw the first screen shot. (bar borderlands and mirrors edge for obvious reasons)

so....Nerr

i just thought that was funny

 

[Mad_Ban]

I am sorry but once again I am going to have to call BS on anyone who says they could instantly tell all these games were made with the same engine.

What game is this?

 

[StuBurns]

What game is this?

Dust 514

 

[Mik2121]

What game is this?

After some google-fu (filename has 'dust command', which has some pics related to Dust 514), it seems to be an upcoming console MMORPG called Dust 514 based on the Eve universe.

Looks pretty cool:

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

 

[kamspy]

Parts of MoH really put UE3 in flex mode.

 

[ferr]

After some google-fu (filename has 'dust command', which has some pics related to Dust 514), it seems to be an upcoming console MMORPG called Dust 514 based on the Eve universe.

Looks pretty cool:

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

If someone told me that was the bungie mmo I wouldn't question it.

 

[StuBurns]

If someone told me that was the bungie mmo I wouldn't question it.

It's Bungie's MMO.

 

[RoboPlato]

Honest question, for you four or anyone else. If you feel this away about UE3 and/or the demo video, and/or last year's demo video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5XahF-3DWo, it's a different style than this year's, might be worth watching), then could you help me to understand this:

I know it may be difficult to quantify or describe a "feel" or "look", but can you try to objectively list which exactly which elements bother you about most/all UE3 games?

I'm trying to learn how to do things with the UDK, and I would like to see if it's possible to avoid the things that always look the same. For instance, if you feel all surfaces are always shiny, say so. If you feel all marines are always bald and fat, then say so. Some things may be engine issues and some things may be design issues, but I am curious what things you strongly dislike even about this year's and last year's tech trailers, that would be in common with both. If I make a UDK game, what would have to be different about it for you to like how it looks?

Thanks for that video. It honestly was the one time I didn't get that typical UE3 look feeling. I think the issue for me with UE3 is the fact that textures always seem to be carved out of the same material, like clay or something. The never seem to have a distinct difference between what it what, other than coloring. I think the overdone bloom lighting also tends to add to this effect. Human character's skin and hair is also always a dead giveaway. I know that there are some games that look great with UE3, but any that heavily rely on human characters seem to suffer a lot for it. Arkham Asylum is a good example of this, gorgeous game, hideous characters.

 

[Blizzard]

Thanks for that video. It honestly was the one time I didn't get that typical UE3 look feeling. I think the issue for me with UE3 is the fact that textures always seem to be carved out of the same material, like clay or something. The never seem to have a distinct difference between what it what, other than coloring. I think the overdone bloom lighting also tends to add to this effect. Human character's skin and hair is also always a dead giveaway. I know that there are some games that look great with UE3, but any that heavily rely on human characters seem to suffer a lot for it. Arkham Asylum is a good example of this, gorgeous game, hideous characters.

Thanks for the input. I think the consensus seems to be that (especially overdone) bloom lighting is an obvious giveaway, "detail maps"/"detail textures" not being customized leads to materials looking the same (clay in your example), and not toning down the specular channel leads to things looking overly shiny or wet. People with experience like Mik, feel free to correct anything I got wrong.

One side note, an unfortunate thing with the UDK is that I do not know any way to get a "glow" that spreads beyond object borders without actually using bloom by overdriving the emissive channel and setting up postprocessing or whatnot. And as far as I know, there is only one available overall bloom setting, unless there are ways to fine tune it by post-processing meshes or somehow chaining multiple overall post-processing bloom steps with different thresholds.

It's Bungie's MMO.

...darn, you made me look it up. It's actually the people who made EVE Online.

 

[-tetsuo-]

Honest question, for you four or anyone else. If you feel this away about UE3 and/or the demo video, and/or last year's demo video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5XahF-3DWo, it's a different style than this year's, might be worth watching), then could you help me to understand this:

I know it may be difficult to quantify or describe a "feel" or "look", but can you try to objectively list which exactly which elements bother you about most/all UE3 games?

I'm trying to learn how to do things with the UDK, and I would like to see if it's possible to avoid the things that always look the same. For instance, if you feel all surfaces are always shiny, say so. If you feel all marines are always bald and fat, then say so. Some things may be engine issues and some things may be design issues, but I am curious what things you strongly dislike even about this year's and last year's tech trailers, that would be in common with both. If I make a UDK game, what would have to be different about it for you to like how it looks?

I was just being an ass :lol

Sometimes my sarcasm doesn't shine through.

 

[RaijinFY]

Obviously you wont need the power of 3 GTX 580 to do that... Hell, even Rein said it too if the quote is correct (keeping in mind he's the PR guy):

While the demo was made by only three artists, one rigger, and a number of mocap artists, it did run on three graphics cards. However, Rein stated: "We suspect that with a little bit of optimisation this could even run on a single Ti500 card" [Nirolak's Note: I'm assuming they meant a single GTX 580 since the Ti500 is from 2005.]

And no, they didnt mean a single GTX 580, but more a GTX 560 or even a 550 imo. They are the two GPU with the reference Ti.

 

[StevieP]

Uh it's a rainy scene dude.

I can respect the tech behind the engine, Cliffy... it is good middleware. The demo looks great, despite the high level of sheen. But almost every game that has come out using any revision of this engine, as discussed many many times, looks too "shiny" - BulletStorm being the most recent example that comes to mind. As mentioned, one can usually tell when a game is running UE3, because of a similar look most of them have.

When I was playing Bioshock, it almost-literally felt like every texture in the game was covered in some kind of vaseline. Every wall surface was covered in KY jelly. Surely you can tell purchasers of this middleware to turn it down a notch.

 

[Stallion Free]

Yeah, every game needs it's own, completely unique engine.

 

[FLEABttn]

I can respect the tech behind the engine, Cliffy... it is good middleware. The demo looks great, despite the high level of sheen. But almost every game that has come out using any revision of this engine, as discussed many many times, looks too "shiny" - BulletStorm being the most recent example that comes to mind. As mentioned, one can usually tell when a game is running UE3, because of a similar look most of them have.

When I was playing Bioshock, it almost-literally felt like every texture in the game was covered in some kind of vaseline. Every wall surface was covered in KY jelly. Surely you can tell purchasers of this middleware to turn it down a notch.

UE2.5 doesn't have the sheen that UE3 is often claimed to have.

Underwater cities that leak have sheen? Say it isn't so.

 

[Neuromancer]

I can respect the tech behind the engine, Cliffy... it is good middleware. The demo looks great, despite the high level of sheen. But almost every game that has come out using any revision of this engine, as discussed many many times, looks too "shiny" - BulletStorm being the most recent example that comes to mind. As mentioned, one can usually tell when a game is running UE3, because of a similar look most of them have.

I actually didn't think Bulletstorm had that issue at all. Texture pop in, yes.

 

[Stallion Free]

I actually didn't think Bulletstorm had that issue at all. Texture pop in, yes.

Texture pop-in is almost 100% eliminated on PC. 99% of complaints about the engine come from it's use on consoles I think.

 

[Neuromancer]

Texture pop-in is almost 100% eliminated on PC. 99% of complaints about the engine come from it's use on consoles I think.

No doubt, I wasn't saying it to complain. I don't let little stuff like that bother me.

 

[Arcipello]

direct feed loving : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSXyztq_0uM

 

[subversus]

shiiit....

Crytek, you better have it in your Cryengine 3 release.

 

[vocab]

Texture pop in is not bad on UE3. It's the streaming textures that kills it.