Crysis 3

[Yantelope V2]

Developer: Crytek

Publisher: EA

Release Date: Early 2013

So let the PC fanboys go to town again. Crytek is already busy speaking out of both sides of their mouths on this one. On one hand they're promising DirectX 11 support day one this time (even though they had done that last time too). On the other hand they're saying they want all platforms to look the same. Since you can't really have a fully optimized DirectX 11 game on a console I wonder if the end result will be closer to Crysis 1 or 2. If they're smart they'll take a page out of the Battlefield 3 playbook. Make the PC version as awesome as possible, make the consoles as good as possible and forget about trying to make all platforms equal because they aren't. Edited April 24, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[toxicitizen]

I only just got around to playing Crysis 2 last week, so I'm not exactly foaming at the mouth for this one.

 

It's a long way to go until 2013, though, so by the time it actually comes out I'll probably be good for another go.

 

I had fun with Crysis 2 but it was kind of a big step down from the original. Hopefully this one will be more like the first one.

 

All that talk about DX11 graphics on console, though? Yeah, I'm calling bullshit right away. I'll believe it when I see it.

[deanb]

Yeah I'll call bollocks on the titling that they want DX11 features on PS3/360 versions. Maybe it's not so much a case of looking like you're plaiyng the shiny DX11 version, but on a console, but they'll look close enough. Like in Crysis 1 it was usually an advantage to drop down from DX10 to DX9 when playing MP because smoke bomb effects didn't show up in their full grace and glory in DX9, so you could see through them easier.

 

I can't really see the game being much different from Crysis 2 specwise, as far as I can tell, and especially with the time span, they're using CryEngine 3 still.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

The CryEngine updates look like they're all about DX11 so I can't imagine the console versions adopting those changes.

[Yantelope V2]

Well hopefully the DX11 implementation won't be garbage this time. As much as I love super tessellated road blocks.

 

[Thursday Next]

Needs more tessels.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Well hopefully the DX11 implementation won't be garbage this time. As much as I love super tessellated road blocks.

 

 

Hilarious. I hadn't seen this before.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

Sorry this is off topic but could someone explain the difference between tessellation and normal polygons, please.

[deanb]

It is "normal polygons" still. Tessellation is a technique applied to the polygon model. Basically it adds in more polygons that the model actually has, leading to a smoother model. Combine with displacement mapping and you can also make it come out a bit more too. The concrete block is a bit funny because it didn't need to have all those extra polygons added, it seems it was a by product of making the handle on the top pop out instead of just being a flat texture. This means that games can look better without the artists having to make a super high poly model, and if your PC can handle it make your games look better too without taking a huge hit to performance.

 

 

(This is a bit of an extreme example mind, in order to show it off I guess.)

 

edit: I should maybe expand upon the displacement mapping thing since I've got experience with 3D and most haven't and I've gone n thrown in an image of "normal/bump/displacement" that means something to me but I guess not to others.

 

Now you've got your normal texture. A coloured image and the part you actually see. e.g a picture of a brick wall onto a plane to make a wall.

 

It'd be pretty flat. You walk around this wall in a 3D game and it's gonna look a bit shitty n old-school. Now what folks can add to this is a bump map. A bump map, like most texture maps, is a black and white image that the computer understands and uses the grey scale values, eg black = low depth, white = high depth, to create the illusion that it's got some texture to it. If you look at the above ball it looks a bit bumpy, but it's still clear it's physically flat sphere.

 

Now the displacement map can use the same black n white image file to directly manipulate the model itself. So the bricks don't just look like they're sticking out a bit, they actually are sticking out. See the above ball. The reason this requires tessellation though is because you can't displace the polygons that aren't there. If i had one single polygon making up my wall, all I could do is a bump map. But with tessellation it can throw in a few extra thousand polygons to my wall, which the displacement map can then pull out of the wall to make into 3D bricks.

 

You could grab either Bryce(as in canyon) or Terragen (2), both free. They use black n white image files as height-maps to make terrain, so it'd let you see the above text descriptions in action. I suggest Bryce btw, though not used either for a few years. Bryce is just a nicer program, it's free cos they do micro-transactions for pre-built models.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Deanb
more info

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Yeah, it's more of a details thing, than a hugely noticeable effect. Nice explanation.

[Yantelope V2]

I was pretty shocked at just how much tessellation destroyed the performance on my 6950 and it wasn't until that article came out that it made sense. Crazy stupid how they did the DX11 on Crysis 2.

[Thursday Next]

Am I mental or has Dean mixed up balls and walls???

[deanb]

Am I mental or has Dean mixed up balls and walls???

No. I posted both a picture of some balls with just a plain materiel, bump maps n displacement maps on it and in effect. Then I posted the actual textures (of walls) that'd be used to create that effect, referencing either balls or walls when necessary (though I'm pretty sure I call them spheres most of the time)

[TheFlyingGerbil]

Thanks, Dean. That was a really clear explanation. I didn't want to have to say explain it like you're talking to an idiot, so I'm glad you didn't assume I knew anything or you just knew I'm an idiot