Check this out - Awsome new game engine

www.projectoffset.com

Movie downloads here:

http://www.projectoffset.com/downloads.html

Until Later...

---

Dark_Kilauea
DVS Administration
http://www.dvstudio-production.com/

Looks really pretty. It's just like scenes from "Lord of the Ring".

---

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." -- Toulouse-Lautre, Moulin Rouge

Looks good, but they don't say anything about the system needed or anything! Its all easy to create an engine that can do that in comparison to one that does it on low spec...

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-

Sexay. So is this basically LOTR FPS style? Because the
first video, the in-game shots all look like the battle of Helm's Deep,
and then that beast that looks like a Fell Beast the Nazgul ride
came in.

Except a dwarf would never use a bow or crossbow...

hell yeah! this looks cool. but i bet the system to run it needs to be massive.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

It doesn't look like it needs a massive "machine" to run. It doesn't state anything about physics, number one, which coupled with AI are the most stressful thing the CPU has to deal with in a game.

It describes that the models are one a few thousand polys, rendered down from 1.2 million, but still retaining their quality.

It also goes on to say that the shaders are put on the normal mapping plane.

Other effects such as motion blur and bloom (which make it look real) are done in post.

It says the only thing done in realtime is the individual particle shadows. Which would be the most intensive graphics portion.

You could run this with a 6800. It doesn't use radiosity, which is probably the most complex graphics rendering (if I'm not mistaken), it uses the bloom instead or has radiosity pre-rendered (This is a guess, just because they don't mention it)

HL2, had radiosity. So does Unreal 3. Unreal 3 will undoubtedly take more to run then this base engine.

It seems like the only advances they made were the lowering in polygons while keeping quality, the dynamic shadows, and motion blurs (which is a complete "effect", it effects everything drawn on the screen)

But that's all just a guess, based on the information they gave.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Well, I don't understand half of what you said, but the point is it looks pretty. That's all that matters to me :biggrin:

Hopefully the game won't suck super hard.

Actually Crono, it said the model they showed was 1.2 down to a few thousand... but that was of just a bust, so they probably fooled everyone there :-/ And didn't it say blur effects were done in realtime, or at least just a second or 2 before?

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-

Actually Crono, it said the model they showed was 1.2 down to a few thousand... but that was of just a bust, so they probably fooled everyone there :-/ And didn't it say blur effects were done in realtime, or at least just a second or 2 before?

Yes, but, bloom and blur effects are real time with games now. The only real performance hit they said was the real time shadows .. and it sounds like they found a way to make it less stressful.

Just to note, I doubt this is a game on its own. It's an engine. That's why they're not talking about anything besides looks and performance (and licensing).

As for the polygon count. The face is pretty much the most detailed part of a model (unless it's not human or something like that) Getting an effect like that, which really, is only comparable to D3 or U3 with a couple thousand polygons shows how much it can be cut down on other areas that aren't as high detail (the rest of the body). The image right below that image of the head is a pretty good example. The rest of the body is pretty simplistic in comparison. Unreal 3 has models that are 5,000 triangles. And in game light maps don't exceed 500,000. Or something like that.

Actually, it looks like this is the Unreal 3 engine. At least in U3 they're doing pretty much the exact same things and the shadows are less run time intensive, apparently (they are pre-rendered so to speak, while this engine is real time)
Now, I'm not sure which would run better, obviously there isn't much of a basis, but it looks like this will run on any machine Unreal 3 would run on.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

From what a saw, It's going to be out probably in three years or
so. Also, did you look at the team page, there's only one guy
coding this, the total team consists of three. If any of you want
a job as a game/level/art designer, working with them could be cool.

Until Later...

---

Dark_Kilauea
DVS Administration
http://www.dvstudio-production.com/

still bet my pc can't run it, impressive though, it's just 3 guys! :biggrin:

they must have no g/fs :biggrin:

---

Hell, is an half-filled auditorium

It is a game I believe Crono - there has been talk on some of the game news sites about it coming to PS3 and Xbox 360.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

Looks pretty cool. About the polygon detail, I wish that engines
that use normal mapping to lower polycount implemented silhouette
clipping as per:

<a name="silclip"></a><a style="font-weight: bold;" name="silclip"></a>

http://research.microsoft.com/~hoppe/ (about half way down the page)

It takes low detail meshes that completely cover the full detail mesh,
then clips them to the edges of the full detail mesh. Its pretty
difficult to tell the difference between the clipped mesh and the full
mesh, and in most cases its uneccessary - it looks just as good.
Just normal mapping is not enough because you still see the blocky
silhouette even if the rest looks pretty good still.

It seems like it should be possible to adapt this to a real-time game and get even better performance too.

---

To get something to work, sometimes you just have to beat your head against the wall longer; the skin grows back, but the brick doesn't.

Source hates soup!