Project Reality Forums

CryEngine 2 is PR-Able... but it will require ALOT and when i say ALOT, ITS ALOT of work to convert BF2P.R.M. to CryP.R.M. due the fact is using DX10 and DX9, so DEV team will have to sacrifice one or an other GFX...Or offcourse model X9 and X10 model what would require twice time to be done.

Frostbite engine is also PR-Able but not even release in Battlefield series game.
Unreal Engine 3 can also make a great job but like any engine switch they will need to Model, Code, Animate, Tweak, Balance GamePlay, and made test... Think to fact EA and Ubi (2 most powerfull Game Dev/publisher) have ALOT of pepole working on game and engine creating/editing, PR Dev Team dont have that much ressource in time, in money or in Developer effective.

So in end, enjoy you're project reality on Battlefield 2 engine and wait for Battlefield 3 ( cause its sure EA will not stop the Battlefield franchise they making so much money whit it) whit frostbite engine giving dev a chance to pass on "next-gen" (wich is current one) whitout goting thousand of hours of works[they will simply do what they does on BF2...Tweak the game, keeping in mind BF3 will be like BFBC in our era warfare.].

Heh… ‘dx9 model’ works just fine in a dx10 engine. You don’t build 2 different models for dx9 and dx10

There are actually very few differences between dx10 and dx9 graphics. AFAIK the only thing you can’t do with dx9 is displacement mapping (but to some extend you can fake it with a parallax map).

Graphics wise it doesn’t really matter what engine you go for. Pretty much every modern engine has the same basic features.

I’d go for the most flexible platform available.

[R-DEV]Vaiski wrote:Heh… ‘dx9 model’ works just fine in a dx10 engine. You don’t build 2 different models for dx9 and dx10

There are actually very few differences between dx10 and dx9 graphics. AFAIK the only thing you can’t do with dx9 is displacement mapping (but to some extend you can fake it with a parallax map).

Graphics wise it doesn’t really matter what engine you go for. Pretty much every modern engine has the same basic features.

I’d go for the most flexible platform available.

DX10 allow more details on models...no ?
And how flexible is the BF2 platform

Hotrod525 wrote:DX10 allow more details on models...no ?

No… Not really.

In CoD4 the player models are actually less detailed than in previous CoDs. In modern engines the detail is in normal maps (both dx9 and dx10). Polygon count is pretty much the same as it was 4-5 years ago.

DX9 to DX10 is pretty small step forward. It doesn’t bring any dramatic improvement to the graphics.

Hotrod525 wrote: And how flexible is the BF2 platform

Yea, its pretty horrible if you want to make anything other than yet another booster pack
Lesson learnt, the most beautiful one is not always the best.

so why my DirectX10 games looks so awesome compared to Dx9 one ? i mean i try Crysis DX9 and Crysis DX10...and DX10 version looks better, i try it whit WiC too some case... So is it just an impression?

And for the engine... A day will come where an other Battlefield will be released whit "next gen" engine

Teek wrote:Well, how many engines support upwards of 64 players, 4x4km maps, and combined arms?
Arma? too much of a sim, plus its not that fluid (it dosnt need to be because its real slow paced)

Actually, how many does indeed? Isn't the thread starter's question really relating to the new games coming out? BF3, OFP2 (not arma), and other near future titles would be the focus of what can be done for PR's future. I mean right?

Hotrod525 wrote:so why my DirectX10 games looks so awesome compared to Dx9 one ? i mean i try Crysis DX9 and Crysis DX10...and DX10 version looks better, i try it whit WiC too some case... So is it just an impression?

And for the engine... A day will come where an other Battlefield will be released whit "next gen" engine

Crysis and WiC look awesome but its not because they support DX10 games
They don’t use any special magic tricks that just makes them look better on DX10.

By default Crysis doesn’t look as good on dx9 because the game doesn’t let you choose very high settings if you are running it on windows xp. However it can be ‘hacked’ to work on very high settings on XP and DX9.

Can you tell me which one of these screenshots is DX10?
They are slightly out of sync but I'm sure you could tell the difference if there was huge improvement in graphics


DX9 and DX10 WiC


DX9 and DX10 Crysis:

On World in Conflict is the Left Image, and in Crysis i guess the top one, BTW at that resolution and Detail setting is almost impossible to told the difference...
i dont know wich Hardware they where using but here on 8800GTS 640(SLIDUAL) WiC looked like this :






As you can see mine look alot better... Smoke folow the Ground i mean i dosent pass trought every thing, the Model of the unit is also alot detailled...

based on revenue models - the next BF franchise will work on a persistant world and require each player to pay $10 a month for the privilage of fighting a never ending battle. It worked for WOW, and less so for Planetside and based on the popularity of the BF brand - it makes great sense!

willgar wrote:based on revenue models - the next BF franchise will work on a persistant world and require each player to pay $10 a month for the privilage of fighting a never ending battle. It worked for WOW, and less so for Planetside and based on the popularity of the BF brand - it makes great sense!

ill boycote need one if they do that. Pay for play... i dont even pay for sex so what the hell i will pay for play when i already purchase the game ? is like if they sell you a blue ray, and they charge you each time you play...

Hotrod525 wrote:On World in Conflict is the Left Image, and in Crysis i guess the top one, BTW at that resolution and Detail setting is almost impossible to told the difference...
i dont know wich Hardware they where using but here on 8800GTS 640(SLIDUAL) WiC looked like this :
...

As you can see mine look alot better... Smoke folow the Ground i mean i dosent pass trought every thing, the Model of the unit is also alot detailled...

You can click the images for scale them to original resolution

Got to admit that the WiC pics suffer from jpg compression. I took them from Neoseeker.com performance preview article. I guess they cropped or resized them for web.
They were originally rendered on '8800 GTS OC' at very high settings.

Both crysis pics are at very high settings. Resolution is 1280*800 which should be plenty to spot differences. I can tell you that are differences. They are just very very small.

But anyways, my original point was that DX10 doesn't bring anything groundbreaking to the game graphics. They just cleaned it up which broke the backward compatibility. Now its being marketed as the next best thing since sliced bread.
Models don't magically look better on dx10.

Yeah, DX10 is all hype. There is nothing new that could not be done with DX9. The difference is efficiency. Yeah, Geometry Shading is very nice, its cool that SM4 supports more complex shaders for example, but you can do the same in SM3 simply with more passes or getting the CPU to do some of the work.

Theoretically you could get a Geforce 2 with DirectX 5 to render a frame of Crysis at max quality. It would be slow as hell but it could be done - the GeForce 2 would most likely end up doing the job of a fancy framebuffer, but hey...

As [R-DEV]Vaiski said, "Models don't magically look better on dx10". True, unless dx10 included A.I for its tesselation routines. I'm sure Microsoft's marketing dept. would like everyone to believe that. They are so desperate to sell Vista that they have not even created a version for XP. Anything to force people to upgrade.

I'm not saying that dx10 does not have nice new features, but the difference is hardly dx8 vs dx9, and there is absolutely no benefit on non-dx10 compliant hardware.