Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 68

Thread: Can The Unigine Engine Get Any Better? Yes, And It Has.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    51

    Default

    To some extent I agree with the ground looking a bit simple, in the first screenshot I was very aware of it being a rendered image, but it really improved in the other screens so maybe it was just a fluke... honestly use a dirt-like texture next time.

    On the other hand at greater distances it looks amazing!

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    unigine and dx11 hardware what a waste the screenshots can be beaten by dx9 hardware with ARMA2...



    but yes on linux you need dx11 hardware and unigine for dx9 like ARMA2 screenshots

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    270

    Default

    Seriously clueless are shining bright today...

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Score -1 Troll, Quaridarium. That Arma II screenshot looks nowhere near as nice as the Unigine shots. No shadows, poor lighting effects, low mesh detail (look at the stone formation in the foreground).. there's no contest between them.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lem79 View Post
    Score -1 Troll, Quaridarium. That Arma II screenshot looks nowhere near as nice as the Unigine shots. No shadows, poor lighting effects, low mesh detail (look at the stone formation in the foreground).. there's no contest between them.
    troll? i compare this fake no game engine with an REAL game



    arma2 does have shadows if you turn it on.

    and stone details there are stones on the unigine screenshots with low mesh details to! only the stones nearby your position is thankfull to tesselation better.




  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    in my point of view arma2 beat unigine ...


  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    167

    Default

    It's pretty much impossible to judge the quality of a game engine by looking at screenshots. What most people see is down to the skill of the artists using the engine to create something of course the engine has to enable the artist.

    As it stands Unigine is a very capable engine but it takes a quite a bit of work to figure out how to get the most of (as it happens we have also trailed arma2 and I didn't think much of it).

    The latest update is pretty sweet though (running it through it's paces at the moment)

    I have to echo the currently the main weakness is in Unigine is the relative immaturity of the artists tools.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    @Qyaridarium; graphics are not nice looking forests, because that is atwork, but things like global illumination and other rendering techniques. Nice looking explosions is not equal to graphics tech

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    in my point of view arma2 beat unigine ...

    In your OPINION. The pics you linked aren't as great as you think of them. I'm certainly unimpressed with what you're using as "proof" here- it's nothing that compares to some of the more advanced game engine graphics- not to mention that ARMA II doesn't do it natively to begin with.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    West Australia
    Posts
    357

    Default

    Plus ARMA 1 / 2 suck as far as gameplay is concerned. Crysis at least has good gameplay. I wouldn't use them as a comparative engine either as in game, the graphics are terrible. Feels blocky and horrible. Unigine is coming a long way, and I also agree that v3.0 is really starting to shine.

    I must mention that one of the reasons I loved the half life (heavily modified quake) engine was simply because of it's level editing tools. Worldcraft 3D was awesome, period. UnrealED was a pile of crap. I get the feeling that Unreal would have been a better game if the editor had been improved to match the game engines abilities. It's a real shame too because back in the day, half life engine was technically an old engine compared to unreal but yet look at who come out the victor. I'm so glad that valve went on to make the source engine for that reason, because I don't think portal and hl2 would have been the same with any other game engine.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •