Cryengine 2: Approaching photorealism with perfect time of day simulation?

Crysis, and the Cryengine 2 which it is based on, isn't just a game anymore but also a technology playground. A modification is supposed to perfect the time of day simulation in order to get closer to photorealism.

Read Full Story >>
MNicholas5282d ago (Edited 5282d ago )

Those images look fine when they are small but when you see them full-size the lack of detail and rendering flaws are, sadly, quite obvious. The worst of all has to be the close-up of the character. There are enough games on PS3 and 360 which have far superior real-time character models. The close-up of the gun demonstrates the low-grade lighting and limited polygon budget. Where are the specular highlights? The variety in materials? The first picture with the chairs is also absolutely dreadful. Apart from suffering from a lots of polygon edges the textures are sub-par and shadows are wrong.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are much better mods out there. Photo based textures can only do so much when the lighting and other technical aspects are lacking. It's flashy but doesn't hold up to scrutiny particularly when one considers the incredible hype associate with the Crysis brand.

TheRealSpy5282d ago

it is don't have a clue what you are talking about.

MNicholas5282d ago (Edited 5282d ago )

why not explain what you think is so incredible about these images? Obviously you're more impressed than I am.

For example, please describe what you find impressive about this picture ...


or this one ...


tmt3455282d ago (Edited 5282d ago )

LOL, the chinese guy looks hilarious!

PS3istheshit5282d ago

i heard that you need a $2000 pc to play it full settings with anything happening on screen
and they say this is close to photo realism but better than crysis
so a photo realistic game would mean another mountain of money and computer upgrades
i have a ps3 so i dont know how much all that would cost but just for graphics
its not worth it
its better to get a ps3 or 360 cuz you already know that games cant go past their limits on consoles
ps3 still has a lot more to give but at least you know it can get way better without taking money out of your pocket for silly add ons like wi-fi, HD-DVD, memory cards, and rebuying the 360 after red rings
i hope i didnt give any clues :0
anyways im just saying if graphics get really good for the pc then a lot of money will be needed
thats the downfall of the pc as a gaming machine
theres no limit for games but if it means spending 3 grand just to get higher resolutions then you might as well buy an HDTV, PS3, and surround sound
still wouldnt cost as much as a super computer

but thats just my opinion
and if you guys write anything greasy, then Imma Hav To Cut Yo Ba11s Mang

Shepherd 2145282d ago

ive never thought graphics made a game good, and i still dont, but i have to admit that these images look pretty damn good. if these visuals hold up in actual gameplay, then these are the most realistic visuals ive ever seen. Hell, ive played Crysis maxed out, and Crysis is already the best looking game to date, and these even go a bit further.

Lich1205282d ago

Maybe, it might have cost 2k dollars to play this game on ultra high back in 2007 but, it doesn't take even close to that much now. A computer (and Im leaving the monitor out of this because people don't include the price of a T.V. in their console costs) wouldn't even be $1000.

Graphics Card: $250 ATI 4870

Processor: $214 Intel Quad Core 2.4GHZ

Memory: $98 - 6 gigs Corsair (XMS)

Hard Drive: $70 - Seagate 640GB

Optical Drives: $25 - LG DVD Burner

Case: $60

Total - $717

This will have you running crysis maxed out at 1650x1080 2xAA. I know this because this is roughly my computer. So to say it costs $2000 is foolish.

zag5282d ago

I havn't looked at killzone 2 yet.

But generally PC GFXs leaves consoles in the dust big time.

You can go and buy a 4gig PC GFX card and that will do 1920x1080 textures or bigger easy and the bigger the texture the better it will scale down onto objects.

where as the PS3 has 256megs of gfx and the 360 has 512megs but it's all shared memory.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 5282d ago
mastiffchild5283d ago

I don't think we're getting anywhere near photorealistic graphics yet.

I was lucky enough to play Crysis at the highest settings and while it was certainly the best looking realistic game I'd ever played it was still miles away frm real.

It's all very impressive but there's such a long way to go that photo realism is still in it's infancy.

FragMnTagM5283d ago

On an add for Ace Combat 6, there were two pictures of a real plane in an add and one of an actual airplane and I honestly could not tell the difference, and I work with 3DS Max 2009.

On topic, this is a great mod and I will be adding it soon as it is available. Some of those pictures are just unreal, like pic number 29, the mist on the ground in that morning shot is simply amazing. Number 31 could be placed next to pics of a real scene in a forest/ jungle like that and it would be hard to tell the difference. Looking at some of these pics gave me goosebumps.

I think photo-realistic is closer than you think for PC. Now in the console area, there is hardly anything that comes close, except for gran turismo 5.

Awesome Possum5283d ago

My poor computer will explode if I put crysis any where near it.

Myze5283d ago

@2.1 There is a MASSIVE difference between attaining photo-realism with some type of hardware modeling (ie., the plane you mention) and attaining it with organics (such as people). Hardware modeling has been close to realism for a long time, and the actual models look real with the hard part being the lighting and textures, which is doable. However, the difference is that hardware modeling is modeling something that was built and manufactured in real life, making if far easier to replicate in the 3d world.

I've seen some of the most realistic models of people ever made, and they are still far from being "real." ...and that's just still pictures. Now, throw in animation and we are nowhere close. I know some people will have a better eye at it than others, and some will see something as real and others will see it as not even close, but with organic modeling the average person is the best critic because they've been seeing real people their entire life.

This is my point: with Crysis they may have some of the shrubbery and day cycles and guns done close to "perfectly," but the hardest thing they modeled, the people, barely even look good, much less photo-real. I enjoyed the game, but I was not wowed by anything other than when I would stand still and look off in the distance. The town or industrial areas were purposely made simplistic for destruction purposes and were horribly bland, and whenever I saw one of the soldiers come running at me I was actually distracted by the silly look on their faces, not by how real they looked. I should explain that when I say I wasn't wowed, I mean the game was hyped so much by people claiming the game is the best we will ever see and you won't be able to tell the difference between it and a real picture, etc. that when I played it (at max settings) a few months later, I just wasn't near as impressed as people were claiming I would be.

That being said, the game is impressive, but it is still a far cry (pun intended) from being photo-real.

FlameBaitGod5282d ago (Edited 5282d ago )

Those are pictures without anything on them like cars or people moving. They look pro but i would like to see if it will look like that with people running, shooting, cars moving and blowing up things at the same time. I can run crysis warhead at enthusiast(that mean's everything on highest) and not lag but i have 4GB of ram and a 8800GT which does the same as the 9800GT, they just have diff names. So i can run that because of the hardware but yeah... i wanna see if this will look like that with everything happening at the same time without any lag. If it does, which i hope, it would be really nice.

Gamingisfornerds5282d ago (Edited 5282d ago )

All he is doing is adjusting the time of day settings with the Cryengine2 editor. This is no way affects performance, thus it will run exactly run the same is it does for you now. All it does really is show how lacking the artists at Crytek are, and how skilled this guy is as well ofcourse.

Crytek should really take a moment to evaluate what's going on here and how they could let it happen that a single random guy can make the game look 10 times better then what their overpayed inhouse artists have been able to pull off, just by adjusting the time of day settings. It's pretty shamefull really.

Kudo's to Hawkeye|Puppy, I can't wait to play the game with his brilliant adjustments.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 5282d ago
Software_Lover5283d ago

A little bit more code optimization and we can get "photo realism" at 20fps instead of 15

Edit:joke. Warhead played pretty well. The ending just sucked

FragMnTagM5282d ago

Replied before you edited it.

tdogchristy905283d ago

mastiff I would have to agree and disagree with you.

As far as PHOTOrealism goes I do think we are getting very very close, those shots look amazing. As far as realism in actually moving gameplay I think we have a ways to go, to make something look absolutely real and yet still act and be playable is very hard and I think still in its infancy.

FragMnTagM5283d ago (Edited 5283d ago )

So to say it doesn't look good while moving is just wrong.

@Software Lover, where did it say that it only ran at 15 frames per second.

Software_Lover5283d ago

It was a joke. Hence the word "joke" in my reply. The original Crysis is know to be poorly coded and I was just having a little fun.

TheIneffableBob5282d ago

Crysis isn't poorly coded, it's just extremely complex. Yes, I suppose it could be better, but when you're pushing millions of polygons per frame and dozens of dynamic shadow-casting lights, one expects their hardware to be pushed to its limits.

ikral5283d ago

No need to worry about photorealistic graphics, it will be common thing one day. I just worry about games that are becoming less interesting. Now where is that RE feeleng in RE5? Silent Hill 1 was the best in the series. There is so many examples of games that are becoming only a shadows of their great predecestors.

ChampIDC5282d ago

Yeah, developers need to learn to balance gameplay and graphics. Too much focus on one end makes a game feel incomplete. Gameplay is obviously the top priority, but it's nothing without proper presentation in other areas.

ShiftyLookingCow5282d ago

haha its kind of obvious isn't it and yet many incl. me "worry" about graphics. Though I am no more a graphics whore.

squidyj5282d ago

Not to knock your point but i really preferred Silent Hill 2