30" display owners: get your HIGH-res pics of UT 2007 here! [Archive]

nagromme

Jun 23, 2005, 03:32 PM

There are three SUPER high-res images--up to 2800x2400!--of Unreal Tournament 2007 at the top of this article. Perfect desktop images for lucky owners of huge displays!

http://www.gamecloud.com/article.php?article_id=400

I plan to scale them down in Photoshop to achieve some anti-aliasing, personally.

And as I never tire of reminding people... UT2007 will have Mac editing tools!! http://beyondunreal.com/daedalus/singlepost.php?id=6277

Can't wait for this game.

_pb_boi

Jun 23, 2005, 04:09 PM

Makes me want a 30in display even more!

andy.

Eevee

Jun 23, 2005, 05:41 PM

Cool, thanks for the thread. When is this coming out for Mac?

mcarnes

Jun 23, 2005, 06:35 PM

Are those actual screen shots? What's the actual res of the game supposed to be?

Man, it looks cool.

aspro

Jun 23, 2005, 06:56 PM

I have a feeling it aint going to be running on my powerbook :P

themacman

Jun 23, 2005, 07:57 PM

are those hte ps3 screenshots

Eidorian

Jun 23, 2005, 08:31 PM

are those hte ps3 screenshotsNo they aren't. They're simulated screenshots for the Unreal Engine 3.

Mechcozmo

Jun 23, 2005, 10:44 PM

I think you'd hurt your neck, trying to game on a 30" monitor. Looking in every single direction at once... :eek:

Of course, I wouldn't mind having one....:D

eXan

Jun 23, 2005, 11:31 PM

I think you'd hurt your neck, trying to game on a 30" monitor. Looking in every single direction at once... :eek:

Of course, I wouldn't mind having one....:D

Ah! To run that 30-incher, you also need a PowerMac with Rad9650/X800XT/GF6800!! I woundn't mind having those too :D

aussie_geek

Jun 24, 2005, 01:02 AM

Ah! To run that 30-incher, you also need a PowerMac with Rad9650/X800XT/GF6800!! I woundn't mind having those too :D

yep - awesome game!! Everyone start saving your cash the GFX card to go with it!! :D

aussie_geek

Mechcozmo

Jun 24, 2005, 01:13 AM

Ah! To run that 30-incher, you also need a PowerMac with Rad9650/X800XT/GF6800!! I woundn't mind having those too :D

Heh, I'll find a way to use that display, don't you worry...

nagromme

Jun 24, 2005, 02:42 AM

It's not PS3, it's Windows presumably--and it's not simulated, it's actual in-engine shots :)

Except the res is clearly rendered at a bigger size than you'd actually play. (Unless you take AA into account.)

As for when it's coming to Mac... no date has even been announced for PC! Although late 2006 or 2007 seems likely from the (working) name :) Then some time after that on Mac probably. Nothing's official, but with the editor planned for Mac, that's a good sign that the game is too.

And yeah, I wish I had a 30" screen too :o

JackSYi

Jun 24, 2005, 02:46 AM

Now only if, UT 2007 would come out to Macs and PCs simultaneously. :eek: :eek: :eek:

eXan

Jun 24, 2005, 05:48 AM

yep - awesome game!! Everyone start saving your cash the GFX card to go with it!! :D

aussie_geek

I saw some tests of G70 (the new GeForce) and those cards are only slightly faster than RadX850PE or GF6800. :confused: These cards are on the about the same performance level!

jdechko

Jun 24, 2005, 08:28 AM

well technically the newest 15 and 17-inch PB's w/ 128Mb of VRAM will run a 30-inch display, but I don't know what the overall system requirements of the game are going to be. Depending on the release dates (of both the game and the new Macs, it should be one of the first games that is really compiled for both PPC and Intel Macs, so it ought to be interesting to see.

_pb_boi

Jun 24, 2005, 09:13 AM

I think you'd hurt your neck, trying to game on a 30" monitor. Looking in every single direction at once... :eek:

Of course, I wouldn't mind having one....:D

I'd be willing to take the risk ;)

andy.

ProjektJ

Jun 24, 2005, 12:40 PM

I saw some tests of G70 (the new GeForce) and those cards are only slightly faster than RadX850PE or GF6800. :confused: These cards are on the about the same performance level!
what are you talking about?
the g70 is faster than two 6800 ultras in sli
6800ultra x2=1000-1200 dollars
g70=599
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/nvidia%20geforce%207800%20gtx_06220580647/7753.png

GFLPraxis

Jun 24, 2005, 12:58 PM

Not so much according to this review.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1830187,00.asp

http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/10/0,1311,sz=1&i=100490,00.gif

At max res the SLI solution actually wins out, and the 7800 is barely ahead of the single 6800 (usually by about 15 FPS) in all things.

Heck, the X800 XT is almost equal to the 7800.

ProjektJ

Jun 24, 2005, 01:15 PM

directx has never been nvidias strongpoint, look at some opengl games

also, os x uses open gl exclusively, so directx benches have nothing to do with mac gaming

nagromme

Jun 24, 2005, 01:24 PM

Depending on the release dates (of both the game and the new Macs, it should be one of the first games that is really compiled for both PPC and Intel Macs, so it ought to be interesting to see.

Actually several commercial games were ported to Mac within days, before WWDC was even over. Including UT 2004! :) http://forums.macrumors.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

iPlm

Jun 24, 2005, 02:23 PM

Not so much according to this review.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1830187,00.asp

At max res the SLI solution actually wins out, and the 7800 is barely ahead of the single 6800 (usually by about 15 FPS) in all things.

Heck, the X800 XT is almost equal to the 7800.

Hey, this is only Half Life 2 benchmark results. It's not like you'll get the same difference in Doom 3 or something else. It all depends on the application's design you know. In Doom 3 as I've saw at Anand's Tech review, the 7800 GTX is as fast as 6800 Ultra SLi at everything except 2048x1536 with AA, making some 35 FPS :eek: , this IMO is really nice. :D

I wonder when will Apple put it in PowerMacs.:P

GFLPraxis

Jun 24, 2005, 08:11 PM

eXan

Jun 24, 2005, 10:27 PM

what are you talking about?
the g70 is faster than two 6800 ultras in sli

I saw some tests of Doom 3 and UT2004 where new GeForce was about at the same level with other cards, especially in UT2004. The difference was only 1-2 fps

liquidtrance123

Jul 7, 2005, 06:35 PM

Their 3dmark benchmarks were even worse than Half-Life if I remember right.
http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/10/0,1311,sz=1&i=100486,00.gif
http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/10/0,1311,sz=1&i=100484,00.gif

3dmark, the SLI setup pwns the 7800 easily.

UT2k4, the 7800 is hardly faster than the 6800.
these tests are skewed, according to the numbers these benchmarks look CPU limited to me.

edit: and 3dmark is a worthless way to benchmark cards. the only real way is actual in game demos & benchmarks. You can program drivers and software to make 3dmark spit out whatever number you want. This was the case a few years ago at the [H]

benpatient

Jul 8, 2005, 04:01 PM

HL2 is basically CPU bound on anything higher than a 6600 GT.

Lost Coast will change that, but then, Lost coast will look nearly as good as UT3, if those 3 preview screens are any indication.

Lower the resolution to something that will fit on a normal-sized screen, and I'm not very impressed. That close-up face shot looks maybe 5-10% better than the main HL2 characters do, poly and texture-wise...

Add some HDR (which they've done with Lost Coast) and maybe some more texture overlays, and it's the same thing. Not revolutionary.

Who knows, they have another year of work to do before we'll see the finished product...maybe the textures will get better and they will push more polys...that's not what usually happens, though.

UT07 will need to be easily playable on current mid-level hardware if they want it to sell at all this time next year. That's the formula...make it play well on last year's mid-level machine, and have some "ultra" settings for the early adopters and to combat obsolescence.

highres

Jul 8, 2005, 04:08 PM

those screens look incredible on my 30"...graphics have come a long way...Are those just the CGI cut-scenes or actual gameplay screens?

raggedjimmi

Jul 8, 2005, 04:23 PM

it looks OK. but not groundbreaking. theres something quite unrealistic looking about the guns visuals. still, the engines not finished yet, is it?

DrNeroCF

Jul 9, 2005, 02:18 PM

Too bad those g5 dev kits were pumping out better graphics than that with M$'s dedicated gaming software on them... I wish Apple could just polish up the OS and opengl until we get similar performance...

nagromme

Jul 9, 2005, 09:07 PM

I think UT could use more photo-based textures and less "art" ones.

But the engine is most definitely FAR ahead of HL2.

snkTab

Jul 10, 2005, 01:11 AM

I think you'd hurt your neck, trying to game on a 30" monitor. Looking in every single direction at once... :eek:

Of course, I wouldn't mind having one....:D

just push the monitor back farther. =D

highres

Jul 10, 2005, 02:23 AM

A little off topic but, these are screens of the upcoming XBX 360 game Gears of War, the most hyped game of E3 this year. According to IGN they are actual gameplay screens. The XBX 360 uses "Custom ATI Processor" video technology, my question is what card technology is Xbox using that ATI is providing? I read through all the tech specs but am still not quite sure... :confused:

http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-x-1985-x-x-x?tag=boxcar_all_features_image

http://www.gamespot.com/x360/action/gearsofwar/preview_6125579.html

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/619/619568p1.html

http://homepage.mac.com/donkeypunched/gearsofwar1.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/donkeypunched/gearsofwar2.jpg

nagromme

Jul 10, 2005, 01:14 PM

FYI those shots are from the Unreal 3 (UT2007) Engine too. Good to see it being put to use in upcoming games :)

caveman_uk

Jul 10, 2005, 02:46 PM

highres

Jul 10, 2005, 03:31 PM

I don't know if it's just me but all the emphasis seems to be on the eye candy and the actual 'game' gets forgotten. I spent hours of my life playing the original UT. It was so much fun. The later incarnations left me cold. Couldn't be bothered. Much the same could be said for the Quake series as well...

It is true, is seems like actual gameplay is secondary to the visuals a lot nowdays...When a game comes along that has really solid gameplay and great graphics they really stand out and are exceptional. I started gaming when Space Invaders and Asteroids came out and since graphics technology was in its infancy and wasn't really developed yet it was all about great gameplay...Long story short, imo great gameplay and great graphics combined are what make really great games...

dubbz

Jul 10, 2005, 03:46 PM

nagromme

Jul 10, 2005, 06:38 PM

I don't know if it's just me but all the emphasis seems to be on the eye candy and the actual 'game' gets forgotten. I spent hours of my life playing the original UT. It was so much fun. The later incarnations left me cold. Couldn't be bothered. Much the same could be said for the Quake series as well...

Actually, if you haven't read any interviews about the new UT 2007, I recommend doing so: you'll be pleased:

The eye candy is second!

They've been doing playtesting in bare-bones non-detailed maps, getting the feel of combat just right, and thinking through what made each past version of UT great--including things that UT 99 did better than later versions. Graphical details have been following after that process, but have clearly taken a back seat to game play.

Some links/interviews about the new UT:

http://www.beyondunreal.com/main/ut2007/about.php

http://www.beyondunreal.com/content/articles/128_1.php

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/unrealtournament2007/preview_6123872.html

crachoar

Jul 11, 2005, 04:22 AM

Not only is the 'Unreal Warfare 3' engine 'sweet' - it's 'Life - The Engine'.

This engine is going to be the end-all-be-all of engines. They're using it to make MMO games, FPS games - everything. If you've played games like 'Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory' - remember, that's the 'Unreal Warfare 2.5' engine. And that game looks amazing. Imagine how much better these next-gen games are going to look...(hence, 'Life - The Engine')

What does that mean for you?

3GB Minimum RAM requirements. Terrabyte HDs. Next-Next-Gen GPUs. That's what they're suggesting for this engine, and for the next version of Windows. I guess the computer companies are ready for us to go 'balls to wall' with our hardware - whether we like it our not.

Let's hope that we can actually afford these computers in 1.5 years.

nagromme

Jul 11, 2005, 09:50 AM

At the same time it's perfectly doable to make an engine scale to different hardware. There's a limit to that when you're designing massive maps with lots of physics, but polycounts, textures sizes, and optional details can always be made to adapt.

We'll see how much they do along those lines, but if they're playtesting on today's hardware--and if they want to sell more copies--then it suggests that UE3 games will not NEED systems as high as you're talking about.

benpatient

Jul 11, 2005, 04:52 PM

by the way, for those doubting the merit of the 7800 gpu from nvidia...the only way to see what it can really "do" is to crank the resolution and the AA/AF settings all the way up.

example?

BF2

4xfsaa, everything else turned up all the way, 2048x1536 resolution

nearly 45fps, and with SLI it's nearly 80!

The x850 XT hits just 30 fps.