New Tim Sweeny interview, mostly about tech-specs

[Doc Shock]

The website of the german mag "PC Games Hardware" features an article about Unreal Engine 3, containing an interesting interview with Tim Sweeny.
Unfortunately there's no english version available, so I had to write a rough translation (I hope you don't mind my mediocre translation skills). It's quite an interesting read, pointing out lots of the technical features UT3 will utilize.
Enjoy!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview of the most important rendering features:

- multi-threaded renderer (4+ threads)
- 16 Bit per componenent HDR-Pipeline
- runs on 64 Bit operating systems
- (confirmed) performance advantages through SLI (most likely Crossfire as well)
- post-processing effects (some examples): motion blur, depth-of-field blur, bloom
- deferred shading
- physics: Ageia PhysX engine
- 300 - 1.000 visible objects per scene
- huge scenes typically consist of 500.000 to 1.500.000 triangles
- normal maps and texture maps usually have a resolution of 2.048 x 2.048

--- Edit: The translation has been edited out. Though I credited PCGH, I didn't ask them for permission, my apologies for that. But my post here provoked that they released the original interview, so my work wasn't totally in vain. So, here's the link to the german article and here's the one to the new original english interview.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's it, I hope you guys had a good read.

Greetings,
Doc Shock

[jbizzler]

Horray! I know other UE3 games haven't supported AA. I guess this is why. So YAY, DX10 and AA!

[Kronos]

Nice find, although this seems more related toward unreal engine then UT3. Nice read.

[Moloko]

Thanks, interesting read

Understandable that 64 bit Vista isn't suitably mature as a pure development platform. Vista Prem 64 here , at least 64 bit users get compatibility.

[os][ris]

thanks.. this was a good interview..

[placebo]

The thing about AA is such great news, means I'll have to get a DX10 card to fully experience it though

[Henrik]

Nice find, although this seems more related toward unreal engine then UT3. Nice read.

I'm pretty sure everything they're talking about there refers to UT3, including shader 2.0 support. Old cards will be able to run it! Just slowly..

[nfleming]

Nice article, thanks for the translation.

Nice to see the multi cores being put to good use.

It will be nice to see how well the AMD -vs- Intel / nVidia compare when the thing ships. I am not buying ANYTHING until this bad boy releases.

[DX-GAME]

Releases?
Can you say DEMO?

Im tired of upgrading. Im tired of new games comming out that the mainstream cant hope to play. Ive got a thousand other choices.

If it doesnt run good with a Intel P.D 2.8, GF6800 PCIE, and 2gigs of ram, then Ill not be getting it any time soon. The funny thing is neither will the majority of online FPS players, who have specs lower than mine according to quite a few serveys hosted by top gaming companies.

I dont give a rats butt about Vista, DX10, or 2006 hardware. If thats the target, and the target is mainstream, Epic missed the shot and killed the family cat.

[koopa]

it sounds to me like i may be able to run this game maxed with my e6600 and 8800gts. works for me.

[martinblank]

What the F * CK???!

DX10 will have better quality and more features?!! Again, what the F * CK!!!!

One of the main reasons I was anticipating UT3 so much was because it would work at full quality and speed under DX9!!! I refuse to use vista and I am not going to let this force me into using it. Until there is a way to get DX10 support under XP, I will not be buying UT3, unfortunately.

I do have fairly high hopes, however, because I have already read some reports of people who got DX10 working under XP via some kind of wrapper they programmed, similar to how WINE works on linux.

[DX-GAME]

I dont believe DX 10 will have any more features than DX9 as far as game play goes. More like a lil extra glitter on malcoms boots. The DX 9 version, other than graphics, will be exactly like the DX10 version as far as content.

Im simply worried about being able to play it at all, and once in, finding someone to play with.

[theeDEATHMASTER]

What the F * CK???!

DX10 will have better quality and more features?!! Again, what the F * CK!!!!

One of the main reasons I was anticipating UT3 so much was because it would work at full quality and speed under DX9!!! I refuse to use vista and I am not going to let this force me into using it. Until there is a way to get DX10 support under XP, I will not be buying UT3, unfortunately.

I do have fairly high hopes, however, because I have already read some reports of people who got DX10 working under XP via some kind of wrapper they programmed, similar to how WINE works on linux.

Did you really think that DX10 wouldn't be better

[DX-GAME]

As buggy as DX10 and Vista are, coupled with the lack of stable driver support?

You can bet that DX9 will be better, lol.
For at least a year..

[3Deeing]

I'll just sit here and listen to all these people who apparently have never used Vista or a Direct3D 10 capable card keep commenting on how buggy it is and "how horribles games run" on it.

[placebo]

What the F * CK???!

DX10 will have better quality and more features?!! Again, what the F * CK!!!!

One of the main reasons I was anticipating UT3 so much was because it would work at full quality and speed under DX9!!! I refuse to use vista and I am not going to let this force me into using it. Until there is a way to get DX10 support under XP, I will not be buying UT3, unfortunately.

I do have fairly high hopes, however, because I have already read some reports of people who got DX10 working under XP via some kind of wrapper they programmed, similar to how WINE works on linux.

yeah you figured them out, they're just giving it DX10-exclusive features to piss you off, not because, you know, they're impossible to achieve under DX9 or anything

[Kronos]

What the F * CK???!

DX10 will have better quality and more features?!! Again, what the F * CK!!!!

One of the main reasons I was anticipating UT3 so much was because it would work at full quality and speed under DX9!!! I refuse to use vista and I am not going to let this force me into using it. Until there is a way to get DX10 support under XP, I will not be buying UT3, unfortunately.

Wait, so you wont buy UT3 because you wanna play it at its fullest quality but cant because dx9 doesnt allow certain things such as AA+64bitHDR that dx10 would have, and you dont wanna get dx10 cause it runs on windows vista?
Long story short, you dont want UT3 for 2 reasons.
You don't wanna install vista, and you cant run it at its best quality with dx9.

You're a little ridiculous.

[martinblank]

Wait, so you wont buy UT3 because you wanna play it at its fullest quality but cant because dx9 doesnt allow certain things such as AA+64bitHDR that dx10 would have, and you dont wanna get dx10 cause it runs on windows vista?
Long story short, you dont want UT3 for 2 reasons.
You don't wanna install vista, and you cant run it at its best quality with dx9.

You're a little ridiculous.

I have many reasons why I will not use vista, I am tired and do not want to go into them now. It has nothing to do with not wanting to pay for it or being to lazy to install it, I have used Gentoo before so that is the least of the trouble.

Your right, I was a bit rash, but I would be lying if I said I was not pretty damn ticked off that there will now be special DX10 only graphics options for a game that was originally announced as being DX9 from the get-go. I probably will buy it anyway, but I will not be happy about this. Hopefully there will be a hack to make DX10 work on XP rather quickly.

[DX-GAME]

I'll just sit here and listen to all these people who apparently have never used Vista or a Direct3D 10 capable card keep commenting on how buggy it is and "how horribles games run" on it.

Just like those guys keep supporting it when there are no games that use DX10 in the way UT2004 will yet. What are the odds that UT2007 wouldnt be UT3 late 2007 if they based it on DX9?

History.
All versions of Direct X have had numorus patches. DX9 is up to D.
first version DX10 runs great out of the box?
Doubt it.

Drivers.
First gen drivers have been released recently for DX 10 after countless delays. Think those are going to run good?
Wow..

New MS O/S.
Nuff said.

Can you say bastardized Creative?

You are right. I dont have Vista. But I can read about the problems associated with it and exhisting software/hardware. I have friends who are having problems with it. Sure. I have also seen posts saying everything working great, based on XP performance. Nothing at all that says drop a tried and true O/S for it.

[martinblank]

Performance & stability isn't even a main reason why I will not use vista, though it is something I would worry about.

Can you say BIG BROTHER? Can you say DRM? Can you say no h/w accelerated sound (have fun people that bought x-fi fatal1ty and the likes)? There's lots more that I don't feel like getting into now.

[jbizzler]

first version DX10 runs great out of the box?
Doubt it.

Drivers.
First gen drivers have been released recently for DX 10 after countless delays. Think those are going to run good?
Wow..

Dude, calm down. Feel free to be angry at the state of computer technology, but please don't rant about something you've never used.

Really, I've been using Vista x64 since November (Not Beta, the real deal full release because of my MSDN subscription) and have never had a problem in it. I've been toying with the DX10 SDK, making my own DX10 graphical demos, and have not had a single bug that wasn't my fault.

If software companies want to promote new technology, then you screaming in text won't do anything about it. Either join some software company and try and make a difference, or shut up and accept it.

Recently? Try 5 months ago.

[Kronos]

Your right, I was a bit rash, but I would be lying if I said I was not pretty damn ticked off that there will now be special DX10 only graphics options for a game that was originally announced as being DX9 from the get-go. I probably will buy it anyway, but I will not be happy about this. Hopefully there will be a hack to make DX10 work on XP rather quickly.

Well there are indeed certain graphical things dx10 can do that dx9 cannot do, such as 64bitHDR+AA. I to dislike vista using up so much memory, but sooner or later I'll most likely get it. Adding more graphical options for dx10 isn't what you should be mad at, if anything you should be mad at the fact that dx10 wasn't originally on XP, which I'd have to agree was pretty ridiculous that it wasn't.

[jbizzler]

if anything you should be mad at the fact that dx10 wasn't originally on XP, which I'd have to agree was pretty ridiculous that it wasn't.

Kronos, I'm not slamming you personally, but anti-MS people in general.

Half of what DX10 is would only ever work on a totally new platform. It's not like DX10 is plugged into Vista. DX10 and Vista are one.

But things like SM4 have nothing to do with Vista. Many DX10 features are obtainable in XP through OpenGL.

So, half that statement is agreeable, while the other half is the exact opposite. They're just giving new software exclusive features to sell it. That's the world. Make the consumer pay for what he wants.

There are many people upgrading to Vista with really no reason. I've never (upgraded) an OS. I only do total reformats. I imagine it's ugly, though. When you buy new technology, be prepared for any bugs. There is simply no way they can prepare every piece of software for a new OS. Again, I haven't had any trouble myself though. But if they didn't release it until it was mature, you'd complain about delays. THis way, it matures faster out of necesity, and they make money faster as well. Yeah, they try and force you to buy it, but they're just a company just trying to sell a product. It's up to you, the consumer, to make the choice that best suits your needs.

DX-GAME, You make it seem like you're entitled to software that fits your needs. If a company makes a product millions of people are going to use for years to come, tough luck if you don't like it. Just don't buy it, and shut up.

[DX-GAME]

Dude, calm down. Feel free to be angry at the state of computer technology, but please don't rant about something you've never used.

Really, I've been using Vista x64 since November (Not Beta, the real deal full release because of my MSDN subscription) and have never had a problem in it. I've been toying with the DX10 SDK, making my own DX10 graphical demos, and have not had a single bug that wasn't my fault.

If software companies want to promote new technology, then you screaming in text won't do anything about it. Either join some software company and try and make a difference, or shut up and accept it.

Recently? Try 5 months ago.

5mo for ATI anyway. Nvidia drivers are fairly new.

BTW, whos screaming.

Im just pointing out a few things that a few people have forgotten since XP was released. If you want to support Vista, you can join the guys that supported Millenium. That was the greatest thing since sliced bread for a few months too.

My main point is that Vista isnt the mainstream. The hardware requirements UT3 are going to most likely require arent going to be met with a big audiance. That being said they would have, IMO, done alot better to have not worried bout Vista or DX10 support, at least till UT4, or UT 2100.

[_Lynx]

I had real problems with finding some of the drivers for Vista32, but looking at the problems I've ran into with searching drivers (and certain software) for Win64, I'm not going to think of Vista 64 until the first SP - that will be long enough for more drivers and software to appear.

[Henrik]

Your right, I was a bit rash, but I would be lying if I said I was not pretty damn ticked off that there will now be special DX10 only graphics options for a game that was originally announced as being DX9 from the get-go. I probably will buy it anyway, but I will not be happy about this. Hopefully there will be a hack to make DX10 work on XP rather quickly.

Honestly what are you *****ing about? If AA being incompatible with the technology on DX9 is a limitation of DX9, why should they NOT offer that, or any other advantage that can be added to it for those using DX10? Honestly eventually it will become widespread anyway, so all they're doing is future-proofing. To be honest you are barely going to notice the lack of AA or a few minor rendering features..

[Moloko]

If everyone thought like a couple of posters here, we'd still all be playing 2d games on green monitors...so negative about progress. Is Vista perfect ,hell no, it needs a lot of trimming,polishing. Its excessive memory use is probably tied up with all the unfortunate DRM stuff and security/ file integrity checks.

The basic technical side of the dx10 API is a logical step forward though. MS listened and implemented changes as per instruction from many game developers. As a result, in theory it should give higher frame rates vis a vis DX9 at comparable or higher quality settings since things are vastly streamlined over dx9 and draw calls to the cpu reduced.

Early tests with unoptimized titles are showing DX9 winning out at even the higher resolutions???? This is surely down to lack of optimization at many levels. One thing is for sure, if things aren't substantially better when the slew of new titles hit, the gaming writers will be posing questions, "why isn't DX10 performing better?" The current problem may be down to having to laboriously develop for 2 code paths.

[MonsOlympus]

I think another thing people dont realize is there isnt a DX10 benchmark standard out there, 3dmark07 will be vista and DX10 only and as far as I know hasnt been released. So all the benchmarks we have are the DX9 performance of the DX10 cards, not really fair to compare them directly since the unified shader model means you can have less shader pipes but they are shared so where a DX9 card needed more to achieve a level of detail, DX10 naturally needs less for the same details in DX10.

Im still waiting on some proper benchmarks before I commit to any DX10 graphics solution. Mind you if you are playing DX9 games then those benchmarks might mean alittle more to you as well. Im kinda at a loss what to think at the moment with this transition, are companies going to release DX10 patches or stick with lesser DX9 performance through DX10 cards. What I dont know myself is if a DX9 game is emulated through DX10 does it use the unified shaders appropriately or just defaults to a half/half method for pixel/vertex shaders?

[jbizzler]

Okay, I'm glad I think we all calmed down a bit. I had totally forgotten about unified shaders. Here's the thing. You need to go out of your way to make a shader NOT optimized for unified shaders. But, since UE3 was showing off DX9 tech demos 3+ years ago, all the shaders were written for the old shader ratios. If they directly ported those shaders, it's not like having unified shaders will hurt, but it will only help a little. But if they threw the optimization out the window on DX10 shaders, then horray for me, an early adapter.

And still, DX-GAME, NVIDIA DX10 drivers are the ones that have been out five months; since Vista's launch Janury 31st. The ATI DX10 drivers are new because they just came out with their DX10 hardware a week or two ago.

Again, I'm not going around screaming, "Get Vista. Get DX10. BUY BUY BUY!"
It all just fell smoothly into my upgrade path smoothly and works for me, and people shouldn't down it who haven't used it is all. If it's not fo you, just don't use it.

[Kea]

What about FSAA? I can't see any technical problems rendering at doubled resolution in DX9.

[OblivionLord]

Releases?
Can you say DEMO?

Im tired of upgrading. Im tired of new games comming out that the mainstream cant hope to play. Ive got a thousand other choices.

If it doesnt run good with a Intel P.D 2.8, GF6800 PCIE, and 2gigs of ram, then Ill not be getting it any time soon. The funny thing is neither will the majority of online FPS players, who have specs lower than mine according to quite a few serveys hosted by top gaming companies.

I dont give a rats butt about Vista, DX10, or 2006 hardware. If thats the target, and the target is mainstream, Epic missed the shot and killed the family cat.

It is clear that you are not a Pc Gamer by any means. 2 reasons... #1 the Pc Gaming market is not pointed towards those with old hardware expecially yours and mine. #2 that is a fact since the games aren't designed to run on hardware that is exact by everyone who owns a PC therefore within the game there are grafic options to best accomidate what it can for the system. This is a main reason why consoles exceed Pc Games for the gaming market as a whole simply because the games are coded on Hardware that doesn't change for 5 years till the machine is replaced by it's successor. Any port from PC to Console is obviously gutted to run on the old hardware of the console such as a few titles on Xbox and it will be the same for the 360. Still the fact is that the hardware isnt changing for the next 5 years and will be the same for every xbox360, PS3, Wii. You just simply can't do this for the PC Market.

Another thing... Your graphics processor is now going on 3 years of age. Exactly why should any developer of a PC game really concentrate on someone with such an old card that compares with a budget card of today such as the 7600GS? What are they to gain? Please don't tell me that what you have is what the majority of PC Gamers have in simular fashion in terms of hardware just on the video card alone since the rest of your system is decent enough. That is complete nonsense. The PC gaming market doesn't point itself towards the budget savvy by any means since its bad enough that people need to upgrade sooner than consoles being replaced. That is just how it is and has been for many years. You just can not code a game to run efficiently on old hardware and expect it to shine on the latest and run a company producing games competitively all at the same time. There is just way too much code to be written.

I can show you benchmarks on just how bad a 7600gs/6800Ultra are in HL2, BF2, Doom3, Prey, Quake4.. etc etc etc.... HL2 and Doom3 play decent at high settings on the 6800Ultra however the min FPS are bad in certain areas and Doom3 also kills it on Ultra settings. This is not even getting into modern titles like Supreme Commander or Rainbow 6: Vegas which both extremely kill the 7600/6800 out of the water.

[drakeslayer]

it's a good thing to know that my new computer 'll be able to run UT2007(3)

[DX-GAME]

It is clear that you are not a Pc Gamer by any means. 2 reasons... #1 the Pc Gaming market is not pointed towards those with old hardware expecially yours and mine. #2 that is a fact since the games aren't designed to run on hardware that is exact by everyone who owns a PC therefore within the game there are grafic options to best accomidate what it can for the system.

Cmon man.
What qalifications do you require for being a PC gamer?
Ive had this discussion before. What, Im not a PC gamer because I dont go out and buy the latest everything and MS's new O/S? Let me tell you, most PC Gamers dont. I only have a PS2 which my daughter and Wife use. I use it for madden, and dont plan on getting a a newer one till the price drops to the usual $150 or so.

#1. The PC gaming developers do, and currently are, developing games for the mainstream PCs. Games which are either at, a little above, or below my rig, as well as offer continued support for them.


2# Its a fact that there are new games coming out that will only support High end systems to run any where near fluid. Games that require DX10 only will not only leave people who dont have Vista behind, but those that dont have a DX10 compatible card. Another fact is that most PC gamers do not have Vista, much less a DX10 compatible card. Is this the deveopers problem? No, but its going to hurt their sales and alienate their customers.

I posted this before, and its a good place to post again.

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

While it doesnt show the numbers for all developers players, It does show what the people that are playing the most popular and successfull deveopers games are using. Judging by those numbers, if UT3 was released by Steam, how many players would it have? Or another way, how many Steam players is UT3 going to get?

Judging from that survey, do you think Steam should publish alot of games that require high end systems any time soon?

World Of Warcraft:
Windows® System 2000/XP OS:
Intel Pentium® IV 1.5 GHz or AMD XP 1500+ MHz
1024 MB RAM
64 MB 3D graphics card with Hardware Transform and Lighting, such as NVIDIA® GeForce™ FX 5700 class card or above

Oops. Thats not successfull or populated game..

BTW, Im currently playing D3 on Ultra with surround and EAX. I dont know what my frames are, but it is seamless, even when adding 10 or so sentry bots. Vegas, after a lil engine tweaks, I get 28-40FPS. Yup, not alot at all, but its fluid. Oblivion runs pretty good, fluid at lower settings. Dark Messiah, is also fluid at low settings. But, the last three mentioned are also have the highest system requirements of any game at their release, around December of last year. All of them arent doing so well in sales.

[roadrash]

The pillow biting over steep system requirements and DX10 is fairly funny.

Having dx10 features does not detract from the game in dx9. Obviously dx10 will have some items that can’t be done in dx9, but this doesn’t mean you’re getting any less of a game, you’re getting the exact same thing regardless. Unless it’s just envy that some people will have a system that allows them to run the game with slightly better settings, or slightly faster. And if that’s the case then why bother with PC gaming? Somebody will always have a better system. I have dx10 hardware and no intention on running the game in dx10, but I’m not going to cry sour grapes for those who intend to. If Vista is no longer a disaster.

I also don’t think the steam system requirements are a good source for what the baseline PC community has. People upgrade to play specific games. If you want to play CSS or other steam games a system built around the components when HL2 came out will do just fine. So there is little point in upgrading. However there are lots of gamers who have upgraded to play FEAR, Sup Com, R6 Vegas, or who will be upgrading for Crysis, Bioshock, and other modern titles that are coming out this year. On the other hand if your game of choice is Starcraft your system specs are going to be pretty low.

Interestingly enough he doesn’t list any card model numbers, just the “since 2006” comment. 2006 covers the main stream radeon x1k, and nvidia 7 series models. Those cards aren’t that much better then the upper end 6800 cards. They also go out of their way to mention that it’s even better on high end models. That doesn’t sound that steep really, though of course you shouldn’t expect to run it full blown.

[TheDeviot]

Don't forget folks, Nvidia has a DX10 line out for under $100. You're not going to play UT3 at more than 1024x768 with it probably, but it's still going to best my aging 6600 card at a price most people could afford.

Honestly I wish the component makers (Especially Intel, Nvidia, and AMD/ATI) would put out some more educational events about their product lines for the average joe. Not every rep at Staples, Best Buy, Circuit City, Sears, or Radio Shack is a wealth of information, and knowledge. If they were, (or if the component makers would set up localized events that didn't only involve the retail employees, and Certified Techs who have to sell this stuff)The average consumer would realize that the majority of them need something upgradable unless they only ever plan to check mail, and type spreadsheets (Sure most will tell you that's all they do, but then they're the first to go to a repair business, or the store, and complain that Flight Sim X doesn't run).
Moreover those who don't want to spend $2000 on a machine so their bratty kids can play games, would realize they could get one for $800 that would do it adequately. They have dual core Athlon systems out there for $700. Slap in a 8500 series, have the OS speed tweaked, and you're in business. Granted I can explain this stuff, at the service center, but it'd be nice if commercials pointed that out instead of showing morons dance behind a processor.

[xappie]

The pillow biting over steep system requirements and DX10 is fairly funny.

Unless it’s just envy that some people will have a system that allows them to run the game with slightly better settings, or slightly faster. And if that’s the case then why bother with PC gaming?

BINGO! You win a cookie.

[durtytarget]

What Kind of Physics could be there in UT3 that would actually stress the CPU. In UT2k there was almost no physics apart from the very basic rag doll physics and very very minute amounts of collision physics i.e in onslaught. I can not think of any other physics detail. And if you are gonna say terrain deformation do explain it to.

[BobtheCkroach]

World Of Warcraft:
Windows® System 2000/XP OS:
Intel Pentium® IV 1.5 GHz or AMD XP 1500+ MHz
1024 MB RAM
64 MB 3D graphics card with Hardware Transform and Lighting, such as NVIDIA® GeForce™ FX 5700 class card or above

Oops. Thats not successfull or populated game..

...your point? WoW is 2.5 years old now. I mean, heck, StarCraft has some crazy incredible popularity still, and that only requires like a 133mhz processor! ZOMG! Doesn't mean that it wasn't demanding at the time, though, for many.

BTW, Im currently playing D3 on Ultra with surround and EAX. I dont know what my frames are, but it is seamless, even when adding 10 or so sentry bots. Vegas, after a lil engine tweaks, I get 28-40FPS. Yup, not alot at all, but its fluid. Oblivion runs pretty good, fluid at lower settings. Dark Messiah, is also fluid at low settings. But, the last three mentioned are also have the highest system requirements of any game at their release, around December of last year. All of them arent doing so well in sales.

First, Doom 3 has been out for almost 3 full years. To brag that your rig can really handle it now isn't *that* amazing. 3 years ago when the game was new, did you have a rig that good? If you did, you certainly had just purchased it, probably in anticipation of either D3 or HL2.

At the time, most folks didn't have rig capable of running D3 or HL2 at any kind of amazing level.

Secondly, not sure where your dates come from. I don't know about Vegas, but Oblivion is over a year old now. Messiah isn't that old, but it's older than last December. Of course their sales have calmed down.

The fact of the matter is, games push hardware sales. There's a reason that NVidia puts it's $$ into games like UT3...when they come out, users turn around and drop $$ into a new video card, a new CPU, more ram..etc,etc,etc. Doom 3 had requirements that were on another planet when it came out. Oblivion was incredibly demanding when it came out...it goes on and on and on. The people that had PCs for playing Doom all upgraded when Quake came out and needed that crazy dedicated graphics memory!

Some people will wait for prices to drop before they play a game - that's totally fine. Others will upgrade in anticipation of the game b/c it's just that important to them - that's fine too. Making a game that's more forward thinking and leaves a few games in the dust is the right move from a business standpoint. Just because it's not true for you, doesn't mean it's not true.

[os][ris]

What Kind of Physics could be there in UT3 that would actually stress the CPU. In UT2k there was almost no physics apart from the very basic rag doll physics and very very minute amounts of collision physics i.e in onslaught. I can not think of any other physics detail. And if you are gonna say terrain deformation do explain it to.

I believe every (or most) movable object in the game will have physics applied if i'm not mistaken. That means your flak shards will bounce off the wall in the exact angle it should lol..

[Benfica]

I'm so tired of this BS. Maybe I'm getting old and grumpy

Another thing... Your graphics processor is now going on 3 years of age. Exactly why should any developer of a PC game really concentrate on someone with such an old card that compares with a budget card of today such as the 7600GS?

d00d, because the 6800 has the same programming capabilities of 2x 7950GX2 SLI. Any shader code that runs on one, runs on the other.
AND some code or features are optional, examples:
- Shadows, soft shadows
- Blur
- HDR
- Post processing
- Texture size
- AF

Disabling all the above, you don't have *incorrect* or distorted rendering in the sense that ruins gameplay. Also you can play at any res you like, from 640x480 up to 2048x1536

[edit]Ah, and when a game is demanding (a.k.a slow as f&/""), there will be a lot of friends that go play something else. This is what some guys don't understand.

To M$ bashers, the ones that do that without a solid reason, just because... : www.gatesfoundation.org

To the ones that put everything on max, want holy $hit settings and then say that the game is demanding, you wouldn't have fun with:
- A ZX spectrum in 1983
- A Commodore Amiga in 1986
- A Celeron 300A PC on 1993
- A PS1
You wouldn't even consider buying a fun as hell Nintendo Wii because it's sooo last generation.