Texture quality?

[Vlad^Tepes]

I have to say that i am disappointed with the lack of polish in the PC version,it runs really smooth but some places the textures look like complete ****.Its just a shame ,i bought the limited edition version and in the behind the scenes movie EVERY **** thing is taken from PS3 developement,modelling,texturing,playtesting.It suffers from a severe case of consoleitis.The pc version seems like more of an afterthought and even after the first patch its buggy as hell,like you cant run a dedicated insta-server and having it show up in the browser etc etc.

But overall the game feels nice to play,much like the original game but what the hell were you thinking Epic when you gave us the ultra low-res PS3 textures,they really should have put some more effort into the PC version.Its like they overestimated the texturing capabilities of the PS3 and ended up having to downsample so much that so much detail is lost.The GoW pc version has far better textures and runs equally smooth,they should have gone the extra mile and added better textures here aswell.
I dont think they should have gone the crysis route and made it so detailed that you averaged 25 fps but come on ,this looks more like the -99 edition than 2007 at some places

Fugly(highest texture detail)

[Crotale]

Considering the high poly count in the game regarding character, weapon and vehicle models, not to mention the maps, I think Epic has done a tremendous job at making the game play well on lower end systems.

Besides, posting a picture on "ImageHack" proves nothing unless you post actual settings and system specs.

[Ultron]

I'm betting money Vlad there is showing a less than high detail screenshot. I went through some of the levels that look like they would have that texture, and I can't find it. I think he's complaining that he can't see any better visuals than that, but that's his fault for not using high quality settings.

[LordLuzifer]

I looked at that texture myself and its not very nice. You can find it on dm-defiance, down the stairs near the shock rifle.

[Ultron]

Okay that helps knowing where he went. I'm pretty certain this is a parody, because anyone that's played that map at high quality sections knows that map looks great. What Vlad did was find the worst spot he could find on that map, a place few people go to, and take an up close screenshot, at less than high quality settings. I'll show you through a screenshot tour of that section.

[shot]http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/2765/screenshot00009id4.jpg[/shot]

This helps to show you where this section is. It's one corner of the map, where the Shock Rifle is. It's down those stairs to the left.

[shot]http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/7797/screenshot00010bv5.jpg[/shot]

This is heading down the stairs. After looking a bit, I can see where he zoomed in on.

[shot]http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6466/screenshot00011it5.jpg[/shot]

Even closer. Now you can see what he's looking at. See how there's more detail and a crisper image than what he's shown us?

[shot]http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9060/screenshot00012wf4.jpg[/shot]

The reason why is simple: I have high quality settings, and there are things like running water, antistropic filtering, and a higher texture detail. I'm also noticing in his picture that texture that we are both looking at, is raised above the surface of the other rock, indicating he's having a driver issue.

His screenshot is bogus. Plain and simple. And him complaining about "PS3-level" visual quality when a) he's not using high quality settings and b) he is having some driver issues. At this point I'm pretty sure that if someone took a picture of that spot, on a PS3, it would look better than the screenshot he's trying to fake us with.

Thanks for the heads up, Luzifer.

[Vlad^Tepes]

Okay that helps knowing where he went. I'm pretty certain this is a parody, because anyone that's played that map at high quality sections knows that map looks great. What Vlad did was find the worst spot he could find on that map, a place few people go to, and take an up close screenshot, at less than high quality settings. I'll show you through a screenshot tour of that section.

[shot]http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/2765/screenshot00009id4.jpg[/shot]

This helps to show you where this section is. It's one corner of the map, where the Shock Rifle is. It's down those stairs to the left.

[shot]http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/7797/screenshot00010bv5.jpg[/shot]

This is heading down the stairs. After looking a bit, I can see where he zoomed in on.

[shot]http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6466/screenshot00011it5.jpg[/shot]

Even closer. Now you can see what he's looking at. See how there's more detail and a crisper image than what he's shown us?

[shot]http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9060/screenshot00012wf4.jpg[/shot]

The reason why is simple: I have high quality settings, and there are things like running water, antistropic filtering, and a higher texture detail. I'm also noticing in his picture that texture that we are both looking at, is raised above the surface of the other rock, indicating he's having a driver issue.

His screenshot is bogus. Plain and simple. And him complaining about "PS3-level" visual quality when a) he's not using high quality settings and b) he is having some driver issues. At this point I'm pretty sure that if someone took a picture of that spot, on a PS3, it would look better than the screenshot he's trying to fake us with.

Thanks for the heads up, Luzifer.

Bull****,im having no texture/driver issues.Good job epic btw of changing my post title,thats hilarious All of you that responded here,i did NOT say anything about geometry ,nothing about level design.Only about texture detailand that pic was taken at max texture detail.max world detail,with bloom and dof off.The texure is there,in a busy part of the map and if you think it looks good you must be insane, if you think the texture detail is high in this game.Your pic looks just as ****ty btw,i guess you have the same "driver issues" and "bogus screenshots" Your pic is not taken at the same place either Sherlock,its further into the tunnel,under the hole in the cieling.

[Ultron]

Are you talking about here?

[shot]http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/9116/screenshot00008ud4.jpg[/shot]

If so, here's a closer shot of what you are looking at.

[shot]http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3839/screenshot00009wl5.jpg[/shot]

It's the only place in the map I could find that looks closer to what you're trying to show us. It's not that bad. Your pic is still washed out compared to mine.

The issue I have with your post, is that you a) use less than HQ graphics (like it or not - it's washed out) - even unintentionally, and you focus on arguably the worst possibly spot you could take a screenshot in that level. There are tons of places in that level that look great, as well as the rest of the game. Yet in your opening post you say stuff like this:

"what the hell were you thinking Epic when you gave us the ultra low-res PS3 textures"

"looks more like the -99 edition than 2007 at some places"

Both the PS3 and the PC is able to do 2048x2048 textures, but not all textures are that size. Most don't need to be. And there are countless screenshots on this site that show really high quality graphics. Yet you complain about arguably the worst spot in a map, with less than ideal settings, zoomed close up to it, and "oh noes Epic gives us teh lowrez textures!" Give us a break. I'm surprised this thread wasn't deleted.

[Vlad^Tepes]

Ok Ultron ,these are taken at 1680x1050 16xAF post processing at default.Texture detail at 5 ,world detail at 5,screen percentage 100 bloom off and dof off.

My systemspecs are as follows
E6600@3ghz
8800GTX / 169.04 xp pro
2ghz ram

This is to show you there isnt any driver issues :
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/8...ot00038gb8.jpg
http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/6...ot00039ud2.jpg
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/2...ot00041rw8.jpg

Edit: You are still at the wrong spot,go further into the corridor,under the hole in the cieling.
And so what ? Surprised this thread wasnt deleted ,i mean what the hell ? What is your problem anyway,does epic pay your salary ? I have as much of a right voicing my opinion as you do,ive bought every **** game in the unreal series sofar,unreal,UT,UT2003,UT2004,Unreal 2 and now UT3.I have played these games for more than 8 years and i cannot critizize Epic for not focusing enough effort into the pc version ?

This texture is on the map,its in a high action area,its **** and lowres but above all its included in the map.That doesnt make me bogus,if anything it makes Epic bogus for putting it there.Less than ideal bla bla,there's very little highres texture content in this game,do you deny that fact ? And what i meant about the PS3 texture limitation is that the texture memory on the ps3 isnt enough given tha fact that as the resolution increases so does the ram usage.And the ps3 runs out of texture memory before the 360 does .Look at Gow,they included more highres textures in that pc version,they didnt for this game.Thats the point here,i think they should have.

[TheBypasser]

hmm ye, this texture sux, but imo it's not worth a discussion at all As I said, looks like you guys spend less time playing UT then looking for things to moan about


ps does anyone know how to activate precaching? Because waiting up to 15 seconds for all the textures to load properly just plain sux

[Ultron]

You're taking my gripes out of context. I am not saying you have no right to complain. Regardless of how long you've played the Unreal series, which incidentally is as long as I have. I just don't see the connection between one screenshot you've made, of questionable quality (wherever it is at - grr) and complaining about the texture quality of the game. There are far more textures that are much higher quality than that. But somewhere you see one that's relatively low quality, and the whole series is doomed.

BTW this last screenshot of yours:

[shot]http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/2963/screenshot00041rw8.jpg[/shot]

Looks better than that first screenshot in your opening post:

[shot]http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/3347/screenshot00031ip7.jpg[/shot]

You can see it just from the screenshot thumbnails above.

There's noticable pixelization in the second shot. It's more washed out. And you're using a smaller resolution.

-

Regarding the whole "console" issue. Gears of War was an X360 release first. A console game. And it became a PC version after about a year worth of code revisions and possibly texture increases. This game was designed for both console and PC at the same time, so it makes sense that texture quality will be similar. But in most parts of this game it's very high quality.

It's dumb to use hyperbole like "you gave us the ultra low-res PS3 textures" but give us a 1024x768 screenshot of a close up of perhaps the lowest-res texture in the entire map, with less than HQ settings. What you show us in your last set of screenshots above, are higher quality than the original screenshot you gave us in your opening post.

That is significant, Vlad.

[MysTikal]

In the 3DBuzz UnrealED video tuts, they mentioned how they would make lower quality textures for something players arent going to be looking at as an important part of the map for performance (like a box / small map parts). Otherwise for something that players look at most of the time (such as an elevator shaft) they go for quality.

They made those low quality for a reason. You aren't going to be looking at a few rubbish boxes as an important map piece. This has nothing to do with the engine being bad or high quality not being high enough, it's for performance and it's not Epic's fault.

[Ultron]

In the 3DBuzz UnrealED video tuts, they mentioned how they would make lower quality textures for something players arent going to be looking at as an important part of the map for performance (like a box / small map parts). Otherwise for something that players look at most of the time (such as an elevator shaft) they go for quality. They made those low quality for a reason. You aren't going to be looking at a few rubbish boxes as an important map piece. This has nothing to do with the engine being bad or high quality not being high enough, it's for performance and it's not Epic's fault.

True, this is to conserve texture memory. Every game has textures that are tiled or reused in maps because it requires less memory than using countless unique ones, and some are lower resolution than others because they are used in less visible areas, or they simply do not need to be higher resolution.

[Vlad^Tepes]

You're taking my gripes out of context. I am not saying you have no right to complain. Regardless of how long you've played the Unreal series, which incidentally is as long as I have. I just don't see the connection between one screenshot you've made, of questionable quality (wherever it is at - grr) and complaining about the texture quality of the game. There are far more textures that are much higher quality than that. But somewhere you see one that's relatively low quality, and the whole series is doomed.

BTW this last screenshot of yours:

[shot]http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/2963/screenshot00041rw8.jpg[/shot]

Looks better than that first screenshot:

[shot]http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/3347/screenshot00031ip7.jpg[/shot]

You can see it just from the screenshot thumbnails above.

There's noticable pixelization in the second shot. It's more washed out. And you're using a smaller resolution.

-

Regarding the whole "console" issue. Gears of War was an X360 release first. A console game. And it became a PC version after about a year worth of code revisions and possibly texture increases. This game was designed for both console and PC at the same time, so it makes sense that texture quality will be similar. But in most parts of this game it's very high quality.

It's dumb to use hyperbole like "you gave us the ultra low-res PS3 textures" but give us a 1024x768 screenshot of a close up of perhaps the lowest-res texture in the entire map, with less than HQ settings. What you show us in your last set of screenshots above, are higher quality than the original screenshot you gave us in your opening post.

That is significant, Vlad.

No it doesnt because the detail-settings was the same in both shots,the first was a single resized shot,you said it looked washed out so i turned my brightness down a little and took some more,didnt resize them so you A) See that no driver issues were present and B) Find the correct place i took them.Still doesnt make the texture look good though tbh does it.And about playing the game,sure ,i play it as much as i can and will continue to do so (hopefully the linux server will be ready soon so we can rent a server + start playing wars again) The reason why i singled out this single texture was that the detail was less than any other texture ive seen in this game and it looks out of place tbh.

[Ultron]

Fair enough about the complaint about it looking out of place, and I've already ceded my mistake of not being able to find the spot you are talking about. But you can see for yourself the original image, and the one you took recently, are of two different quality levels. That is my complaint. I stand by my original comment on that because your own screenshots prove my point. But that texture you chose is not your average texture in-game, nor is it a reasonable example of texture quality in this game. Those are other problems with your criticisms.

And anyone who has the full version of the game, and uses high quality textures, can tell that screenshot you took in the opening post is not a true indication of what this game is like.

[isp_of_doom]

My $0.02

I dont care about the texture quality, I dont go around maps crouching down looking at the floor. As long as it looks decent as in: http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/8...ot00038gb8.jpg (vlad's pic)

BUT
that texture is supposed to be a pile of rubble. Now, not meaning to undermine the realisticality of UnrealEngine3, but I'd much rather see a pile of rubble as a static mesh, than a texture on a (comparatively) smooth piece of terrain...

Then again, no engines I know are capable of this everywhere... so meh. no biggie.