William wrote:
Quote:

Because once the engines look very close to real-life, and computers are so fast culling and the such isn't as big of a deal, what's there to seperate the engines?



I think there will be still room for price differencies. Look at the current situation:

There is the PO engine, Unreal 3, Crytek, Source and much more. All can create very good looking stuff.
But currently more than 100 projects are based on the Unreal3-technology. And this decision is an expensive one.

There was an article in the magazine "Gamestar" this month. The developers told that they license U3 because of the proven technology, the option to port to consoles and the great documentation. The manual has more than 1000 pages. The support is superb. You can even create games without any programming with U3. There is a visual script designer included. You just connect actions and triggers with each other. Cars, AI, physics - everything works right from the beginning. They have a professional template system.

Besides that they have tools for everything. And everything reacts in real-time. You can move a light and you see shadows, lighting, coloring instantly. You can calculate your normal-maps directly with the U3-tools. You can test particles, physics, AI in real-time.

This work-flow is worth the money. And this plus a stable engine in its third generation makes it so successful.

I hope you see why there is a price difference between engines. And WhyDoIDie can see why Sphere is not an Unreal3 killer.

Nevertheless I am a big fan of sphere. I bought it and use it often to check my textures and models with parallax mapping. Thanks to Matt for this oportunity!

Models, Textures and Games from Dexsoft