Is the A7 close to a next-gen game engine like Unreal 3?

No.

the engine is, not the tools. but remember that the engine doesn't natively support directx 10.

remember that well! joey just described in one sentence what many people struggle to comprehend -- the engine can do any direct-x 9 next-gen stuff you can imagine (just about, anyway), most of the time without a single plugin. it's only the tools that leave much to be desired.

download blender (.org) and you'll have the best modeling tool there is anyway (arguably) and ventilator's plugin lets you export straight from blender.

learn to write your own shaders. you don't have to be a pro at it, but if you have a basic understanding then you can easily implement shaders that other users contribute all over the forum without having to ask the question "can you show me how to put this in my game?"
there's a good shader workshop on the download page. you'll have enough of an understanding within a couple of hrs (at most, i reckon).

julz

ummm dare i say you lost touch with reality the last 2 days?

@penut: what do you think? does a $0.2k-$0.8k tool prvide the same quality as an engine priced at (rumored) $700k? (figures based on devmaster.net)

BTW, unreal engine 2 runtime: $7.9k (http://www.unrealtechnology.com/development-kit.php?ref=order), the whole suite is rmored to be at $350k (devmaster figures)

I am wondering why anybody is replying to this topic. The question asked is somehow like "Is an apple close to a handkerchief?".

It can do just about anything that engine can do; however the Unreal 3 engine is most likely faster and more optimized. The cost of one [quality] engine vs. another isn't how to determine whether something is good or not, but like I said Unreal is going to be faster; thus the cost difference most likely.

penut, if you buy a7 and expect a slower u3 engine, i promise, you will be very, very disappointed. think more of a quake2 experience with neat features and shader plus terrain support, and you will be glad you got it.

i'm sure you can understand if i feel the same about you

an important point i missed is that a7's physics probably have nothing on u3's, but besides that u3's advantages are mostly its brilliant tool-set and hence optimised workflow.

but to compare a7 with quake2 is just looking for an argument. its visual capabilities are far beyond what you think, and i see tons of ps3 and xbox360 games that look ridiculously good thanks only to good art and some nice (but fairly simple) shaders that can fairly straight-forwardly be done in a7.

for most people the tool-set is the biggest selling point for an engine-package, and a7's is not on par with most other engine-packages. but the engine itself (which was the original question, hence joey's brief clarification) is on par with modern standards (though this is subjective, depending on your priorities).

julz