|
|
|
1 registered members (AndrewAMD),
642
guests, and 3
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Better than Cryengine2 and Unreal Engine 3
[Re: Toast]
#126669
02/23/08 19:02
02/23/08 19:02
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,364
Minbar
MaxF
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,364
Minbar
|
Was just going to post that(Intel) - lol This engine is like the best  What do you think the fees are for this engine?
|
|
|
Re: Better than Cryengine2 and Unreal Engine 3
[Re: MaxF]
#126670
02/23/08 22:26
02/23/08 22:26
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,093
Germany
Toast
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,093
Germany
|
Quote:
What do you think the fees are for this engine?
Well there were some indications on which regions we are talking about and well - "a lot" says it all...
If Intel decides to put even more manpower in this it'll get even worse... 
Enjoy your meal
Toast
|
|
|
Re: Better than Cryengine2 and Unreal Engine 3
[Re: Why_Do_I_Die]
#126674
02/27/08 00:43
02/27/08 00:43
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 508
Texas
not_me
User
|
User
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 508
Texas
|
Quote:
Conitect should really just licence all these plugins into gamestudio and integrate them with it , I mean , gamestudio should already have all this type of things included , but since it doesnt , it shuold just integrate them in there , why start from scratch when there is already all this nice third party tools done.
thats what im saying. we as the 3dgs community should really push this. try and get conitec to just liscense all or a good portion of these plugins. so effects like motion bloom and normal mapping bumpmapping grassmapping shadow mapping soft shadows etc can be almost standard. im sure this would be only for pro edition and pro price might jump up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
