12fps of fun. Can't. Wait. Hype!!

I have got 6fps who is going to win?

I get about 20-50 fps with my 2-years-old pc. But you can switch off all shaders if you want then speed doubles.

I've got a descent frame rate, but not enought , on my new Dual Core and GeForce 7600 Gt , on 1280*1024 with Vsynch and Full screen , No Depth Of Field and no Motion Blurr !


The problem with their demo, there is very few polygins , some lights , and shaders , too simple scene.
No animated characters : and that's somethings that eat lot of FPS depending
on character polygons ,animation methods etc ... No physics also ...
Well
It's far from a complete game running with panels , particles effects , AI , bigger world with grass management ,buildings , animated characters ,physics etc
... only a complete game demo can show you if the engine can handle a real next gen game !


Like you said Frank :
"This one is for serious ambitious projects looking nearly as good as a movie. You need good artworks, a team and can build a game for modern hardware"

But this is hobby game making , or fun , or lonewolf playing ,
it's not really big money game making here even if some pople make a lot !
The commercial serious next gen teams don't post on forums usuallay
(not enought time and only tons of work )

Nice to see this is still in development. If it turns out good without too many bugs, it'll probably be a good alternative to many indie developers. I don't think the price is too expensive if it offers a decent workflow alongside it's features.

runs at about 60-150 fps for me, no problems at all..

This looks like a standard shader 2.0 or 3.0 engine, nothing really remarkable.. lots of standard effects like shadow maps, projected texture, volume fog, steep parrallax, etc. Comparable to Unreal 3, etc..nothing new..

Its still a far cry from "photo realistic" (whatever that really means)..

It sure has a good toolset, and that's what Im willing to pay for.

It has a very nice physics engine.

The Demo itself looks rather impressive , I do agree with the fact that it's a rather simple level , but the rendering is very good and very detailed, however I only get 1-2 fps on it with my comp : \ , though this is an older system , and I'm sure if I ran the Unreal 3 engine on here it would go just as slow if it runs at all. Their pricing system is very fair and affordable , $1500 upfront with $3500 after once/if you get funding is actually an incredible deal for such a piece of technology (remember UE3 is around $750,000). All in all it looks really good , but due to my lack of an up to date system I cant really appropriately comment on it's performance other than it's gfx which are undoubtedly outstanding accompanied by a rather impressive feature engine feature list. I'm definately keeping this engine in mind for future projects.

I love the through-the-window effect... WOW...!

Here I have to agree with Frank, the engine really is a wow. The tech demos purpose is not to show a full functional game, it has to focus on the TECHNOLOGY. (though as TheExpert said, the demo left us without animations and physics in general, but I think the developers decided to focus on graphics this time...)

And Matt, you know yourself much better than most of the people on this forum that photo realistic material is a matter of art with engines like this. What the engine "looks like" is a matter of art as well. You can't expect photon mapped fairies from every engine...