please_REboot wrote:And? That picture seems to be worse than anything which was achieved with Crysis 1 / CE2 so far in that regard.
You have to be trolling at this point. I mean seriously.
I strongly disagree! No, rGOt's picture is not perfect (the horizon is too strong cyan, the fog colour is off and so on) but it being worse than anything made on CE2? I mean really? I could find you a screenshot of a single crappy Crysis mod to completely disprove that, but instead I'll just remind you a bit of how vanilla Crysis looked:
That doesn't look realistic at all. Desaturated and grey overall. I'm not seeing even a hint of the lush, vibrant colours seen in the majority of wallpapers and photos when you google for "tropical beach":
rGOt's beach scene is among those photos there.
This is what I'm trying to prove:
Seriously, you can stop implying that CE3 would be less capable of producing just the same quality as CE2. It's all in the artist's hands, and I can tell you as someone who's worked with Cryengine for eight years, that CE3 is by far the most feature-rich and graphically advanced of all the engine iterations, and the SB3 editor and toolset the most user-friendly of them all. What you can produce with that is completely up to you - any of the "best ever" CE2 screenshots could've been made just as well with CE3.
Now, some more tropical stuff (CE3) from me for a change...
So everyone who is disagreeing with you is automatically "trolling" or whatever ?
You must be doing it as well then?
No, of course it probably would be possibe to make an even worse picture with Crysis 1 / CE2 just as well as with Crysis 2 / CE3 . You have a point there.
But that was not what was meant.
What was meant and written was "which was achieved with Crysis 1 / CE2", not "which was failed with Crysis 1 / CE2" . So basically the better stuff that was created with it, not the worse .
You just wrote it yourself:
And that basically is just what was was asked for (or ideally even better tropical screenshots/videos/etc.) .
Because, unfortunately, that does not seem to have been done by anyone, yet.
Why don't you (and others) just don't seem (to be willing?) to understand that it is just that and not anything like "bashing" CE3 or whatever ?
Thanks for your efforts.
Really appreciated that you are posting more pictures.
Not sure if you already read what "VinoBob" commented about your pictures in the other thread?
Because what he wrote about them seems to be quite accurate:
Last edited by please_REboot on 19.06.2012, 11:08, edited 1 time in total.
So because it's not perfect it's automatically worse than ANY Cryengine 2 picture? No. There's ALWAYS room for improvement. You can find flaws in any picture, depending on who's looking at it (it's always a subjective decision).
Yes, I can say there are more gorgeous CE2 tropical pictures, but I just have no illusions about the engine having anything to do with it. If you're not saying it's because of the engine, I don't understand why you need to emphasize the engine every time you mention the screenshots? Why can't you just enjoy the tropical Cryengine pictures regardless of the engine iteration number?
Since you never tire of mentioning tropical Cryengine 2 pictures as categorically better than CE3 pictures - and don't accept the position that it actually might be very logical because CE2 has been around for several years longer, and has a host of tropical assets at hand unlike CE3 - I can't help but take it that you think the ENGINE has something to do with it.
I still maintain that yes, it has. My pictures, rGOt's pictures and VinoBob's pictures are better than some CE2 stuff. No, they're not necessarily "better" than ALL CE2 stuff. But neither are all CE2 tropical pictures better than all CE3 pictures.
What I'm saying is that the artistic choices have a far greater impact in how "good" an image is, than the engine features. Pointing out that image X is made with engine Y is entirely pointless in consequence.
At this point "better" is simply a subjective opinion, especially when we're dealing with art screenshots that aren't even attempting to replicate the same style or feeling. How you can say something's "better" than something else when both pictures look extremely good but are so different in style it's very difficult to do an objective comparison, is beyond me.
This for example:
It's one of the best tropical Cryengine images I've seen. What exactly would it require for a Cryengine 3 picture to be "better" than that? It's very hard for me to try to replicate or surpass that picture if you can't tell me exactly what it is that can be improved in order to create a "better" picture. If there aren't any clear flaws, how can a picture in different style be better or worse? This is what I mean when I'm talking about "subtle differences".
Is this picture, for example, better or worse than the above picture:
How can you even compare images that are so different in style and composition? I'm not trying to replicate the look of the above CE2 picture, I'm just trying to make a good-looking image and I think I'm doing a pretty good job. I can't really find much flaw in that one either. Both pictures are quite realistic, both are technically very good but both also have (completely different) minor flaws if you want to pick on them. In the CE2 pic the background terrain is very plain, the colour of the ocean could be better, the rocks stand out as low-res, the shadows are pitch black. In my CE3 picture the GI could be a bit less intense, the highlights are slightly overexposed in the right-hand side, and the shadows are also pitch black (and the composition is not very interesting since I didn't bother to create a proper beach scene). But that is how I want it to look like, and it's very hard (if not impossible) to decide whether it's "better" or "worse" than some other picture of completely different style and composition.
How do you decide which one is "better"? It's an entirely subjective opinion.
So again, because my pictures are subject to criticism they can never be "better" than some CE2 picture?
Let me ask you one thing. What is THE BEST Cryengine tropical picture of all time that has been created? Since you're so good at deciding when an image is "better" than some other image, you should be easily able to select the one picture that's clearly superior to everything else in existence.
Which one is it?
Its all about lighting and shaders.
Since i found that you've made those cool looking CE3 beach shots, i think many people will ask you to make some guide of step by step console/tod changes for preparing something analogic or exactly the same like those mega palmy scenes. Surely if you wish to do it. What do u think about it?
No, it simply doesn't seem to be up to what was achieved with Crysis 1 / CE2 in that (tropical) regard so far. By far actually.
Actually, it looks "cheap" in comparison.
Because, so far, none of you seems to have been able to do tropical scenes in Crysis 2 / CE3 as good as what was achieved in Crysis 1 / CE2?
Because, so far, they are all clearly worse compared to what was shown with the older engine in that regard?
That seems to be such an invalid and illogical argument that you and some others have come up for several times now. Because, if you would just look at the:
for example, you would see, that there were pictures posted within one to maybe two years after users got their hand on Crysis 1 / CE2 which easily seem to surpass everything that has been posted in that tropical regard in the Crysis 2 / CE3 forum here so far.
It maybe have been even earlier than that, maybe even as early as 2007 or 2008.
And it definately did not took:
as "Ultimarage" seems to have suggested for example .
You really want to use that as an excuse now and actually want to suggest now that you guys are not trying to do as good tropical scenes as you can but instead rather try to do your own "style" and "art"?
It's not difficult. If something looks worse than something else, then it it looks worse? What's difficult about that?[
Difficult? Not really.
It would not necessarily have to be better or exactly the same as that, as mentioned several times now already. If it would make just an as good impression (which it does not seem to do, yet) that would at least be a "start".
It seems to be clearly worse. Without wanting to insult you.
But you knew that yourself already, didn't you?
No. But why writing your own comment, if what "VinoBob" commented already seems to be quite accurate?
And by the way, what "iniside" just commented about your pictures in the other thread seems to be quite accurate as well:
You don't seem to understand, do you?
There seem to be so many pictures of tropical Crysis 1 / CE2 scenes out there which easily surpass what was posted in that (tropical) regard in the Crysis 2 / CE3 forum here, that it almost seems to be irrelevant to name one single picture.
You always seem to demant a "technical" explanation for it, but what "andrey_filantrop" wrote in the other thread, might be appropriate when dealing with that question:
Last edited by please_REboot on 19.06.2012, 12:10, edited 2 times in total.
But that's a completely subjective opinion; in my opinion rGOt captured the tropical, vibrant feel very nicely. That's what he was aiming for. Just because you don't like it (or prefer the CE2 pictures) doesn't mean he has failed.
It's very hard to satisfy you when I'm trying to make better pictures, succeeding in my own opinion, being happy with how the pictures look, but you still don't like them. What do you want me to do then? The way I see it, yes I have in fact surpassed the CE2 pictures. My tropical scenes look exactly like I want them to, better and more realistic than most of the CE2 pictures shown. It's not "clear" to me at all that the CE2 pictures would be better. They're not. If I thought they were, I could easily change the look of my pictures, but I feel I've already surpassed them
What more can I do? It's not my fault that you still prefer different pictures.
No. It's not that way to me at all. The CE2 pictures do not "easily surpass everything". I simply disagree on that subject.
I'm trying as hard as I can. You still haven't given me any reasons why you think the CE2 pictures look better, so it's very hard for me to improve on them. Because personally I think I already have achieved a more realistic look than most of the CE2 pictures here.
To me different things look "worse" than to you apparently. I'm not impressed at all by these pictures for example:
To me it's clear that my pictures are better. By far. The pictures should speak for themselves, no?
Why is it worse? Because to me it's not. No, that's not clear at all. Can't you understand it's genuinely all about personal preference, once you reach a certain quality?
The CE2 pictures are not without their flaws either. Definitely not. None of them are perfect and all of them have similar flaws with exposure, highlights, sky colour etc etc. They can always be improved.
Actually I don't agree with that at all, my picture looks very realistic when compared to my references. That's the look I was aiming for.
So now you accept that it's personal preference and the artist's creativity that dictates the look of a picture? Why mention the engine at all then?
HDR, tone mapping, gamma correction, reflection/speculars amount and also some other things like ambient ground color, GI, SSDO, eye adoptation blablabla and etc. A lil bit of simplification: there is two available settings in CE3: «too much» and «not enough». Its hard to find right settings for everything. You should check HP DVDs and you`ll see what i mean.
To my knowledge CE2 doesn't even have GI, SSDO or ambient ground colour so I don't really understand what you're trying to say... If you mean those are qualities that make CE3 pictures worse, for your information you can disable all those things if you don't like them. You can even disable sRGB textures that take use of linear lighting, and use the old tone mapping instead of the new one. You can't do that the other way around: it's not possible to enable GI, SSDO, linear lighting and filmic tone mapping in CE2.
Clearly you just plain don't know how to use the features. I explained on the previous page how it was painful for me to move back to CE2 for a while, and how it was much more intuitive and easy to get the desired result on CE3.
Just read the comments from "VinoBob" and "iniside" for example, again, they seem to be quite accurate already.
That somehow seems to sound so baffling and ridiculous.
Again, that somehow seems to sound so baffling and ridiculous.
Just yesterday went through about the first 100 pages again of the:
just for the "kicks" and it was amazing how many much better tropical pictures were posted in those first 100 pages for example already, compared to anything which was posted in that tropical regard in the Crysis 2 / CE3 section of the forum here so far.
Maybe you should go through at least those first 100 pages (or maybe even more if you want to) of that thread again yourself and maybe then you will understand and agree?
Again, for the third or fourth time or whatever now:
Just read the comments from "VinoBob" and "iniside" for example, again, they seem to be quite accurate already.
Again, that seems to sound very baffling and ridiculous somehow.
That however does not seem to sound too baffling or ridiculous .
But: who has the better taste ?
Maybe you really should go through at least the first 100 pages (or maybe even more if you want to) of the:
before discussing any further, don't you think?
Will you do it?
That's the "problem". You and others, so far, do not seem to have reached that certain quality in the tropical regard for example.
Yes and no. "Personal preference" or "artists creativity" or whatever might be okay as long as you reach a certain quality. But you and others, so far, do not seem to have reached that certain quality in that tropical regard for example with Crysis 2 / CE3 (again, without wanting to insult you).
Therefore it seems to be almost inevitable to mention Crysis 1 / CE2 in this discussion.
And what's so bad about it? It's nobodys fault that you (and others) seem to treat comparing Crysis 1 / CE2 with Crysis 2 / CE3 equally as "bashing" Crysis 2 / CE3?
And: what this sentence actually was about were "technical terms". Sometimes it seems it somehow can be hard to describe everything with "technical terms". But you always seem to demand "technical terms" only in such a discussion.
That's what it actually was meant to be about.
This is what i`m trying to say. And without those feature we got almost CryEngine 2
And HP from Crytek also «dont know» how to use those features By the way i`m always using custom cube maps, but i cant do that with CryENGINE® 3 cuz now we dont have relfect amount slider and my custom cm looks horrible. When i`m using CryTIFF plugin - my CM looks even more horrible, but with CryENGINE® 2 everything is perfect! It means when i`m working with CryENGINE® 3 i cant achieve the same effect that i can achieve with CryENGINE® 2 because there is no reflect amount control. They should add 3 more shader params: Reflect Amount, Fresnel Scale and Fresnel Bias for Environment maps/Cube maps/Reflections (like in CE2).