I have a few requests that I would like to see implemented in the new graphics engine. Yes FFXIV is looks better than any MMO, but there are some current graphics techniques that could improve the longevity of its beauty. I also state this because the PS3 version will be coming out in 2013 and if it is anything like what happened to FFXI then it will be ported to newer consoles that will support these advanced techniques. While current DX11 cards now support these advance rendering techniques.
I will point out I really enjoy how they handle - Bloom, HDR and AO (not sure if they use SSAO or HBAO I think it is HBAO)
These are in order of priority and likely hood that they could be implemented.
Current Generation Tech:
- Casscade shadowmaps - I really want to see the trees pants and buildings casting shadows. It would make the world seem less flat.
- Volumetric light Shafts - This was shown in early FFXIV trailers and is in FFXIII
Next Gen Tech: - DX11 card currently support these techniques
- Tessellation - The game is very low poly when it come to the environment. If they added tessellation then it would smooth out the hard edges on the world and give better silhouettes. Before the game was release SE mentioned they were very interested in getting this technology into FFXIV.
- Real-time Reflections - LL looks like it is floating at times because there are no reflections to anchor it visually in place. The white surf sort of does that but it is too small. Plus real-time reflections would look really nice when the player is running through a stream in Gridania or when fishing in Cortheas
- Subsurface Scattering - this is somewhat faked with rim lighting currently
FFXIV 2.0 Graphics Engine Requests
Printable View
-
10-20-2011, 04:56 AMKerathFFXIV 2.0 Graphics Engine Requests
-
10-20-2011, 05:20 AMDoctorMog
Your like button is currently in need of repair.
-
10-20-2011, 05:27 AMSilvertearRenYou do know that Ambient Occlusion is in XIV yeah? Except for one thing: It runs horribly. Very unoptimized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerath
-
10-20-2011, 06:20 AMFer
Please developers, don't forget Anti-aliasing...
-
10-20-2011, 06:29 AMSilvertearRenWith 1080p, I really do not need antialiasing... XDQuote:
Originally Posted by Fer
-
10-20-2011, 06:49 AMKerath
"I will point out I really enjoy how they handle - Bloom, HDR and AO"
Yes I pointed it out that it looks nice in game and yes I realized it is a beast to run. That is why I think they are doing HBAO instead of SSAO. HBAO is not cheap to render but it looks much nicer than SSAO. -
10-20-2011, 02:37 PMIlean
DX10 as a minimum >.>
Optimized SSAO
Lots of shadows >.> -
10-22-2011, 01:21 PMFer
Don't forget Vertical Synchronization!
-
10-22-2011, 01:38 PMMishakai
Just make *every* option available via my video card drivers adjustable in game, without a config program that I have to exit the game to use.
-
12-21-2011, 12:16 PMkaosdx 11
Everything DX 11 has to offer.
-
12-21-2011, 12:29 PMkaos
Do some physX stuff, like when it rains have all the leaves move as if there were being hit by rain drops. Just to give an idea. Or when you step in water have it splash as it would really look if you did it. Not sure if any of that is possible but i would like to see a little more of what the physX could do.
-
12-21-2011, 12:30 PMnasomi
tessellation sounds dirty ^.~
-
12-21-2011, 01:14 PMindira
they really need to use the unreal engine again that has everything they need and then some, there people already should know how to use it since they used it before.
runs fine on my pc.Quote:
You do know that Ambient Occlusion is in XIV yeah? Except for one thing: It runs horribly. Very unoptimized.
-
12-21-2011, 07:51 PMMariyaShidou
There won't be any DX 11.0 when 2.0 first come out, you know, just like SW:TOR. And I don't really care whatever engine they decide to use, just one that is reasonably optimised and looks decent. Skyrim used a pretty old and open source one that they do some modification, and it's do its job well to sell 7m copies.
-
12-22-2011, 10:27 AMIlean
Include a benchmark you can run from graphics option menu, it should contain 2-3 stages such as, town simulation, raid simulation, large scale pvp simulation (yeah right!) and deliver separate profiling reports for each scenario and for each of the main rendering stages, so we know that for example, physics calculations are taking 35% average of total rendering time when in a and adjust the configuration accordingly.
Abolish the retarded "PS3 limitations" mentality when it comes to graphics, GUI, etc. As long as gameplay stays untouched there is nothing wrong with both clients having reasonable differences.
Awesome GPU based physics engine (DirectCompute?) and awesome particle effects to go with it, for those with GPUs that support it.
Every graphics related option configurable, and not just on/off. GODDAMIT I want to control my aniso filtering from the game's control panel.
Scale decently over at least 3 cores. -
12-22-2011, 10:40 AMNarikoStarI would love to see this as well- but with how big this area is (granted LL is getting a style change in 2.0) and playing with real-time reflections myself in a few different engines ;x ugh this seems a bit un-realistic for the PS3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerath
-Currently looks as if their using a strait HDR image to simulate their reflections of some city (LL waters and grid waters currently use same reflection in certain areas)-
But yeah agree'd I would like for them to re-adrress their water reflections in this game even if they can't go realtime simulation. -
12-22-2011, 11:46 AMKitCatNot everyone's running 3k$ SLI rigs with current gen graphics cards that are powerful enough to run even on a terrible optimised implementation of ambient occlusionQuote:
Originally Posted by indira
>_> I can get around 40-60 fps consistently on an older rig, that can still manage to max crysis at 1920x1200, and ambient occlusion makes that 5 fps lol :/
Anyone, i agree with almost everything else in the post, and hopefully by then ill have a new pc built. -
12-22-2011, 11:55 AMKamikazeMan
They already mentioned that DX11 support might come out after 2.0. I guess it's not on top of their list of things to get done.
-
12-22-2011, 03:05 PMIlean
Witcher 2 is a DX9 game and its visually astonishing.
DX10-11 can wait. -
12-22-2011, 03:11 PMLeyza
One more thing that would be nice is shadows on everything, with more customization for the graphics so that people can find that sweet spot for their computer.
And a fix for Ambient Occlusion Multisampling 16qsaa (I think that's what it's called.). My computer runs Rift just fine with Ambient Occlusion on, but Final Fantasy XIV's ambient occlusion kills it. :(
I've also run Multisampling on what Final Fantasy XIV maxes out on better than what Final Fantasy XIV does. >.< -
12-25-2011, 02:13 AMLaraul
Oh for GODs sakes people you have no idea what you are talking about. The game runs the same Engine as FFXIII, and FFXIII uses AO, DOF, etc. AO works in FFXIV... just lower the General Display Quality to six or so for a constant frame rate.
D3D11 support would provide a possible boost to performance, since it has native support for multi-processor rendering as well as performing multiple operations before invoking kernel mode.
Problem is D3D is a Microsoft API... not available for the PS3. Of course the above stated issues aren't a problem on the PS3. -
12-25-2011, 02:46 AMGramul
Not exactly sure that's something you can make requests for.
I'm pretty certain the replacement for the copy paste friendly Crystal Tools engine has already been constructed and now they're just working on the content and switching the engines.
Let's just hope Luminous does the job well. -
12-25-2011, 03:21 AMJynx
I'm a bit disheartened when they said that DX11 woud not be available from the get-go in 2.0 hopefully they get on top of it as quickly as possible though.
-
12-25-2011, 03:33 AMPrettyPrincess
at least we'll be getting dx11 so I wont complain.
-
12-25-2011, 03:48 AMIleanThey already said it's not Luminous but being built from the ground up (with people who also work on Luminous) and reusing good parts from other engines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gramul
-
12-25-2011, 04:21 AMLaraul
You people are just setting yourself up for disappointing. The current engine needs some tweaking for the PC perhaps. But the engine for the most part is fine. Also, remember that SE is a first and for most a console developer. That is their primary platforms of expertise. Expect any engine to target that platform first.
When FFXIV was first unveiled and people saw the the Crystal Tools engine running on a PC, they expected it to be built for the PC. It was not. In any case by the time 2.0 comes out PC graphic hardware will be better suited to handle the game. This is what happened with FFXI.
I really think SE should focus on what it knows best. -
12-25-2011, 05:00 AMIleanCurrent engine is fine for 5 years ago. It's crap by current engine standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laraul
-
12-25-2011, 05:02 AMGramulOh good! Glad to hear it's going to be tailor made to the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilean
You wouldn't happen to have a link to the info would you?
NEVER SAY THAT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laraul
It gives them an excuse. -
12-25-2011, 05:05 AMIleanhttp://ffxiv.gamerescape.com/2011/10...-is-out-there/Quote:
Originally Posted by Gramul
-
12-25-2011, 06:22 AMLaraulWhat? The Crystal Tools engine? It's two years old!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilean
How about we wait and see what happens... -
12-25-2011, 06:41 AMGramulMany thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilean
-
12-25-2011, 06:49 AMIleanIt was outdated from the day they started working on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laraul
Watch this video and compare what they can do for environments, lighting against what we have now in 14.
Seriously, have you noticed how almos nothing casts shadows and how lamps aren't real light sources? That's was pathetic even several years ago.
Edit: By the way, those awesome looking forest/jungle environments in Crysis, my PC runs those better than this flat game, so it's not a matter of hardware.
My pleasure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gramul
-
12-25-2011, 07:58 AMRanara
This game doesn't look bad or anything, for the most part it looks pretty good. But I think that's mainly down to having nice art and texture work. But there is no way this game is doing anything that special technically, and considering that the game doesn't even run that great the engine is a bit of a joke really.
The shadows are only on players, and just go off in a random direction they aren't based of the light source position as far as I can tell.
The texture draw distance is really low and is not a gradual thing at all, it just goes from high quality to low quality and is really distracting to look at.
The game can only cope with maps that are made up of copy and paste-able chunks? I don't even understand this one.
The only way to get textures to load in properly is to use a SSD, and in general the loading screens seem to take quite some time.
There is so much input lag because your waiting for the server to said you confirmation messages...
The list just goes on and on.
But there are some good things, I think all the models look great and the animations for the characters actually seem better than most other mmorpgs out there at the moment.
But I don't understand why people are defending this engine, its clearly awful (for the pc at least) and the developers have even recognized this and are remaking all of it. And personally I am very much looking forward to it :). -
12-25-2011, 08:12 AMLakefingers
Just do the environmental colour pallete appealingly so the game does not look like total trash, that is all.
-
12-25-2011, 12:59 PMLaraulYou are submitting a video of a bunch of still images of other games for comparison? 4 real? Do you actually play this game? Do you understand the difference between pre-rendered shadows and real-time shadows? How many triangles do you think make up a single player character versus a bunch of foliage?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilean
Well two can play at this game... :)
http://db.tt/wfNqSOPS
http://db.tt/Ys2WwM4a
http://db.tt/3SYgNRI0
http://db.tt/vGGDvAUc
http://db.tt/AdCLsnH2
http://db.tt/0Z6umLcv
Now what you may notice from this images is that the artistic style is VERY different from the still frames you submitted. Indeed a major difference is the texture detail...
I have Crysis, UT3, and FFXIV. And I know enough NOT to directly compare these games since each Engine is Unique and can not be compared directly.Quote:
1) If you don't like still images go find videos yourself, there are so many out there, I simply picked one where you could see cryengine and unreal engine side by side.
-
12-25-2011, 01:11 PMJennestiaLot's of people still don't seem to know what the CT is or was for -- It does what even the Unreal Engine started to introduce in recent updates (past 2 years.) It wasn't designed as a full on game Engine, it was designed as a supplementary tool more than anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laraul
-
12-25-2011, 01:29 PMIleanlolQuote:
Originally Posted by Laraul
You are just clueless.
1) If you don't like still images go find videos yourself, there are so many out there, I simply picked one where you could see cryengine and unreal engine side by side.
2) You know those still images are being rendered real time by their respective game engines. Not sure what prerendered shadows have to do with anything.
3) Just lol. Wanna go into character polycount? Because if you knew as much as you pretend to you would know that models are created at 100x the polycount and then are stripped down, normal maps generated, etc., in order to get versions that are better suited for real time rendering by the game engine. The fact that player models are high polycount says nothing about the engine, but the fact that reasonably powerful PCs choke when there are more than a few player characters on screen speaks quite bad of it.
But sure, you and lolwhiteknight go ahead and keep on defending a crappy engine with no dynamic light sources, barely any shadowing, fake water reflections, that their creators deemed just FUBAR and decided to build a new one from the ground up.
lol!