http://www.jeuxvideo.tv/crysis-video-19465.html
volumetric clouds are really good looking… and all other features :o
That video is more than a year old ???
no, just some monthes… ok, right it is old but I was impress… now you said that… i remenber seing it some time ago :-), anywys it still impress me.
more recent, same engine: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1edvs_presentation-cry-engine-2-gdc
amazing, but what hardware it needs to run smoothly?
dont know i guess a huge one…
hum their interface have lot of things taken from 3dsmax…
http://www.crytek.com/screenshots/index.php?sx=cryengine2&px=entity.jpg]http://www.crytek.com/screenshots/index.php?sx=cryengine2&px=entity.jpg
but their designer are not so bad 
[quote]hum their interface have lot of things taken from 3dsmax…
[/quote]
probably because their designers are used to a 3ds max interface, so they would learn to work with the editor very quickly
I don’t understand. I don’t see anything all that special there? The only thing that I don’t recognize as already in published games or otften being done in-dev in other games is the depth-of-field (which I’m guessing either takes top end hardware, or there’s good reason not to use it in a game (bad for gameplay?)). Go look at Armed Assault, from a relatively small team, which does many of the things featured (complex vehicle physics, etc), it’s just that it doesn’t do them particularly well and the graphics are ugly.
Bearing in mind that all the stuff in the video is relatively easy to do if you only do it for a few seconds (e.g. I saw an FPS the other day with the “breakable vegetation” feature (amongst others) that was written in 2 months by some graduates), the big question is how much of it can the engine do? For instance, how long before the vegetation starts disappearing? How many objects are visible in the long draw distance? (it looked suspiciously very empty in the distance, no trees etc, like it wasn’t actually drawing anything except big mountain-polys).
That said, I’m sure they’ve made it run very well in the game. But in a jungle shooter, most of those effects only need to last a short time.
I have great respect for the CryTek folks for their skill in choosing how to use these in content-creation to make an incredibly immersive game (farcry’s graphics engine was not groundbreaking, the ways they chose to use it were), but those videos don’t mean much technically, IMHO.
I was not so impressed by the engine itself as the level editor… seems like something you can give to designer and not programmers to make the complete world
using a 28.8 modem i wont write a lot…
what i think was impressive is the engine as well as the studio, put a road, make it planar put a tank an play,… some kind of click&play… it is a tools that enable an fps to be made in about 1 days with a good 3d library model. a cool stuf is also the time of the day in the renderer. The studio as the rendering an physic engine seems to be really “smart.”, I mean it is an excellent works.
I don’t think that the map editor is that cool… What about Warcraft’s map editor ? It’s mostly the same thing. Some time ago I saw some really impressive engine(some robot moving that was not animation based and wood that would brake in a very realistic way,not based on the same lines each time it falls down).The game was about StarWars.I’ll try to find the videos.
the tech 5 engine is really impressive too, like the way the texture editor works http://www.gametrailers.com/player/23275.html?r=1&type=wmv
Ah. That’s considered normal for any AAA title. Any studio that tries to make a game without an in-engine editor like that is going to have almost no chance of finishing their game. You expect to get some level of helper functions that do stuff like re-arrange existing geometry to fit the new geometry - although there is wide variance on quite how much / how intelligent the help fn’s aer from tool to tool.