You need GF4+ to play with good frame rates and real shadows.
There are still people who use GF2MX that play deathaball. I don't think they give a fuck about shadows hehe.
Hell, I don't even use shadows and I've got quite a roqin machine. Shadows don't help me kill/play deathball. Frame rates do.
Last edited by Astroboy on 10-07-2003 20:02, edited 1 time in total.
Unreal 2 has 0 map variables. Its not a multiplayer game and does little to no rendering of any other player textures. Theres a set path in all the levels and they actually have a beginning and an end (like Doom... hehe).
I can very easily make a map with character shadows and all the likings but it would need to be played at very high detail and people wouldn't want to play it because they would get 5 FPS.
Unreal 2 and UT2003 both use the SAME DAMN ENGINE to create the game FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME. Everything possible in U2 is possible in UT2K3. Period.
melvin (right?)...just port DB-Cube or whatever u want to unreal 2 and it will look as it looks in ut 2003, nothing better. And who the fuck cares about shadows in a multiplayer game? Splinter Cell would suck without those shadows...but there is now need for them in deathball. Most ppl don't give a fuck at graphics in deathball anyway, so stfu, theres no need for db in u2.
btw first time i agree with you surge
MelvinB wrote:
Man, the U2-engine is much more better then the one of UT2003.
Did you see the model/player-shadows in Unreal2? The shadows will be cast also on walls and stuff, it depends on the lightning.
If you ever played Unreal2, you know what i'm talking about.
I don't talk about about Projectors, i'm talking about he player-shadows and the Static Mesh-shadows.
Take a look a this pic and you see the shadow of the models will be cast everytime on a different way. On the pic, the lightsource is outside the ''pipe'' (sunlight) and the shadow of the models will be cast inside the pipe:
ut2003 uses the newest version of the 2nd generation unreal engine. u1 and UT used 1st generation. U2 uses second generation also, but a slightly older version.
you can do more in ut2003 than you can in U2. the graphics all use the same techniques. the only thing that could possibly make U2 look better are the higher polygon counts and the complex shaders used on most of the models.
however, i think ut2003 looks much better artistically and also offers much better FPS.
the shadows in ut2003 and u2 are exactly the same.
And BTW Dave, I always find it humorous how you insult the level design in UT2003 and Unreal 2, yet looking at Cube or Lowcube (especially the version where not a single texture matched up) shows how little skill you have in that department.
