Dear, Bethesda
You really need to get away from Gamebryo and the Oblivion engine.

Now I don't feel cheated or anything like that.. I enjoyed the game and I do see progression in many areas. NPCs have fingernails now, textures are getting better.. ext
This is just about the engine and mostly lighting, geometry, shadows, physics... ext

This would be great for your future games as the lighting and shadow system is horrid in Skyrim(honestly they are).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxJtdCOmyEM

physics that can handle cloth and with easy to use tools
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi2PBQ5jhro

Look no more plastic fur and hair.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKOxLTdr1wo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53Z3VHGQjE8

The probable reason why Bethesda didn't implement those technologies are probably 2

1 The world is a massive open world with lot of elements and items , if all the items used those techs then no one woudl be able to run the game , those techs coudl work best on single games with limited and predefined settings with pathways streaming in one direction predetermined andso that everything is controlled and the freedom is very limited .

2 the consolle orientation of Bethesda lately had to limit the amount of technology applicable to the game due to the need to run smooth on consolles and to give an equal visual experience on all consolles ...

you can see the left out techs for consolle port in the Game jam video , hopefully those techs could see implementation for PC .....

1) Only close items would use the full quality and it would cost about 5ms of time per frame for good lighting. It's a dynamically scalable system that can use static shadow maps for far away items. As is skyrim uses a close and far system.

2) I agree with that. They really can't handle the scale and lighting, but new systems are on the way and they will handle it.

They made lots of money on Skyrim and will continue to... They need to reinvest some in some good engine choices.

Also, content creation needs to be primary in choosing a system.. Time required to create content, so I posted ones with good tools. Tools need to have good work flow.. if doing something takes too much production time it can't be used.. tools are important, but the HW power is here and it is scalable for different systems.. Enlighten can even run on ARM(first link above).

physics
Tutorial : creating physically simulated cloth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp-2owf695Q

Not hard or time consuming to add in at all.

I mean you need to go into the ini files and manually edit them and set them as read only just to get acceptable draw distances in skyrim. This indicates that the game actively handicaps the PC version. The shadows are a mess with flickering and banding.. ext
I do like the game.. I like the formula.. I think Bethesda really does know how to make great and immersive games. I'm mainly talking about the future with new consoles coming out.

It would be nice if they could fix the shadows though... It's very distracting, like an old anologe TV with the horizontal hold off.

Now a bit of a rant.
You made lots of sales to PC gamers. I understand you sell more to console gamers, yet millions and millions of units sold to us and we got an arrow in the knee. It wasn't even LAA or compiled correctly. Good thing we get the tools to fix things up. But there are things mods can't do... like make a 64 bit executable, make a better lighting and shadow system. The whole reason to use differed shading is the ability to have better and more lighting at less of a processing cost.. yet that wasn't done. That gives you the disadvantages of both and the benefits of none.

The low res map should of at least had bushes and more detail. PC's can handle it and so much more.. Some optimization of code would of been nice rather then just having to brute force the game. It's like game developers intentionally handicap the PC version to uphold some sort of communist ideal of everybody having the same thing... well that's not how things are.. PC's are better then consoles.. hands down. You spend large amounts of resources to get games to work on consoles and PC's get ports.. multi millions isn't enough for even a few weeks of work from devs? Even basic things like remapping keys or mouse and keyboard UI's seem like to much work for developers... LAZY and you wonder why so many pirate.

How much $$$ did you get from PC gamers? You took a piss on us, really you did.. we got a console port and a DIY kit to finish the game. Don't worry some guys will fix it from his moms basemant... Just give it time.
/rant

Is the OP an Nvidia sales rep?

Seriously though, they look beatiful but would they work in an open world engine with eight or so people running around and stuff? Hopefully we'll see them in some form or another in the future.

Stuff likethat works in Red Dead Redemption engine , and it is an openworld , tough its considerably more a landscape to view rather than interact with , .... the Bethesda world instead is highly interactive altough you can't destroy anything , there is a lot of data connected to the items and so it requires a different kind of engine ...

As much fun as it would be to see a bear with a cleaned up and finished version of that fur, I'm happy with what we have.

When it takes, what, 5-6 years to release the game in the condition it was in, I'd say less laziness, more pushy money men from logistics. Hopefully the fact that awards were missed out on and negative press, as a result of rushing those poor souls who poured sweat, blood and fingertips into making the game, will teach said money men a valuable lesson - patience is a virtue.

LOL, nope not a rep.. It's just that almost all of the innovative next gen stuff is being done in CUDA... Even the next gen kinect software requires an Nvidia card to run ATM... Perhaps somebody should point that out to Microsoft seeing as they seem to be going with AMD again.
http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/dl.aspx?id=152815http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzb_RQWrt6I
It will be ported I'm sure(but it's more then a CPU can handle without scaling it back)..

Why?
Intel I7 980x = 158 SP GFLOPS
Nvidia 680 = 3090 SP GFLOPS
about 2000% faster for 50% the cost

I can think of one openCL thing using AMD.. An AI for first person shooters that doesn't have access to privileged information(can't cheat).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kme6UB4niaA


Crysis back in 2007 had some large open destructible environment absolutely stuffed with objects and foliage. I mean the graphics aren't the primary focus for a game like skyrim, but they do need to advance a bit more. The dynamic data structures are really a different thing.. there can be partial loading for distant objects using something like a hierarchical object structure... I haven't played around with dynamic data structures since I was a teen, so I'm no expert to say the least.. I did however enjoy the challenge of doing it in turbo pascal.. quite a challenge in getting around it's restrictions.
It can be done and with a good flow by prioritizing loading based on distance and importance of data. No need to get into slow random reads from the drive if you save in layers.
Skyrim uses a low detail map for this(way too low detail IMO) It would be nice if the detail could be adjusted on that... add bushes
Tessellation will be great for large environments as scaling is smooth without all of the popping of LOD.


I'm recommending things for later games..
Like fur and hair in the next Elder Scrolls VI
Better Lighting, tessellation.. ext, for fallout 4.

The only think I really think should be fixed is the banding, odd gradients, and flickering in the shadows.. It's really horrid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=RJnN70r1Gic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUpgO8MpVE8

Fixing that and using this per pixel shading will be good enough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uG-s9cuPPM

i'm thinking you would have to have somekind of super computer to run all of that even for the size of skyrim and all it's objects, impossible! no way gaming computers could handel that on a massive scale and i'm sure we know consoles can't handle it... would be nice, but impossible.

Things lookin' flashy is nice, but I think there's some more pragmatic gameplay issues that really shouldn't be happening. Like the way spells and arrows hit the enviroment when oit looks like you're clear. On countless occasions I've tried to cast a spell from a hidden position over a rail, and it hits the rail when visually your hand is well clear. You have to be practically sitting on top of the rail for it to clear. It was the same in Fallout when you were aiming visually clear of whatever you were hiding behind, but you'd fire and hit the object you were hiding behind.

You guys seem to really overblow the size of skyrim and what goes on in it. it is no less static than its predecessors to be honest, and before you bear your fangs I mean in the sense of function, NPC's don't do anything when you aren't there, nothing happens if you aren't there. Movement happens through teleportation via cells or Door ways. and beyond movement and positions there really isn't anything intricate needing to keep track of interms of what the World is doing. all a limitation of the Gambryo, thankfully (hopefully) this is the last TES iteration that uses anything related to Gamebyro, and Beth brings out the beating sticks for the next installment.


With hope, and I can't wait. oh and that DLC..mmmh that DLC, just saying.

THIS!
If Bethesda adds all of that then AMD users would be left out. Also I think the current engine is fine they just need to fix the bugs. I hope Bethesda focuses more on important things such as gameplay and less on graphics in the future.

Stop living in the past.

It's not Nividia's fault that they focus on things other then just graphics.. It's AMD's fault.
Nvidia built a community and supported that community with CUDA.
You'd think with how bad Intel has beaten AMD in CPU power that they'd be more interested in something with 20x the performance at 50% the cost and be all over it. Intel is already working on knights cross..


Hey I would like to have better physics and gameplay, yet I can't because of AMD?
Nvidia opened up CUDA. Nvidia said publicly that it will work with AMD on CUDA-accelerated PhysX, so what is the excuse for AMD?
AMD announced GPU accelerated physics in 2009... Is it ready yet?
Hey AMD fans go mod your drivers. LOL

But really
The 7000 series has the power to do this... look at its compute benchmarks. AMD's problem is software... lazy programmers, that Nvidia knows how to spoil with help and easy to use tools and high level support.

Hopefully AMD gets their act together and puts GCN in APU's and has a good solution to get code running on it.. complier Directives are being used with openMP and openACC... some sort of smart execution would be helpful.
I hope this isn't a hollow promise
http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Will-Have-Full-CPU-and-GPU-Fusion-in-2014-250416.shtml

I'd like to hear more about the free lunch, but I think this would lower that 20X boost down to 2X and if they can do it at all.
Is AMD willing to compete or just more hollow promises? I don't see how you get around teaching, and supporting a forum where people share their work and can help with issues. Well hackers seem to like the challenge of doing GPGPU with AMD. Bitcoin, WPA brute force attacks and such.

PS:
You wouldn't want real hair and fur that blows in the wind rather then plastic with hair lines painted on?

I thought they have said they are going to use Gamebryo(or you may call it Creation) for at least one more game. So I guess we'll see Gamebryo again in Fallout 4( have no idea about TES:O).

Actually it's quite a bargain. One engine for one generation(console), good for Bethesda.

Can someone please point out where on the box it says "Gamebryo"?

In an interview, it was said that they have looked at other engines, but decided that their engine was best for their needs. No other engine can handle what they need at the scale they do. Which is perfectly fine. Its a system they are used to and able to control and set up how they want, and modders are accustomed to it as well. The engine has been changed a [censored] ton since fist using it with morrowind, and it may not be anywhere near crytek ot unreal, it does its job rather well.

Very Skyrim-ish:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lLimTveUE4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5be28k42nUM

The great thing is that since that tech is available now, the next Elder Scrolls game will look at least that good.
That said, Skyrim is nothing to sneeze at. But as with all things, improvements can and will be made.

You saved me some posting time. Thank you.

Except that I see no reason why the Rockstar tech couldn't work in Skyrim.

It's consoles that couldn't handle it(memory), but there will be new consoles. It's going to be a big hassle changing engines, but it needs to happen.
Gamebyro is very slow compared to what you get. It isn't a good engine at all, but they know the engine and that counts.

It's mostly the shadow and lighting that really needs work and even before new console systems come out. That isn't an entire engine, just part. Setting up good lighting takes time, but can be done without a big hit using deferred shading as you can use more lights.. Having walls reflect light would lower the time it takes to light a dark area. Bethesda needs to think about the time it takes to make content more then others. They could do a simple trick before they go with a new engine and reflect light back at the light source and calculate global lighting from that.
horizontal surfaces and your shadows have some huge issues.. perhaps a high res shadow map for them or a generic self shadow, if the angle is above a threshold?


skyrim doesn't load the entire world... It loads a very low detail map.. the one you see when you bring up the map view.. you can do a mod to free the camera and see what it is loading up.. it then loads up the part of world you are in.

I think people imagine that the whole skyrim world is happening at once... It's not.

Changing engines is a bigger deal for Bethesda, due to the tools and the need for good tools to make lots of content. They should do a smaller game with less content to get used to a new engine, but make sure it can handle what they need it to do. It's not a small task as other games don't have as much content and don't need such attention to tools and time to create content.

The Red Dead engine couldn't keep up with the potentially thousands of items that are moved, placed, dropped, or removed from the game world. That's just one major limitation they would face in an attempt to use that game engine. It really wouldn't be possible without a total change of how these games are played.

I can't speak for the Red Dead engine, but object handling is a separate system.. It simply needs to be put into the engine and needs to work with the engine..

You vastly over estimate the task requirements.. it's a few KB of data per object, It's mostly lots of supporting code required. The only issue is consoles, as the available engines were built to max them out and getting a skyrim type game working with the red dead engine wouldn't be worth the massive cost of getting it to work on current consoles... you can't add all the supporting code without breaking them for the console, and getting them working again would cost too much for a small improvement.

New consoles are coming and it will be worth a new engine.

How much did they make on the PC version? not worth some upgrades that PC's can handle? I find that hard to believe.

I'm not going to complain too much about the Creation Engine.
I saw everything that could go wrong with the fragging Gambryo engine. I hate that game engine so much!
I'm just glad the thing works without having every bug, lag, and freeze possible.
But it's not bug free.

But yes, it is'nt the greatest.

There is some plasticky hair.

I was playing the more stylised Kingdoms Of Amalur:Reckoning, and thought, that hair looks good. Convincing. And then realised, it was because it looked diferent from the head, and it all sticks out, like real hair. Does'nt move, it's not meant to, but it looks more convincing. There's texture, it's thick, you can see how the hair is dressed.

The skyrim hair is like stuck to the head sometimes. The best hair in it is the sophisticated shoulder length style that Saadia has.
The elven loose and long style looks especially plasticky and geled. The long and braided female style, looks bad. That's stuck to the back and clips with clothes.

Those nividia graphics are awesome. If they can put them into the next Elder Scrolls game, it would be awesome.

It's not like they could'nt do it. Like they could'nt have done it for Skyrim. I played the demo for Dragons Dogma, and that has good hair. It looks like hair, and it can go down the back and it might even move a bit.
Not going to get the game, though.

If the Creation Engine can't handle things it should, then get another engine. One not related to the rubbish Gamebryo. Stop clinging onto the past and being cheap, and buy a better engine!
That's right BUY! Not make, not use a modified Gamryo, BUY!
One with absolutely zero to do with the damn Gambryo or Creation engine! One that's actually good. They can damn well learn how to use it, no excuses, everyone else has to learn new game engines.

Hell, the Gambryo made the Unreal engine in Bioshock series look good sometimes. And that makes characters look like dolls. Ugly, mutated, dolls, most of the time.

I'd wager that most people don't grasp the impossibility of loading an entire big world all at once, on any system, while maintaining any semblance of real-time performance. That's where levels of detail and streaming come in. Are you saying that the Beth engine is limited even in light of that?

It might not be on the box, but Gamebryo is referenced in Skyrim's code. The code isn't going to reference something that isn't there. Specifically it references Gamebryo Version 2.2.0.0. There's also the fact that they continue to you Gamebryo's native file format, the NetImmerse File, or NIF.

The Creation Engine didn't come out of nowhere. It's a heavily modified version of the engine they were already using. The engine they were already using was based around the Gamebryo Engine. There might not be a lot of it left, but Gamebryo is still there.

http://peter.corrosivetruths.org/2011/12/21/is-skyrims-creation-just-gamebryo/