Call of Duty Modern Warfare will feature a new engine, will support DirectX Ray Tracing

Yesterday, Activision and Infinity Ward revealed the next part in their Call of Duty series, Call of Duty Modern Warfare. According to Activision, Call of Duty Modern Warfare will feature a new engine that aims to deliver an immersive and photo-realistic experience. Not only that, but NVIDIA has confirmed that the game will be using real-time ray tracing effects on the PC.

The new engine in Call of Duty Modern Warfare will feature the latest advancements in visual engineering, including a physically-based material system allowing for state-of-the-art photogrammetry, a new hybrid tile based streaming system, new PBR decal rendering system, world volumetric lighting, 4K HDR, DirectX Raytracing (PC) and more, as well as a new GPU geometry pipeline.

Spectral rendering promises to deliver thermal heat radiation and infrared identification for both thermal and night-vision in-game imaging. Furthermore, the game will sport a cutting-edge animation system and blend shape system, as well as full Dolby ATMOS support, on supported platforms, along with the latest in audio simulation effects.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is currently planned for an October 25th release!

47 thoughts on “Call of Duty Modern Warfare will feature a new engine, will support DirectX Ray Tracing”

  1. Excellent news. The earlier devs experiment with ray tracing in actual shipping games, the better.
    Leveraging ray tracing for sound is great to see.

      1. HDR was first supported way back when Valve released the source engine.

        DXR is the only modern feature they touted.

        1. Right. But HDR now is even simpler than HDR then since they needed to convert the HDR data to LDR so they could show it on displays of those days.

          HDR now has either no conversion or little conversion.

          1. Even so, it’s still a new feature. HDR10 wide color gamut rendering is a good thing. It’s odd that you found it amusing when they said their engine is new and there are already two big features that are new. Did you expect them to add something that’s never been done before?

          2. HDR10 is NOT a big feature. However, you’re correct. It’s definitely a good thing.
            DXR is an industry standard with an established API. They didn’t exactly have to do much to get into their engine.

            As for expectations, yeah, I did expect them to add new features that aren’t common in the industry. Especially since the studios behind COD frequently show up at SIGGRAPH with innovative techniques and ideas, so I was disappointed that they weren’t mentioned as features being implemented into an actual game.

          3. I would’ve expected more new features if they only targeted the PC platform or PC plus next-gen consoles. They still have to work within the limitations of hardware that came out in 2013. Any new feature no matter how small is a good thing. They could’ve used the same engine as previous CoD games so it’s nice that they’re at least moving forward. From what I saw in the trailer, it looked pretty good.

          4. I think you misunderstood my OP.

            I’m NOT saying that it’s a bad thing that they moved the engine forward and added new features. Improvements are definitely always good. I’m just saying they set the bar low.

            And yeah they could’ve stuck to the same engine as previous titles but that would, again, be setting the bar low.

            Also, just because an engine has advanced features doesn’t mean they have to be enabled on all hardware. It’s perfectly possible for the devs to simply disable high end features on older hardware (i.e. last gen consoles)

      2. Luminous is like 15 years old and has all these feautres i.e actual raytracing, not Nvidia’s casual eye candy marketing term garbage verion so soyboys can act like raytracing is new. Fox Engine had raytracing in like 2014.

  2. So everything looks better… that’s it? At least put in some small to mid scale destruction or something to make the matches dynamic.

    1. Given their focus on 60 fps, that’s not realistic this gen. Once we get some Ryzen CPUs in the next consoles, it’s on then.
      But for now, the consoles can’t even ride that 60 fps line without destruction, so no one gets it.
      The engine fully supports it though.

      1. They’ve been doing 60fps since Advanced Warfare my guy. That same engine has only improved since then.

        You’re telling me Large Scale game like BF can keep a stable 50-60 with all that destruction and physics (Which takes CPU power) and an incredibly small scale arcade game like CoD can’t handle some small to mid level destruction with that SAME CPU BF is using?

        You’re actually trolling right?

        1. Targeting 60 and failing the entire way.
          There’s never been a locked 60 fps COD game. Watch some Digital Foundry videos. Their framerates are all over the place.
          BF is a good example of an engineering marvel. They’re, as far as I can think, the only company that is able to do it (and even the they still get NOWHERE near a locked 60 fps. Drops into the 30’s possible and averages fall in the high 40’s to low 50’s most of the time.
          So yes, my example holds true. It’s not a stable 60, not even close, and it is the most impressive example out there.

          1. llol no they aren’t. Battlefield has literally never, not even 1942, run at a solid 60 fps. You even said it yourself.

      2. They all run far from 60 fps. Sure, they can hit 60 fps when nothing is going on, but generally they’re below that number. Just go check out some Digital Foundry videos on it. The numbers don’t lie.

  3. Looks like recycled trash, all the same scenes/set pieces from the original but with CoD points and supply drops! Where do I sign up?

  4. Funny how ESA partnered companies spewed PR lies that monetization is required to make just the little IP-themed, empty shell, microtransaction-riddled trash they’ve been releasing all gen then suddenly as Activision stocks dropped they can crap out what appears to be a decent, full COD to reignite the brand. Just the bare minimum until they have to do more like DMV workers. Smmfh…

    We’ll see though. I dont trust any of the ESA partnered execs and shareholders, so I am waiting for the catch. There’s always a catch with ESA companies.

  5. For many years CoD games were said to have used elements of Quake III Arena’s id Tech 3 engine. Now, so soon after Quake with RT was revealed, we’re assured that CoD with RT uses a new engine. Coincidence, much!

    1. To be fair, that would’ve been fine, given ID tech 3 was optimized. Everything after BLOPS2 was a mess of an engine.

  6. First of all, none of that is new.

    Physically based materials, photogrammetry, ray traced rendering and tile based streaming have all been around for over a decade. Bravo, Activision slightly changed it and called it hybrid. Ray tracing, photogrammetry, physically based materials for almost 2 decades. Even in gaming most of these features have been around for a few years so they aren’t even new to gaming.

    Second, who f*cking gives a motherf*ck?

    It’s call of duty. No one. That’s who.

    1. Bro. They never said that technology is new. It’s that COD is finally using a new engine from there previous titles. Learn to read.

  7. This trailer is so stupid. Soap is smokng a cigar. Special Ops super highly trained troops, on a stealth mission, in the dark, in a forest.

    Smoking a cigar. Literally any guard paying attention would have seen it.

    What was that about realism?

    1. Of all the r-tarded ZOG propaganda proping up terrorist white helmets as the good guys, introducing black shemales to your squad and much more, you take issue with a friggin cigar?

  8. It looks good but they really need to stop running from the old engine thing. “New engine” shouldn’t be a positive. They should embrace the legacy and say, we go all the way back to 90s arena shooters and that’s a good thing. Then brag about all the new FEATURES they added to the engine. “New engine” would only be true if they rewrote it from scratch which they will never do and why would they? If the foundation Carmack wrote in the 90s is solid why switch it out for something else? No point in reinventing the wheel.

  9. This thing just stinks of disgusting monetization. When things “sound” good from these garbage pubs, it’s because they are NOT good. Keep your distance.

  10. Awesome. Tied to online servers, when I mostly want it for the campaign, giving it an expiration date. No, thanks.

      1. MW3 looks exactly like the other COD games from that generation. What major change did it supposedly make? The only big visual step up was AW. Since AW there’s barely any improvement again, perhaps even decline as I personally find AW more pleasant to look at than the newer ones.

  11. Both Black Ops 3 and Black Ops 4 have overpowered guns in paid loot boxes
    So yes, it’s pay to win

      1. What if I buy the game late? What if I don’t have enough time to grind a time limited battlepass?
        Then I have to rely on paid lootboxes with a super low chance of getting a weapon
        They are selling weapons in lootboxes, thats what p2w means

        1. “Reserves: Blackjack’s got new weapons and summer threads: the S6 Stingray (tactical rifle), the Peacekeeper (assault rifle), the Locus (sniper rifle), the Ballistic Knife Karambit, ‘Privateer’ Nomad (outfit) and ‘Koi’ Recon (outfit)”

          Today’s Activision blog

  12. Just read someplace else this is getting microtransactions “sometime after release” – as we all predicted because Activision. Can’t just release a full game at a flat price. Have to get that monetizing in there someway.

    ESA partners are slime and now this is another COD I’ll be skipping. I think I’ll live.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *