|
|
| Page 3 of 4 |
nerrd
Posts: 3607
Location: Poland / USA
|
 Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 21:27 Post subject: |
|
 |
wickedsun. Can you prove your point with more information, besides some brief unrelated history of valve and ID?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 22:34 Post subject: |
|
|
| nerrd wrote: | | wickedsun. Can you prove your point with more information, besides some brief unrelated history of valve and ID? |
I will... to some extent.
Doom 3 was a three-pronged tool. One, it was a gauge for the general public's interest in next-gen graphics. Two, it was a tech demo that proved it could be done. Lastly, it was a cash cow to milk while Carmack is working on the next big mod, and the design team is pushing pixels to put out the next expansion for Doom 3.
Allow me to explain:
Besides FarCry, HL2, and CoREFBB, there are few games on the market that can be considered next-gen. Doom is the first to hit THIS level of realism. To prove my point here's a screen shot of what HL2 WOULD have looked like with the Doom engine:
NOTE: Mods, please don't remove this.
As you can see, the Doom engine runs laps around HL2 in terms of visual quality, while only slightly showing it's gut in terms of speed issues. The only thing the Doom engine did not make itself out to be was a gmae-long toy. You don't get to toss bits of wood around here. Was it fun? Certainly. But it's not worth sacrificing these graphics for.
My point that D3 was a techdemo is further proved by the fact that it is a pilot game. Allow me to explain:
All major licensing engines (HL1, Doom, Quake 2, Quake 3), or engines developed in part to re-distribute, are released to developers after a techdemo (i.e. a segment of live-rendered content that shows off what the engine COULD do in a game. Shortly thereafter, the developer of the engine launches, usually from it's internal studio, a pilot game - one meant at least in part to gauge the masses' reaction to the engine in the game, and see how finished the engine really is. This attracts many more customers, and makes the company even more money. The games can be good (HL1, QIII), but that does not hinder the fact that the engine was not developed to show off the game, but the game to show off the engine. Thus my claim that it is a tech demo.
Valve's engine is a whole different story. The graphics are truly dated - I've had graphics of comparable quality in some demos that came with my old GeForce FX 5200 card... Dawn, namely. Nothing te see here, as they say. The only thing they had going for them, really, was the superb design team. If they all transferred to iD, and iD would lease Havok for physics, Valve would go broke.
The only thing going there was good, scaleable performance, and Havok.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 22:57 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mutantius wrote: | | Dude a jungle themed map sure can be created in Source though not in the same scale as Cryengine... the Islands are huge with that engine... |
no shitsherlock, and who the heck wants to run around in a small jungle?
face it, limited enviorments are so 2002, game designers need to make more open games where you the player has a choice to approach things in your way, not the other way around
farcry succeded with that, to bad though that it had such a bad story and those damn boring trigens, zzz
doom3 was just a borefest, to much darkness, to crappy story, mediocre game with great textures (when you actually you could see them that is)
half life 2 was a brilliant game much thanks to its phsyics and its great design in both gfx and sound, that game too was lacking though in the story department aswell as the engine loads to damn much..
i have high hopes for the upcoming game the boiling point aka xenus, altough the gfx does not look to be top notch i have high hopes for the gameplay because it seems to be able to render out entire liviing small cities in real time, alot like gta3 except it does not streamline its content
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 23:00 Post subject: |
|
|
When in the hell did people decide to turn this into which game had better gameplay thread?
Please stick to what I created this thread for - Which engine is better, not which game is better.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mutantius
VIP Member
Posts: 18594
Location: In Elektro looking for beans
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 23:09 Post subject: |
|
|
| gunhero wrote: | | Mutantius wrote: | | Dude a jungle themed map sure can be created in Source though not in the same scale as Cryengine... the Islands are huge with that engine... |
no shitsherlock, and who the heck wants to run around in a small jungle?
face it, limited enviorments are so 2002, game designers need to make more open games where you the player has a choice to approach things in your way, not the other way around
farcry succeded with that, to bad though that it had such a bad story and those damn boring trigens, zzz
doom3 was just a borefest, to much darkness, to crappy story, mediocre game with great textures (when you actually you could see them that is)
half life 2 was a brilliant game much thanks to its phsyics and its great design in both gfx and sound, that game too was lacking though in the story department aswell as the engine loads to damn much..
i have high hopes for the upcoming game the boiling point aka xenus, altough the gfx does not look to be top notch i have high hopes for the gameplay because it seems to be able to render out entire liviing small cities in real time, alot like gta3 except it does not streamline its content |
Ever played Heart of Darkness??
"Why don't you zip it, Zipfero?" - fraich3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2005 01:25 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mchart wrote: | When in the hell did people decide to turn this into which game had better gameplay thread?
Please stick to what I created this thread for - Which engine is better, not which game is better. |
sorry mchart these kiddies only care about which game is better and not which engine is better. I have a question,do you think the physics system in Doom 3 is better than the physics system in HL2 and if so why?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2005 01:54 Post subject: |
|
|
| ReDxKiNG wrote: | | Mchart wrote: | When in the hell did people decide to turn this into which game had better gameplay thread?
Please stick to what I created this thread for - Which engine is better, not which game is better. |
sorry mchart these kiddies only care about which game is better and not which engine is better. I have a question,do you think the physics system in Doom 3 is better than the physics system in HL2 and if so why? |
Thanks for getting it back on topic. Even though it is hard to beleive, I would say the physics engine used in doom3 is better then the one source uses, which is havoc.
Now there are 2 major things to look at, how advanced the physics engine is, and how easy it is to use. For ease of use, AS OF NOW the havoc physics engine wins, so thats better for modders.
As for how advanced the doom3 physics engine is compared to havoc physics, the D3 one blows it away in my view. Instead of creating "skeletons" for all the items in havoc, so they respond accordingly, in the D3 physics engine, it is "Per-Polygon" type physics. This means that whatever you see on the models, is represented by point, on a mesh lets say. This mesh is covering the model, and so everything on the model is setup in a way, so that whatever touches it, it wont screw up.
Notice how in most games that have physics, including HL2 to some extent, the bodies arms/legs can go through the wall and what not. This is because they use the skeleton type design, which havoc uses, so they are not as detailed. In doom3 there is not one instance where you will see a model go through the level in any way, because of this mesh surrounding it.
I cant really explain it anymore then this, but I think you get the idea, basically -
Havoc - Easier for developers to use, as of now.
John Carmack Physics Engine (we will name it this, because thats all you can really call it) - A step in the right direction, more capability, more realistic.
The only reason you arent able to see why the D3 physics engine is better in D3, is just because they hardly used physics in that game. Hopefully in quake4, we will see its true power.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nerrd
Posts: 3607
Location: Poland / USA
|
| Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2005 02:47 Post subject: |
|
|
Finally this thread is getting somewhere.
Mchart. Since you are abvoiusly quite interested in this subject can you do any further digging and find some concrete numbers. As in how many light sources each engine can handle, or maximum polys in a level (if something like that exists)
So far im convinced about Dooms supperior lighting system, but thats only from judging from playing two games (HL2, Doom3).
The physics, in theory, are more advanced in doom3, but can they be implemented properly to a scale that hl2 did? with decent fps? I dont know.
But my major factor which makes me pick my favorite of the bunch, Cryengine, is the fact that its the only one that seems to able to render those hudge, detailed areas, without loading in between. I saw that outdoor screen Mchart posted in the 'other' thread, but it was really not impressive.
It would be really nice to have some hard numbers on these engines. Otherwise its kinda pointless to argue.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2005 02:52 Post subject: |
|
|
that was a tiny map, which is a problem for all id engines. with doom3, the lighting bogs down in large areas and with more than 8 lights.
but the bottom line is the doom3 engine will be playable once it is coupled with gameplay from a competent developer. Quake4 should be cool!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2005 02:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| nerrd wrote: | | wickedsun. Can you prove your point with more information, besides some brief unrelated history of valve and ID? |
I don't have to. This thread is pretty much self explanatory. Look at the video, compare.
The story I was talking about was related to the engine. It is, in fact, what drove the people to write the engines. Source is based off Carmack's VERY OLD work. Doom 3 is a more advanced engine, because there is no way that Valve could have hired a better programmer than Carmack for a 3D engine. (Or else they would have completely droped Q2's engine and wrote their own a long time ago). Just from a logical point of view, HL2 cannot be better. It can have its upsides, but overall it cannot be better.
This thread is about the engine. Everybody pointed out the good things about the engine.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2005 04:37 Post subject: |
|
|
| nerrd wrote: | Finally this thread is getting somewhere.
Mchart. Since you are abvoiusly quite interested in this subject can you do any further digging and find some concrete numbers. As in how many light sources each engine can handle, or maximum polys in a level (if something like that exists)
So far im convinced about Dooms supperior lighting system, but thats only from judging from playing two games (HL2, Doom3).
The physics, in theory, are more advanced in doom3, but can they be implemented properly to a scale that hl2 did? with decent fps? I dont know.
But my major factor which makes me pick my favorite of the bunch, Cryengine, is the fact that its the only one that seems to able to render those hudge, detailed areas, without loading in between. I saw that outdoor screen Mchart posted in the 'other' thread, but it was really not impressive.
It would be really nice to have some hard numbers on these engines. Otherwise its kinda pointless to argue. |
No idea. There used to be a site that had those numbers, but I cant find it on google. What ill do is e-mail john carmack for that info, he usually replies to questions like that in a timely manor. From what i have seen, and read first hand, Quake4 will have some pretty massive enviroments, the engine is capable of a ton of things before it slows down, but like I said, I dont know the definite number.
As for physics being effiecient, it would be more effiecient then source in that sense. Just because doom3 engine was designed hand in hand with the doom3 physics engine. Where as source was designed, then they added the havoc physics engine.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2005 06:55 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mutantius wrote: | | gunhero wrote: | | Mutantius wrote: | | Dude a jungle themed map sure can be created in Source though not in the same scale as Cryengine... the Islands are huge with that engine... |
no shitsherlock, and who the heck wants to run around in a small jungle?
face it, limited enviorments are so 2002, game designers need to make more open games where you the player has a choice to approach things in your way, not the other way around
farcry succeded with that, to bad though that it had such a bad story and those damn boring trigens, zzz
doom3 was just a borefest, to much darkness, to crappy story, mediocre game with great textures (when you actually you could see them that is)
half life 2 was a brilliant game much thanks to its phsyics and its great design in both gfx and sound, that game too was lacking though in the story department aswell as the engine loads to damn much..
i have high hopes for the upcoming game the boiling point aka xenus, altough the gfx does not look to be top notch i have high hopes for the gameplay because it seems to be able to render out entire liviing small cities in real time, alot like gta3 except it does not streamline its content |
Ever played Heart of Darkness?? |
yes i did
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2005 06:57 Post subject: |
|
|
Load up the console, and type map testmaps/test_boxstack
Not much, but its just something to play around with, with the physics.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mutantius
VIP Member
Posts: 18594
Location: In Elektro looking for beans
|
| Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2005 07:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| gunhero wrote: | | Mutantius wrote: | | gunhero wrote: | | Mutantius wrote: | | Dude a jungle themed map sure can be created in Source though not in the same scale as Cryengine... the Islands are huge with that engine... |
no shitsherlock, and who the heck wants to run around in a small jungle?
face it, limited enviorments are so 2002, game designers need to make more open games where you the player has a choice to approach things in your way, not the other way around
farcry succeded with that, to bad though that it had such a bad story and those damn boring trigens, zzz
doom3 was just a borefest, to much darkness, to crappy story, mediocre game with great textures (when you actually you could see them that is)
half life 2 was a brilliant game much thanks to its phsyics and its great design in both gfx and sound, that game too was lacking though in the story department aswell as the engine loads to damn much..
i have high hopes for the upcoming game the boiling point aka xenus, altough the gfx does not look to be top notch i have high hopes for the gameplay because it seems to be able to render out entire liviing small cities in real time, alot like gta3 except it does not streamline its content |
Ever played Heart of Darkness?? |
yes i did |
hmmmm
hmmmm
oh well I tried...
"Why don't you zip it, Zipfero?" - fraich3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2005 10:27 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mchart wrote: |
Havoc - Easier for developers to use, as of now.
John Carmack Physics Engine (we will name it this, because thats all you can really call it) - A step in the right direction, more capability, more realistic.
|
Well... If I remember right, doom3 uses the meqon physics engine -> http://www.meqon.com/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutzifer
Modzilla
Posts: 12740
Location: ____________________ **** vegan zombie **** GRRAAIIINNSS _______
|
| Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2005 14:52 Post subject: |
|
|
| AssA wrote: | | Mchart wrote: |
Havoc - Easier for developers to use, as of now.
John Carmack Physics Engine (we will name it this, because thats all you can really call it) - A step in the right direction, more capability, more realistic.
|
Well... If I remember right, doom3 uses the meqon physics engine -> http://www.meqon.com/ |
thats the physics engine duke nukem forever will be using, dunno if doom3 also uses it. Didnt they have an inhouse solution? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2005 16:48 Post subject: |
|
|
There is another problem with the lighting in the Doom3 engine. According to carmack, the lighting produces in-surface aliasing on the models, resulting in aliased, white pixels. Doom3 was so dark you couldn't see anything, but I wonder if Quake4 will have this problem or a code-fix when it comes out..
Also, according to an QuakeCon interview with Carmack, the shadows don't work good on round objects or characters so the art team got around this by setting most creatures and characters so that they weren't self-shadowing or casting shadows on each other.
For example, two imps are walking next to a light and although they cast shadows on the floor, they don't cast shadows on each other. This limitation also means that artists can't really do dramatic close-ups that have really cool lighting.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2005 16:54 Post subject: |
|
|
what many of u are saying may be true but its not at all practicle. so what if doom 3 can perform a million light scripts a second. put that and a few more scripts together and it shits itself. hl2 has a much more stable optimised engine. so therefore wins most peoples votes - and so it should. Its like having a car that can travel at 1000's of miles an hour. it may be good but its not practical at all. Doom3 is good yes but if it requires cards that are better than the ones out now who cares? im sure in a few years time something will beat these 2 visually and the same problems will occur.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2005 17:21 Post subject: |
|
|
People seem to think it's just between source and the Doom 3 engine. Don't forget the cryengine!
With the new patch it looks fantastic, have any of you seen the techdemo? It's also capable of the most breathtaking vistas in any game to date.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2005 18:00 Post subject: |
|
|
| Sublime wrote: | | hl2 has a much more stable optimised engine. |
Stable?! You are kidding, right?!
I never had problems with Doom3... but HL2 crashed many times... and still does...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sTo0z
[Moderator] Babysitter
Posts: 7449
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2005 18:01 Post subject: |
|
|
Battlefield 2 engine is also going to be moddable this time around.
A lot of people look down on Battlefield games' engine, but I think it's pretty impressive, no other engine out there has that many players AND vehicles out on such large maps.
It may not have real time slumping over (aka "ultra realistic ragdoll effects") or barrels you can tip over and roll down a hill, but what it does it does well.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 13th Jan 2005 18:08 Post subject: |
|
|
| AnimalMother wrote: | People seem to think it's just between source and the Doom 3 engine. Don't forget the cryengine!
With the new patch it looks fantastic, have any of you seen the techdemo? It's also capable of the most breathtaking vistas in any game to date. |
I saw it, though the CryEngine also leeches alot of power. The demo was breathtaking though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th Jan 2005 08:11 Post subject: |
|
|
What the devil are most of you bantering on about?
Yes, the CryEngine does render largish outdoor scenes well, all that means is that it has great detail scaling (a tree 1 mile away uses 3 polygons, a tree 3 feet away uses 3,000, or something to the like). It's a feature, yes.. but have you any idea how much design effort it would take to render New York City in it's entirety to work with the engine? Every farking room? Therefore what good are your macro-engines if nobody will make the content for them?
Sure, you could point to GTA. You could point to Matrix online. But you might as well point your finger outside your own window, because that's the only place you'll ever see this kind of scale. Both of those (and any other announced games) have strictly limited zones, within which not any room of any building can be accessed. Not every room brought to life. Not 1,000,000 NPC's, each with their own agenda and dialogue, can be inserted. What use is this engine if it can never be used to full potential? And what idiot army of designers would make all this for $50 a copy. No, my friends.
The only way I see any of this as coming together, is if you wiki a mod... that is ANY designer can make a part of it, ANY designer can add to the world, as long as they form a social network (i.e. use each other's help to make sure the pieces fit together), have a set plan, and cooperate.
That brings two problems into play: One is who's going to sponsor and organize the endeavor, who's going to start it, and who's going to keep it together to make sure it finishes before the engine dies.
The other, I'm afraid, is more serious. While the engine can handle a game where the map features 100's of instances of the same object on screen at the same time, I'm afraid it won't handle so well an effort in which the engine will have to handle millions of different objects, thousands on screen at the same time. It will definitely not be able to handle a single map that features 100,000,000 polygons (I will approximate that as the number required to fully render a block in Midtown Manhattan, which contains 4 or 5 skyscrapers.)
What this translates to is basically the cold, hard fact that this game is useful ONLY for island situations or, at best, small towns. Nothing of the scale that the engine seems to swear itself to. A shame, really.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th Jan 2005 08:27 Post subject: |
|
|
No current engine is capable of that. So what's your point?
I'm sure they'll have an automated randomisation process to deal with level design on that scale. Similar to something like daggerfall.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th Jan 2005 09:17 Post subject: |
|
|
Accelleron I think you have no clue what the CryEngine actually can do. I think you have only played Far Cry for a while and base all your decisions on what you saw. The cryengine has more potential, something you will see when you run the techdemo.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th Jan 2005 14:44 Post subject: |
|
|
Haha, you cant possible be for real Accelleron?
That has to be a joke post.
Stay in the present please and not years into the future.
What you demand in the poor engine might be possible in some years so please, come back in some years and we will see.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dunge
Posts: 1201
Location: Québec
|
| Posted: Sat, 15th Jan 2005 03:50 Post subject: |
|
|
| Accelleron wrote: | | It will definitely not be able to handle a single map that features 100,000,000 polygons (I will approximate that as the number required to fully render a block in Midtown Manhattan, which contains 4 or 5 skyscrapers.) |
yes you are dreaming... well still for at least 10 years. We will not photorealistic scenes before some time... but you are completly wrong on your polygon aproximation. A full block of building with every objects detailled inside them and all would take much more polygons  The only way to model them would be to scan a real one.
Still the 100 millions barrier is gone, using ray-tracing rendering we could render much more. they got the CAD plans of a Boeing 777 and rendered it using a "prototype university version" of a ray tracing graphic card and managed to get a few frames per second.
| Quote: | | The Boeing 777 model contains roughly 350,000,000 (350 million) triangles, which arrived in a compressed (!) form on 12 CDs. The entire model to be rendered (including all triangles, BSP trees etc.), consumes roughly 30-60 GByte on disk. |
http://graphics.cs.uni-sb.de/MassiveRT/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 3 of 4 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
