| Page 1 of 4 |
|
|
 Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2005 05:42 Post subject: As promised, I am back with more of the D3CDITPJ |
|
 |
A while ago, someone decided to start a poll that said "What is the best engine" well after much debate, even though source still got ample votes, I thought I did a pretty good job shedding the light (haha get it) on to what the doom3 engine was really, more capable of. To further prove this, I have come with a video from the "Doom3 can do it to project".
http://www.pcgamemods.com/9397/
It is getting better and better every moment.
Remember our great saying - The only reason HL2 looks so good is because of its use of awesome textures, try taking these HL2 textures, and stick them in doom3, youll see what I mean.
The source engine would NEVER EVER in .. well ever.. be able to produce the kind of lighting shown in the video..
I will come back with further updates when needed..
As for speed, I think that video speaks for its self, even in completely alpha stage, and being totally un-optimised, it still runs with decent frame rates. It still doesnt matter though, because the source engine is physically incapable of pulling that kind of shadowing off.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mutantius
VIP Member
Posts: 18594
Location: In Elektro looking for beans
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2005 06:33 Post subject: |
|
|
meh, Me still Think Source is da best...
"Why don't you zip it, Zipfero?" - fraich3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2005 06:34 Post subject: |
|
|
Im sorry, but its so plainly obvious that source engine gets owned with that video, if you didnt notice it from playing doom3, that video sure does show it to you. Let me explain this - The souce engine is INCAPABLE of producing graphics shown in that video.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mutantius
VIP Member
Posts: 18594
Location: In Elektro looking for beans
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2005 06:45 Post subject: |
|
|
Incapable of showing the same light system as doom 3...
Im sure all the other stuff can be implented...
"Why don't you zip it, Zipfero?" - fraich3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2005 06:47 Post subject: |
|
|
Well, you have a decent tech demo of the D3E's lighting capabilities and some damn impressive scripting... now what?
i.e. are you guys actually planning to do something with it or just cheer for it?
If the latter, I welcome NFOrce's first cheerleading squad.
If the former, you've my attention... for now.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2005 06:56 Post subject: |
|
|
Nice shadow job indeed. Still the frame rate chugged horribly on that video and there were 0 high res textures. All textuers on there were probably raped from quake 1 or something. Because there low res texture it's easier of a load for the engine if you put in some nice 512x512 high res bump map textures in there then you will have even bigger chug. The engine is great but it's just unstable and dosn't work well on lots of peoples computers. Half life 2 works well from low end to high end pc's. Doom 3 enging will be great in a year when new games are spawned from that engine. Until then Half life 2 is the better running engine. (Remember a engine is not about how pretty it looks it's also how well it handles and the stabilty for it to last long in the market)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swebarb
Posts: 2154
Location: Vikingland
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2005 07:19 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2005 07:20 Post subject: |
|
|
What detail settings were you using to record this demo? And what computer (cpu/gpu) ?
A64 3800+@2.80 GHz, Mushkin 2x1GB @ 233MHz, Abit AN8 SLI
2 x BFG 7800gtx, Mitsu DP 2070SB 22", Dell 2405FPW 24"
Audigy 2 ZS
2 x WD Raptor 74 GB Raid0, 40GB, 120GB HDDs, Plextor PX-716UF, 24x CDRW, DVD 12x
PCP&C 510W, Antec 430W
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2005 08:19 Post subject: |
|
|
Meh. Still think the crytek engine owns it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2005 10:51 Post subject: |
|
|
whow... this IS impressive... and I think the framerate is horrible cause it's recorded with fraps or something like this...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
razor1394
VIP Member
Posts: 3571
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2005 11:00 Post subject: |
|
|
Those lightning samples were really nice. Pretty advanced stuff, hehe. I still prefer the source engine infront of the Doom3 engine not only because of the graphics, but because of the sound, realistic indoor environments, the physics etc. Farcry and especially the Doom3 engine looks how to say... plastic in some way. It feels like the realism has been throwed away.
But my vote won't go for any of those engines but for the Elder scrolls 4 one.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alieksij
Posts: 127
Location: Somewhere in the mist....
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2005 11:51 Post subject: |
|
|
| razor1394 wrote: | | But my vote won't go for any of those engines but for the Elder scrolls 4 one. |
Yeah, I think I have to agree also, oblivion engine really looks impresive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2005 14:58 Post subject: |
|
|
aargh, stop bitching and whining ffs.
Yes, the Doom3 Engine is better than Source in terms of features and lightning, but you still need good texture painters, map editors, etc.
so can we agree on the following:
1) Doom 3 has more potential
2) HL2 was done with more "love"
kthxbye
some n00b
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutzifer
Modzilla
Posts: 12740
Location: ____________________ **** vegan zombie **** GRRAAIIINNSS _______
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2005 16:25 Post subject: |
|
|
| AnimalMother wrote: | | Meh. Still think the crytek engine owns it. |
i second that  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2005 21:15 Post subject: |
|
|
| acrh2 wrote: | | What detail settings were you using to record this demo? And what computer (cpu/gpu) ? |
BUMP
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2005 22:52 Post subject: |
|
|
Enclave was pretty beautiful too, and it runs fantastically on low end PC's.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hahe
Posts: 1685
Location: US
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2005 23:17 Post subject: |
|
|
Bah I don't really care for shadows. I'll take realistic and detailed textures over shadows any time.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2005 23:46 Post subject: |
|
|
| hahe wrote: | | Bah I don't really care for shadows. I'll take realistic and detailed textures over shadows any time. |
Same.
What is CoR? damn i forget it everytime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dunge
Posts: 1201
Location: Québec
|
| Posted: Tue, 11th Jan 2005 23:54 Post subject: |
|
|
I agree doom3 engine might have better lighting but source engine is sooo much better for others things. Try to mod it a bit and mod doom3 you will see the amount of things implemented in source that you would never have thinked of, it's amazing
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 00:12 Post subject: |
|
|
| Pizda2 wrote: |
What is CoR? damn i forget it everytime. |
Chronicles of Riddick ^^
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 00:30 Post subject: |
|
|
Man.
Both the doom3 engine and the cryengine can do realistic textures. Any engine can do that, textures is the artists job.
The engines can do so much more than what you see in a game.
You guys confuse all this. He is talking about what the engine is capable of and not how a game looks. And the capabilities are much greater in the doom3 engine compared to source, that is fact.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 01:00 Post subject: |
|
|
| Dunge wrote: | | I agree doom3 engine might have better lighting but source engine is sooo much better for others things. Try to mod it a bit and mod doom3 you will see the amount of things implemented in source that you would never have thinked of, it's amazing |
Try to mod what around, lmao. Noticed the time cycle's in that video? Noticed how you could control the time cycle completely? Notice how the clocks in the world, and the street lights acted approipriatly? I guess you didnt notice that then.
It still seems the majority of the users here are still lost to what the engines job is. Did it ever occur to some people here that you could take the textures that the game HL2 uses, and put them in the game doom3, and well, it looks really good.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 01:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| pallebrun wrote: | Man.
Both the doom3 engine and the cryengine can do realistic textures. Any engine can do that, textures is the artists job.
The engines can do so much more than what you see in a game.
You guys confuse all this. He is talking about what the engine is capable of and not how a game looks. And the capabilities are much greater in the doom3 engine compared to source, that is fact. |
Wow, someone finally understands that textures != engine. It is a glorius day.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 01:40 Post subject: |
|
|
| psychoace wrote: | | Nice shadow job indeed. Still the frame rate chugged horribly on that video and there were 0 high res textures. All textuers on there were probably raped from quake 1 or something. Because there low res texture it's easier of a load for the engine if you put in some nice 512x512 high res bump map textures in there then you will have even bigger chug. The engine is great but it's just unstable and dosn't work well on lots of peoples computers. Half life 2 works well from low end to high end pc's. Doom 3 enging will be great in a year when new games are spawned from that engine. Until then Half life 2 is the better running engine. (Remember a engine is not about how pretty it looks it's also how well it handles and the stabilty for it to last long in the market) |
Yet you totally ignore my points.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hahe
Posts: 1685
Location: US
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 01:50 Post subject: |
|
|
Overall I just don't care what engine is the best. Just as long as the game is good. All this debate over what engine is better is pointless.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 02:11 Post subject: |
|
|
Well I'm not impressed by this video. Don't tell me the Source Engine can't make the clock and sky change accordingly...
Anyway, even if Doom has a better place (really better) than Half-Life in my heart, I must admit that HL2 is really well optimised and runs really better than Doom3 on an equivalent configuration.
So don't care what this or that engine can do (moreover if I can't see those hidden things that it is doing). I'm an end-user, all I need is a game which runs smoothly.
In my case, Source Engine wins.
Shroom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 02:14 Post subject: |
|
|
| psychoace wrote: | | psychoace wrote: | | Nice shadow job indeed. Still the frame rate chugged horribly on that video and there were 0 high res textures. All textuers on there were probably raped from quake 1 or something. Because there low res texture it's easier of a load for the engine if you put in some nice 512x512 high res bump map textures in there then you will have even bigger chug. The engine is great but it's just unstable and dosn't work well on lots of peoples computers. Half life 2 works well from low end to high end pc's. Doom 3 enging will be great in a year when new games are spawned from that engine. Until then Half life 2 is the better running engine. (Remember a engine is not about how pretty it looks it's also how well it handles and the stabilty for it to last long in the market) |
Yet you totally ignore my points. |
This is not about that, this is just about showing people that the doom3 engine is capable of more. Anyways, regardless, after loading up some HL2 textures into the first level of doom3, the game still ran above 30fps the entire time.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 4 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
