View Full Version : Doom 3 observations
Yeah I'm evil and fiddled with the Alpha.. I've been doing this since Quake 1, so I see it more as a tradition :P
ANYHOW, my point is that my Laptop of Doom and it's GeForce2Go ran the Alpha.. well.. double digits FPS, which is pretty decent I spose. I was quite impressed with the visuals and such, but thought "man, I can only imagine how much better this'd look on DX8 hardware!" (as there were quite a few environment/model textures that could have been bumped, yet werent).
That said, my buddy with a GF3 Ti200 fires it up and is totally floored. I got him to take some screenshots for me so I could compare the IQ between the two.
Lo-and-behold, there was absolutely NO difference, WHATSOEVER between the NV1x backend, and the NV2x backend. Does this mean that Carmack is just a miracle worker with NSR/reg combiners, or that the game isn't as pixel shader happy as we all thought?
I know I know this is just an Alpha, but considering the same build was shown at E3, I'd figure there'd be trying to impress, and thus wouldn't show a DX7-class renderer.
I'm webspace deprived, but if someone would like to host the images and see for yourselves, PM me.
zurich
edit: to make this console-forum worthy, I'll just say that because of the above, the GC, RAM limitation withstanding, should be able to run some variance of the D3 engine.
edit edit: forgout about ISP space!
A) http://www3.sympatico.ca/redmonds/D3shotA-i.JPG
B) http://www3.sympatico.ca/redmonds/D3shotA-ii.JPG
A) http://www3.sympatico.ca/redmonds/D3shotB-i.JPG
B) http://www3.sympatico.ca/redmonds/D3shotB-ii.JPG
A) http://www3.sympatico.ca/redmonds/D3shotC-i.JPG
B) http://www3.sympatico.ca/redmonds/D3shotC-ii.JPG
Which is which? One's a GeForce2Go, the other's a GeForce3 Ti200.
I would have included more gameplay comparisons, but our shots totally didn't match up at all :(
archie4oz
07-Nov-2002, 03:58
You'd be surprised what you can do with Nvidia's register combiners.
Wasn't this the build built for the ATI cards mostly for their 9700 demo? I wouldn't be surprised if the NV backends both used the same code for now.
Yeah I thought of that Glonk, so I checked out the init stuff in the console:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/redmonds/doom3init.JPG
Looks very much like an NVIDIA backend. The bottom actually got cut off, but the R200 and R300 renderers are also both "not available". Kind of interesting that there's an NV30 one too :P
Anyhow, if this was all done with simple register combiners, then I'm VERY impressed. If the NSR is able to match the pixel shaders (on features, not speed), then I'm not so impressed. Either way, this is going to be _very_ nice on Xbox.
zurich
marconelly!
07-Nov-2002, 05:56
I was surpriesd to find out exactly the same thing! On my GF2 I was running the game at a very small framerate, but I think it looked exactly the same as those screens from Ati9700 and GF4! Normal maps, shading and all.
DemoCoder
07-Nov-2002, 05:57
The difference between DX7, DX8, and DX9 class hardware for Doom3 won't be how it looks, but performance. The only real requirement is Dot-product capable hardware. More power pixel shaders and stencil ops just reduce the number of rendering passes.
The gamer will just run slower, with lower quality textures, less AA, lower resolution, lower framerate, on older hardware.
Did you both exec highquality.cfg ?
alexsok
07-Nov-2002, 09:27
I think Carmack already stated numerious times that he is a firm believer that "hardware specific" effects are not his thing..
I remember him talking about that in a post quakecon2k1 interview last year. He clearly said that he wants the game to look the same on all the video cards out there, with the only difference being the perfomance on different cards.
On QuakeCon2K2 this year, Carmack said that he had some "next-gen" specific effects he wanted to implement, but felt it would differ the look of the game too much on all the various video cards out there, which further goes to prove my point...
malcolm
07-Nov-2002, 09:33
Those black shadows are very ugly.
Cant they have some 'extra' non shadowing lighting?
cybamerc
07-Nov-2002, 09:39
Doom 3 looks very nice but I don't get why ppl are so surprised that it is feature compatible with older cards. There's nothing particularly groundbreaking going on. I must say that I'm surprised at how well it runs even if the engine has been under development for more than two years. Then again the BGs in the demo are fairly simplistic. I wonder if there will be more elaborate environments in the game.
Well, I for one applauded Carmack's stance during the Q2 days, ie: if you want the game to look like this (3D rendered, coloured lighting etc), then buy the hardware, otherwise enjoy what you have (ugly software/messed up lighting).
Granted times are different, but I was looking forward to D3 to make DX8 the MUSTHAVE hardware. Instead, we still haven't cast off the fixed T&L/NSR of old.
I mean, I think its great that the majority of people will be able to enjoy D3, I just always thought the game would spearhead a hardware revolution (in terms of IQ, not speed).
zurich
alexsok
07-Nov-2002, 10:57
I just always thought the game would spearhead a hardware revolution (in terms of IQ, not speed).
What's a revolution worth if most people ain't got the hardware?
Besides, compare that to ut2k3 and see who comes out the winner! :)
Fafalada
07-Nov-2002, 11:06
Besides, compare that to ut2k3 and see who comes out the winner!
I'd say it comes down to personal preference more then anything.
For instance, IMO UT2k3 character designs are rather generic, but I still find them easier on the eyes then the D3 stuff. Call me a polygon whore, but I was never a fan of low-poly look.
But Doom uses the bumpmapping!
faf, i wonder if ps2 has any cool register combiners thing?
alexsok
07-Nov-2002, 12:36
Call me a polygon whore, but I was never a fan of low-poly look.
Are u implying that the models in DOOM III are lower in polys than the ones in UT2K3?
I do agree that it all comes down to personal preference, but I don't see how your statements holds true, since DOOM III models are in no way lower in polys than the models in UT2K3.
cybamerc
07-Nov-2002, 12:45
alexsok:
> Besides, compare that to ut2k3 and see who comes out the winner!
Apples and oranges. UT2003 is out now while Doom 3 is not. UT2003 runs considerably faster than Doom 3 on the same rig and as far as features are concerned the Unreal engine certainly has plenty. Just because UT2003 lacks bump mapping and advanced shadows it doesn't mean the engine is incapable of producing such effects.
I'm not saying the Doom engine isn't more impressive but I think you have to take into consideration that Doom III and UT2003 are designed with completely different goals in mind.
alexsok
07-Nov-2002, 13:09
Apples and oranges. UT2003 is out now while Doom 3 is not. UT2003 runs considerably faster than Doom 3 on the same rig and as far as features are concerned the Unreal engine certainly has plenty. Just because UT2003 lacks bump mapping and advanced shadows it doesn't mean the engine is incapable of producing such effects.
I'm not saying the Doom engine isn't more impressive but I think you have to take into consideration that Doom III and UT2003 are designed with completely different goals in mind.
I know that m8, but that's not the point...
BenSkywalker
07-Nov-2002, 13:11
Are u implying that the models in DOOM III are lower in polys than the ones in UT2K3?
The models in D3 have significantly lower poly counts then those in UT2K3. I don't think Faf was trying to imply it, it is clearly visible.
since DOOM III models are in no way lower in polys than the models in UT2K3 (especially considering that in the former, the models are bumpmapped, while in the later, they aren't).
Do you realize that bump maps have nothing to do with poly counts?
alexsok
07-Nov-2002, 13:15
Do you realize that bump maps have nothing to do with poly counts?
Yes I do realize that.
You didn't understand the context of my post... I mentioned bumpmaps as another advantage DOOM III has over UT2K3, I did a mistake by mixing that together with polycounts, since that clearly wasn't my purpose.
And besides, the polycounts in UT2K3 are not higher than in DOOM III. You can't say that's visible when it clearly isn't (maybe on paper they are higher, but I prefer the DOOM III models, and no, not cause of the bumpmaps).
BenSkywalker
07-Nov-2002, 13:18
You can't say that's visible when it clearly isn't.
Actually, it really is. Look past the textures and bump mapping, Doom3's models are extremely low poly.
alexsok
07-Nov-2002, 13:23
Actually, it really is. Look past the textures and bump mapping, Doom3's models are extremely low poly.
Well, I haven't really examined the models in both games from an extreme closeup, so I can't really say... but from what I've witnessed from both games, i like the DOOM III models better (maybe it's the bumpmaps, maybe it's the art direction) and the polycounts seem higher to me (unless i turn on the wireframe mode... then i clearly see they aren't :) )
Bottom line:
Suppose UT2K3 models are higher in polys, that doesn't really change the situation, as I (and many other people like me) would still consider the models in D3 better looking. After all, polycounts don't matter at all, it's all together, polycounts, art direction, etc... and from these aspects, D3 is a clear winner for me. Just my 2 cents...
BenSkywalker
07-Nov-2002, 13:33
Suppose UT2K3 models are higher in polys, that doesn't really change the situation, as I (and many other people like me) would still consider the models in D3 better looking.
Better looking is another matter entirely and largely subjective. Carmack and crew are doing a great job covering it up, but simply look at the screenshots on the previous page and pay attention to the elbows and shoulders.
I haven't seen enough of D3 to give a honest stance one way or the other on which way my tastes lean.
alexsok
07-Nov-2002, 13:51
Better looking is another matter entirely and largely subjective.
Couldn't agree with you more there.
Carmack and crew are doing a great job covering it up, but simply look at the screenshots on the previous page and pay attention to the elbows and shoulders.
As I said, I haven't really examined the models from an extreme close up in-game and it's largely unnoticable while in motion.
As I said in my previous post, in wireframe, it's clearly obvious that the polycounts are nothing special and are as a matter of fact been suprassed by many titles out there, but the overall look of the models is so much better than everything else out there (except maybe Halo II), which is what id are relying on.
If we look at the screenshots provided by Activision and the people here, it's obvious that the polycounts are pretty low (a good example, as u said, are the elbows and shoulders).
Although my original point still stands, none of this is very obvious while in motion which is also the case with UT2K3.
Do you have any side by side comparisons between the models in D3 & UT2K3? I'd like to see an extreme closeup of a model from UT2K3, side by side with a D3 model...
Well since you're on the subject of detailed high poly models, I think RE and RE0 have everybody beat. I've never seen sucj detailed beautiful models. I know RE0 is prerendered but as far as eye candy you just can't beat these. I'm figuring around 25,000 polys for each. Looks like some skinning on them and the 'mesh' looking clothes.
http://cubemedia.ign.com/cube/image/res0gunkergc1.jpg
That first shot is old. The jaggies have been cleaned up considerably in the newer shots.
http://cubemedia.ign.com/cube/image/residentevil0_102102_20.jpg
There are some close up shots of the faces and upper torso..but I can't find them now. Nonetheless RE0 looks incredible.
I think Depend on which model, Doom 3 seems to have higher poly count than Quake 3, so its not extremely low polygon but low anyway.
Also, I found the shadow just looks odd, so I turn it off when playing it, it looks better without the shadow. I hope the fix/improve the shadow before its out.
Also I noticed if you play it in low res, r_mode 1, you can't really notice the low poly of the model, without really examining it. I mean if those zombie are attacking you won't notice they are low poly.
My only gripe is the shadow. The shadow do add to the atmosphere and gameplay, but it just don't look right at the moment. Hope they fix it, and add options for soft shadow as well.
alexsok
07-Nov-2002, 17:46
and add options for soft shadow as well.
That's not as easy as simply "adding" the option for soft shadows.
I really doubt we'll see soft shadows until after the DOOM III engine (when Carmack creates his next engine after D3, targeted at R300/NV30 hardware).
DeathKnight
07-Nov-2002, 20:36
And this is exactly why Carmack proclaimed that DOOMIII's technology is built entirely around the capabilities of the original GeForce256. The latest and greatest hardware only affords you higher resolutions and faster framerates.
marconelly!
07-Nov-2002, 21:49
That's not as easy as simply "adding" the option for soft shadows.
I really doubt we'll see soft shadows until after the DOOM III engine (when Carmack creates his next engine after D3, targeted at R300/NV30 hardware).
Silent Hill 3 has volumetric stencil shadows just like Doom 3, and they are softened. Fafalada knows how they've done that and is using the same trick in his game :)
alexsok
07-Nov-2002, 21:57
Silent Hill 3 has volumetric stencil shadows just like Doom 3, and they are softened. Fafalada knows how they've done that and is using the same trick in his game :)
Well then, I never said people haven't suprassed Carmack by now! :)
Can I ask this please: I keep hearing that it's impossible for Carmack to add support for tru-form and stuff cos it would mess with the shadows. I don't get it. Why?
Most games have the shadows with lower polys than the characters. What am I missing?
DeathKnight
08-Nov-2002, 00:55
I believe it's the normal maps for the character models that will suffer if the models' polycounts are increased. The normal maps are derived from extremely high-poly models and are then optimzed for the lower-poly models.
It has to do with the shadow and truform.
alexsok
08-Nov-2002, 09:16
http://www.beyond3d.com/interviews/carmackdoom3/
TruForm is not an option, because the calculated shadow silhouettes would no longer be correct.
Could people stop asking the same question over and over again?
I'm tired of quoting the same line from the interview all the time! :)
Ozymandis
08-Nov-2002, 09:33
Godlni, I agree about RE's character models being basically untouchable. Aren't the main character models like 20,000 polys apiece or something?
Godlni, I agree about RE's character models being basically untouchable. Aren't the main character models like 20,000 polys apiece or something?
What about the character models in the upcoming DoA:XBV? They don't wear as much cloth on their bodies as those RE characters, but that makes it all the more a shame that they're literally untouchable... ;)
http://www.beyond3d.com/interviews/carmackdoom3/
TruForm is not an option, because the calculated shadow silhouettes would no longer be correct.
Could people stop asking the same question over and over again?
I'm tired of quoting the same line from the interview all the time! :)
*sigh*
I know, I've read that line, that's why I asked what I did :( I don't understand what he means by that.
Calculated shadow silhouettes?
cybamerc
08-Nov-2002, 10:51
Think of it this way. The shadows in Doom 3 are polygon shells that are placed on top of the models. For it to look good they have to be a perfect match. If you start adding polygons to the models but not the shadow volumes there will be a mismatch. You can illustrate it yourself by drawing a polygon on a piece of paper. Then on top of that one you draw a second one with an extra side added. They will no longer match no matter how you twist and turn them.
as stated RE1 for the game cube and RE0 for the game cube are very very nice looking but they are also prerendered. Silent Hill 3 aren't the backrounds on this also prerendered ? If doom 3 used prerendered backrounds the quality over RE0 would be crazy. I don't even want to try and think about it.
alexsok
08-Nov-2002, 11:43
Silent Hill 3 aren't the backrounds on this also prerendered ?
Nope, SH3's background are not prerendered, all real time...
Think of it this way. The shadows in Doom 3 are polygon shells that are placed on top of the models. For it to look good they have to be a perfect match. If you start adding polygons to the models but not the shadow volumes there will be a mismatch. You can illustrate it yourself by drawing a polygon on a piece of paper. Then on top of that one you draw a second one with an extra side added. They will no longer match no matter how you twist and turn them.
So is this meant to be a self-shadowing issue then?
Simon F
08-Nov-2002, 13:46
Mech: Yes.
Right. That's all I wanted to know.
Laa-Yosh
08-Nov-2002, 18:10
Kick me if you want, but from a distance the Doom3 models look better.
20.000 polygons are only enough to get some smooth, curved siluettes, but you cannot really put in the fine details like wrinkles, muscles, tendons, and such. Also vertex lighting will only get you some ugly speculars and shading because of the triangle-based interpolation. Even DOA3 suffers a lot from this, too.
I believe that the GC could do Dot3 bump mapping on those characters - so theoratically it's possible to create character models with normal maps from high polygon detailed surfaces... that would look awesome.
PC-Engine
08-Nov-2002, 18:30
I agree. Halo 2 for example also uses a lot of Dot 3 to give the models a higher polygon look.
Hey, anyone else notice, if you shot the zombie from behind, they still fall backward (violently as well), face up, instead of fall forward and face down on the floor. Do you think they will add that animation in ? All those per polygon detection will be useless if the fall animation is always the same.
Also it seems the monster don't blow up into pieces this time around, it would be cool if you can shot them with an anchor of some sort and drag them around :)
Also I hope, they give slightly differing textures for each of the same monster. Things looking like twin is weird.
I still do hope they add an option for soft shadow. Regardless of how hard it is to implement. I still think Carmack should have an option for shadow map as well. Everything is per pixel, why not the shadow ?
"it would be cool if you can shot them with an anchor of some sort and drag them around "
from the alpha, it seems as though they only implemented model physics to specific things... the only zombie that seemed to react in such a way were the ones designed to fall down stairs when they're killed.. from there you can drag him around and such, kick him and have him roll over, bump into boxes, etc... heh..
hopefully they do implement actual physics when they all die, rather than just a cookie cutter death animation.. kinda pointless to bother with any sort of advanced physics engine, if it's only used in specific scripted/pre-planned spots..
cybamerc
09-Nov-2002, 11:38
Laa-Yosh:
> Kick me if you want, but from a distance the Doom3 models look better.
I think it depends on the models. There are certainly models in either game that look better than other. Other than that Doom 3 benifits from an arguably superior and undeniably more vivid lighting model. The same goes for shadows. The moving lights and shadows really makes everything more dramatic, as does the large contrast between darkness and light. In RE the lighting is less accenuated which removes some of the wow factor. I know you're an artist and as such is less likely to fall for cheap tricks but you're also human :) The consistent lighting and shadowing in the entire Doom gameworld due to the entirely realtime gfx also plays in Dooms favor. The liberal use of specular highlights is generally also a crowd pleaser.
The relatively high complexity of the RE models mean that they look good both from afar and up close. While they, to some extent, lose the advantage of smooth edges when you get at a certain distance they still maintain a high degree of polygonal detail while a lot of the Doom 3 models shown so far are a little plain. Up close you can see pores, wrinkles, veins etc. on the Doom 3 characters but they also get visibly blocky. Not so in RE.
Mostly I think it's a matter of art direction. Which you like more. The characters in RE are a bit more stylized and while the animation is slightly stiffer than in Doom 3 it's also more over-the-top.
> Also vertex lighting will only get you some ugly speculars and shading
> because of the triangle-based interpolation.
I haven't actually played RE Remake but from pictures and video the lighting looks per-pixel to me.
It would be nice to have some framebuffer grabs to compare with. The video captures from RE make it hard to compare finer details. The tearing from field rendering doesn't help either.
V3:
> Do you think they will add that animation in ?
No idea but you have to consider that the E3 build isn't much of a game yet. I mean you can walk straight up to some characters and they will just stand there doing nothing. If you shoot them from a certain distance they won't react either. OTOH if you go down certain specific paths it seems like you will have every monster in that level on your back.
Is Silent Hill 3 using/can PS2 do pixel lighting?
PS2's dot product challenged.
Thowllly
09-Nov-2002, 13:36
PS2's dot product challenged.
It can still do it, but it requires multiple passes.
I'm sure the GBA can too, doesn't mean it'll be of any use ;)
So SH3 and future PS2 games are limited to vertex lighting? :cry: :oops:
BoddoZerg
11-Nov-2002, 20:55
I think the most impressive thing about DOOM3 is the unified lighting model. It doesn't seem like such a big thing when you hear about it, but it is; it really increases the level of immersion in the game.
Interestingly, whenever I focus on one little detail of DOOM3, like how the low poly shadows are ugly on top of the awesome bumpmapping, or how the low polycount becomes apparent in cutscenes, or the crappiness of having totally hard shadows, then it seems rather unimpressive. But, focusing on the overall impression that the game gave me, it becomes REALLY impressive. The difference is immersion.
With unified lighting, there is no difference in the lighting of the backgrounds and characters. You feel like everything is a part of the same game world. Going back to play Halo, DoA3, or UT2003, they all look like cartoons superimposed on a game board. In any non-DOOM3 game, it is easy to tell that the backgrounds have higher quality prebaked lighting, while characters and monsters have much lower quality lighting. Even in UT2003 where some of the lights cast fancy patterns on your characters, terrain casts shadows on you but you don't cast shadows on terrain. You don't really feel like part of a gameworld, you're more like a game piece moving on a game board. (With that in mind, Resident Evil's approach can be appreciated; since most games make it obvious that the characters are different from the background, why not prerender the backgrounds, giving yourself a massive advantage in image quality?)
In DOOM3, the unified lighting makes you and your enemies part of the gameworld. Assuming that the full version will have much better physics, the physics will also lend greatly to immersion. Unified lighting is not at all impressive in screenshots, but it really gave me a great impression ingame. As great as games like Silent Hill 3, Resident Evil, or even Unreal 2 can look, they don't have unified lighting, so they will lack that feeling of immersion that I got from DOOM3.
Doom3 and other unified lighting games cannot be evaluated in pieces (low polycount, ugly shadowing artifacts, ugly hard shadows); they have to be taken as a whole for their amazing immersive effect to show through.
marconelly!
11-Nov-2002, 21:44
So SH3 and future PS2 games are limited to vertex lighting?
DOT3 is one of the pixel operations that PS2 does not support natively. However, there are others that it can easily do. It would be perfectly possible to have per pixel lighting on PS2 in the sense of blending the light texture over the base texture, like Silent Hill games do. Or so I've been told by people who make games for PS2.
Does the SH3 use pixel lighting - I don't know, but the light circle from the flashlight looks hell of a lot smoother this time around than it was in SH2, from the videos I'm looking at.
As great as games like Silent Hill 3, Resident Evil, or even Unreal 2 can look, they don't have unified lighting
Actually, from what I've seen, lighting in SH3 is unified in the sense that all the shadows work as a part of one scene. Every object in the scene casts dynamic shadow on everything else.
cybamerc
11-Nov-2002, 22:14
Unified lighting is a buzzword that should be used with caution. Lots of games have it. It's nothing new and most certainly not a guarantee for great visuals.
randycat99
11-Nov-2002, 23:39
Seems like the rabid Xbox fan (not all Xbox users, just the rabid ones ;) ) revel at taking the latest buzzword and trumpeting it as the "can't live without" feature when they know the other consoles don't have an exact analogy. Basically, you got DOT3, per-pixel lighting, pixel shading, unified lighting... Look how chap suddenly has an incredible hard-on over pixel lighting now that someone has told them that another console can only do vertex lighting. Seriously, can people be any more immature? Aren't Xbox users supposed to be statistically older on average than the PS2 user? Where's the maturity? [steps off soapbox]
Logan Leonhart
12-Nov-2002, 00:06
per-pixel lightning or not, SH3 sports some incredible visuals and high poligon character, not to mention the great lightning, textures and image quality.
randycat99
12-Nov-2002, 03:16
...and really, that's what should matter in the end- the end result.
...but then the rabid Xbox fan will counter that those effects are faked- not real. As if it is only real if it is done as it is on the Xbox... :roll:
...then when that isn't good enough, they say PS2 is "holding up" the industry and is evil for "killing" the DC... Everything bad that happens comes from the PS2, evidently. As easy and lickety split GC/Xbox is to program, you'd think it would be a cinch to reverse engineer any PS2 game by its features, slap it together in easy Xbox code, click a few video features "on", and make consistently great ports to Xbox...and when that doesn't happen, it's the PS2's fault, of course.
It never ends... You'd think there must truly be nothing to savor games-wise on the other consoles to keep their minds off of what PS2 is doing wrong now. The PS2 people are either too busy playing a ton of games or defending the neverending onslaught of reasons PS2 suxors on the Internet.
mkillio
12-Nov-2002, 03:27
Where can you get the Doom III demo/beta? Or did you have to sign up for it?
Where can you get the Doom III demo/beta? Or did you have to sign up for it?
:o
mkillio
12-Nov-2002, 03:38
That really helped me alot. Sorry if I'm a little clueless as far as PC gaming goes I haven't been into it since HL and Q3, but a response or lack there of/spam like that isn't going to help me.
It got leaked. You have to get it from Warez sites.
randycat, that's a fricking awesome post. I agree with you entirely.
randycat99
12-Nov-2002, 04:58
Why thank you! :D
marconelly!
12-Nov-2002, 05:22
I second that - as sad as it is, that post was true to a word, Randy.
randycat99
12-Nov-2002, 05:27
I felt real guilty for unloading all of that in a Doom III topic. :oops:
Unified lighting is a buzzword that should be used with caution. Lots of games have it. It's nothing new and most certainly not a guarantee for great visuals.
True. But only because of the vague term "unified lighting". Up until now games has used vertex lighting, light maps and used projected shadows and all kinds of other hacks to get a decent lighting effect.
What is new in Doom III is that all lights are per pixel lights and all lights cast a shadow. And yes models are low poly, but the difference between screenshots and the game in motion is night and day (btw, I can only get the alpha to play demo1, can't play the game :( ).
Cheers
Gubbi
What is new in Doom III is that all lights are per pixel lights and all lights cast a shadow.
Yes but the shadow just looks strange. I find Doom 3 looks better when the shadow are off. But the shadow adds to gameplay, I think you would be at disadvantage at having it off. But I really wish they fix the shadow. And then increase tesselation of everything by like 50 times, it will all be good :)
Another thing, is volumetric effect, they still don't look natural.
Ohh also when I read the impression of the Doom 3 showing, they say you can shoot the light to turn it off, anyone know how to get that working in this Alpha ?
Rodéric
12-Nov-2002, 21:52
I think that the game makers should think a bit more about people victim of "epilepsie".
There should be an option for them, to remove the flashs...
Nupraptor
13-Nov-2002, 02:27
Zurich: What map is the first set of screenshots taken from? I don't recall having seen that particular cutscene.
Yes, the Doom 3 models are fairly low-poly. The largest give-away to this would be to look at the top of the enemies' heads: They often come to a point. It kind of bothers me, but you generally don't notice it when they're trying to kill you. ;)
I agree with the point brought up about the shadows: The main two problems with them are that they A) don't blend well, making them stand out too much and B) ignore the height of the object they're being cast on. The latter problem leads to them laying flat across objects they should be bending around or even stopping at. I really, really hope they fix that by the time the game is launched.
Developers of console games have always been able to toss more polys at their character models than PC game devs. There are several factors here, though.
One is resolution: They know that everyone who is playing (for example) Resident Evil 0 will be playing it at 640x480. Think about it: If Carmack knew that everyone would be playing Doom 3 at 640x480, that means he wouldn't have to worry about how it performed at higher resolutions and could, thus, add more polys to his models.
Another thing is texture detail. Besides the fact that the textures themselves are also beind drawn at a lower res, they're often much less detailed than most PC games. Take a look at the texture detail in games like Return to Castle Wolfenstein, where you can see creases in the NPC's faces and stubble on their chins, to say Devil May Cry. The Dante model boasts a good deal more polygons, but is largely undetailed. This is why, a lot of time, when you see a port of a console game, the textures are horribly blurry and generally not very nice to look at. They're really like that - but on a TV, you can't tell.
And, the last thing in the case of RE0 (as was mentioned earlier) is that it uses Pre-rendered backgrounds, meaning that the system doesn't have to render jack, in terms of poly counts. Leaving Capcom free to add polys elsewhere.
Silent Hill 2 achieved an incredible amount of detail while also retaining high poly counts for all the character models. The way they achieved this was because of the very limited field of vision: Between the shadows and the oppressive fog, there was hardly ever very much on the screen at one time.
nuraptor,
map e3/intro
;)
It crashes _alot_ and takes an eon to load, but its decently cool.
The fog in SH2 is volumetric, so while it may cloud some detail, its also taking a chunk out of the fill rate. As for the rooms, I don't think the shadows cover up any geometry really, I think the load times everytime you go through a door do most of that ;)
Nupraptor
13-Nov-2002, 04:30
Ooooh... I honestly thought the Intro was just the spinning id logo. I left it there for roughly 2 minutes and didn't see it do anything. :oops:
The comments I made about SH2 were, I believe, initially stated by the developers of the game. While the fog / darkness where definitely atmospheric, they also allowed them to add much more detail to each area.
Cheers,
Nup
Haha yeah, I almost did the same, I think its roughly 5-7 minutes? But then I figured, "it couldn't have taken THIS long to load a spinning logo!"
nuraptor,
map e3/intro
;)
It crashes _alot_ and takes an eon to load, but its decently cool.
The fog in SH2 is volumetric, so while it may cloud some detail, its also taking a chunk out of the fill rate. As for the rooms, I don't think the shadows cover up any geometry really, I think the load times everytime you go through a door do most of that ;)
just type exec runact.cfg before you run it. The game touches all files and this loads it into RAM. You'll need plenty of RAM btw. ½GB is a minimum.
Cheers
Gubbi
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.