[micky]

I only have a board which supports DX8.1. (GF4 4200TI 64meg)

Is there that much difference to 8 and 9..in terms of Half Life 2

[JaylumX]

A hell of a lot.

[Albuquerque]

Is there really? I'm thinking the water may look less realistic, and there are a few glass shaders that probably aren't nearly so elaborate in the DX8 rendering path. However, HL2 really isn't that shader intensive... Most of the "look" of HL2 is accomplished by lightmaps and very high quality textures.

I'm sure you're missing some of the "uber" features, but nothing that could be considered showstopping -- in my opinion anyway.

[AlStrong]

yeah pretty much..

IGN did a nice comparison.

[Ragemare]

I noticed some difference when switching between dx9 and 8 code path.

HL2 actually uses normal maps on alot, if not all, the character models and a fair amount of the scenery. The quality of these seems to be degraded when switching to DX8.

[Albuquerque]

From that IGN article, I was almost dead on -- you lose about 10% of the water's coolness factor, harder-edged dynamic shadows, a few missing shader transparencies (such as the thick glass shields in some of the combine embattlements) and the lighting is "different".

As for normal maps, I thought HL2 relied on bumpmaps and not normal maps; Doom3 was the champion of normal maps. I can't see much (if any) differences in the screenshots posted regarding "lack of depth". In a few cases, the DX8.1 path was more textured than the 9.0 path due to slight variances in lighting.

All in all, it looks like anyone on a DX8.1 card is going to get about 90% of the looks of HL2.

[AlexV]

They`re not using normal maps for characters, and the effect seen on antlions for example is plain bump-mapping. As for the diference, you`ll probably notice it, but it won`t be that huge, IMO

[Ostsol]

Originally Posted by Albuquerque

As for normal maps, I thought HL2 relied on bumpmaps and not normal maps; Doom3 was the champion of normal maps. I can't see much (if any) differences in the screenshots posted regarding "lack of depth". In a few cases, the DX8.1 path was more textured than the 9.0 path due to slight variances in lighting.

Bump-mapping and normal-mapping aren't much different. They both use a texture that contains normal vectors and the exact same lighting techniques can be applied to both. As far as the gamer should be concerned: they're the same.

The normal-maps in HL2 are much less dramatic than those used in Doom 3. The models' polygon counts are higher in HL2, so the effect is much less obvious. Its use on world geometry would be much more obvious if not for the massive amount of static lighting. In contrast, Doom 3 made a point of having plenty of dynamic lights.

[Albuquerque]

I agree with you in principle Otsol, but bumpmapping is much more within the GPU computing abilities of a DX8-level card than normal mapping would be... At least, last I recall...

In any case, the net result is bumpmapping in HL2 is still supported by DX8 level hardware, which means a GF4 isn't missing out on that either. The DX9-specific features in HL2 really aren't that numerous to make a noteable difference.

[Ostsol]

Originally Posted by Albuquerque

I agree with you in principle Ostsol, but bumpmapping is much more within the GPU computing abilities of a DX8-level card than normal mapping would be... At least, last I recall...

It depends on how one defines bump-mapping. The Wikipedia entry describes a different technique for bump-mapping than what I originally learned. It says that bump-mapping purturbs existing normals, while normal-mapping replaces normals. *shrugs*

Anyways, Doom 3 uses normal-mapping for pretty much all hardware that it supports. HL2 likely does the same. It's definitely possible for all hardware from DX7 and up.

[AlexV]

Hmm, I may have misworded, but I don`t necessarily identify normal-mapping with bump-mapping-though you could say that normal mapping IS bump-mapping, just like in an extended view offset mapping is al so BM etc.

The difference ( from my standpoint) is that I associate normal-mapping with a much higher poly model from which the normal-map itself is built, while straight BM (again, for me) can be implemented computationally, without the need for a higher poly-model.

Considering the above, from my viewpoint, characters in HL2 don`t have normal-mapping applied, they have an acceptable poly-count to somewhat make-up for that and highly detailed facial-textures to maintain the illusion.

All of the above is AFAIU and AFAICS

[Ostsol]

Originally Posted by Morgoth the Dark Enemy

The difference ( from my standpoint) is that I associate normal-mapping with a much higher poly model from which the normal-map itself is built, while straight BM (again, for me) can be implemented computationally, without the need for a higher poly-model.

Considering the above, from my viewpoint, characters in HL2 don`t have normal-mapping applied, they have an acceptable poly-count to somewhat make-up for that and highly detailed facial-textures to maintain the illusion.

All models used in modern games initially produced as having a -much- higher polygon count than what appears in the actual game. The models used in HL2 certainly do not have a high enough polygon count to account for all of the smaller detail. Such would be a waste of processing power.

Normal mapping is definitely used in HL2. All you have to do is look at ATI's presentation on HL2's rendering to see an example (it's an ant-lion, but there's no reason why normal-mapping would be restricted to certain models).

[AlexV]

So we agree to disagree to some extent About the topic at hand, I`ve started playing HL2 again and man, the 5 minute play 1 minute load routine is extremely annoying

[Ostsol]

Originally Posted by Morgoth the Dark Enemy

So we agree to disagree to some extent

I seem to have a habit of that. . .

[Albuquerque]

Originally Posted by Morgoth the Dark Enemy

So we agree to disagree to some extent About the topic at hand, I`ve started playing HL2 again and man, the 5 minute play 1 minute load routine is extremely annoying

Definitely something I can agree with. The pictures shurr are purty at 1920x1080 at 2xAA and 8xAF on my Hitachi 50v715 (some free SSAA when downsampled in the TV to it's native ~1340x760), but the loading thing really gets irritating!!

Sorry for the dropped "s" there Ostsol... Duh

[Kaotik]

Originally Posted by micky

I only have a board which supports DX8.1. (GF4 4200TI 64meg)

Is there that much difference to 8 and 9..in terms of Half Life 2

In HalfLife 2, your card uses DX8 mode.
DX8.1 mode in it (actually, in pretty much everything having separate DX8 and DX8.1 paths) uses PS1.4, while GF4Ti supports only up to 1.3.

[Intel17]

In Half-Life 2, I don't think moving to a DX8 codepath has a significant impact upon IQ.

[AlexV]

There are some in-your-face things, like the glossy-shiny look of the 9mm, the way the flashlight works, and water to some extent, but as I said above, nothing show-stopping.

[ZoinKs!]

I compared all the paths some months back and much preferred the dx 9 path.

In particular, the difference in water was huge, assuming the comparison is with dx9 using the highest quality, reflect all water. Iirc the "reflect all" aspect made a greater difference then just the water shader.

[Ragemare]

Here's an article explaining the different bump mapping techniques of which normal mapping is one: http://www.delphi3d.net/articles/vie...umpmapping.htm

By the sounds of it, it makes the most sense for HL2 to use normal mapping and I'm pretty sure I have seen normal map textures in hammer.

[swaaye]

Heh if you are really stuck with a DX8 card, well, blow $40-50 on a Radeon 9500PRO on eBay and check out DX9!

[AlexV]

Thanks for the link Ragemare.Interesting stuff.