3DMark05...whoa...

[XxStratoMasterXx]

I just downloaded 3Dmark2005, and it looks AMAZING!

I mean, how advanced is the engine used on this thing??

Are the shadows and lights done completely in real-time?
Could someone go into some explination of how the 3Dmark engine works?

Finally, wouldn't it be awesome if a game was built off this engine?

Futuremark rocks!

 

[Dave Baumann]

Go to Google - you might find a few articles on the subject!!

 

[digitalwanderer]

I like this Google search for "3DMark05 review", third one down of course.

 

[Reverend]

I just downloaded 3Dmark2005, and it looks AMAZING!

It looks good, yes.

I mean, how advanced is the engine used on this thing??

Not very. It is heavy on shaders and polygons though.

Are the shadows and lights done completely in real-time?

Yes.

Could someone go into some explination of how the 3Dmark engine works?

First of all, a comment : It is an engine specifically created for a benchmark, not for a game.

Download the whitepaper and read the rather minimalistic info provided regarding the 3DMark05 engine. I can't tell you more than what it provides as, even though I've been both kicked out of as well as voluntarily quit the BDP personally, I think I'm still under NDA.

Finally, wouldn't it be awesome if a game was built off this engine?

I'm sure there will be plenty of game developers that won't think it'd be "awesome".

Futuremark rocks!

Yeah, there are quite a number of rocks in Game Test 2 and those canyons in Game Test 3 are massive rocks.

 

[Bahadir]

Futuremark rocks!

Yeah, there are quite a number of rocks in Game Test 2 and those canyons in Game Test 3 are massive rocks.

 

[hovz]

rev your distaste for futuremark aside, you cant deny the visuals the engine outputs.

and explain to me why doom 3 is advanced and the 3dmark05 engine isnt? because it(doom 3) doesnt look 1/100th as good as any scene in even 3dmark 03? much less 3dmark 05? dont use the "hardware isnt capable enough yet to unleash the full power of the doom 3 engine" excuse because its bull. the doom 3 engine is not the best engine, its not a step above other top engines, and carmack is not the be all end all of programming.

if a game even approached the graphical level of 3dmark 05 id say thats a big step above anything coming out in the near future. 3dmark05 looks better than unreal engine 3 in a lot of areas.

 

[rwolf]

I think that 3DMark has been a fairly good indicator of Graphics card performance. After all it did a great job of showing DX9 performance before DX9 games were out. Most games out there now scale the same way 3DMark does with maybe the exception of Doom3 which seems to be intentionally green tainted.

 

[Reverend]

rev your distaste for futuremark aside, you cant deny the visuals the engine outputs.

And I said that 3DMark05 (i.e. its game tests) looks good in my above post. Did you read my post?

and explain to me why doom 3 is advanced and the 3dmark05 engine isnt?

Never mentioned Doom3 engine at all... not me, not the author of this thread. Not sure why you brought up the topic of the D3 engine in this thread.

because it(doom 3) doesnt look 1/100th as good as any scene in even 3dmark 03? much less 3dmark 05? dont use the "hardware isnt capable enough yet to unleash the full power of the doom 3 engine" excuse because its bull. the doom 3 engine is not the best engine, its not a step above other top engines, and carmack is not the be all end all of programming.

Huh?

if a game even approached the graphical level of 3dmark 05 id say thats a big step above anything coming out in the near future. 3dmark05 looks better than unreal engine 3 in a lot of areas.

Huh?

 

[hovz]

rev your distaste for futuremark aside, you cant deny the visuals the engine outputs.

And I said that 3DMark05 (i.e. its game tests) looks good in my above post. Did you read my post?

and explain to me why doom 3 is advanced and the 3dmark05 engine isnt?

Never mentioned Doom3 engine at all... not me, not the author of this thread. Not sure why you brought up the topic of the D3 engine in this thread.

because it(doom 3) doesnt look 1/100th as good as any scene in even 3dmark 03? much less 3dmark 05? dont use the "hardware isnt capable enough yet to unleash the full power of the doom 3 engine" excuse because its bull. the doom 3 engine is not the best engine, its not a step above other top engines, and carmack is not the be all end all of programming.

Huh?

if a game even approached the graphical level of 3dmark 05 id say thats a big step above anything coming out in the near future. 3dmark05 looks better than unreal engine 3 in a lot of areas.

Huh?

you and many others have called doom 3 the most advanced engine plenty of times on this board

 

[rwolf]

Applications like 3DMark05 are just fun to have around. I don't think a video card should be measured by just how well it plays games.

3DMark05 pushes the boundaries and show us what is possible. It is art with purpose and function.

 

[Reverend]

you and many others have called doom 3 the most advanced engine plenty of times on this board

I don't remember saying it is the most advanced engine even a single time -- I have however said the game is pretty. If I have said the D3 engine is the most advanced, do a search and prove it.

Regardless of what I said about the D3 engine elsewhere, please correlate that to the topic about 3DMark05's visuals and the 3DMark05 engine in the context of my first post in this thread.

 

[NRP]

Well, I'm a gamer, not a 3D technology critic. I think 3DMark03, 3DMark05, Source, Doom3, and UE3 all look damn good. Sometimes, I think people get a little too emotionally involved in squabbles about what technology is useful or revolutionary or whatever. Personally, I just like seeing what different people bring to the table (Carmack, Sweeney, Valve, Crytek, etc.).

XxStratoMasterXx,
Yes, I agree with you that the graphical scenes in 3DMark05 are amazing. I especially like the big guy with the chaingun in Return to Proxycon - that's how a friggin' chaingun should work in a game! The monster jumping out of the water is really cool too.

Edit: spelling

 

[Dave B(TotalVR)]

Im not sure exactly what Rev's opinions of Futuremark are but I think he leans the same direction as me.

Its pretty.........

......Useless.

 

[wzh100]

that is really a nightmare for me 3d mark 05.....

 

[Sharkfood]

because it(doom 3) doesnt look 1/100th as good as any scene in even 3dmark 03? much less 3dmark 05?

I'm kinda lost by this whole train of discussion as well.

I find ANY part of Doom3 to look substantially better and more visually appealing/impressive than ANY test in 3dmark05. 3dmark05 looks exactly how it should- a shader and polygon heavy benchmark. Doom3 features artistry and effects designed to inspire a response and give 'mood' and 'feel'... HUGE difference. And the Doom3 engine does this superbly.

These kinds of discussions are a moot point though. One man's sock ejection is another man's yawner. I still think the 'most amazing' looking thing ever pumped out of FutureMark was back in the MadOnion days with 3dMark2000- with the last room fly-by in demo mode with the marble floors, stairway and small pool of water. Technology combined with artistry is what yields impressive visuals. 3dmark05 is heavy on the technology but still lacks in artristry... as it should- it's purpose is truly to exercise hardware and provide performance statistics.

 

[hovz]

yes dark hallways with similar textures is exceptional artistry. it takes alot of originiality to design a space station

 

[mustrum]

I am not impressed by 3dmark 05 at all. Same goes for Doom 3.
The only game test that looks nice is the one with the airship IMO.
Doom 3 is shadows and bump maps with blocky characters. Looking good? Yes. Ground breaking? Hell no!

I expected a whole new graphics experience from 3dmark05. If i compare 3dmark 03 to 05 i see the diference but it's not impressing me.
Playing farCry for a while impresses me more. It's shaders might be less advanced but it creates an extremely nice environment wich is great.

It's not the engine that makes games beautiful but the artists that work with the engine.

 

[Cryect]

Heh, well its hard to say I've seen a ground breaking engine/graphics (should say Real Time) since the original Quake, so seems pointless to discuss that (everything has been pretty much steady evolution since then).

Edit: Also the difference from year to year of noticable graphic change is going to continue slow as the equations get more and more complex so you really can't expect to ever see anything really groundbreaking again. Well you can expect to see something groundbreaking potentially in how its used but considering there is no groundbreaking graphics out there thats already been researched doubt you will see something groundbreaking graphically in a game.

Groundbreaking tools are what are really needed and those won't be so apparent to the users so much as the amount of time it requires artists.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I am not impressed by 3dmark 05 at all. Same goes for Doom 3.
The only game test that looks nice is the one with the airship IMO.
Doom 3 is shadows and bump maps with blocky characters. Looking good? Yes. Ground breaking? Hell no!

I expected a whole new graphics experience from 3dmark05. If i compare 3dmark 03 to 05 i see the diference but it's not impressing me.
Playing farCry for a while impresses me more. It's shaders might be less advanced but it creates an extremely nice environment wich is great.

It's not the engine that makes games beautiful but the artists that work with the engine.

3DMark05 - Benchmark
Farcry - Game

Why people still compare both is stupid. I think 3DMark05 is very nice indeed.

US

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I like this Google search for "3DMark05 review", third one down of course.

I like the Review.

US