Hellbinder[CE said:
]
The trend these days is to go with lo-res models and normal maps (the technique Carmack is using in Doom3) and stencil'ed shadow volumes
How does *one* game become a Trend?
Because many of the new titles in development are using this technique, not just Doom3. Because both ATI and NVidia are evangelizing this technique now. ATI released a plugin for Maya and 3DStudio that allows any developer, whether they are John Carmack or not, to use the technique. Third party middleware is now starting to include it. Next-gen X-Box games are using it (Halo 2)
As soon as people see how utterly beautiful Doom3 is, every developer is going to copy it, the same way they copied Wolfenstein, Doom, and Quake. Especially since it is not a huge performance hit and works on *ALL* hardware that has DOT3 capability.
This thread alone discusses to HUGE games. Madden 2003 is the biggest sports title of the year for PC. And UT is one of the biggest FPS games of the year.
And since UT already uses hi-poly models, most people will not see a difference. I certainly can't see the different in-game, and even with low-poly models like in CounterStrike, it just ain't that visible.
A game has to be DESIGNED from the ground up with TruForm in mind if you want to take greatest advantage. Simply going back and backpatching a few models to fix artifacts is going to be no more impressive then taking a non-T&L game and patching it to use T&L, or adding a few bump maps to an old non-bumpmap engine.
Here's my point: If flipping the TruForm switch on an old game doesn't immediately make you say "Holy cow!", then it's no big win. If I compare Doom3 to Quake3, I get the "Holy Cow!" response. If I compared high dynamic range lighting to integer lighting, I get the "Holy Cow" response. If I show you what DX9 pixel shaders can really achieve, next to a multitexture game, I get the "Holy Cow" response.
The only other games out there that will use Carmacks technique are Knock off games like Q4 etc that will employ the Doom Engine. In fact i have read comments from other developers stating exactly the opposite. They are not going to go that route or use Stencil shadows.
Well, you are wrong. Right now, it is trivial for people to use "Doom3" technique and it yields a quantum leap in quality. It's requires nothing more than exporting a model with a plugin and using a normal map. Any engine designed right now, is going to take that technique into account. I talked to several developers at the last GDC that said they are using the technique. Halo 2 is probably the first visible example.
Moreover, real shadows that don't suck are also going to be standard in upcoming games. Oodles of console games are already doing stenciled shadows or shadow buffers. e.g. Rogue Leader, which was a GC launch title, used it.
It seems like some of you go out of your way to come up with reasons on why TruForm will fail, or be held back. When it ALREADY HAS more initial support from the gaming community than T&L origionally did.
They are many great features in the Radeon 9700, and even the 8500 (ps1.4) that can lead to stunning visuals. TruForm support for old engine titles is not one of them, and I don't see why you are evangelizing it so hard.
I actually own a Radeon9700 PRO and I am developing on it, and TruForm is the least impressive feature this card has.
