Doom 3 observations

[zurich]

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

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)

B)

A)

B)

A)

B)

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]

You'd be surprised what you can do with Nvidia's register combiners.

 

[Glonk]

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.

 

[zurich]

Yeah I thought of that Glonk, so I checked out the init stuff in the console:

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

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!]

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]

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.

 

[-tkf-]

Did you both exec highquality.cfg ?

 

[alexsok]

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]

Those black shadows are very ugly.
Cant they have some 'extra' non shadowing lighting?

 

[cybamerc]

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.

 

[zurich]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Guest]

But Doom uses the bumpmapping!

faf, i wonder if ps2 has any cool register combiners thing?

 

[alexsok]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.