Doom3: Will it have a separate SM3 codepath ?
- Thread starter rms
- Start date
991060 said:
Yes.
[edit: If you need more than my word on it, nVidia's "Robost Stencil Shadow Volumes" paper from 2001 specifically states this on slide 26. Plus, you pretty much have to do it this way, or else determining which lights need to be processed is extremely difficult (with finite-radius/range-limited lights, the objects you have to do lighting/shadowing calculations on is simply the union of objects within the "attenuation sphere" of all light's whose attenuation sphere intersects the view fustrum. If you don't cap the range of lights, this becomes a much much harder problem since you no longer have a closed sphere, but an entire 3d space of influence - you have to either calculate shadowing and lighting from every single lightsource in the level, every frame, or somehow determine that a light source in no way casts light or shadows anywhere in the view fustrum, and cull them away, one by one.)]
Bleh. Even though it'll run on Geforce 1s, it'll be at low resolutions and slowly. If you want decent speed you'll probably want to turn off alot of the cooler features. The middle-spec for the game will definitely be the Geforce 3/4 or Radeon 8500/9000/9100/9200.991060 said:Good for Geforce1/2/3/4 owners, bad for NV40 owners.mito said:
yeah, but it's not my point. What I meant is that if game developers only have a fixed target machine, they can put much more energy in refining the visual effect, rather than in paying effort on fall-back stuff. Just take a look at what they achieved on XBOX, you'll know what I mean.Ostsol said:Bleh. Even though it'll run on Geforce 1s, it'll be at low resolutions and slowly. If you want decent speed you'll probably want to turn off alot of the cooler features. The middle-spec for the game will definitely be the Geforce 3/4 or Radeon 8500/9000/9100/9200.991060 said:Good for Geforce1/2/3/4 owners, bad for NV40 owners.mito said:
Given how long ago Doom 3's engine was started, I find it hard to be surprised at the fallbacks it has. The console performance vs PC performance issue is an old argument discussed by people far more qualified than myself, so I feel no obligation to try and reiterate it.991060 said:
If I recall right didn't Carmack say something along the lines if you want to use a Geforce 256 you will have to run at a res of like 320x240 if you want decent framerates. I might be a little off but I recall something really low res like that for FPS around 30 he was estimating.
Edit:
"· The slowest cards will be the 64 bit and SDR ram GF and Radeon cards,which will really not be fast enough to play the game properly unless yourun at 320x240 or so. "
http://www.newdoom.com/newdoomfaq.php
Edit 2: Finally found the real original source for that
http://archive.gamespy.com/e32002/pc/carmack/index2.shtml
Edit:
"· The slowest cards will be the 64 bit and SDR ram GF and Radeon cards,which will really not be fast enough to play the game properly unless yourun at 320x240 or so. "
http://www.newdoom.com/newdoomfaq.php
Edit 2: Finally found the real original source for that
http://archive.gamespy.com/e32002/pc/carmack/index2.shtml
Dave was almost spot-on. JC's quote, IIRC, was that Doom 3 was based on the GF1 featureset (which is ~ GF2), and that his next engine will be based on NV30. I'm guessing he may change the base model of his next engine, given how NV30 shook out, but that may depend on its user base (which may be insignificant by the time his next engine debuts).tEd said:
jvd said:DaveBaumann said:
well at least we know for his next engine the r3x0 and x800s should be fine running i
Like a GF will run Doom III
Seems that he likes the flexibility of the NV30 architecture with no limit on dependant texture reads, and a large number of instructions. I think that's why he said his next engine will be designed around that level of features, but since I've read that the NV40 will be the base for his next engine.
Similar threads
