Is Doom3's renderer revolutionary?

[Scali]

Let's all ignore the message and attack the messenger.

 

[Luminescent]

If anything, I would say we are heading towards less and less revolutionary engines, since the hardware will allow them to get closer to offline renderers.

Perhaps the revolutionary thing about Doom3 is that it is actually NOT revolutionary, but it can simply implement many age-old rendering methods in realtime for the first time, without the need for a lot of hacks.

Note: Please don't hurt me Rev, it just fit in so well.

 

[Richard]

Yeah we already saw it can do big areas, but I have to admit that I find it to look not so groovy with the totally black shadow, it would look nicer if you put another light in a specific spot to get rid of them. Of course you did it in 10 minutes I guess.

Yeah if that was farcry there would be hundreds of repetitive sprite, I demand the sprites.

I am actually finished (well, almost) with my big outdoor D3 map that I'm planning to use with the 6-wheeled-independent-suspension buggy that's going to be released with the D3 SDK. It's going to be smaller than this test map; for one because noclipping all the way to the back in the test map was incredibly boring and two because the map has a more interesting layout than "look, that's how far the draw distance can go".

I don't know about sprites, but I'll see about putting some Super Turbo Turkey Puncher 3 arcade machines in there.

 

[Scali]

It was never meant to resemble a FarCry level. You said the D3 engine couldn't handle big outdoor areas. Foliage, objects, buildings are just more polygons (or sprites for that matter).

Right...

You've praised UT2004's big Onslaught levels and yet they're also pretty much barren wastelands with a few scattered bases.

I most certainly have not. I have never even SEEN UT2004, let alone praised its levels. I wouldn't even know their names.

But I'm wondering why you don't prove your argument with tangible facts. You say D3 can't handle FarCry levels, why should we have to take your opinion at face value, that you continue to maintain even after I've showed you some proof? Why don't you try to prove your side of the argument with more than just opinion?

Because it should be painfully obvious to anyone who has half a clue about games that each engine is different, and each engine has different strong and weak points. FarCry was just one example, because FarCry's engine has very different strong and weak points from Doom3's engine.

And there's more to games than FarCry. While FarCry did outdoors extremelly well, it did other things less well, like indoors, where D3 excells. No engine is perfect at everything and yet, I only see you banging D3/JC. I don't see you ranting how CryTek should be put in its place because the outdoor/indoor transitions in FC look like something out of 1994 and how Tim Sweeny should be relegated to assistant programer status for releasing a game in late 2003 that only uses up to Dx8.1 shaders, or even insult Gabe because HL2's levels seem to have two suns: one for static geometry and another for models.

As I said many times before, the difference is that Doom3 is seen as the ultimate game engine, and Carmack as a god. I am not aiming at Carmack/Doom3 itself, but at the people who unrightfully place them above other great developers/games.
As I said before, I'm just being realistic.

Of course FC's engine is going to be better at recreating breathtaking paradise islands with jungle because that's what the debut game was about. Of course UE2 is going to be better at large multiplayer games because the debut game was all about multiplayer. And of course Source is going to be better at physics because the debut game even has a physics gun to throw stuff around. And D3's engine was made with tight detailed interiours and dramatic lighting in mind, because the debut game was all about dark corridors and tension and being stuck in a martian outpost with no chance to escape.

Looks like I'm finally getting through to you people. Now you're getting it.

You want to make a predator game where a team of special ops hunt down a Predator? Use FC's engine. Want to make a big, full-on multiplayer game pitting marines vs aliens in large open landscapes? Use UE2's engine. You want a game where environment interactivity is the key? Use Source. You want a solo romp through detailed interiours where shadows play a big role? Use D3's engine.

Exactly.

 

[Scali]

Luminescent: Note that this 'revolution' is started by the hardware capabilities, renderers are just putting them to good use.
I suppose it's similar to the learning curve of 3d graphics before and after 3d hardware.
Before, only skilled programmers who knew a lot about math and asm and such, could actually create decent realtime 3d stuff, but since the VooDoo, everyone can get a cube spinning in OpenGL in a few minutes, and the focus of engines shifted.

 

[Richard]

As I said many times before, the difference is that Doom3 is seen as the ultimate game engine, and Carmack as a god. I am not aiming at Carmack/Doom3 itself, but at the people who unrightfully place them above other great developers/games.
As I said before, I'm just being realistic.

Well, from the results from your own poll, it seems you are mistaken and most people don't view D3/JC as the next best thing since sliced bread. Perhaps now you'll start praising some of D3's qualities to compensate?

Looks like I'm finally getting through to you people. Now you're getting it.

No. The problem is that you seem to think most people don't get it, while your own poll proves otherwise.

 

[Scali]

My poll was deliberately biased. It is supposed to inspire people to think about the renderer in a different light.

Also, I never said that MOST people think this about Doom3/Carmack.
It's just that the ones who do, defend it with vigour.
Sorta like linux-people, really. There's so little of them, but boy can they start flamewars on forums everywhere!

 

[Laa-Yosh]

That it is just a trend, should also already be obvious. The next generation will not be using stencil shadows anymore. Just look at 3DMark05 and UE3.0.

Wrong - UE3 uses three kinds of shadows; precalculated radiance transfer, shadow maps and stencils. Daniel Vogel posted it here some months ago.

UE3 isn't revolutionary in offset mapping either, as far as I know - they've implemented the algorythm that was posted on an open forum months before.

It's a nice piece of technology for sure, but it isn't any more revolutional than Doom3.

 

[Scali]

Wrong - UE3 uses three kinds of shadows; precalculated radiance transfer, shadow maps and stencils. Daniel Vogel posted it here some months ago.

Okay, they will not be using stencilshadows exclusively/mainly anymore, whatever. Doesn't change anything about my point, so the whole 'wrong'-yelling stuff is well, wrong. But I guess you just felt you had to comment on me in some way, to avenge Carmack or something. That sort of thing apparently happens a lot in threads like these.

UE3 isn't revolutionary in offset mapping either, as far as I know - they've implemented the algorythm that was posted on an open forum months before.

Wherever the algorithm comes from, it's revolutionary. But apparently nobody seems to know exactly.

It's a nice piece of technology for sure, but it isn't any more revolutional than Doom3.

Or less revolutional. My point exactly.

 

[dksuiko]

This is a response to people who try to single out Doom3 in a positive way, and in effect pretty much discredit all other engines because well, they're not Doom3, and all developers because they're not Carmack.
I try to educate people by explaining what Doom3 is and what it is not, what it can do, and what it cannot do, and why other engines do different things.

So then this is nothing more than a backlash against Carmack zealots? Why you would take this crusade to the Beyond3D forums is what gets me - I personally have not seen the zeal you speak of towards Carmack on this particular messageboard. Appreciation, yes, but not blind zeal. Perhaps you're just taking your frustrations out on this board from messages you've seen elsewhere?

Not to discredit Carmack, but to be realistic, and put Carmack back in his place, and also the other developers.
I never actually discredited Carmack for the Doom3 accomplishments. I merely pointed out that the technology he used was invented in the 70s. People who claim Carmack did it all, would discredit the real inventors. Is that fair?

You may not have outright discredited him, but with comments like "stupid little outdated game," it's not too difficult to get that impression. In any case - no, it isn't fair for people to claim that Carmack did it all (who exactly here is doing that?). On that same note, is it fair for people like you who claim Carmack did nothing whatsoever?

But looking at all the emotional responses regarding Carmack, apparently most people already see him as a god, and Doom3 is his gift to this world, and all games must be like it from now on.

With regards to this messageboard, the emotional responses are not in defense of Carmack, but rather the attitude you come at this issue with. Taking the position of the opposite extreme view (Carmack is credited with nothing) isn't a particularly smart way to oppose the converse (Carmack is credited with everything). Unless, of course, your intention is to troll.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Okay, they will not be using stencilshadows exclusively/mainly anymore, whatever. Doesn't change anything about my point

My point is, robust stencil shadows don't seem to be a technological dead-end, as they're going to be included in several games in 2006 and beyond, both on PC and next-gen consoles. Also note that UE3 is using stencils for the dynamic light + dynamic object case.

What you can't seem to aknowledge is that stencils and shadow maps are no different in that they both have their limitations, especially when combined with the reailities of the consumer hardware market.
And have I mentioned how much I hate tweaking shadow map bias parameters?

It's a nice piece of technology for sure, but it isn't any more revolutional than Doom3.

Or less revolutional. My point exactly.

No, your points were:
- D3 isn't revolutionary (actually, a few days ago it was: doom3 is a stupid little engine, as pointed out above)
- UE3 is revolutionary because it's not using stencils, because it's using offset mapping etc.

And I'm not avenging Carmack here, not being a relative or friend of him - but the way you try to discredit him and his work is exactly the kind of pointless human behavior that irritates me the most.

 

[T2k]

Okay, they will not be using stencilshadows exclusively/mainly anymore, whatever. Doesn't change anything about my point

My point is, robust stencil shadows don't seem to be a technological dead-end, as they're going to be included in several games in 2006 and beyond, both on PC and next-gen consoles. Also note that UE3 is using stencils for the dynamic light + dynamic object case.

Not this way - you know that very well, LY. ..

What you can't seem to aknowledge is that stencils and shadow maps are no different in that they both have their limitations, especially when combined with the reailities of the consumer hardware market.
And have I mentioned how much I hate tweaking shadow map bias parameters?

Would you prefer making 500 polis modells because of this engine? C'mon.

It's a nice piece of technology for sure, but it isn't any more revolutional than Doom3.

Or less revolutional. My point exactly.

No, your points were:
- D3 isn't revolutionary (actually, a few days ago it was: doom3 is a stupid little engine, as pointed out above)
- UE3 is revolutionary because it's not using stencils, because it's using offset mapping etc.

None of them revolutionary, that's the point.

NONE OF THEM.

And I'm not avenging Carmack here, not being a relative or friend of him - but the way you try to discredit him and his work is exactly the kind of pointless human behavior that irritates me the most.

LY... don't try to sell you aren't a big fan of JC, OK?
It's ridiculous. You ARE. You know that very well. Nothing wrong with that but come on...

 

[T2k]

Scali, you'll be happy to know that the D3 engine can indeed cope with "FarCry"-big outdoor levels. Here's the proof:

1024 x 768 (118kb)
http://pwp.netcabo.pt/Tobril/D3_outdoor_test.jpg

This is just something I did in under 10 minutes. I inserted a model of an outdoor part of mars and cloned it 8 times and then enclosed them with six "sky" brushes. Each individual model is pretty big by itself but 8 times should remove all doubt. Funny statistics:

- For scale, those railings on top of the silos are about human size, meaning an enemy on the very last would be virtually undistinguishable.
- There are 8 point lights in this map (full bump, specular, ambient light enabled) with some overlap between them.
- It takes about 9 mins to walk all the way down to the last two silos (nocliping -- actual walking would probably take twice as long).
- FPS in that spot were actually around 42 but dropped because of the screenshot and I'm noclipping right near the "ceiling" to get as many polys on screen as possible.

LOL, this is preposterous.

JC will be in REALLY deep shit if that's what he consider as big outdoor level.

 

[Luminescent]

The thing is, one can only think of a handful of real-time rendering techniques that were developed just for real-time which, in addition, advanced visual quality significantly (as a whole), revolutionizing the 3D renderer.

If both offline and real-time engines are included in the pool for the poll, then real-time has nothing but a few effects like parallax mapping under its belt, and parallax mapping has not yet been implemented in a complete engine. In stating this, I am assuming this poll is not just about a technique, but the sum of techniques and how they're mended together to form a complete renderer. I mean, a tech demo renderer that explores a "revolutionary" technique but is not fully interactive and only allows for a limited perspective is not trully revolutionary as a 3D renderer in its entirety, because of its inherent limitations.

 

[Scali]

You may not have outright discredited him, but with comments like "stupid little outdated game," it's not too difficult to get that impression.

Why does everyone seem to take that literally?
And what's worse, why does everyone feel like nagging about that on and on? I'm sure if it was about Bill Gates and his 'stupid little outdated OS', that hardly anyone would be bothered by it.
Which is my point exactly.

In any case - no, it isn't fair for people to claim that Carmack did it all (who exactly here is doing that?). On that same note, is it fair for people like you who claim Carmack did nothing whatsoever?

I never claimed any such thing. Are you perhaps blinded by that same emotional hangup about Carmack that I am talking about?

 

[Scali]

My point is, robust stencil shadows don't seem to be a technological dead-end, as they're going to be included in several games in 2006 and beyond, both on PC and next-gen consoles.

As I said, it is a trend, so in the short run, it will be used extensively. It works, and gives reasonable results. But...

Also note that UE3 is using stencils for the dynamic light + dynamic object case.

But already it dropped stencil shadows for all cases, and it's only a matter of time until the hardware is powerful enough to get away with shadowmaps in pretty much all cases. After all, shadowmaps are potentially faster and can generate softshadows easier.

What you can't seem to aknowledge is that stencils and shadow maps are no different in that they both have their limitations, especially when combined with the reailities of the consumer hardware market.
And have I mentioned how much I hate tweaking shadow map bias parameters?

I have no idea where you got that from, because I never said anything about shadowvolumes being a bad solution. That is not the point at all.

- UE3 is revolutionary because it's not using stencils, because it's using offset mapping etc.

Not at all, I said the offset mapping was revolutionary, but if UE3.0 was not the first, then it cannot claim that title.
And I never said anything about its shadow methods being revolutionary. I merely said that UE3.0 is going to use other shadowing methods, which shows that we are going to move away from Doom3's technology in the not-so-distant future, which illustrates that Doom3 is more a trend at this moment (happens to be a good solution for most hardware at this point in time), than a revolutionary way to render hardware, which will be used for a long time to come.
And ofcourse I'm not saying that UE3.0 is not going to be the same kind of trend. Although at this moment I have no idea where we would go after shadowmaps.

And I'm not avenging Carmack here, not being a relative or friend of him - but the way you try to discredit him and his work is exactly the kind of pointless human behavior that irritates me the most.

I am not discrediting anyone, I'm being realistic. You however are showing irritating emotional human behaviour.

 

[Inane_Dork]

You however are showing irritating emotional human behaviour.

Live long and prosper, Spock.

 

[Scali]

The thing is, one can only think of a handful of real-time rendering techniques that were developed just for real-time which, in addition, advanced visual quality significantly (as a whole), revolutionizing the 3D renderer.

Yes, but is that a reason to just go and call every new engine that comes out 'revolutionary'?
As I already said, we no longer have such a big need to find special rendering methods for real-time rendering, because the hardware is gradually allowing us to implement things exactly the way we want them.
And as I said, this is the hardware doing that, not the software.

If both offline and real-time engines are included in the pool for the poll, then real-time has nothing but a few effects like parallax mapping under its belt, and parallax mapping has not yet been implemented in a complete engine. In stating this, I am assuming this poll is not just about a technique, but the sum of techniques and how they're mended together to form a complete renderer. I mean, a tech demo renderer that explores a "revolutionary" technique but is not fully interactive and only allows for a limited perspective is not trully revolutionary as a 3D renderer in its entirety, because of its inherent limitations.

Again, I don't see any difference between a tech-demo and a complete engine. Both have to have a complete renderer if you want anything to show up on screen, obviously.
And I think you got it wrong... if a tech-demo doesn't allow interactivity, that says nothing about whether the technique can be used interactively or not. It's about the technique that is being demonstrated. If the technique is not universally applicable, then obviously it is going to be less useful for interactive games, but it could still be revolutionary in some way. That depends on what it is going to be used for. Perhaps it is going to be used for medical imaging, and it's a real breakthrough there.

So in short, things like interactivity, universally applicability, unification and revolutionary have very little to do with eachother.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Not this way - you know that very well, LY. ..

Not what way?

Would you prefer making 500 polis modells because of this engine? C'mon.

If you don't use stencils on every polygon in the scene, it won't be as expensive. If you require an advanced video card, you can build the volumes on the GPU, thus a lot faster. So please stop with this nonsense - or do you think UE3's models are built from 500 polys as well?

None of them revolutionary, that's the point.

D3 technology was revolutionary when it was presented in 2001 - fully dynamic lighting and shadows in real time. Get over it

don't try to sell you aren't a big fan of JC, OK?
It's ridiculous. You ARE.

I'm not a fan - I actually think he might be quite annoying in real life, according to the video interviews etc. But I appreciate his work and his abilities.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Also note that UE3 is using stencils for the dynamic light + dynamic object case.

But already it dropped stencil shadows for all cases, and it's only a matter of time until the hardware is powerful enough to get away with shadowmaps in pretty much all cases. After all, shadowmaps are potentially faster and can generate softshadows easier.

I don't think Epic has chosen not to use shadow maps in this case for performance reasons only. There's a whole bunch of potential special-case problems with shadow maps, even in offline rendering where we can adjust every possible parameter and cheat as much as we want.

Thus I wouldn't say that they've dropped stencils, rather that they chose the appropriate solution for each case after sufficient consideration.