Is Doom3's renderer revolutionary?

My point is, a technique does not a renderer make. If everything else in techdemo's renderer is traditional, except for a few new methods, whether they be novel or not, the specific technique(s) is(are) revolutionary, not the renderer.

What differentiates a relatively fully interactive 3D world from one that isn't, is the number of scenarios permitted to test the validity or utility of any 1 solution, and not just any specific techiques, but the conjuntion of all the techniques that compose the renderer. If any one technique/solution breaks down, then what use does it have in the renderer.

If Sandy developed a new way of tracing the path of light to the viewpoint, took into account an infinite amount of rays, and got it to work for a single or a few frames, but nothing else, would you call his renderer revolutionary, or his singular technique?

 

I can agree with that.

If these "changes" are robust enough to keep up with the renderer as a whole.

 

How much do we more-or-less know about certain things/implementations in Carmack's next engine? With the answers, how much of it is "revolutionary"?

Should we re-visit this when id shows a demo using the next engine from Carmack or when a game using this next engine from Carmack is released?

Are we going to see another poll like this one?

 

Hmm, I guess the ability to dynamically link a series of techniques to essentially create a "robust" solution, via many specialized techniques, slipped my mind. You mentioned HL2 as an example of tackling a variety of individual issues via specialized solutions rather than a singular robust one. One advantage of having a robust solution, though, is that it allows one to shift focus on other aspects of a renderer without having to deal with a variety of specific cases.

 

So how revolutionary is the z-fail (=Carmack's/Creative's reverse) method in the Doom3 renderer? How important is the z-fail in the "grand scheme" of the Doom3 renderer?

 

Why is my point as well. If someone called Windows nothing more than a "stupid little outdated OS," it obviously wouldn't be a technical discussion would it? You're trying to bill this as a technical discussion, but the whole point of it is to do nothing more than troll the carmack zealots. (Which you admitted yourself: "I am not aiming at Carmack/Doom3 itself, but at the people who unrightfully place them above other great developers/games.")

Carmack's Doom 3 engine is not the "Ultimate" engine, fine - it's guilty of making compromises like other engines. We get the point. Actually, I don't think anybody ever thought the contrary to begin with. You just continually insist that we see him as some sort of god, projecting some sort of image Carmack-zealots onto participants of the thread. Why? Who knows, because I for one haven't witnessed it until you made it a point to show that they were here. In fact, I still haven't seen any Carmack zealots here.

Far Cry was given equal praise on these boards. Along with EQ2's engine, Source, and UnrealEngine 3. And Doom 3 is no exception to that list. You say that the only difference is that "Doom3 is seen as the ultimate game engine, and Carmack as a god." To whom and where? This messageboard? Sorry, but I don't think so. Many of Carmacks own comments regarding various subjects have come into question in threads of this forum. And I believe there was a mutal sentiment going around here that Far Cry had rained on both the Doom 3 and HL2's graphics parade. Yet, you still wish to color us zealots.

See what I mean? So put down the pitchfork, the Salem Witch Trials ended long ago.

 

Is someone here acting like an ass?
yes
Am I drunk?
yes
Should you check your email after your pal's wedding?
no

 

It just took doom3 to long to come out, basicly everything that I saw in doom3 had already been done before and basicly all of it was done in the RIDDICK engine for the xbox.

It just seems that doom3 was to late to the party to be a revolutionary engine...

 

The flashlight in riddick is so much better than the one in D3 too...and it has a body view and a proper 1st person shadow.

 

The poll makes it too easy for anyone anti-id to pay the renderer out. Pretty silly.

 

Blocky cahracters combined with low res textures (partly) and bump maps. Throw some nice real time shados in there that eats 3ghz CPUs for breakfast and you got your revolutionary engine.
I am extremely disapointed in the D3 engine.
Revolutionary? No - Not at all.

 

LOL - talk about being silly...

 

Yes, and thats when you promptly began calling people stupid, shouting "wrong wrong wrong!", "it's not the ultimate engine!" and simply began venting. Yet, you wonder why you get an emotional response rather than a technical discussion? The real question should be, why are you getting all emotional? Which goes back to what I said earlier, "the emotional responses are not in defense of Carmack, but rather the attitude you come at this issue with."

Why the emotional response? 'cause you started it!