John Carmack on DOOM3 Rendering

Discussion in 'Beyond3D News' started by Dave Baumann, Jun 11, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Anonymous

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 1978
    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why do so many people treat JC as god?

    I mean the only game of any significance he ever made was Doom and Doom 2. Since then he has tried but always failed. Quake has so much hype you would think it wad the second coming of Christ but when it finally came out it was so crap you wondered whether JC was still alive or not. This continued to Quake 2 & 3. Do you really think Doom 3 is going to be any diff coz it has the name Doom in it? I mean sure it has all the hype but there is no real indication is isn't going to be another Quake. Sure it will sell in the billions, people will be using it's engine for the next 100 years but it's still a crap game with a dumb engine. The only reason it sells it becoz most people thinks JC is God any therefore anything God makes must be good. The only reason people use it's engine is becoz there are a lot of dumb managers out there who also think JC is God and so force their programmers to use it (of coz, some of the lesser programmers also think JC is God). Once this has started, even the good programmers with good managers are often forced to use it because it it the only engine which any graphics card makers cares about and the only engine which has been used so much that you don't have to worry about compatibility or finding out funny things about the engine half way thru the programming process.....

    It's interesting tho. Despite the fact most people think JC is God, Microsoft Direct3D is still doing very well even tho JC decided against that a while ago and refuses to admit now he was wrong. This show who powerful, and dangerous Microsoft must be. It's also interesting that only ATI and Nvidia have really been able to pay of JC. Or the other buggers don't seem to undestand that JC is God. Either that or they just don't have enough money. I pity them. It's also interesting the way JC can waste so much of your 3D card without many people realising. I mean is it really that hard to notice that your card can do a lot better things in other games at a higher FPS but when it comes to a JC game it looks crap but goes a lot slower? I suppose this is because so many people are blinded by JC's Godliness that they don't even realise how crap most JC games look.
     
  2. Anonymous

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 1978
    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    One more thing

    Does anyone else find it strange that so many people on BBs like this and so many developers like to pretend that people only keep their 3d cards for 6 months - year? Sure that's what Nvidia and ATI would like but we all know that the great majority of people keep their 3d cards for at least 2 years and will be playing Doom 3 on a G2 or G3 at the very best with a large proportion also using a Geforce (1) and TNT2s & TNTs ATI Rage 128s. The other who upgrade are doing it because they have the money and realise their TNTs have really reached the end of the lives and of course the small number of people who having money pouring out of their asses and upgrade every 3-6 months anyway.
     
  3. Simon F

    Simon F Tea maker
    Moderator Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,560
    Likes Received:
    157
    Location:
    In the Island of Sodor, where the steam trains lie
    I think a sentence in that post is in rather poor taste.
     
  4. Entropy

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,057
    Likes Received:
    1,020
    One sentence only? Simon, then your taste is not refined enough. ;)

    Entropy
     
  5. Gunhead

    Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2002
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    a vertex
    Is JC ain't God God?

    If not, then I feel safe to say he's silly. Certainly not a theologist, nor a game engine programmer.

    (Hey, neither am I. However, I try to avoid being outright silly whenever I can. Appreciating the community I happen to be in, or something. Out.)
     
  6. Anonymous

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 1978
    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nah, the Parhelia will not run Doom3 very well - not even as well as the current ATI or Nvidia parts.
     
  7. Anonymous

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 1978
    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nah, the Parhelia will not run Doom3 very well - not even as well as the current ATI or Nvidia parts.
     
  8. Gunhead

    Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2002
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    a vertex
    Heard you fine, thank you.

    Same Guest?
     
  9. Anonymous

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 1978
    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is so that, when rendering the shadow volumes, the shadowed regions will be "masked off" correctly. The shadows won't be solid black if you specify an ambient light value (which is rendered together with this first pass, I believe).

    You can just render everything with all lights and then "remove" the shadows by blending in black, but that looks like ass.
     
  10. e-style

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your right, JC isn't god. Tim Sweeny is :D :lol:

    But seriously, alot of this stuff is over my head, but I like to get right to the meat of it. How will Doom3, theortically perform on todays card? I'm not particualry interested in The Geforce2/ATi7500, but more on the Gf3/4 and on the 8500/R300 - Does anyone think todays card can utilise all the next gen methods that D3 will use, along with ANis and AA enabled? Even at let's say.. 800x600 res?

    Who really cares how the games "works" - I think the majority are more interested on how it will run.

    I wonder how much more advance this engine is then the Unreal2 engine, I haven't really looked into that.
     
  11. Simon F

    Simon F Tea maker
    Moderator Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,560
    Likes Received:
    157
    Location:
    In the Island of Sodor, where the steam trains lie
    I, for one, am interested in how it works, and I suspect that many others here are also. This site is mainly about 3D HW and SW techniques and so the methodologies used are relevant.
    Simon
     
  12. Rodéric

    Rodéric a.k.a. Ingenu
    Moderator Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,984
    Likes Received:
    846
    Location:
    Planet Earth.
    I agree with Simon.
    I'm even slightly more interested in how it works than in how well it'll perform.
    :)
     
  13. pascal

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    49
    Location:
    Brasil
    I am:
    -60% interested in play the game
    -40% interested in how it works
     
  14. e-style

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes I'm aware of that, but we have had 3 pages of how the game works, figured I would change the tempo on how it would run.
     
  15. Simon F

    Simon F Tea maker
    Moderator Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,560
    Likes Received:
    157
    Location:
    In the Island of Sodor, where the steam trains lie
    Apologies to all for going a bit off-topic here, but you asked (perhaps rhetorically) "who is interested in how it works". Since we have had 3 pages on the techniques employed, it would appear that many people are interested. Understanding what it does should then indicate what hardware features are necessary for it to run well.
     
  16. Anonymous

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 1978
    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    :oops: And here I thought I was intelligent (read:informed) enough to post on this thread. As a newbie prog'r it all reads as Greek to me, but the arguements are well founded and supported. That in itself is rare in this day and age. Just thought I'd share that opinion.

    Peace,
    T.
     
  17. Anonymous

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 1978
    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    any sugested reading for understanding this article?

    im really interested in learning about what the hell john is talking about. any suggested books that explain advanced concepts to a beginner. where did all you guys learn all this. are you all in the industry?

    Thanks
     
  18. Emirikol

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting
     
  19. Anonymous

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 1978
    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    DOOM3 engine

    I am not going to pretend to know much of anything about engines etc.
    Im not a programer/engineer. But, after downloading the leaked doom 3 alpha, (I KNOW it is alpha and will run like crap because of this)
    I would say at this point UT 2003 engine seems more efficient. The polygon count in DOOM3 is rather low, and when enemies get close they are pretty blocky looking, which is a disapointment. I would rather have him go a little easier on the lighting/special effects, and increase polycount in the characters to avoid the horrible blockyness they seem to have. But since it is an Alpha this will probably all change with the addition of more special effects and trickery. Funny, i read an interview and JC stated, in the past we had to perform trickery to get lighting to look real etc etc. Now they are performing another trickery, and that is using bump mapping z passes (Z quatamizer, super dimensional pre data light fetching, calculate all things light down to the atom shader before it happens yesterday 2.0 ETC ETC, (I know rather goofy sounding, but all the jargon we/they use sounds just as silly, cept what they say means something and is real LOL)
    to make objects look more real which is good, but i feel it doesnt have an equal balance of ploys vs lighting effects. dont get me wrong. VERY VERY VERY impressive work from a very brilliant man, but i feel this may spoil the graphics in some respects. I would say the UT 2003 engine would be well suited for doom 3, just make it all very dark looking use the trickery they used in the past for lighting effects, and the concentrate on higher poly models. Thing is, doom 3 LOOKS just about better than anything else, but it doesnt look the most real. Ever notice how some games can look better than others, but not as real, DOOM 3 has a very contrived CG look to it, whereas SOF2 Doesnt look CG but has a very lifelike look to it, (Sure some of the environments may be somewhat angular looking, but the rich textures (that arent using a kabillion lighting effcects) help even it out.

    Wow, this is a much longer post than i realized. LOL

    I am still eagerly awaiting final product, without a doubt will buy it when it comes out; and am looking forward to having the pants scared off of me :D (Even at the alpha stage, game is crepy as hell)

    BEST regards to ALL,
    Psilaxs
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...