My perspective on 3dmark

If the source content (i.e. textures) don't need to be modified, and the developer can get performance benefit from 1.4 shaders, writing the shader doesn't take long, so I don't see why a game developer wouldn't do it. Writing shaders is fun compared to the "more tedious" programming tasks.

But of course if you design your game to run in one pass with PS1.1 you may not get huge benefits out of PS1.4, maybe reduce your shader a few instructions. I've seen somebody here say UT2003 uses PS1.4; I presume this to be case with it as it was basically designed to work with DX7 fixed function.

 

OpenGl guy and worm, you are both right. I was a little brash in my post before about that, thanks for pointing out the obvious errors in my judgement. But to be clear, I did check up on others cards performances in Doom3 alpha leak. And it didn't surprise me too much, my card wasn't all that bad compared to other sytsems with a similar setup but a differing videocard.

Anyway, thanks for the corrections and insight.

 

Thanks for giving me a new name.
I really appreciate it.
Really.

Yes I recognise that.
PS1.2 is a little better, but not enough to support it. (It doesn't give sufficient advantage.
PS1.3 offers 1 more instruction to change the pixel's (fragment's) Z-value - which is something noone recomments using. (For a good reason.)

Actually games are developed for actual cards not for APIs.

For example you could argue that the choice of primitives in DX8 is RT-Patches since this is the most advanced thing in it.
One have to consider on the other hand that no actual cards support it!

The funny thing is unfortunately it does not benefit all PS2.0 hardware.
While I'm no happier than anyone else about this - it has to be taken into consideration.

That being said we will use PS1.4 where appropriate.

Btw, I do not really see how your reasoning apply to PS2.0. Since we use DX9 nothing prevents us to have a PS2.0 path too. That's what Doom3 does (R200 path = PS1.4, ARB2 path = PS2.0).

 

I'm a programmer in a Hungarian dev team called Stormregion.
We are working on a tactical RTS game named Panzers at the moment.

 

Does 3d Mark 2003 use re-entrant code? Although it is primarily GPU limited (thank god) will it scale at all on a dual processor machine?

 

Geeze, where are the normal maps, like maybe for the tracks on dirt and snow!? Just because it looks so durned fantastic already doesn't mean you can go and slack off!

 

Cool, can I have a free copy?

 

Looks very nice! Almost like.. C&C Generals!

Do you guys have any PS stuff in'it? And of course, if you feel for it, don't be shy to send me an early copy (and final of course) of it..

 

I think it's more of a case where a game is targetting 2.0 capable cards, if an effect can be done with 1.4 (which apparently all 2.0 cards are required to do) and support a few more cards, even those nasty ATI cards, then why not? Obviously, it's doubtful that a game would revolve around 1.4 since only ATI cards support it, and only 2 people own those, but a game designed for 2.0 (I'm gussing games in 2005) could use 1.4 as a fallback more easily than 1.1. From what I read here, it's not the code, it's the number of passes, or general effort, to get the same effect, the spec forces you to make. So, a shader program is a tiny bit of code, redesigning an engine for multiple passes is many orders of magnitude more annoying.

 

Hmm.
I hope you don't refer to the water - it's the same (at least on these early shots) as what we used in out previous game (S.W.I.N.E.), which was released in 2001.

We were a little surprised to show that up in C&C...

Not much at the moment.
PS is mostly used to reduce number of passes (surprise).
Water and some of the objects use that.

More PS will be used for shadow map implementations (not yet finished).
You can only show the ground only shadow implementation on the shots.

We'll probably do that around E3 time.

 

I think I wrote about it somewhere in the forum (you know some of those topics where people complain about games not catching up with latest technology).

We prototyped per-pixel lighting with normal mapping, so there's a basic implementation in the engine.
The reason you don't and won't see it on most objects is that it requires like twice or more work for graphics artists - and we are on a relatively limited budget for that.

Actually you should do a simple test with Doom3.
a.) turn off specular lighting but leave normal maps enabled
b.) turn off normal maps but leave specular lighting enabled
c.) turn off both normal maps and specular
I've found that for most objects 'b' is looking way better than 'a'.
The wow factor in Doom3 is there because people are used to 'c'.

We well use specular maps where appropriate - altough a WWII game wont have an excess of shiny objects.

As for track & show there will be improvements.

 

Durnit, you're trying real hard to take my money from me!

I wonder if I can press charges when the game gets released?

 

Congratulations Hyp-X that game looks very promising in both technology and gameplay. IIRC S.W.I.N.E was a bit buggy on release but it sure was a good game, so keep up the good work.

I read in your german forum about a leaked technology demonstration. People judging your game on early and unfinished work surely sucks.

 

Ah, I meant the "style". Is your game also a "isometric" 3D RTS? (was too lazy to read it from your site )

Ah ok.. I noticed that in 1 shot everything else had shadows, but the sandbags and the metal "X"'s (dunno what they are called) didn't. But that's just me..

Send me a copy of it? Cool!