Half Life 2 on Doom3 Engine !!

[UrmeldieMurme]

A user from the doom3world.org Forum has made a Half Life 2 Map on Doom3 Engine. More informations and pictures can you find HERE !

It´s looks very nice !

 

[PvtRyan]

Looks pretty bad, gone is the subtle lighting. It's pretty dark too, way darker than the HL2 counterparts.

 

[Burn]

Does'nt look like HL2 at all... does'nt even look like like doom 3. Just looks like a very bad map with to much lighting efx.

 

[mzhang23]

Too dark.

 

[blahblahblah]

They need to fix the direction of the lighting. THe map would look a lot better if they did that.

 

[Incitatus]

OMG!! the lighting is way better...

I don't know how you can say the hl2 lighting is better, it is darker but also much more realistic.

I've been doing CG lighting for a few years now, just as a hobby. And that's my opinion.

 

[Latin_Jones]

You've been doing CG lighting for years and you don't use bounce lights or any type of global illumination to get rid of the pitch black shadows like you see in doom 3?

The reason doom 3 lighting is NOT very realistic is that it does not simulate the effects of light bouncing off of things. You will rarely ever see pitch black shadows unless they are coming from a single, somewhat dim, lightsource...

Look around the room you are in right now. Even if you only have 1 light on, chances are the shadows are NOT pitch black because the light is getting bounced around everywhere.

Doom 3 lighting is ridiculous. TOO MANY SHADOWS. HL2 lighting is much more realistic because while the engine doesn't calculate radiosity or 'bouncy beams of light' they at least fake it and make it look good.

 

[Gray Fox]

What the hell, are you people blind, this definatly looks like hl2, damn I never knew the d3 engine could do that.
But you probably need a uber pc to run that, the d3 engine is not very efficient.

 

[Sgt. Duffy]

Im no Doom3 fan-boy, or Half Life 2 one..but Doom 3 on the Half Life 2 engine looks like utter crap..I mean, it goes back to the Quake days. SCroll down to the near bottom of the page..someone did it vice-versa.

 

[Xonze]

Its a matter of opinion and I don't agree with yours. It looks so much crapper then Half-life 2 imho, too dark, there is no faint lighting that gave more life to the scene. The best picture is probably the one that showed a little bit of the outside.

BTW: What Latin said is right, you never have complete darkness in real life, there is always a hint of light somewhere. The only time it would be complete is if there was no windows, or doors and the room was completely blocked off from all sources of light.

 

[x84D80Yx]

in that thread.

hl2 on doom3 doesnt look half bad, the shading looks crazy good.
on the other hand..
doom 3 on source looks like something from 1997 ;x

 

[kungfucheez]

I think it looks very well done, the lighting is excellent as well

 

[Maxi]

Im no Doom3 fan-boy, or Half Life 2 one..but Doom 3 on the Half Life 2 engine looks like utter crap..I mean, it goes back to the Quake days. SCroll down to the near bottom of the page..someone did it vice-versa.

Eh? I can't find it.

And about that map, that is just some coridor with HL2 textures, no detailed geometry or anything.

 

[Latin_Jones]

You also have to look at the major differences between the Doom 3 and HL2 engines.

While the doom 3 engine excels at creating 'realistic shadows" the half life 2 engine is much more versatile. It was designed to create maps in indoor and outdoor environments.

The doom 3 engine was designed to create a game half hidden in shadows so that scary monsters could pop out and scare you and cause you to sell the game on ebay so you don't have a heart attack. At least, that's what happened to me.

So, obviously a doom 3 map in the HL2 engine is not going to look very good or anything like the developers intended. Just like HL2 in the doom 3 engine is going to look too dark. Because there is too much contrast in the lighting.

 

[UKchaos2]

That isnt a HL2 map, it just happens to use the HL2 textures and models.

 

[TheHitman5]

You've been doing CG lighting for years and you don't use bounce lights or any type of global illumination to get rid of the pitch black shadows like you see in doom 3?

The reason doom 3 lighting is NOT very realistic is that it does not simulate the effects of light bouncing off of things. You will rarely ever see pitch black shadows unless they are coming from a single, somewhat dim, lightsource...

Look around the room you are in right now. Even if you only have 1 light on, chances are the shadows are NOT pitch black because the light is getting bounced around everywhere.

Doom 3 lighting is ridiculous. TOO MANY SHADOWS. HL2 lighting is much more realistic because while the engine doesn't calculate radiosity or 'bouncy beams of light' they at least fake it and make it look good.

QTF, but honestly, I think both engines suck with doing shadows.

 

[Sgt. Duffy]

Eh? I can't find it.

And about that map, that is just some coridor with HL2 textures, no detailed geometry or anything.

Sorry..I didnt even look at the link the first poster posted, since I saw news extreamely similar over at planetdoom.com...but here IS the one I was talking about.

http://www.doom3world.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=64270&sid=3ff42dfddc0d2de21b0d04744eb4d465#64270

At first, you'll see links to the HL2 on the Doom 3 engine, but scroll down, and you'll see Doom 3 on the HL2 engine. Utter crap.

 

[Zento]

I think it looks really good. IMO the Doom 3 engine is able to do more complicated rendering techniques, but it's not at it's full potential yet because everyone doesn't have a high-end PC. I can't wait for Carmack's next update of the engine

 

[nagual678]

it looks REALLY good ! the lighting's unrealistic but look much better than HL2's imho. the shadows are pitch black and unlike real life because they were meant to be like that - play the game and you'll understand why.

 

[PvtRyan]

Im no Doom3 fan-boy, or Half Life 2 one..but Doom 3 on the Half Life 2 engine looks like utter crap..I mean, it goes back to the Quake days. SCroll down to the near bottom of the page..someone did it vice-versa.

That isn't done very fair either, a complete lack of normal maps, most screenshots don't even have RAD rendered (fullbright) and a complete lack of props which make a HL2 map.

But the conclusion remains: either is silly, you can't do HL2 on Doom 3 and visa versa.

 

[Alig]

What the hell, are you people blind, this definatly looks like hl2, damn I never knew the d3 engine could do that.
But you probably need a uber pc to run that, the d3 engine is not very efficient.

I beg to differ. The doom3 engine can run on cards almost as low as the HL2 engine can and looks better.

 

[Sgt. Duffy]

I think it looks really good. IMO the Doom 3 engine is able to do more complicated rendering techniques, but it's not at it's full potential yet because everyone doesn't have a high-end PC. I can't wait for Carmack's next update of the engine

Not to go off-topic, but I think Carmack is out of the game-biz for good, after having a baby (not him, his wife) and getting less interested in making games, and more into designing rockets (Biggest. Geek. Ever.)

 

[PvtRyan]

Not to go off-topic, but I think Carmack is out of the game-biz for good, after having a baby (not him, his wife) and getting less interested in making games, and more into designing rockets (Biggest. Geek. Ever.)

He's making one more engine afaik.

 

[Kangy]

I never gave a crap about graphics anyway.

All I wanted was convincing models, which I got, and a fantastic game, which it was. Doom 3 was bland, boring and hardly ever interesting. It felt like a big "scary" showcase for id's new tech.

 

[nagual678]

I never gave a crap about graphics anyway.

All I wanted was convincing models, which I got, and a fantastic game, which it was. Doom 3 was bland, boring and hardly ever interesting. It felt like a big "scary" showcase for id's new tech.

is this a thread about d3 vs hl2 ? no. about graphisms ? neither. it's about a HL2 map ported to D3 ande vice versa. comments about the importance of graphisms are completely off-topic, such as yours. nobody needs your sense of self-importance.

 

[NikolaX]

translated :

user from the Doom3World.org-Forum named idiom has one helped Life 2 map on Doom3 engine tinkered.
His result, one could build graphically better maps with the Doom3 engines only gives it problems with the performance, since valve many sources of light helped Life 2 in used.

 

[DarkSonic]

HL2 on Doom 3=Not half bad.

Doom 3 on HL2=Shite.

 

[Tim Nikias]

Something which might better the graphical quality is set some ambient lighting. In Doom3, it defaults with no ambient light, as in "no lightsource=black screen", other games still show a faint image, as in "no lightsource=flat, dark textures".

Another problem is of course that Doom3 can't have too many lightsources because of the automatic shadow-casting, *but* it can be switched off for lightsources IIRC. So, if someone would make a map, add a few bounce lights which don't generate shadows, and then have a few lightsources with shadows, I'd say Doom3 would produce much better results than HL2. Then again, you'd need a better PC to do that as fluid as HL2 does it now.

Still, the lighting in HL2, though good in many places, is highly overrated. I'm not sure, who would say that interpolated, low-detail lightmaps count as radiosity? I mean, for the layman, radiosity says "color-bleeding of light", so you can use low-res lightmaps as the color-bleeding won't be too obvious. HL2 has areas where the lightmap is great, but it also has quite a few where it sucks, I've mentioned in a different thread the crane with crappy shadows.

Additionally, HL2 shadows suck, they go through walls and objects and add up when several objects are stacked behind each other...

If someone would really want to do a full conversion of Doom3 to HL2, I'd say Source would suck compared to Doom3. But you'd need to apply the bump-maps et al to the textures, and HL2 is mostly just flat...

 

[PooSlice]

Hehe its kinda fun noticing how most people over here is like "Boo its look like crap, too dark, doom 3 sucks boring"

While over there "heh nice, good job"

 

[Gray Fox]

I beg to differ. The doom3 engine can run on cards almost as low as the HL2 engine can and looks better.

No way in hell, what hl2 can do on my rig(2.4|512|radeon9800pro), and with what detail and smoothnes, d3 could never, absolutly never, it would go like in 0.5 fps per second.

BTW, can someone post a link to where you can find d3 maps in hl2 engine.
(edit, oops sorry found it in the previouse posted link, I didn't look at the bottom, no need for a link)

BTW someone there said this, which I agree with:

The reason the D3 on HL2 screenshots look so bad isn't the engine, it's the level:

1) Many of the screenshots don't appear to even have lighting even started yet, others show bad lighting jobs

2) Some of the textures appear to be low-res, though that could just be the D3 textures

3) The screenshots were taken with very low quality settings, for example, no anisotropic filtering at all, it seems

4) Whoever converted the textures didn't convert the normal maps, so all the depth on the textures was lost

5) The mapper didn't put any specular highlights on the textures. D3 had specular highlights on virtually every surface, HL2 supports them, but this map doesn't use them.

HL2 isn't as advanced as D3 from a lighting perspective, but the reason it's looking so bad here is the map, not the engine.

That said, the screenshots of HL2 in D3 seem to indicate to me that the problem wasn't with the DooM 3 engine, but with the game Wink[/PHP]

 

[PvtRyan]

In my opinion, a unified lighting engine is a waste or resources at the moment. STALKER does the best job of combining the two, good dynamic lighting, and good lightmaps. It has nice subtle lighting yet also good dynamic.

Tim, no matter how many no shadow casting lights you throw into a map, you will never reach a believable indirect lighting solution, not to mention the shadows will still be harsh. And throwing many lights into a map will do more than lower your framerate, it will cripple it. Especially when the lights 'intersect'.

HL2 does some nice stuff with lightmaps too, the effect of a static light is also taken into consideration on the models of characters, they're not just lit by a 'sample point' underneeth their feet. Combined with dynamic lights, this creates much nicer, and above all more natural results than Doom 3 could. Cry Engine also does it very good.

 

[Maxi]

Well, that doom3 map on the HL2 engine is not really compareble with the hl2 on the doom3 engine. Since that was made with the leaked tools, that according to Valve didn't work to well(Final hours). And that has NO normal/bump maps, NO real lightning. CRAP textures NO props and so forth.

 

[IonizeMyAtoms]

Im no Doom3 fan-boy, or Half Life 2 one..but Doom 3 on the Half Life 2 engine looks like utter crap..I mean, it goes back to the Quake days. SCroll down to the near bottom of the page..someone did it vice-versa.

From what I can tell from those pictures, the reason they look like crap is the mapper's fault. It's just blocks with a couple textures

 

[Gorgon]

awsome, but dark

 

[alehm]

I would like to see some of HL2's outdoor enviroments on the Doom 3 engine.

 

[Alig]

No way in hell, what hl2 can do on my rig(2.4|512|radeon9800pro), and with what detail and smoothnes, d3 could never, absolutly never, it would go like in 0.5 fps per second.

That's not what i'm saying. I'm saying you put HL2 on bottom settings 0aa/0af then put Doom3 on bottom settings 0aa/0af using a GF4mx440 (which was the card i've seen doom3 running on at 20 - 30 fps average) and both games are very playable but the Doom3 lowest settings shines above everything else. I played Doom3 on max settings (2xaa/4xaf) and HL2 on max settings (6xaa/16xaf) with an X800pro and while i can play HL2 at higher frame rates than Doom3 does'nt neccersarily mean its the better optimised engine because from a hardware components point of view ...Doom3 asks for a hell of alot more work to be done in the same ammount of time, Oh and for the books...Doom3 2aa/4af looked just as smooth as HL2 6aa/16af does.

 

[NiteX]

The textures look like utter shit. Thats one thing Doom 3 will never be able to have, good textures. HL2 owns it in that department.

 

[zer0kewl]

OMG!! the lighting is way better...

I don't know how you can say the hl2 lighting is better, it is darker but also much more realistic.

I've been doing CG lighting for a few years now, just as a hobby. And that's my opinion.

there is no lighting lol

 

[Gray Fox]

That's not what i'm saying. I'm saying you put HL2 on bottom settings 0aa/0af then put Doom3 on bottom settings 0aa/0af using a GF4mx440 (which was the card i've seen doom3 running on at 20 - 30 fps average) and both games are very playable but the Doom3 lowest settings shines above everything else. I played Doom3 on max settings (2xaa/4xaf) and HL2 on max settings (6xaa/16xaf) with an X800pro and while i can play HL2 at higher frame rates than Doom3 does'nt neccersarily mean its the better optimised engine because from a hardware components point of view ...Doom3 asks for a hell of alot more work to be done in the same ammount of time, Oh and for the books...Doom3 2aa/4af looked just as smooth as HL2 6aa/16af does.

I tried playing d3 on lowest, thinking it would improve my preformance, which it didn't, but d3 without everything looks totally like crap, sorry the game relies to heavly on effects, and the low poly is terrible, just compare how the gun your holding looks on lowest in hl2 and lowest in d3, hl2 looks better, at least to me.

 

[PooSlice]

The textures look like utter shit. Thats one thing Doom 3 will never be able to have, good textures. HL2 owns it in that department.

Hahaha they are using Half life 2: s textures, totally owned.