N
nagual678
Guest
mwhahahahaNiteX said:
can you feel the irony breathing on your neck?
Half Life 2 on Doom3 Engine !!
- Thread starter UrmeldieMurme
- Start date
can you feel the irony breathing on your neck?
A2597
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,682
- Reaction score
- 0
I've been a CG artist for 6 years now. I've seen the best works from the best artist, and all I can say is I HATE Doom3's lighting engine. Technically speaking it's a breakthrough, but as far as realistic lighting, it sucks.
Unreal3's however, looks most impressive. Soft shadows that react properly...
Unreal3's however, looks most impressive. Soft shadows that react properly...
Someone will make a HL2 improvement mod with higher res textures,effects,etc. Doom 3 is proly pushed to the highest possible textures. Valve themselves stated they had to balance FPS with quilty, they said they are going to make ATI levels, levels that are super detailed(these levels aren't limited to ATI cards, Valve likes ATI cards better tho)
BTW, Doom 3 was a showcase, so everything was at the highest possible settings with the highest textures that could cram in it, they didn't really care about making it run well. Valve made a game, not a showcase, they needed to have good FPS.
azz0r
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2003
- Messages
- 2,381
- Reaction score
- 1
Not this sht again, apples and oranges.
Great lighting is a trade off for poor draw distance and limits the hardware range for the consumer.
Half Life 2 is all about scaling back to compensate the lower end systems and thus it uses a precalculated lighting system.
Two diffrent engines for two diffrent users.
Great lighting is a trade off for poor draw distance and limits the hardware range for the consumer.
Half Life 2 is all about scaling back to compensate the lower end systems and thus it uses a precalculated lighting system.
Two diffrent engines for two diffrent users.
Alientank
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2004
- Messages
- 440
- Reaction score
- 0
azz0r said:
Bingo. Stop comparing the two. Havoc, the Doom 3 engine is not "cranking out the highest res stuff" that it can, it can do much better, our hardware can't handle it though. High res textures are just high res textures, it doesn't take a special engine to load up insanely high res textures, but our hardware can't handle it, period.
The Doom 3 engine is a great engine designed for shadow intensive games. Anyone who says even just those few screenshots suck, is a retard. Those look fabulous for just a few things thrown together.
I also love how you people say "it wouldn't be that dark" or "it's too dark" ummmm hello, if it's inside a building and there's only 1 light, it's going to be dark, unlike Half life 2 where it's lighter then it should be at times.
The shots that show from the outdoor side of things, look perfect, everything is illuminated that should be.
BetaMaster
Spy
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2004
- Messages
- 946
- Reaction score
- 2
I've heard some people mention a map made for HL2 of Doom3. can anyone give me links? I'd like to see some screenshots of this.
BetaMaster
Spy
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2004
- Messages
- 946
- Reaction score
- 2
What engine does Doom3 use? Is it seriously Quake? But, that's just stupid about that. Dumbasses.
Now, back to that question about Doom3-on-HL2...
Now, back to that question about Doom3-on-HL2...
Alientank
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2004
- Messages
- 440
- Reaction score
- 0
BetaMaster said:
Doom 3 uses the Doom 3 engine.
and moto-x, judging by the comments displayed in this thread so far about Doom 3, and the complete misinformity and bias some of you have, I'd say there's equally as many dumbasses here.
Moto
Tank
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2004
- Messages
- 1,559
- Reaction score
- 0
http://www.doom3world.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=64423
Lol. Click that link. Some Doom 3 fan is trying to prove that Doom 3 can match the indoor or outdoor graphics of any other First Person Shooter. From what I've heard, (Never played D3) Doom 3 runs slowly even though you never really go outside in a large area. You are mostly confined to corridors and small rooms.
If it runs badly indoors, what would it run like outdoors?
Lol. Click that link. Some Doom 3 fan is trying to prove that Doom 3 can match the indoor or outdoor graphics of any other First Person Shooter. From what I've heard, (Never played D3) Doom 3 runs slowly even though you never really go outside in a large area. You are mostly confined to corridors and small rooms.
If it runs badly indoors, what would it run like outdoors?
F
flamz
Guest
However says that these Doom3 engine screen shots looks more realistic than HL2 should start spending more time outside and less time playing Mario Bros.
The only thing that Doom3 does properly is cast shadows on *everything*. And it does it well to a certain degree, but they look like dark polygons blended over the level geometry (which is in fact sort of what they do) anyone who doesn't play computer games will be able to look at these screen shots and say: "that's fake".
However, in HL2, there are times when my eye got fooled. The first time was in the dam level when you are fighting the chopper. It looked so real and correct that I spent 30 minutes just wondering around and enjoying the scenery.... that's the *first time* I do that in a computer game..... and believe me, I look at alot of CG pics in a day. My girlfriend (who doesnt play computer games said: "What movie are you watching?")... no joke.
It's the closest approximation of GI I've seen in a game or demo that doesn't use HDR. ...it's very very impressive.
HL2 rules.
gotta play now.
The only thing that Doom3 does properly is cast shadows on *everything*. And it does it well to a certain degree, but they look like dark polygons blended over the level geometry (which is in fact sort of what they do) anyone who doesn't play computer games will be able to look at these screen shots and say: "that's fake".
However, in HL2, there are times when my eye got fooled. The first time was in the dam level when you are fighting the chopper. It looked so real and correct that I spent 30 minutes just wondering around and enjoying the scenery.... that's the *first time* I do that in a computer game..... and believe me, I look at alot of CG pics in a day. My girlfriend (who doesnt play computer games said: "What movie are you watching?")... no joke.
It's the closest approximation of GI I've seen in a game or demo that doesn't use HDR. ...it's very very impressive.
HL2 rules.
gotta play now.
F
flamz
Guest
Moto-x_Pat said:
Thanks for the link. Made me laugh quite a bit.
StardogChampion
Tank
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,037
- Reaction score
- 2
Moto-x_Pat said:
I wouldn't laugh too hard. That rich_is_bored is a very talented guy with the quake/doom engines. He wouldn't create a stupid project unless he knew he could do it.
R
Rick
Guest
Yea the doom3 engine liteing would be good for HL2! :sniper: :afro:
R
ruin
Guest
Hey thanks guys, I can't believe my thread has become so popular 
Let me clear a few things up. Some areas of the map are dark because I made them like that. It was an artistic decision. It gives it more atmosphere. I could just have easily just turned up the brightness on the ambient light and make it as bright as daylight WITHOUT sacrificing anymore fps.
There isn't that map brush detail in the map because it was a small project and as I have said numerous times I cannot release the map so what's the point in spending so much time on it? Plus a lot of the HL2 maps have similar or even less brush detail as well as the fact that I only ported over the some of the textures, not the models because I'm not a modeller and don't know how to do it. I ran the map on the ultra top quality settings Doom 3 supplies AND had it on 4XFSAA running at 1024 by 768 and it was playable. I've gone over a lot of this in my first post there if you guys want to bother to read.
rich_is_bored also knows what he's doing. Large, brightly lit maps CAN be made in Doom 3. They most probably will run slower than HL2 but that doesn't mean they'll be unplayable. Here's an example of a testmap I've made:
http://www.gamingforums.org/forum/files/largetest.jpg
Yes it doesn't look good. It's not necessarily meant to. It's a test map. But that screenshot was taken at 1024 by 768 on medium settings and look at the fps. See that black and orange dot in the centre? That's a Cyberdemon. Notice the specific lack of any black shadows anywhere? And if some of you want to complain about the amount of brush detail I have also posted another screenshot in the same thread rich_is_bored made.
Just in case noone has worked it out yet, I am idiom.
Let me clear a few things up. Some areas of the map are dark because I made them like that. It was an artistic decision. It gives it more atmosphere. I could just have easily just turned up the brightness on the ambient light and make it as bright as daylight WITHOUT sacrificing anymore fps.There isn't that map brush detail in the map because it was a small project and as I have said numerous times I cannot release the map so what's the point in spending so much time on it? Plus a lot of the HL2 maps have similar or even less brush detail as well as the fact that I only ported over the some of the textures, not the models because I'm not a modeller and don't know how to do it. I ran the map on the ultra top quality settings Doom 3 supplies AND had it on 4XFSAA running at 1024 by 768 and it was playable. I've gone over a lot of this in my first post there if you guys want to bother to read.
rich_is_bored also knows what he's doing. Large, brightly lit maps CAN be made in Doom 3. They most probably will run slower than HL2 but that doesn't mean they'll be unplayable. Here's an example of a testmap I've made:
http://www.gamingforums.org/forum/files/largetest.jpg
Yes it doesn't look good. It's not necessarily meant to. It's a test map. But that screenshot was taken at 1024 by 768 on medium settings and look at the fps. See that black and orange dot in the centre? That's a Cyberdemon. Notice the specific lack of any black shadows anywhere? And if some of you want to complain about the amount of brush detail I have also posted another screenshot in the same thread rich_is_bored made.
Just in case noone has worked it out yet, I am idiom.
StardogChampion
Tank
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,037
- Reaction score
- 2
Milo 7 said:
Yeah, just ignore those guys :smoking:
Mountain Man
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Messages
- 2,248
- Reaction score
- 0
Actually, what you're seeing is just how ugly Doom 3's textures are when they're not hidden by stencil shadows. The darker screens look pretty good, but the brighter ones are indeed ugly.Sgt. Duffy said:
**CENSORED**
Newbie
- Joined
- May 7, 2004
- Messages
- 51
- Reaction score
- 0
This is important because it poves that the Doom 3 engine can produce high-res textures, and that the only reason that id hasn't got any is because of performance hits. (The guy at doom3world.org said that he drops to 30 fps)
E
enyx
Guest
Oh boy... I got an account @ halflife2.net forums so I could view the pretty pictures. Atleast now I can do something else with it ;-) I'm a student in the last year of a 3 year traditional / computer animation program... but CG has been my life for far longer than that.
First of all, as far as lighting goes... comparing HL2 to DOOM3 is like comparing apples and oranges (I hate to flog a tired cliche but it's true). HL2 uses pre-computed, reletively low-resolution lightmaps to generate the lighting on a texture. It doesn't factor in anything like area lights, or how crisp the shadow should or shouldn't be. The bottom line is, it's only "soft" because of the fact that the resolution isn't all that cranked and the shadows are just generally blurred. But, the lights are also pre-computed to factor in some sort of rudimentry radiosity (lights bouncing, etc), nothing to ocrazy nor perticularly realistic. The lights are also ALL static, never changing. And if you bring up the flashlight, I'll castrate you. It's just a picture projected from the POV meant to "lighten" whatever it hits, based on it's alpha channel. There are no shadows.
Doom 3's lighting scheme however revolves around computing the shadows in real time (with the exception of a few projected shadow maps, such as light shining down from above a layer of grating). Almost everything concerning light in Doom 3 is dynamic. You can pretty much do anything in real time... change the color, the position, etc. And everything will update along with it... bumpmaps, diffuse brightness, specular highlights, etc. From an entirely technological standpoint, Doom 3's lighting architecture absolutely THROTTLES Half-Life's 2 archeic approach.
HOWEVER, that doesn't have to mean Doom 3 automatically looks better. As far as being physically accurate to the real world, they're both sitting at two ends of the spectrum. HL2 mimics real life lighting very well, it's all very shoddy and static, but looks great... if you're not searching for the faults. The same thing can be said for Doom 3, but I can tell you now.. 2, 3 years from now... lightmaps will never be seen again in a new game. Ever. Atleast I certainly hope not...
Doom 3 is a stepping stone towards a much more powerful and promising lighting system. It wouldn't take much to create soft shadows and accurately simulatie area lights. If you were to spawn 5 lights side by side (centimeters away) in Doom 3, you'd effectively get a cheap version of soft shadowing. But the funny thing is... this is EXACTLY how it's done in modern, pre-rendered CG with the likes of 3D Studio Max or Maya. Lights, emitting multiple ray-traced shadows within a specified area.
And as far as Global Illumination or Radiosity is concerned... HAH! Don't even bring it up! We'll be sitting back for another 10 years before that stuff becomes real time. It took me 2 hours to render out a single 1280x760 image of a scene with 2, read TWO lights emitting photons and other garbage to simulate physically accurate illumination on my 3.4Ghz, 1 gig ram machine. It'll be a while before that render time is down to .05 seconds.
By the way, this is the scene I was refering to.. a version lit with just ray-traced shadows... personally I prefered it to my Global Illumination experiment: http://abdullahahmed.com/apple/wip/scenes/kitchen_textured07_02.jpg
Anyhoo I think both games look phenominal and I loved playing through both
By the by, my name is Stefan and I'll be lurking around here for a while so if there's something you wanna know, just ask
First of all, as far as lighting goes... comparing HL2 to DOOM3 is like comparing apples and oranges (I hate to flog a tired cliche but it's true). HL2 uses pre-computed, reletively low-resolution lightmaps to generate the lighting on a texture. It doesn't factor in anything like area lights, or how crisp the shadow should or shouldn't be. The bottom line is, it's only "soft" because of the fact that the resolution isn't all that cranked and the shadows are just generally blurred. But, the lights are also pre-computed to factor in some sort of rudimentry radiosity (lights bouncing, etc), nothing to ocrazy nor perticularly realistic. The lights are also ALL static, never changing. And if you bring up the flashlight, I'll castrate you. It's just a picture projected from the POV meant to "lighten" whatever it hits, based on it's alpha channel. There are no shadows.
Doom 3's lighting scheme however revolves around computing the shadows in real time (with the exception of a few projected shadow maps, such as light shining down from above a layer of grating). Almost everything concerning light in Doom 3 is dynamic. You can pretty much do anything in real time... change the color, the position, etc. And everything will update along with it... bumpmaps, diffuse brightness, specular highlights, etc. From an entirely technological standpoint, Doom 3's lighting architecture absolutely THROTTLES Half-Life's 2 archeic approach.
HOWEVER, that doesn't have to mean Doom 3 automatically looks better. As far as being physically accurate to the real world, they're both sitting at two ends of the spectrum. HL2 mimics real life lighting very well, it's all very shoddy and static, but looks great... if you're not searching for the faults. The same thing can be said for Doom 3, but I can tell you now.. 2, 3 years from now... lightmaps will never be seen again in a new game. Ever. Atleast I certainly hope not...
Doom 3 is a stepping stone towards a much more powerful and promising lighting system. It wouldn't take much to create soft shadows and accurately simulatie area lights. If you were to spawn 5 lights side by side (centimeters away) in Doom 3, you'd effectively get a cheap version of soft shadowing. But the funny thing is... this is EXACTLY how it's done in modern, pre-rendered CG with the likes of 3D Studio Max or Maya. Lights, emitting multiple ray-traced shadows within a specified area.
And as far as Global Illumination or Radiosity is concerned... HAH! Don't even bring it up! We'll be sitting back for another 10 years before that stuff becomes real time. It took me 2 hours to render out a single 1280x760 image of a scene with 2, read TWO lights emitting photons and other garbage to simulate physically accurate illumination on my 3.4Ghz, 1 gig ram machine. It'll be a while before that render time is down to .05 seconds.
By the way, this is the scene I was refering to.. a version lit with just ray-traced shadows... personally I prefered it to my Global Illumination experiment: http://abdullahahmed.com/apple/wip/scenes/kitchen_textured07_02.jpg
Anyhoo I think both games look phenominal and I loved playing through both
By the by, my name is Stefan and I'll be lurking around here for a while so if there's something you wanna know, just ask
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2003
- Messages
- 9,356
- Reaction score
- 165
Doom 3 may be technically superior in terms of lighting, but sticking with precompiled lightmaps was a design decision that Valve made - it certainly wasn't through any lack of technical ability. HL2 runs better on "low-end" hardware than Doom 3 does, without having to sacrifice much in the way of visual quality.
I completely agree that lightmaps will be dead and gone soon. I pretty much guarantee that a future incarnation of Source will go with a unified lighting model, but not until the majority of hardware can run it acceptably.
I completely agree that lightmaps will be dead and gone soon. I pretty much guarantee that a future incarnation of Source will go with a unified lighting model, but not until the majority of hardware can run it acceptably.
electronic squid
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 0
That actually looks pretty good
electronic squid
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 0
I think people get put off the doom 3 engine because of the environment doom was centered in, it looks fantastic with real "urban" looking textures
Top Secret
Spy
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2003
- Messages
- 2,258
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't think some of you realise the power behind the Doom 3 engine. I've seen 1x1 mile out door, hilly terrains, fully lighted, on high 1024x768 9800 Pro getting 60 FPS.
Vinnie_NL
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2004
- Messages
- 353
- Reaction score
- 0
Good first post Enyx , hopefully we will have soft shadows in a few years. And I think we will have that. The soft shadows in the Unreal Engine 3 looked very realistic. I think they were rendered with some tricks to keep the fps reasonable with a small loss of realism but it looks much better than HL2 en Doom 3 together. But what else do you expect from an engine with a 1GB 3D Card as minimum requirements.
The Toxic engine can render very realistic lighting too. Look at this site. And it's open source :cheers:
Some of the fancy rendering features:
Bidirectional Reflection Distribution Function (that characterizes how incident light is reflected by a surface).
Emittance Distribution Function (characterizes how light is emitted from a light source).
Want to see what that means? Well these pictures speak for themselves.
http://www.toxicengine.org/gallery/ring.png
http://www.toxicengine.org/gallery/cornellbox.png
But with using the current hardware you shouldn't expect framerates above 1 fph (frame per hour)
, hopefully we will have soft shadows in a few years. And I think we will have that. The soft shadows in the Unreal Engine 3 looked very realistic. I think they were rendered with some tricks to keep the fps reasonable with a small loss of realism but it looks much better than HL2 en Doom 3 together. But what else do you expect from an engine with a 1GB 3D Card as minimum requirements.The Toxic engine can render very realistic lighting too. Look at this site. And it's open source :cheers:
Some of the fancy rendering features:
Bidirectional Reflection Distribution Function (that characterizes how incident light is reflected by a surface).
Emittance Distribution Function (characterizes how light is emitted from a light source).
Want to see what that means? Well these pictures speak for themselves.
http://www.toxicengine.org/gallery/ring.png
http://www.toxicengine.org/gallery/cornellbox.png
But with using the current hardware you shouldn't expect framerates above 1 fph (frame per hour
)
Darkside55
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2009
- Messages
- 12,083
- Reaction score
- 93
azz0r
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2003
- Messages
- 2,381
- Reaction score
- 1
http://abdullahahmed.com/apple/wip/scenes/kitchen_textured07_02.jpg
Someone should made a de_rat_future
Someone should made a de_rat_future
