HL2 on DOOM3 engine? take a look!!!

[johnnypoopoopant]

this is pretty old

 

[ruin]

Well thanks for confirming something guys (not all of you). The 'Doom3 Can Do It too' project shouldn't even bother trying to cater to the HL2 crowd because it's obvious we're not going to be able to change many people's views even when showing them direct evidence that they're wrong.

 

[Eunoch]

they both use diff. engines, and surprise surprise hl2 is much darker on the doom3 engine if u look what map is that???

 

[oberGeist]

Why? It's been done with Doom 3. I saw the video.

true, but that was used only in a testmap, not fully implemented in a game - I mean with light scattering from the sky, radiosity lightmaps and shadows covering massive outdoor areas. that's what d3's engine lacks unfortunatelly...

 

[Spartan]

true, but that was used only in a testmap, not fully implemented in a game - I mean with light scattering from the sky, radiosity lightmaps and shadows covering massive outdoor areas. that's what d3's engine lacks unfortunatelly...

Yeah, it was a testmap, but so what? If you can do it in a testmap, you can do it in any map.

 

[jacen]

you do realize that source can do doom3's lighting?

it may can do the lighting but
it cant do the shadowing.

 

[Eg.]

sadowing, u mean make verything black?

 

[jacen]

sadowing, u mean make verything black?

no
like putting a shadow over an object that has no direct los to the light source.

source could have used dynamic shadowmaps at least .. they would look somewhat natural ... but this static shadow things now ... uarg

 

[PvtRyan]

Well thanks for confirming something guys (not all of you). The 'Doom3 Can Do It too' project shouldn't even bother trying to cater to the HL2 crowd because it's obvious we're not going to be able to change many people's views even when showing them direct evidence that they're wrong.

My definition of direct evidence in this case would be a map that's the size of an avarage HL2 coast or C17 map, with the same amount of detailed indoor settings, using the same polygon counts and texture resolutions, with every entity casting a shadow, no dark unrealistic corners in outdoor or indoor maps, with the same geometry complexity, and most important: at the same framerate, or even a playable one. The framerate is especially important because no one is disputing the fact that Doom 3 can do it, but it's not hard to do so when you don't have a 'frame budget'. 'Can Doom 3 do that too'? The answer to that is obvious: it can't. Why you say?

Because they're different engines aimed at different stuff.

The overall 'it can do it' engine seems to be X-Ray, Source at the moment serves the 'tries to do everything, but has to scale down for low end systems' camp.

 

[jacen]

My definition of direct evidence in this case would be a map that's the size of an avarage HL2 coast or C17 map, with the same amount of detailed indoor settings, using the same polygon counts and texture resolutions, with every entity casting a shadow, no dark unrealistic corners in outdoor or indoor maps, with the same geometry complexity, and most important: at the same framerate, or even a playable one.

so you want more features without accepting the performance loss? :thumbs:

btw: enginering a 3d engine isnt that easy as you have to forecast the pc specs over the next few years.
and its easy to get mistaken by a year or even more.

d3 will run very fine on pcs next summer
+
quake 4 will run fine on pcs next autumn. and raven will include some outdoor environments as well.

over time the d3 engine will grow stronger, because it hase almost (see that im writing almost? d3 has no hdr ...) all features that source has, but it also has something completely new and unique ... the dynamic shadowing of the entire level geometry.
and believe me ... you can make things with this ..

 

[Cons Himself]

yawn, well can you grfx geeks realise one important thing:

Doom 3 was a pants game, HL2 was an excellent game. end of story in my, and every other normal persons book

 

[PvtRyan]

so you want more features without accepting the performance loss?

Yup. Because the 'Doom 3 can do it too' challenge is worthless if there isn't a limitation. If there isn't, 'Source can do it too', 'Crytek can do it too' 'X-Ray can do it too' 'Tenebrae can do it too'. That's not a challenge, that's sticking as much crap into a map as possible. Sure, Doom 3 can do full dynamic true soft shadowing, if you use 500 lights per lightsource. But is that relevant? I don't think anyone (sane) is doubting that Doom 3 is capable of great things, but not on this hardware! And that's what matters! Otherwise, why wouldn't Crytek be able to 'do it too'?

 

[Spartan]

yawn, well can you grfx geeks realise one important thing:

Doom 3 was a pants game, HL2 was an excellent game. end of story in my, and every other normal persons book

That's completely irrelevant.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

It's like an ugly chick who looks hot in the dark. But if you see her in broad daylight she's revolting and you want take a mallet to her face.

Doom 3 maps are like the ugly chick. They look good in the dark but when you get them out in real light...they are worthy of a mallet hit......So if Half-Life 2 maps can be transferred between engines and still look great maybe that means Valve are a hot chick?

Oh for ****s sake what in the hell am i talking about.

yeah.. Fusion i think u've had a bit much to drink when one starts making analogies like that one

 

[jacen]

Yup. Because the 'Doom 3 can do it too' challenge is worthless if there isn't a limitation.

the limits are coded into the engine
for d3, you cant have more then 8 lights per scene (iirc)

If there isn't, 'Source can do it too', 'Crytek can do it too' 'X-Ray can do it too' 'Tenebrae can do it too'.

we are talking of unmodified render engines.
everything you can do with the sdk
so ... no
source cant do realtime shadows ... especially not for level geometry.
cry engine can only draw 1 shadow per model and again .. not for level geometry
teneabrae doesnt belong here, since its open source and you can include everything you want ...

Sure, Doom 3 can do full dynamic true soft shadowing, if you use 500 lights per lightsource.

no it cant ... only if you want to port the renderer to ogl 2.0 and rewrite big parts of it. softshadows will not be possible, at least not by creating soft lighting ...

 

[Ecthe|ioN]

The Doom 3 engine might be great and all, but from playing Doom 3 I just didn't get that impression. The graphics were boring and repetetive. The lighting is cool, but that's about it IMO.

 

[krushdbug]

Can't we all just be friends and jack off to a picture of Alyx being raped by an überdemon?

 

[dru]

ive never played doom3, is it fun?

 

[Alieni²]

ive never played doom3, is it fun?

Boring id say...

 

[ruin]

I was talking about the fact that none of the pictures I posted up had ANY black shadows in it and yet people keep saying 'The Doom3 engine is crap because the shadows are black'. Plus they say it's too dark; There was ONE room that was dark in the map and I made it dark because it was more atmospheric. Later in the thread I made that room lighter and added more detail PLUS it ran fine on a MID-RANGE system.

Talking about which game is actually better or more fun is irrelevant to the discussion.

It appears the 'can do it too' project is going to end up having more detail than the HL2 maps atm. No it isn't going to run as fast as HL2 but is it going to look as good? Quite possibly even better and hopefully it will be playable. Yes you would probably need a decently powerful computer to run it at a decent framerate but I don't see why we shouldn't look to the future as the Doom3 engine does. We've never said Doom3 can run as fast as the HL2 engine using compareable assets, we're just saying it's not necessarily the engine that is the limitation but the hardware. Besides, when the map is released, mid-range systems could quite possibly run the map at a decent framerate.

 

[Sainku]

We've never said Doom3 can run as fast as the HL2 engine using compareable assets, we're just saying it's not necessarily the engine that is the limitation but the hardware.

So, doom 3 is capable of doing everything half life 2 did better!....with better hardware, shocking discovery.

Both games will be loaded with new features when new hardware becomes avaliable, they will both always be better at one thing than the other. In 2 years with new hardware they may both be able to do what the other did 2 years ago....better...yey.

So far I am not very impressed with either engines graphics wise. Half life 2 has awsome physics, great water, and impressive facial animations. Doom 3 has some great lighting and looks like something straight out of a pixar film, though less cartoony. In my opinion you need to be trying to do what the new ATI Crytek demo did with my 9600 pro. That thing looked great and ran decent too.

By the way im not a farcry fanboy, I hated that game....freaking monkeys!

 

[ruin]

For some people it is a shocking discovery that Doom3 can do realistic, non-plasticey environments without black shadows.

 

[ruin]

AND be able to be run on today's hardware.

 

[urban]

looks like everyone understood that it was meant as a joke...

shoulda write that it was a joke or maybe use some laughing emots...



are You referring to me posting links to other forums or to using HL2 textures in other projects?

hl2 textures.

 

[Brassm0nkey]

bitch moan whine. The bottom line is this kids. Source is the most advanced rendition of the old paradigm, while the Doom3 engine is a totally new and superior way of rendering games. Because it is so new and demanding, it will take a short time for hardware to mature to it's level, but it is the future. Not Source. Source will not be liscensed very much outside of a handfull of RPGs, due to the fact that Source is a great environment to build a diologue heavy game with lots of player interaction, a game where graphics take a back seat. For action games, however, the Doom 3 engine is the future of gaming.

Source= Realistic looking graphics, but graphics which are very inconsistant and do not act real. It is the old style of rendering where we were concerned with pulling off tricks in order to represent real life lighting because it wasn't time for a unified lighting system.

Doom 3 engine= Realistic acting graphics with the potential to look as realistic as HL2, but it is still in it's infancy and will need to evolve for a couple of generations before that realism is reached(just like any time in the history of gaming when a new paradigm is introduced). Eliminates all the flaws and inconsistancies of a lightmap based rendering engine. The Doom3 engine CAN infact "do it", just wait for the next generation of Doom3 engine games.

Doom 3 engine has a bright future, Source on the other hand does not. Source was great for HL2, but for future games on future hardware Source is not a competitor.

 

[CriYam]

ive never played doom3, is it fun?

Doom 3 is an awesome game which you can play right now without any purchase.

Just go crawl into a cupboard and shut the door tight, admire the lighting and the size of the rooms.

Seriously, the first mod to be released for doom3 was duct tape, they had to add a flashlight mod to the game because it's so dark.

Doom3 spoiler!

Spoiler

every time you turn around or open a door there will be an alien

Is it any wonder doomers are trying to copy hl2?

 

[StainlessJ-FPGA]

sadowing, u mean make verything black?

no
like putting a shadow over an object that has no direct los to the light source.

I think EG had it right the first time. Doom 3 had a really cool way of having a light source come from no where, shadows sticking around because they only react to one light source at a time, and walls being completely black from 2 feet away even with a light source at your back. Doom 3's lighting/shadows were horrible. Source does it better. Unreal3 does it best.

 

[PooSlice]

Doom 3 is an awesome game which you can play right now without any purchase.

Just go crawl into a cupboard and shut the door tight, admire the lighting and the size of the rooms.

Seriously, the first mod to be released for doom3 was duct tape, they had to add a flashlight mod to the game because it's so dark.

Doom3 spoiler!

Spoiler

every time you turn around or open a door there will be an alien

Is it any wonder doomers are trying to copy hl2?

You know the first "mod" to Half life 2 were a save file with a lot of zombies spawned from the console. wohaaa

 

[ruin]

Thanks StainlessJ-FPGA's for just proving my point. I just can't believe it. It's as if people can't even read anymore. No it's worse than that because when I even post PICTURES, people can't even SEE anymore.

 

[Kangy]

I'd say the Source engine is more promising for actual revolution in games.

Source offers the ability to support a diversity of games, look fairly and offer believable dialog, so we'll get stories quite unlike "The Shoddening" of Doom 3. Not only that, Source is designed to improved and modified heavily over time. All that crap about dodgy shadows can simply be changed with a flick of a switch.

Nobody needs the very latest graphics all the time. Gaming needs to start focusing on believable characters and plotlines.

 

[Kapitan Helion]

I dont listen to doom 3 fanboys
... Not to mention.. The engine is TOO DARK!... Or is that the game ?... The phys is crap.... The damn corpses vanish before you can even poke them ... I finished the game.... I stopped playing... Grafix are good but.... Other then that...

 

[DreamWraith]

everyone always hollers about 'doom 3's lights'. its sickening. source has the same capabilities. has anyone seen the flashlight? just because half life 2 doesnt use the capabilities dont mean they dont exist. valve built the game to run on a plethora of machines. ID built doom 3 without caring what could run it. that is why doom 3 is loaded with dynamic lighting.

 

[CriYam]

You know the first "mod" to Half life 2 were a save file with a lot of zombies spawned from the console. wohaaa

A save file isn't a mod.

And the point was about the game, while we start off by modding weapons doomers are working on being able to see 3 feet in front of themselves.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

So, Doom 3 can do everything HL2 can, but with realtime lighting, and the fact that it runs slowly (I'd go so far as to say unacceptably) is irrelevant?

Right....so if I use the Mental Ray renderer, it can do all of the above features and more, but you have to wait 6 hours for each frame. But hey, framerate isn't relevant.

 

[BanalityDUFF]

I'd say the Source engine is more promising for actual revolution in games.

sure it is...especially given its running on last gen tech.

so far HL2 and Vampire are the only source games out and they didn't exactly revolutionise anything - great games sure but revolutionary no way.

you people go on about the facial animations like its the first game where peoples faces moved, the only thing HL2 did was make it look a tad more normal and made the process easier todo for modders (?).

DOOM 3 atleast brought something new to the plate with its unified lighting model, sure its a bit dodgy with the competely black shadows but i prefer that than shining a flash light in HL2 and having it cast no shadows just brighten up the scene a tad. =/. boo.


DreamWraight - take a picture of you shining the HL2 flashlight at a can and then take a picture of you shining the DOOM 3 flashlight at a can and try to justify your "source has the same capabilities. has anyone seen the flashlight?" because its total bulls**t


I run DOOM 3 at 1024x768 with everything on high and HL2 at 1024x768 with most things on medium...hmmmmm...if HL2 is such a god at running on all systems WTF can't I run it with everything on high and get a consistant FR? i get around 30 atm.



as for the thread, HL2 looks crap in DOOM 3 because it doesn't use bumpmapped textures (to an extent anyway), it just uses higher res textures that are more or less flat when you get right up to them.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Doom 3 wasn't the first game to use unified lighting. It certainly wasn't the first engine to use it. Unique and revolutionary? No.

 

[BanalityDUFF]

Doom 3 wasn't the first game to use unified lighting. It certainly wasn't the first engine to use it. Unique and revolutionary? No.

what was then? =/

 

[cadaver]

looks like shit. how tall is freeman in those pictures? 10 inches?

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Tenebrae (a Quake engine modification) did realtime lighting several years ago.

 

[Eg.]

another bad thing about doom, its unplayable to 1/2 of teh comps put there, ati owners, i have a x800, and i can barley play it. doom3 was a big tech demo, and no other game is going to linsence a engine that exludes half teh market