Ja! 3dMark2k4 will go from stencil shadows to perspective shadow maps

[|_HeLL_|]

A new interview with the Futuremark team (3DMark04 developers) was posted on Beyond3D:

http://www.beyond3d.com/interviews/fm04/

If you look at page 3 you will see a few interesing comments about the shadowing techniches in the comming 3DMark2004:

In 3DMark03 Games tests 2 (Battle for Proxycon) and 3 (Trolls Lair) were designed to mimic the Doom3 rendering model in DirectX, with an initial Z-Only pass and then a shadow pass for each dynamic light. Will any of the game tests be following a similar rendering model as this, or is it "all change"?

Nick: The next 3DMark is completely different from what 3DMark03 is. The engine is new, shaders are new (dynamically runtime built HLSL shaders), the shadow technique is new. It is an all new 3DMark version!

Patric: I think we worked enough with stencil shadows last time. If you want to measure that, why not use 3DMark03? The early footage of Doom3 did indeed inspire us, but our goal was really not to try to ‘measure Doom3 performance’ or ‘mimic Doom3 in DX’. Also, stencil shadows are a better choice in darker indoor scenes with less space and less edges throwing shadow volumes. Our new shadow model is based on perspective shadow maps (PSM). There are no shadow volumes adding TONS of fill rate and vertex load like in stencil shadows, but it is still a global solution with self-shadowing. Who knows if some even better dynamic shadow implementation is invented for the 3DMark version after this next one.

In these two game tests the shadowing obviously makes heavy use of stencil shadows, which aren't necessarily the best for producing soft shadowing techniques. Are you looking at any alternative shadowing methods in the next 3DMark?

Patric: These days projected shadow maps seem like the best choice if you want soft dynamic shadows, and I think most games out today with soft shadows use that. There are extensions to perspective shadow maps offering soft shadows, but those tend to be very heavy on the hardware and more suitable for small tech demos than full scale games. For example the Smoothie trick requires the identification of the edges throwing the shadows, which was one of the burdens of stencil shadows. For soft shadows we would still probably choose projected shadow maps, but we did that already in 3DMark2001. Then again, back in the ‘2001 days sharp edged projected shadows were quite enough for the hardware.

I'm submiting this thread in the Halflife 2 Discussion section because I thing is good to discuss about the fact Futuremark developers agree the Valve decissions about using shadow maps instead of stencil shadows. I'm bored with the people blaming the Source engine all the time because it doesn't use stencil shadows like Doom 3 which is a very different game. IMO Halflife 2 doesn't need stencil shadows.

 

[shaggy2039]

I agree...I'm so sick of people comparing these two games and their engines...
it's ridiculous...it's like comparing kiera knightly with scarlett johannsen...they're both hot, so what's the point?

 

[Big Fat Duck]

source's shadows are not self-shadowing, this is a different shadow system
The new 3dmark shadow system is not like HL2, it is dynamic

 

[Crusader]

I think any-one with an ounce of sense would realise that when you're developing a large scale game with so many features as HL2, with mostly environment lighting and a need for high quality shading and soft shadows you would choose Valve's method.


Unfortunately not everybody on the forums is a game developer or indeed has an ounce of sense

Can you imagine how utterly crappy HL2 would look if all the shadows were pitch black sharp edged projections like Doom 3? It would look ridiculous.

 

[SMT]

I'm submiting this thread in the Halflife 2 Discussion section because I thing is good to discuss about the fact Futuremark developers agree the Valve decissions about using shadow maps instead of stencil shadows. I'm bored with the people blaming the Source engine all the time because it doesn't use stencil shadows like Doom 3 which is a very different game. IMO Halflife 2 doesn't need stencil shadows.

1. It won't be using shadow maps in the sense we know them now.

2. Futuremark doesn't dictate or validate trends for gaming, it's the other way around.

3. Yeah, this still has jack shit to do with Half-Life 2.

 

[Big Fat Duck]

the Half-life 2 shadowing thing could AT LEAST not have all the shadows facing the some direction, keeping the same size and same shape...

 

[clarky003]

the Half-life 2 shadowing thing could AT LEAST not have all the shadows facing the some direction, keeping the same size and same shape...

from what they said, that particular lighting effect is probably there because it most likely suits the engines performance better, considering all its other features.

basically their trying to strike a fine balance of performance , appearance, meeting the hardware requirements, and what people want.

 

[yadalogo]

People should have 1 giant fistcuffs match to see which engine is superior(hl2 geeks will crush Doom3 geeks) :cheers:

 

[Big Fat Duck]

http://www.4gamer.net/specials/hl2int/hl2int_e1.html

interesting techincal details about the source engine and how it shadows

 

[kungfucheez]

I could care less, they both look freakin awesome

 

[iamaelephant]

Christ, when will people accept that Doom 3 does have better lighting/shadows that HL2? It's not a bad thing, it's not going to ruin HL2, but it's just a fact. Accept it. HL2 still looks good for Gods sake.

 

[Shuzer]

Christ, when will people accept that Doom 3 does have better lighting/shadows that HL2? It's not a bad thing, it's not going to ruin HL2, but it's just a fact. Accept it. HL2 still looks good for Gods sake.

Quoted for emphasis!

 

[clarky003]

Christ, when will people accept that Doom 3 does have better lighting/shadows that HL2? It's not a bad thing, it's not going to ruin HL2, but it's just a fact. Accept it. HL2 still looks good for Gods sake.

not nessersarily better ( thats opinion based) more complex , yes ,, which does make them more entertaining to look at, overall effect wise.

 

[kungfucheez]

I agree Doom3 will have better lighting effects, but I think Hl2 will have more replay value and more mods

 

[Apollo 13]

when will 3dmark04 be out? I would love to test it out on my system.

 

[kungfucheez]

How come you have to register for 3dmark03?

 

[Shuzer]

How come you have to register for 3dmark03?

You don't. The free version allows one ORB entry (I think), but the program has limited functionality (ie. you can only run the default benchmark)

 

[Iced_Eagle]

when will 3dmark04 be out? I would love to test it out on my system.

"When It's Done!"tm :cheers:

Yes Doom3 does have better lighting/shadows, why? Design choice mainly because it needs a scary environment and a basic fear is the fear of the dark and they are going to emphazie on that and thus have true dynamic lights!!!


Sounds interesting and can't wait

 

[kungfucheez]

Will 3dmark04 have more features? I dont feel like registering. While i cans till use 03 it kinda stinks having to watch the demos on 800x600

 

[PenaE]

I agree Doom3 will have better lighting effects, but I think Hl2 will have more replay value and more mods

It has better shadowing effects. I totally think that HL2 has a whole lot better lightning effects.

I think that the Doom3 models look a bit too.. plastic like to me. And I think D3 will really suck. Maybe it has cool sound effects and dynamic shadows and bump-mapping and some other crap. I still think HL2 looks a whole f*cking lot better than D3. Halo 2 looks as good as HL2, I think. I know, this is only my opinion.

 

[Big Fat Duck]

if you think hl2 has better graphics than d3, then you are a in a dream world my friend

 

[SMT]

Yay, it used to be an off-topic thread and now it's transformed into yet another versus thread. This is getting really, really tedious, guys.

 

[PenaE]

if you think hl2 has better graphics than d3, then you are a in a dream world my friend

Yeah, I actually think HL2 has better graphics and lightning and shit. The only thing that is better in D3 is shadow effects. That's my goddamn opinion! And don't say anything 'bout my sig.
We shouldn't be comparing D3 and HL2. They both are totally different kind of games. HL2 will be a good game, and D3 will suck.


But let's not make this one of those D3 vs. HL2 threads.

 

[PvtRyan]

Ok, lets put it like this: it's a fact that Doom 3 has more advanced lighting techniques.

However, which game you think has better graphics is your own opinion.

Okay, ontopic again, don't turn this into another vs thread.

 

[|_HeLL_|]

I just opened this thread to show people what Futuremark developers think about stencil shadows, they aren't real game developers but they develop a virtual game engine (and they also try to use the most avanced techniques) for testing all our PCs and I think is interesting the fact they used stencil shadows for 3DMark2003 and now perspective shadow maps for 3DMark2004,also they are arguesing very well what kind of games should use the different shadowing techniques. If these developers thinks that I think they aren't the only ones.

I just wanted to show flamers in this forum why since HL2 doesn't use stencil shadows this isn't the end of the world, I can remember even people arguesing how source engine is not going to be licensed by game companies because it doesn't use stencil shadows.

ROFLMAO. period.

 

[amneziac85]

No one has even seen much of Doom 3 yet, you cant say HL2 has better lighting effects, they might be equal. Screenshots cant do doom 3 justice especially when everything you see are metal walls inside a base, but wait till youget to hell or go outside. Just wait until we can actually play both games, then youll see why people say Doom3 has better graphics, and remember, we still havnt seen doom 3 with "Ultra" quality textures, no system has been able to run it, so have patience.

 

[PvtRyan]

No one has even seen much of Doom 3 yet, you cant say HL2 has better lighting effects, they might be equal. Screenshots cant do doom 3 justice especially when everything you see are metal walls inside a base, but wait till youget to hell or go outside. Just wait until we can actually play both games, then youll see why people say Doom3 has better graphics, and remember, we still havnt seen doom 3 with "Ultra" quality textures, no system has been able to run it, so have patience.

Ultra quality is just without any DXT compression on textures, won't look much better, just no loss from compression.

 

[|_HeLL_|]

Just as Soldier of Fortune II with and without texture compression at max settings. The game looked 99.9% the same but the frame rates went down a lot and the gameplay was choppy. Real benefits: none.

 

[amneziac85]

Ultra quality is just without any DXT compression on textures, won't look much better, just no loss from compression.

Im aware of that, but that no loss from compression will increase texture quality.

Doom 3 has the graphics, HL2 has the physics, we still dont know which has the gameplay and the atmosphere.

 

[amneziac85]

Just as Soldier of Fortune II with and without texture compression at max settings. The game looked 99.9% the same but the frame rates went down a lot and the gameplay was choppy. Real benefits: none.

Right, but I doubt that the textures when compressed were being cut in HALF like they are in D3. Comparing anything visually with SOF2 is just silly, their completly different engines.