lighting in hl2

[MaDMaXX]

Not entirely sure why i'm posting this, i'm gonna get shot down in flames tbh :/
I was just casualy watching the docks and kleiner movies again and noticed the quality of the light reflecting off Alyxs collar bone and on the first moving zombie's blood soaked head, it really does look sweet

 

[ValVed RaY]

yep....?

 

[DimitriPopov]

I agree , even better than I expected after hearing Doom3 fanboys rave on and on onononononon

 

[Lifthz]

Half-Life 2 has nice lighting. But it is not fully dynamic.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

actually it is fully dynamic but they take a different approach (less cpu usage as well) than Doom III... its basically the same thing but d3's shadows were like made for supercomputers

 

[Lifthz]

No. It isn't fully dynamic. And not only Doom 3 has better lighting... Halo 2(an Xbox game) as well as S.T.A.L.K.E.R when in the DX9 render...

 

[X-Vector]

It's not the quality of the tool that's most important, it's how the designers use it.

If Valve can produce equally or even more more dramatic and involving effects with their supposed inferior technology, then I'm not complaining.

 

[Blair]

Originally posted by Lifthz
Half-Life 2 has nice lighting. But it is not fully dynamic.

It is.. Watch the G-Man video again.. The shadow move's across his face, rather then just changing the whole face.

 

[Mountain Man]

Am I the only one who doesn't see the big deal about the lighting? I'm more excited about the physics engine, myself.

 

[Mr.Reak]

Nope, not fully dynamic. In Doom 3, each object, even walls, cast their own shadows, in Half-life 2 enviroment has static shadows.

 

[Blair]

Originally posted by Mr.Reak
Nope, not fully dynamic. In Doom 3, each object, even walls, cast their own shadows, in Half-life 2 enviroment has static shadows.

Ok.. and tell me, what is the purpose of having dynamic shadows for wall's? It's not like wall's move around, so it's really not that impressive to say "Doom III kicks ass because walls have dynamic shadows."

Objects in HL2 have dynamic shadows, as do the characters.

 

[Mr.Reak]

Point is, it looks more realistic. I am HL2 fan all the way, but even I know that Doom 3 shadows look superior to anything we seen before.

 

[Korgoth]

I like hl2 lighting better, the soft shadows and the global light gives it a surreal feel and i think thats exactly what valve was going for

 

[BlumenKohl]

Mountain Man,

Lighting is one of (if not the most) the most important parts of a game's graphic.

Just because you SAY you don't care about it does not necessarily mean your brain won't notice it.

Because your brain does, and lack of good lighting and shadows heavily detracts from your experience, even though you may not be aware of it. You may not care, but your brain does, and you won't really "be in the game." It's one of those things you can't control, and not caring about it won't change it.

Check out the attatchment below, and you'll see difference a good lighting system makes.


G-Man,

It's already been stated on numerous occasions that HL2 will be using both static and dynamic lighting. Doom III will be using all dynamic lighting.

 

[Blair]

Originally posted by BlumenKohl

G-Man,

It's already been stated on numerous occasions that HL2 will be using both static and dynamic lighting. Doom III will be using all dynamic lighting.

Ok... My point is... Why waste more processing power/FPS having dynamic lighting on all objects when you can save a ton using static shadows on things that aren't going to be movable in the first place! Use your head.

 

[MaDMaXX]

tbh, i really don't care which engine has the "best" lighting, i'm just saying the lighting in HL2 really is beauitiful. And mountain man, i'm really looking forward to that too.
One thing no one has really mentioned is the sound, i've seen people comment on its got good 5.1 support, but not having that speaker set, it doesn't bother me too much. What i do like is the style of the sounds, the environment, the gun sounds. I make weapon sounds and some others for games like this thus i notice things like sound fx maybe a little more than some people. I really do like the sounds

 

[BlumenKohl]

G-Man,

This is why.

Notice how the shadows are projected onto the beast model, that's not possible with static shadow maps.

This way every shadow casts itself onto every model, and the final effect is very cool, with models creeping out of the shadows into the light, etc. :cheers:

 

[ACII]

How about some articles or interviews to back up the facts?

 

[Lifthz]

Originally posted by G·Man
It is.. Watch the G-Man video again.. The shadow move's across his face, rather then just changing the whole face.

And this proves the whole scene has fully dynamic lighting? How? .... It doesn't.

I noticed things without shadows in the 500MB video and that's why I know it doesn't have fully dynamic lighting.

Originally posted by MaDMaXX
tbh, i really don't care which engine has the "best" lighting, i'm just saying the lighting in HL2 really is beauitiful. And mountain man, i'm really looking forward to that too.
One thing no one has really mentioned is the sound, i've seen people comment on its got good 5.1 support, but not having that speaker set, it doesn't bother me too much. What i do like is the style of the sounds, the environment, the gun sounds. I make weapon sounds and some others for games like this thus i notice things like sound fx maybe a little more than some people. I really do like the sounds

Yes. Half-Life 2's lighting is indeed beautiful. It's just not as good as a couple of other games. But perhaps this could changed by the time the game is comeplete and out...

 

[Lifthz]

"Am I the only one who doesn't see the big deal about the lighting? I'm more excited about the physics engine, myself."

The most impressive thing about Half-Life 2 specifically to me is also the physics. However we're discussing the lighting because we feel like it. It doesn't hurt to discuss.

Originally posted by G·Man
Ok... My point is... Why waste more processing power/FPS having dynamic lighting on all objects when you can save a ton using static shadows on things that aren't going to be movable in the first place! Use your head.

Yeah right. Everyone including you would prefer better lighting if possible. It's not a huge deal, but it is better.

 

[Dan]

from what ive seen of half-life's lighting, the solid world brushes (not entities) all have pre-rendered lighting. Then all of the models seem to be dynamically lit from a single pre-defined direction (look at the indoor videos, they are lit from straight above, not dynamically by the lights in the room) with the overall light level modified by the pre-rendered lighting of the texture that they're standing on (see the guys walking thru the shadows in the barney scene)

 

[LoneDeranger]

Originally posted by Dan
from what ive seen of half-life's lighting, the solid world brushes (not entities) all have pre-rendered lighting. Then all of the models seem to be dynamically lit from a single pre-defined direction (look at the indoor videos, they are lit from straight above, not dynamically by the lights in the room) with the overall light level modified by the pre-rendered lighting of the texture that they're standing on (see the guys walking thru the shadows in the barney scene)

This is not entirely true. While that scene does not fully utilize dynamic lighting it's obvious in other places. For example, in the swinging beam scene, when a combine soldier walks into a dark doorway, we can still see his foot in the light. We can also clearly see partial shadows on the manipulator when Gordon throws boxes at the combine.

So the engine does support dynamic lighting to some extent, but apparently it is not utilized in every scene (due to scalability possibly?)

 

[Reaper978]

ya, you do want realistic shadows, if you got these incredible physics why not have incredible shadows? Doom 3 will have both.

 

[Mountain Man]

Originally posted by Mr.Reak
Point is, it looks more realistic. I am HL2 fan all the way, but even I know that Doom 3 shadows look superior to anything we seen before.

I don't think Doom III's inky black shadows look all that great myself. It's an aesthetic thing, I guess.

 

[DimitriPopov]

Doom3 Will not have good physics akin to HL2 , and Doom3 will not have a storyline. sorry to disagree with you Lt.Doom3(aka.Reaper978). But Liuetenant , I wasnt really impressed witht he shadows in D3 , its a feature that you say hey thats neat for the first 30 minutes , then its just background noise. Im not very excited about Doom3s shadows , HL2 has more than enough lighting FX for me thnx.

 

[Mountain Man]

Originally posted by BlumenKohl
Check out the attatchment below, and you'll see difference a good lighting system makes.

O.K., so which example was I supposed to prefer, because they both looked like sh*t to me.

 

[LoneDeranger]

Originally posted by Reaper978
why not have incredible shadows?

Because they want the game to run on most current, as well as older hardware. I guess Id didn't take that into consideration.

 

[Reaper978]

They are aiming for the future, where as source wants to go maybe a year into the future, once everygame has perfect dynamic lighting source will be obsolete.

And popov, stop judging by the alpha. Oh and give me a link to where you got doom 3 cause I want it bad, thanks!

 

[Reaper978]

I am glad doom 3 didnt limit their artists to the hardware we have now.

 

[LoneDeranger]

Aiming for the future is great, but it's not really good from a PR standpoint. A survey recently found that many people are still running DX6 level cards and most of them probably do not have enought money to upgrade.

 

[DimitriPopov]

Reaper , do you have the alpha? If not even though we hate eachother I may be able to lead you in a certain direction if you PM me winkwinkwinkwinkwink

 

[Mountain Man]

You really think Valve worked five years on an engine that would only be viable for another year? They've said they'll implement new features (such as super high resolution textures and high-polygon count models) when hardware exists than can support it.

id is making an engine for the future. Valve is making an engine for the past, present, and future!

 

[Reaper978]

"They've said they'll implement new features (such as super high resolution textures and high-polygon count models) when hardware exists than can support it."

ummm, k. Then, DUR!, doesnt that mean the models are not made for the future? Hmm? Hmm?

"id is making an engine for the future. Valve is making an engine for the past, present, and future!"
Hardy hardy har.

 

[DimitriPopov]

Ok guess you have it already than Lt.Doom3

 

[Lifthz]

Originally posted by Mountain Man
You really think Valve worked five years on an engine that would only be viable for another year? They've said they'll implement new features (such as super high resolution textures and high-polygon count models) when hardware exists than can support it.

id is making an engine for the future. Valve is making an engine for the past, present, and future!

X-ray and DOom 3 engine are all scalable. They have to be. This is PC... this is not consoles.

Scalable is for the people who cannot afford to be upgrading to a high end system every few months... Half-Life 2 will run on a friggin DX6 card, does this mean it will be anywhere near as fun or as good looking as how the game is really supposed to be? Go figure....

 

[lonefox]

Originally posted by Reaper978
ya, you do want realistic shadows, if you got these incredible physics why not have incredible shadows? Doom 3 will have both.

Ya, and if you want realistic shadows and incredible phyiscs why not want 32 (or more) player multiplayer!

I'll take good multiplayer over super kick-ass shadows anyday.

 

[LoneDeranger]

Originally posted by lonefox
Ya, and if you want realistic shadows and incredible phyiscs why not want 32 (or more) player multiplayer!

I'll take good multiplayer over super kick-ass shadows anyday.

Good point ..

 

[SidewinderX]

I'll assume you are tlaking about Doom III's 4 perosn preset multiplayer. That is jsut the default. You can, and will, play multiplayer with more people.


I sorta catergorize Doom III with DDR II memory. It's not so helpful today, but in a little bit it will be the tech that everyone needs/wants.

 

[BlumenKohl]

But see it is because Doom 3 doesn't take into consideration older cards, that will make it the winning engine (not the winning game, of course). It'll last longer into the future, and age more gracefully, like Quake 3's engine.

That, and it'll be licensed like crazy.

I think Doom 3 will suck, its engine will rock, and Quake IV is coming with 32 player multiplayer, so if you think 4 player is the limit, you can sit in your chair and think it.

 

[mannyfresh027]

Originally posted by BlumenKohl
Quake IV is coming with 32 player multiplayer

no its not. its gonna be limited. you cant even join servers mid game, you have to join in the beginning like an rts game