lighting in hl2

WOW what closed minded people we are.

1. Not according to Rick Johnson. 32 players max for Quake 4.

2. Incase people have so blindly missed it, Tim Willits of id has already stated Doom 3's multiplayer will be scalable past 4 players.

:dozey:

Stop following fictitious information like a religion...
 
quake 4 can be really cool if RAVEN is paying attention to what valve is doing with hl2, and if they even take ideas from HL2 i dont mind.....
 
If Raven uses the same amount of modification with the DooM III Engine to make Quake 4 as they did with the Quake 3 Engine to make Soldier of Fortune II, that would be awesome!
 
Even if it only was 4 people, I would rather have an actual "fun" experience with 4 people in doom 3 than a 32 people game full of cheating, noob callin wankers. Hl2 will have its share of those, and I am quite tired of it.

oh ya, doom 3 may have a slow single player, but multiplayer will probably be mayhem, just look at half-life, the single player was relitively slow compared to multi.
 
No offense, but pretty much any online game has hackers and
"noob callin wankers".
It's also not fault of the game it's the idiots you're playing with/against.
Doom 3 will have it's share too.
 
Reaper,

There's also no telling what will happen with Doom III. For all we know it could happen there.

For all we know, Valve has taken measures to put an end to that, and id could have forgotten about it. Or vice versa.

We don't know, but we WILL find out, and bashing something for something it may not have, today will have repercussions later.
 
Originally posted by 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. :p
Click to expand...

That's a whole load of shit. Doom 3 can run on TNT2 cards as well. And scalability is for people without high end systems by the way. Also, none of these games will be anywhere near as pleasing as how it's really supposed to be experienced in the "scaled" version anyway.

Also. I think the X-ray engine is probably going to end up the better choice out of all these engines for future devs.
 
From the movies and everything Half-Life2 looks like it has dynamic lighting...but only from one light source
 
Ok.. and tell me, what is the purpose of having dynamic shadows for wall's? It's not like wall's move around
Click to expand...

Lighting moves around, and the walls have to be taken into account when redrawing shadows. Consider shining a flashlight at a wall corner: it has to cast a shadow properly based on where the wall is.

Doom 3 can run on TNT2 cards as well.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. They were saying GeForce at least.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source is an ongoing project, to which Valve has and will continue to work on and update as time goes on (indeed, the HL2 section was simply from a major feature split that happened last September- Source continues to be developed beyond that). Their current lighting system is a mix of pre-calculated and dynamic lighting, which certainly looks fantastic. This allows them to spend many many more cycles on other things: lots of enemies at once, complex facial animations, complex squad, swarming, and contextual AI, and so on. Whether or not they made the right trade-off is something you'll have to decide for yourself, but the reality is that people who assert that one engine is better than another just because it has features X,Y,Z are fooling themselves. Anyone can add a fully dynamic lighting system: the question is whether the benefits are really worth the costs. Valve obviously doesn't think they are right at the moment, and will surely update the engine when they think it can be supported without losing too many other key features.

attachment.php


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.
Click to expand...

What is you reasoning here though? If a game is truly scalable, then it can take full advantage of the higher cards just as well, and certainly Source seems able to do that just fine. In fact, Valve already seem to have a complex system in place to make sure that new hardware is taken advantage of as soon as it comes out, indefinately.
 
Source engine is an on-going project just like the Unreal tech engine.
 
Well, not that the other engines might not be ongoing projects as well. But the point is: there is no "right" answer as to whether to had this or that intensive feature at this particular point in time. It's a matter of making the best all around choices to make the game do what it needs to do for most people playing. In a lot of cases, the choice you make is pretty much a gamble.
 
Originally posted by BlumenKohl
WOW what closed minded people we are.

1. Not according to Rick Johnson. 32 players max for Quake 4.

2. Incase people have so blindly missed it, Tim Willits of id has already stated Doom 3's multiplayer will be scalable past 4 players.

:dozey:

Stop following fictitious information like a religion...
Click to expand...

carmack later said that DOOM3 will have NO multiplayer because it is hard to make the physics in the environment match the quality of the single player maps.
 
Originally posted by Lifthz
That's a whole load of shit. Doom 3 can run on TNT2 cards as well.
Click to expand...

no it cant

i think the minimum requirement is like a geforce1 or 2

not a tnt2
 
Originally posted by 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.

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.
Click to expand...

indeed..

Lightning is the most important aspect of graphics..
you can have huge polygons,great textures but if your lighning system is poor it will look unrealistic. at the same time you can have an excelent lighning system ,with poor textures and low polys ,but if you manage to use well bumpmaps it will looks very excelent.

real time ligts is the future ,and its not only shadows the benefit of doom3 lightning system ,is the precision of the lights which use FP precision for color and position.. this is a must have. for graphics. you can have very accurate reflective surfaces,refractions or many cool effects. and surfaces looks can look more natural .. the downside of doom3 lighning system is that it take a huge performance. so this is not appropiate for a multiplayer game with 10+ or more people . but also Doom3 lighning system is far from perfect ,it just a step in the right direction,the holy grail is photon lights ,but that is not possible today and not in the close future in games .

so is safe to say that HL2 lighting system was the more logical choice for an fps game with great outdoors with many characters at the same time.and doom3 lightning system the best choice for doom3 style of game.

a side note it is interesting to notice that the game STALKER use a diferent lighning system for Outdoors ,and realtime lights for indoors .someone feel free to correct me here, i think i read that somewhere.
 
Originally posted by mannyfresh027
carmack later said that DOOM3 will have NO multiplayer because it is hard to make the physics in the environment match the quality of the single player maps.
Click to expand...

Erm. No,
 
Originally posted by Reaper978
ummm, k. Then, DUR!, doesnt that mean the models are not made for the future? Hmm? Hmm?[/B]
Click to expand...
ummm, k. Then, DUR! dont u no thta itz stoopid 2 replaec modlz wen dey r hi poly enuff? da d00m iIi enjin is s0 1337 cuz it haz dark inviernmintz wit smal amountz of lihgt so that da liting iz moer dramatik. it alzo haz stensil shadowz 4 da dinamikcly lit modelz n soft shadoz 4 teh pre calumanatid shadowz. dewders ur gay lolz ur n0t gunna b studyin teh shadowz wen ur playin teh gaem.
 
as said before, its not just shadows, its reflections, refractions and very precise lighting. Once again sombody has to resort to being a moron.
 
Ok... This has been said, but I just want you guys to understand. HL2 uses a static lightmap... AND dynamic. How does it work? My best guess is that anything moveable *objects, doors, player models* will have dynamic lighting. Anything totally static *walls, the ground, the ceiling* will use static lighting.

And who ever said the lightmap will have to not move? I don't see any reason why the lightmap can't move. Say you have a rotating light, why can't the lightmap just pre-calculate this rotating light? It's Valves technology, they can, and most likely have, figured out ways around it's downfalls.
 
The following screenshot shows us quite nicely how Sources lighting system works:
screen_24.jpg


Notice these 3 things:
1) The shadows of the static objects and the shadows of the people/cars are cast into different directions.
2) The man who stands in the shadow of a car has a shadow himself, overlapping the car's shadow. (this shouldn't be, right?)
3) The people on the roof, their faces and bodies are lit from the same direction the shadows are cast.

Now ofcourse these are bugs (Gabe confirmed this) but it's a good example to show what can happen when you don't have a fully dynamic lighting system.
 
notice though how the shadow of the man on the roof shows he is leaning on his arm, not just a generic shadow
 
and how the hell did my thread get hijacked into a "my doom3 is better than your half-life2 ??1 huh huh?
 
firstly those bugs seen in that screen shot could occure with fully dynamic lighting, secondly the unreal engine uses lightmaps that move (to the extream in UT2003) and thirdly the x-ray engine uses a combination of lightmaps and dynamic shadows in outdoor areas just like half-life 2.

Plus doom3's shadows are currently very sharp, i would perfer it if they implemented soft shadows (which they could be), but that would take up more ram, personally I think HL2 looks the best and don't give a dam what tech it's useing.
 
That doom3 screenshot looks really nice but it looks like it uses a projected texture for the soft shadows, which don't match up with the hard stencil shadows. There's nothing wrong with that but just take notice that id uses tricks to get nice effects just like everyone else. They can't totally rely on dynamic lighting.

If HL2 used dynamic lighting to the same extent there would be a drastic decrease in the polygons available to render each scene :(
 
the other thing is, that mix of dynamic and static lighting sources is apparent in the picture, the statics shadows on the statue post and buildings etc and the dynamic stuff on anything that can move, ie. the cars and people.
 
Originally posted by MaDMaXX
and how the hell did my thread get hijacked into a "my doom3 is better than your half-life2 ??1 huh huh?
Click to expand...

if you take Half-Life 2, DooM 3, and Strider and put them in a room, and then say i'll buy each of you and plus give the dev's all the money in the world if you dont fight... walk away...

when you come back they boxes and cds will be attempting to kick the shit out of everyone else...

it happens...
 
Originally posted by Hankman
The following screenshot shows us quite nicely how Sources lighting system works:
screen_24.jpg


Notice these 3 things:
1) The shadows of the static objects and the shadows of the people/cars are cast into different directions.
2) The man who stands in the shadow of a car has a shadow himself, overlapping the car's shadow. (this shouldn't be, right?)
3) The people on the roof, their faces and bodies are lit from the same direction the shadows are cast.

Now ofcourse these are bugs (Gabe confirmed this) but it's a good example to show what can happen when you don't have a fully dynamic lighting system.
Click to expand...


Gee Wizz youre right sir , that must be the final build , goodness Source SUXXXXX dude.
 
id, Valve, and GSC-Games should just combine their engines, and then afterwards make their own seperate games with it. ;)

Then we'd all be happy. But then, it is impossible. ;)
 
Originally posted by DimitriPopov
Gee Wizz youre right sir , that must be the final build , goodness Source SUXXXXX dude.
Click to expand...
Don't talk crap about Doom 3 then, because it's still not the final build.
 
Loke, can your otate camera everywhere, can you look up and go anywhere you want? Or is it just like Resident Evil. If it is, than don't bother with comparing games.
 
Mr.Reak: Yes, you can rotate the camera around the area, so no Resident Evil type of camera (a.k.a. fixed camera).

And second of, I'm not comparing Doom III and SHIII, just saying that I think that the lightning/shadows looks better than DIII.
 
Originally posted by DimitriPopov
Gee Wizz youre right sir , that must be the final build , goodness Source SUXXXXX dude.
Click to expand...
LOL, did I say it sucks? You missed my point entirely, but then again, looking at your posts I'm not surprised.
 
I've said it before; Doom 3 looks bad because it simulates only some of the behaviours of lights and not all. I'm not saying that total photorealism is needed, so much as a consistency is needed. HL2 looks great because it also takes into account that the world has to look natural and scales everything accordingly. Doom 3 looks good (undoubtably the lighting looks good), but awkard.
But i don't know why I'm posting this since Apos seems to have answered most of the problems.
 
^^^^
In doom 3 they exagerate some of the lights to give it major differences between light and darkness, which, in my opinion, gives it a "holy shit I am about to die" feel.

Besides, your on mars, in a hell infested base, I think natural is the last thing they want it to look like.
 
how about doom3 is along way off in development, HL2 is getting really close, doom3 looks prettty good at the moment and HL2 looks excellent, i can't wait to play it.
 
Originally posted by 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?
Click to expand...
Well, they could ship the high-poly count models, but the technology currently doesn't exist for you to take advantage of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bad^Hat
HL2.net Trouble in Terrorist Town revival!
2
Replies
68
Views
8K
morgs
morgs
Unfocused
Low framerate in HQ youtube videos
Replies
5
Views
2K
-Psy-
-Psy-
H
An hl2 chronicle
Replies
11
Views
1K
loopafox
L
Munro
HL2: Deathmatch - Basic Playing Tips
Replies
0
Views
6K
Munro
Munro
Munro
HL2: Deathmatch - Basic Weapon Tips
Replies
0
Views
4K
Munro
Munro
Back
Top