Shadow problems in HL2.

[Dagobert]

I think that id make games based on the tech Carmack is interested in. I think Valve make the game they wanna make.

id - led by tech
Valve - led by content.

 

[Mr.Reak]

Sporky, you must agree, that Id was always about tech. And it doesn't mean it is a bad thing, they are pushing technology further. Maybe with Doom III, they will make great engines and great games too (not just shooting, but with good story telling), because they got professional writer now.

 

[Dagobert]

It's easy to push surface rendering tech if you alway make games in corridors. I think the future of game is outside of corridors.

 

[Sporky]

Originally posted by Mr.Reak
Sporky, you must agree, that Id was always about tech. And it doesn't mean it is a bad thing, they are pushing technology further. Maybe with Doom III, they will make great engines and great games too (not just shooting, but with good story telling), because they got professional writer now.

Actually I disagree..

Every id software game has been playable to the max, from wolf 3D up to Q3. Q3 is still the best pure fun deathmatch/tournament experience there is bar none. Amongst its direct competitors it simply can't be beat for pacing, style, balance or gameplay. It takes years to truly perfect and there's always something new you can try even on the same maps it came with. Even UT2K3 which came out 3 years later doesn't compete in playability terms.

I don't think storytelling is the be all and end all of Computer games, I think it's how they play. The story is a nice additional element to immerse you in a game, but it's only one of the key features needed to make a really great game, and it is a rather recent development after all. I remember playing pac-man and Mario for hours on end when I was a yoof, I don't think either of those games could be put down because of their weak storylines and I don't think it's entirely fair to judge id on their past catalogue for much the same reasons..

:cheers:

 

[Lifthz]

Originally posted by Mountain Man
No, that's your opinion.

Graphics matter only as far as they successfully convey the proper visual cues to the gamer. How they achieve that is irrelevant.

Then you admit graphics do matter, so why did you say it's just my opinion.... contradicting yourself. IT DOES MATTER. And they could use whatever technique they'd like to use, however they wouldn't be able to achieve the same results of another technique that is better...

Originally posted by Dagobert
It's a clear tradeoff - dynamic lighting or open environments. Which do you choose.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R and Halo 2 will have both...

Originally posted by Loke
Yes, in your opinion graphics matter, not mine. And if that’s a fact why did I play Project Eden so much and really liked it? And the graphics in that game wasn’t that great really.

Without the graphics, the game would be less impressive overally to ANYONE, and that does matter, and it does effect the game... therefore graphics are important.

If Project Eden had better graphics you would have liked it even better than you did/do like it... get the idea?

Originally posted by Loke

And what would you do if the gameplay sucked so hard in HL2 that no one would buy it? But the graphics looked great? Would you really buy it?

No, I wouldn't buy it. And if the graphics sucked hard and the gameplay rocked, I might buy it but I would be less likely to buy it...

Originally posted by EVIL
hmm kay.. to kinda light up the hl² dynamic shadow discussion. I mailed gabe before, and I asked him if hl² features dynamic shadows like doom3 does. he answered me this (direct quote

Yes, we have dynamic shadows. We use a different approach than Doom3.

and I dont think gabe is wrong

He isn't wrong in the fact that they could choose whatever technique they want to use... however that means nothing in terms of matching the quality of Doom 3's lighting....

 

[vann7]

ok guys ... just make things easier ..
the way i understand this is like this..

the main diferences between Hl2 and Doom3 lighning system..
is that Doom3 use -realtime shadows or real time lights - whatever way you prefer to call it. and Hl2 use shadowmaps/lightmaps (non-realtime) which is the same thing. shadows maps can be said to be dynamic.. if the player move ,the shadow follow the player. buts is PRe-computed. was recorded before the game began ,is always the same. while doom3 shadows are made on the fly. in real-time. but also DOom3 use Floating Point precision of directx9 cards Fp16/Fp24/Fp32 to calculate lights color and position wich is a BIg plus.. since you can get very accurate reflections,refractions and other properties of the light. another bonus is the use of BUmp maps and specular maps to simulate the degree of the material roughness and reflectivity, like wood/metal/plastic /stone and other surfaces. those things can be done wihout a real lightning system ,but they are more tricky to do it ,and can be less acurrate.

the pictures above shows an example what can happen when using shadows maps. it can be "fixed" ,but it is done by hand . since what the programmer do is to paint a black shadow close to a player.to simulate that there is a light iluminating the player ,but that light doesnt exist. never existed ,what exist is the shadow. quite ironic isnt it?

and dont worry about Hl2 lighning system.. quake3 and UNrealt2k3 use it ,
and the majority of games too ,and you can get great looking graphics there too. in the end is about the artists. there is no way with today hardware to release a game with the huge enviroments of Hl2 ,with 32players with a lighning system like Doom3 . unless you dont care to play at .0000000001 frames per seconds at 320x280. thats why Doom3 game will limited to 4 people with close enviroments.



and dont be so nitpicky about shadows ,they can be tweaked by VALve and modders or any level editor and projected in any way they like.

 

[Tamora]

Okay, this is just my opinion but here goes:

How do you define great graphics? Well, in my opinion, the graphics in Half-Life was and is still great. Though it's not state of the art anymore it is still great. I mean, back then people made games were the graphics quality really sucked compared to Half-Life for example. Perhaps not properly aligned textures. Bad lighting, screwed up levels etc etc.
I think I would go as far as to say that those old adventure games like Sam and Max Hit the Road, Full Throttle and so on, still has good graphics though, of course, outdated. What I want to say is that the quality of the visuals IS important, but one could still play an old game and enjoy the classical graphics of their time. Of course the gameplay is the most important and will always be.

Hope I made any sense here. If I didn't, I'm sorry

 

[Lifthz]

Half-Life 2's graphics are great. Only a fool would say otherwise.

However I never thought of it as state of the art besides a few aspects (the physics and the facial animations).

 

[vann7]

Originally posted by Tamora
Okay, this is just my opinion but here goes:

How do you define great graphics? Well, in my opinion, the graphics in Half-Life was and is still great. Though it's not state of the art anymore it is still great. I mean, back then people made games were the graphics quality really sucked compared to Half-Life for example. Perhaps not properly aligned textures. Bad lighting, screwed up levels etc etc.
I think I would go as far as to say that those old adventure games like Sam and Max Hit the Road, Full Throttle and so on, still has good graphics though, of course, outdated. What I want to say is that the quality of the visuals IS important, but one could still play an old game and enjoy the classical graphics of their time. Of course the gameplay is the most important and will always be.

Hope I made any sense here. If I didn't, I'm sorry

nothing to apologise.. well said..
and yep Hl2 have TOp QUality graphics ,thanks to their ARtists talent,
and their very High QUality and scalable textures.. the only competition that HL2 will have is Doom3 . so i never thought that a game will be able to do that with Doom3.

and you have made one of the most important question
in COmputer graphics.. how you define great graphics?
can be very subjective topic ,since this is a matter of preferences.
but good ideas always come in games with that question .

 

[Boogaleeboo]

Art that fits the game. Nothing more or less.

 

[vann7]

Originally posted by Boogaleeboo
Art that fits the game. Nothing more or less.

dont make mistake my friend.. the only thing that will match Hl2 game
this year in Graphics is only Doom3 game (if it is not delayed). a close second Farcry.. and next year STALKER.and this is a good thing not a bad thing. is a win/win situation for gamers..


there is not and all superior in everything here. every game have their
Pros and Cons.. but i understand also that usually we like to do comparisons. and notice that i use the word Games. not engine.
Both engines were designed to last many years ,unti their next games.
so expect mods to make things even better for both games than what they already are . :cheers:

 

[Boogaleeboo]

You don't understand me. The only good art for a game is art that makes the game a better experience. It doesn't matter if it's photorealistic or cel shaded, or greyscale 2D. As long as it fits the game and makes playing the game better.

There's no other way to judge game art.

 

[Apos]

and Hl2 use shadowmaps/lightmaps (non-realtime) which is the same thing. shadows maps can be said to be dynamic.. if the player move ,the shadow follow the player. buts is PRe-computed. was recorded before the game began ,is always the same.

You're wrong. World geometery in HL2 appears to have had shadows pre-rendered, but objects and moving other models do not: they not only cast shadows on world geometry based on their structure and the angle of the light, but shadows can slide all over them as well.

This is far beyond what engines like Quake3 do.

 

[Impute]

Originally posted by Lifthz
Graphics do matter. Without graphics, Half-Life 2 wouldn't be half as impressive at all. And that's a fact, not an opinion.

[cough] STARCRAFT [/cough]

 

[MaDMaXX]

Apos, thats what i thought, all world data has precast shadows, unless changed for a falling item or changing world item etc.

But anything that would move, eg. car/person etc appears to have realtime shadows, so much as to say, look at the guy in the photo on the rood, he is crouched and you can see in the shadow his arm leaning on his knee.

 

[Guest]

why do treads like this keep ****in coming back from the dead? pls leave it dead.

 

[Tamora]

vann7: Thanx mate

I also want to add that gameplay is in my opinion a mixture of both flow in the game, perhaps a good story ( I'll say perhaps because some games seem to be good without it ), graphics, sound and so on. I would say that when all this is combined into a nice cocktail the experience will be great... There is no need to leave one of these out.

 

[vann7]

Originally posted by Apos
You're wrong. World geometery in HL2 appears to have had shadows pre-rendered, but objects and moving other models do not: they not only cast shadows on world geometry based on their structure and the angle of the light, but shadows can slide all over them as well.

This is far beyond what engines like Quake3 do.

shadows in Hl2 are all pre-computed.. if a player is running and cast a shadow is not because there is a light somewhere generating his shadow. is because the player project by itself his own pre-computed shadow. is a technique ,is dynamic but its not calculated in realtime since there is no light crossing the air to do that.like in the real life.what only exist is surfaces where black or white "shadows" are displayed in a dynamic or static way.

i think there are many techniques to increase the quality of lightmaps.
since not all games which have lightmaps have the same quality . but that is for another topic.

 

[Mountain Man]

Originally posted by Lifthz
Then you admit graphics do matter, so why did you say it's just my opinion.... contradicting yourself. IT DOES MATTER. And they could use whatever technique they'd like to use, however they wouldn't be able to achieve the same results of another technique that is better...

Read my post again. I said that graphics matter only as far as they convey the proper feedback to the gamer. There are other ways of providing feedback to the gamer than just graphics. In other words, graphics are not the be all and end all of gaming.

Without the graphics, the game would be less impressive overally to ANYONE, and that does matter, and it does effect the game... therefore graphics are important.

Once again, that's your opinion.

If Project Eden had better graphics you would have liked it even better than you did/do like it... get the idea?

I care more about gameplay than graphics. And I wasn't the least bit interested in what Project Eden had to offer as far as gameplay is concerned. The same goes for Doom III.

And if the graphics sucked hard and the gameplay rocked, I might buy it but I would be less likely to buy it...

Then you and I see things differently.

He isn't wrong in the fact that they could choose whatever technique they want to use... however that means nothing in terms of matching the quality of Doom 3's lighting....

Am I the only one sick of hearing about how great Doom III's lighting is going to be? Start showing me examples of great gameplay. Then I'll be impressed.

 

[Tamora]

Perhaps ValvE will add realtime lighting/shadows in HL3...

 

[Mountain Man]

Perhaps ValvE will add realtime lighting/shadows in HL3...

Half-Life 2 supports it now.

 

[Tamora]

mmkay.

 

[Mountain Man]

Originally posted by vann7
shadows in Hl2 are all pre-computed.. if a player is running and cast a shadow is not because there is a light somewhere generating his shadow. is because the player project by itself his own pre-computed shadow.

How do you know this? Valve has specifically said that Source supports dynamic lighting. They're just using a different technique than the Doom III engine.

 

[rootbin]

gabe has stated the half-life 2 uses a mixture of both.

 

[Mountain Man]

Question: I am kinda involved in a short discussion about wether Half-Life² does or does not support dynamic shadows like DooM³. I think it does because a dutch gaming magazine said it does, and they got to see a demo with a lightbulb hanging from a cord in a room and when you push it it swings and the light would go dynamically across the surfaces off the objecs that where installed in the room. and cast dynamic shadows.

Gabe: Yes, we have dynamic shadows. We use a different approach than Doom3.

Link, near the bottom of the page.

There you go. End of discussion.

 

[Dagobert]

Everything in Half-Life 2 will cast shadows and rejact like it does in our world, right?

Who said that? and games won't have 'everything reacting like it does in our world' ever, ok?

 

[Dagobert]

BTW - the 'different' tech that Valve use is a cheaper one, and that's because HL2 has to run on a wider variety of PC's, and because the environments in HL2 are more varied than Doom 3's

 

[Tamora]

Be careful when you use words like ever, never and impossible when talking about technology

 

[Guest]

Yo man this is 2003. means that will be plenty of damynamic shitows.
copy that

 

[Tamora]

hehe.

 

[vann7]

Originally posted by Mountain Man

How do you know this? Valve has specifically said that Source supports dynamic lighting. They're just using a different technique than the Doom III engine.

indeed..

nobody is saying that Hl2 doesnt have dynamic lights or dynamics shadows . Many games have that.. even QUake3..UnrealT2k3 and many others.. each one use diferent techniques to achieve dynamic lights.


take a look at this John carmack interview.. about his engine..

JC: The big things from the graphics side are the complete unification of lighting, shadowing, and bump mapping across all visual elements. In previous games , we had to use a variety of techniques to light the combinations of static and -dynamic lights- versus static and dynamic surfaces, which tended to give games a characteristic separation between active elements, like monsters, and the rest of the world. There are lots of effects with light and shadow that people have always wanted to see in games that just work naturally now , with no special hacks.
http://www.doomitalia.com/articoli.asp?Id=18

and here is a nice tutorial for dynamic lights
http://members.net-tech.com.au/alaneb/lightmapping_tutorial.html

you can simulate dynamic lighting by mixing lightmaps.. however i cant say that this is the case of Hl2. a good question for valve guys is if they pre-calculate their shadows .which everything suggest that is the case.
gaming programming is done using hacks ,for performance reasons. shadows and lights work is independent of each other. but that doesnt means that you cant get with those techniques pretty Good results.but with DOom3 lighning everything is unified ,is a new step in 3d programming since the ligtning system and all the shadows are calculated in ->realtime. nothing there is pre-calculated. everything there is on the fly .so level designers doesnt need lighmaps textures for their shadows or to pre-calculate their shadows apart. in D3 level editor you just simply place a light where you want it ,and thats it. every-thing in the level will have a shadow in realtime .however doom3 ligthning system cannot be said to be the real thing. NO WAY. doom3 is just a new step ,but also is far from the final one,and is a fake technique to simulate real lights behavior, compared to the real way light behaves. in the real life the intensity of the shadows is proportional to the intensity of light. light particles bounce in surfaces ,until they waste their energy. but doom3 engine ignore this.however Doom3 is not a scientific light simulator ,just a game and we are very far , many many years years far ,to see such techniques in games ,because of the performance hit it takes. a unified lighning system (realtime lights/shadows) will never be practical in a game like halflife2 which have so huge open scenerios and where you will be able to play againts 20 and more players. thats why doom3 MP will be limited to 4 people. not an engine limitation but a hardware one. but in the next years there will be better processors and video cards and we will be able to play Mp games like we do it today in CS or quake's games ,with many players but with a unified realtime lighning system..

btw. i was looking for an article about popular shadow techniques used today in games and found this. you will see there some of the tricks used in games to generate shadows. btw.. all shadows there are fake too ,but with some with better results than others .

http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article1300.asp

 

[Apos]

vann7 the problem is not your understanding of D3, which is certianly deadon, but your comparison of HL2's lighting system to Q3 and UT. What HL2 has on models is very different from those games. Instead of globally brightening or darkening like in those games, HL2 models appear to light realistically. It's certainly not the same thing as a fully real-time lighting system, but it's a good compromise that allows them to spend processor time later, and again, it's very different from Q3.

 

[Mountain Man]

a good question for valve guys is if they pre-calculate their shadows.

It's already been asked. Their world objects (buildings, telephone poles, and other static objects) are pre-calculated. All mobile objects (characters, crates, mattresses, etc.) are dynamically lit in at run-time.

I imagine one of the first maps people will test (after the fully destructible building) will be to create an entirely dynamically lit level. My guess is that it's possible.