Thief 3 lighting and Doom 3 lighting?

[Styloid]

Could some one tell me if there are major differences in the Doom3 lighting from what we've seen in Thief and DX2? What am I to expect from D3?

 

[Shuzer]

What am I to expect from D3?

Zombies on Mars with chainsaws...
..and sharks with friggin' laser beams! Oh wait, I mean, skeletons with rocket launchers on their shoulders


..ohh, you mean lighting wise..

 

[blahblahblah]

Yes, there is one big difference.

The Doom3 engine will actually be optimized. :O

 

[Neutrino]

Both have dynamic lighting with stencil shadows as far as I know so they will look pretty similar. However, you will notice a large difference because the texture resolution in Thief sucks and D3 has very nice textures resolution. Plus from what I've seen I think Id is taking advantage of the lighting better to create more atmosphere.

But on a purely technical basis I'm not sure if there willl really be that much difference with just the lighting. I'm betting D3's will be higher quality, but we won't know until the game comes out really.

 

[Eywanadi]

I would guess the only difference that you will see is that the Doom3 engine will look, preform, and out-right 'feel' better. I make this assumption because Carmack is renowned for his engines. Also there is the fact that the Doom3 engine was the first to do lighting this way and so it has had alot more time to be polished and optimized.

To expand further on the polished aspect it can be applied to the art as well. Id software is known as a powerhouse in the industry so that has attracted alot of skilled artists to Id's doors. They will make better looking textures, models, and levels witch will translate into better looking graphics.

 

[DarkStar]

Well, I just beat Riddick on the Xbox and I don't see how Doom will beat that game in terms of lighting as the lighting was absolutley perfect. I mean perfect. Doom might equal the lighting in Riddick, but I don't see how it could surpass it. Oh, the normal maps in Riddick look about 10x better than the ones I've see from Doom 3 also.

I seriously cannot believe the graphics in this Riddick game. A-MAZ-ING.

 

[crabcakes66]

lightning is lightning if you ask me......

 

[burnzie]

expect Id to pull some fancy shit and blow everyone away

 

[Neutrino]

lightning is lightning if you ask me......

Just don't get hit by it.

 

[burnzie]

Just don't get hit by it.

hahaha good call

 

[IchI]

Hmmm.... Console games can only have certain texture resolutions I think its about 512 x 512. Doom3 on the other hand can handle proberly 1500 x 1500 or maybe even 2000 x 2000. I can't see how the texture quality is better on a xbox, Also the fact that the xbox has a lower end graphics card and still uses old methods. It seems very unlickly Ridick will be better looking than doom3. I think you need to look at more doom3 screen shots

As for doom3 blowing everyone away, lets just say there was proberly a good reason why next to nothing was shown at e3 (PC Version)

 

[DarkStar]

Hmmm.... Console games can only have certain texture resolutions I think its about 512 x 512. Doom3 on the other hand can handle proberly 1500 x 1500 or maybe even 2000 x 2000. I can't see how the texture quality is better on a xbox, Also the fact that the xbox has a lower end graphics card and still uses old methods. It seems very unlickly Ridick will be better looking than doom3. I think you need to look at more doom3 screen shots

As for doom3 blowing everyone away, lets just say there was proberly a good reason why next to nothing was shown at e3 (PC Version)

I know, I know. I would have said the same thing until I saw Riddick in motion. All I can say is that game has the very best graphics I've ever seen. Bar none.

 

[=1nfiltrat0r=]

dont be stupid riddick doesnt look better than doom three. riddick looks ****ing nice for an vagina-box game but doom three iz much better. the lihgting will be almost the same even though doom three lighting looks a little better but thats bcos what the artists do with it technically it is about the same. but teh normal maps in doom three are flawless look at these screens much better than riddick. here, here, and here.

doom three really has the best normal maps of any game. riddick looks good tho.

 

[=1nfiltrat0r=]

theif three looks good but the models are downrite ugly. technically the lighting is about teh same as doom three but visualy it isnt as good bcos the artists are doing much cooler stuff with it in doom three than they did in theif three. the models and textures in theif three r so gay tho.

 

[MonkeyClaw]

yea an xbox runs off of basically a geforce 3. That means it supports only 1.1 shaders. ON the other hand, you have pc graphics cards like the 9800 pro or the new x800 which have 2.1 shaders (yes i know 6800 has 3.1 but there is no graphical difference between the 2, just performance). There is no way an xbox game can be better than a state of the art dx9 pc game like doom 3 or even half life 2. Yea u need to see some more screenies of doom 3 cause when u realize the quality of graphics and gameplay and physics, one will realize the amount of detail and quality that has been put into that game.

Edit: I just looked into that game riddick, yea it looks nice but doesnt even compare to doom 3. I mean yea its okay, but even in that trailer the game lags which is sad since its being made for xbox, and there is no anti alising at all. The textures are rather bland in some places and the mood isnt that scary. It looks just more action like instead of frightening. Its nice dont get me wrong, but imo its not even on the same plane as doom 3...

 

[=1nfiltrat0r=]

even the doom three xbox looks better than riddick tho. not in sum screens but like u said u need to see it in motion look at the latest xbox trailor and look at the short xbox vid that was posted a few dayz ago u can soo how awesum the lighting is in those.

 

[Eywanadi]

Hmmm.... Console games can only have certain texture resolutions I think its about 512 x 512. Doom3 on the other hand can handle proberly 1500 x 1500 or maybe even 2000 x 2000.

The leaked Doom3 alpha had texture resolutions on average of 256-256 and alot of 128-128 textures ... there were only a few 512's in there (the surface of mars rocks). That was because the game was meant to run at medium quality on the then current Radeon 8500. I would expect the final full resolution of textures to be 512-512 on average, the same as quake 3. This may seem low but don't forget several base textures are calculated to give the final texture. This 1500-2000 guess of yours, no offense, is a joke. No card right now could handle that ... look down the road to Unreal 3 then maybe. I expect to see 128-256 average texture resolution for the x-box port and an average of 256-512 with a few 1024 here and there for the PC version. With the hope of a benchmark level that uses 1024-2048 resolution textures.

 

[DarkStar]

People can say whatever they want, throwing technical specs around left and right but I'm here to tell you that until you play Riddick you can't have any idea just how good the graphics are. The Xbox must have some kind of alien, omnipotent Geforce 3 under the hood to produce graphics like this becuase my old Geforce 3......definitely couldn't pull this stuff off. The graphics are simply IN-CRED-I-BLE. If you have an Xbox go rent this game, I guarantee you will be a believer after you play it. Gamespot's video review sums up the game pretty well in my opinion..

Infiltrator...how old are you? Seriously. How old? Why do you INSIST on talking in l33t/broken english even AFTER you were ridiculed for it in a thread devoted entirely to making fun of you?

 

[MonkeyClaw]

well it wasnt ment for the 8500, are u kidding me? the alpha at e3 2002 was running on a radeon 9700 2ghz pentium and 2gigs of ram (got this from a magazine). Which puzzles me since i get an average of 20-40 fps in the alpha and my system is a 9800 pro 1.83 athlon 2500 and 512 mb of ddr, weird...

 

[MonkeyClaw]

People can say whatever they want, throwing technical specs around left and right but I'm here to tell you that until you play Riddick you can't have any idea just how good the graphics are. The Xbox must have some kind of alien, omnipotent Geforce 3 under the hood to produce graphics like this becuase my old Geforce 3......definitely couldn't pull this stuff off. The graphics are simply IN-CRED-I-BLE. If you have an Xbox go rent this game, I guarantee you will be a believer after you play it. Gamespot's video review sums up the game pretty well in my opinion..

Infiltrator...how old are you? Seriously. How old? Why do you INSIST on talking in l33t/broken english even AFTER you were ridiculed for it in a thread devoted entirely to making fun of you?

eh its still isnt near doom 3. its impressive for an xbox, but it just doesnt rival doom 3 on pc. Play doom 3 and u will change your opinion im sure, lol (not gonna start alpha talk here cause im pretty sure its off limits)

 

[DarkStar]

eh its still isnt near doom 3. its impressive for an xbox, but it just doesnt rival doom 3 on pc. Play doom 3 and u will change your opinion im sure, lol (not gonna start alpha talk here cause im pretty sure its off limits)

I don't understand how it "isn't near doom 3" when the lighting systems of both games essentially look the same. And how the normal mapping on Riddick's models look about 10x better than what I've seen of Doom 3. And I did play the alpha leak, got around 20 fps average. The lighting in the leak looked amazing, but really no better than the lighting in Riddick.

 

[Neutrino]

It's pretty pointless of people to argue about a game using data from a demo leak that probably almost two years old now.

 

[B_MAN]

doom 3 in my opinion is far superior to thief 3
t3 has some nice lighting effects but has too many glitches
and some of the shadows that are cast by moving objects arent convincing
d3 is just complete eye candy

 

[Xtasy00]

yea an xbox runs off of basically a geforce 3. That means it supports only 1.1 shaders. ON the other hand, you have pc graphics cards like the 9800 pro or the new x800 which have 2.1 shaders (yes i know 6800 has 3.1 but there is no graphical difference between the 2, just performance). There is no way an xbox game can be better than a state of the art dx9 pc game like doom 3 or even half life 2. Yea u need to see some more screenies of doom 3 cause when u realize the quality of graphics and gameplay and physics, one will realize the amount of detail and quality that has been put into that game.

Edit: I just looked into that game riddick, yea it looks nice but doesnt even compare to doom 3. I mean yea its okay, but even in that trailer the game lags which is sad since its being made for xbox, and there is no anti alising at all. The textures are rather bland in some places and the mood isnt that scary. It looks just more action like instead of frightening. Its nice dont get me wrong, but imo its not even on the same plane as doom 3...

doom 3 is not a "state of the art dx9 pc game".

 

[joule]

doom 3 is not a "state of the art dx9 pc game".

What a bold statement to make when Doom 3 hasn't even been released yet. Keep up the good work! :thumbs:

 

[qckbeam]

What a bold statement to make when Doom 3 hasn't even been released yet. Keep up the good work! :thumbs:

Are you being sarcastic? Xtasy said it isn't a state of the art DX9 game because it isn't. Doom III makes use of the OpenGL API, not DX9. I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not (if you are, it's an honest mistake so no worries, if not, sorry).