What game holds graphical supremacy?

[blahblahblah]

I dont quite understand how physics make a game look better. It can add to gameplay, but not graphics in the most technical sense (without gameplay judgements).

If HL2 or Doom3 physics engine was able to calculate light as a wave, then it would make the game world look awesome (soft shadows). Other than that physics is purely a gameplay aspect.

 

[Asus]

A few thoughts.
First, With my lights off and placing an object in front of my monitor I easily notice the shading differences between the edge of the shadow compared to at the base of the object. The exact same as in a lit room, just starts dark and gets darker.
But that's why I think Doom3's hard shadows look odd.
Shadows arn't everything though.

I really like how HL2's looks as far as lighting and the depth of the textures in DX9.
Looking at the model/wall you can really see how the light bounces off the object. Whether it gleems as if the light is directly reflected into your eyes or if the surface is at an angle that makes the light reflect away, it shows that.
HDR should improve HL2's lighting and shadows for dark rooms as well.
I think HL2's DX9 lighting + softshadows + HDR is better than RT Hard shadows only. Not just looks but also performance.

Although for doom3 having RT shadows does really enhance the texture built into the model. Too bad they could not include HDR as that would be great. It would help getting it to look very close to realistic (except for the modeling part, I'm talking about shadows). If doom3 added more DX9 features that could help with lighting and how it reflects off models.

Stalker comes pretty close to what we want for shadows/lighting though. It is more advanced in it's methods maybe but I don't think it will offer anything above HL2's combination for lighting/shadow features durring actual gameplay.

 

[vann7]

well .. many interesting points have been said here.. lets see..

Hl2 -does not support-
1) True SPeculars ..
2) real Bumpmaps,neither real NOrmal maps.
because when simulating realism in professional graphics animations they are dynamic and what Valve does is something static. even there are quotes where they have said that their Bumpmaps are static.. pre-rendered. what valve do in Hl2 is a workaround painting by hand all of those "reflections". yes .its better than not having those at all ,but still they are far from realism. because those things needs a real time lighting system to work propertly. and Hl2 engine is a LIghtmap engine. with DX9 effects.

a picture speak better than words.. lets see.. what i can find...
ok.. here
look at the latest screenshot released by valve..

http://www.planethalflife.com/screenshot.asp?src=/half-life2/screenshots/01n.jpg

the speculars there in all the Gun are painted. more easily noticeable the Big one.the light comes from the sky ,but the speculars are in the left corner. there is no way to make those "speculars" that "shininess" to shine in another place of the gun. look also at the walls ,there is not a single specular there ,or Bumpmaps.the walls are perfectly smooth.(not like real life) if you look at all the screenshots of the weapons in Hl2 you will notice that -all of them- looks Opaque or atificially illuminated.
the light interaction in the characters cloths also looks artificial.

why? because HL2 lacks of real reflections and True specular/real bumpmaps ,real normalmaps. losing realism in the graphics.

http://www.planethalflife.com/screenshot.asp?src=/half-life2/screenshots/hl2_091.jpg

the "light" in the characters body and faces looks inaccurate too. very Opaque here and in other shots too much illuminated . like if the light doesnt exist at all ,or if it "exist" they are artificially illuminated. you dont need to be a rocket scientist to notice that the light illumination doesnt look natural.

thats why Idsoftware Dropped Lightmaps in their NExt engine of D3,because Surfaces and characters looks more cartoony (hanna barbera effect) and if you are not extremely carefull about the shadows they will be displayed incorrectly .

http://www.planethalflife.com/screenshot.asp?src=/half-life2/screenshots/13.jpg


if the goal is realism . the dificulty with using Painted Bumpmaps and speculars is that THEy are always in the same place. you can turn on a flashlight or another source of light and there is no way,to illuminate the painted small shadows..because ->is painted. they are always in the same place at the same angle. :dozey: an this is clearly far for realism.in the other Hand Doom3 doesnt have this dificulty ,because everthing that involves lighting is done on the fly. thats why a Halflife1 map compiling can take you up to many hours ,calculating all the lightmaps and in doom3 just seconds . maybe is because Hl1 have more accurate lighting.

LEvel editors and Modmakers will notice -HUge- diferences making levels for Hl2 and Doom3. another interesting topic.. because in Doom3 the lighting is done in realtime ,even in the editor. a more clear way to see that the speculars in Hl2 are not speculars at all ,but painted textures that simulate reflections" of your weapon .pick the crowbar or any weapon walk to a corner where there is no light and still part of the reflections and the shininess will be there in the weapon..and in the same corners :dozey: but obviously there is no way to see that until the final game is released..

the "reflections" you see in Hl2 like the the Helmet of soldiers and the "glossy eye" are.-> painted textures. simulating that light is there. but is not. the water "reflections" are not reflections but painted textures.. of the sorroundings.. by the way the waters looks really cool. and there is no other choice since water is one of the most dificult things to recreate in games ,and even in the professional market. is very complex.. to do it in a realistic way.

yes.. Valve can make the "light" to "interact" with all surfaces.. at least make you believe light is there. and that is painting the textures,but again this technique in not accurate ,neither realistic. there is nothing wrong with lightmaps or with painted textures ,heck we have been playing all those years Amazing games QUake1/2/quake3/Unreal1/2/Ut2003/Moh:AA/battlefield/Rpgs ,adventures games ,thousands!!!....etc..with techniques like that. HDR effects are cool ,its unfortunate that HDR doesnt enhance the quality of surfaces or character in Hl2 neither.. why ? read again at the top of my post. Too many cool features in Hl2 ,but that are not used in its fullest potential.

hope people here dont take this post ,as a negative thing .Hl2 is a great game..in my opinion will be One of the most advanced in graphics in 2004,no doubt about that. this post was made to help people to understand a bit more ,the tricks that are used in that game .to make more clear ,what those new games are doing to make you believe you are looking at the real thing.

 

[MultiVaC]

I dont quite understand how physics make a game look better. It can add to gameplay, but not graphics in the most technical sense (without gameplay judgements).

If HL2 or Doom3 physics engine was able to calculate light as a wave, then it would make the game world look awesome (soft shadows). Other than that physics is purely a gameplay aspect.

Have you ever played Max Payne 2? The physics literally had NO effect on the gameplay whatsoever. This is due to the lack of a proper way to move things around. You'll get nowhere kicking boxes around, you need to pick them up, (Deus Ex 2, even though the physics were executed poorly in that game) or even better have something like HL2's manipulator. I'm pretty sure Doom 3 won't have something like that because of Carmack being his typical self and calling it a 'gimmick'.

Edit: Ok, sorry vann7, but you don't know what you're talking about. There are no 'pre rendered normal maps'. Unless of course you mean a model is rendered beforehand to create a normal map, ALL normal maps are like that. Unless Doom 3 magically thinks up its own normal maps with absoultely no reference to any previously rendered polygons it is no less 'Pre-rendered' than HL2. Also, all those surfaces that don't respond to changes in lighting: those are called TEXTURES.

 

[Asus]

Good post.
I know HL2's "reflections" are painted although I have not seen "reflections" in doom3 really at all. I guess it seems D3 is relying on RT lighting/shadows and maybe are having to live without a lot of DX9 features or at least just not including too many. The only footage/SS of HL2 with most uptodate DX9 implementation that I know of is the source_hdr video.
We really should wait to find out how each looks in it's own environment. These next few games will get the ball rolling so to speak. In a year or so some games will probably implement RT lighting/shadows, reflection/illumination to shape softshadows and HDR that should really improve things and the hardware will be there to support it.

 

[Styloid]

That is very believable and really makes a lot of sense. If that is true, though, I don't get why Valve showed/said they had normal maps that reacted to movable lights (the flashlight) in the normal map 'wall' demonstration.

 

[vann7]

That is very believable and really makes a lot of sense. If that is true, though, I don't get why Valve showed/said they had normal maps that reacted to movable lights (the flashlight) in the normal map 'wall' demonstration.

well , i have not seen that video.. but its clear to me ,that everything that they have done until Sept30 it is the way i have said.. ,and even in the latest released screenshots in this year i see the same techniques.probably what you have seen its a tech demo ,something planned for the game. but until today what i have seen is many features but not used at its fullest potential . to add those features at its fullest needs to change completly the REndering engine ,at the performance of the game will suffer badly ,its something that doesnt happen from night to day. even VAlve have said that are waiting for PS3.0 cards because their HDR is not good enough for what they want in their game. at this date the game should be already almost finished and fixing bugs.. also should be working in security againts cheats since the source code have been stolen. so "adding new features" its very unlikelly if they want to release the game in a couple of more months. however when the game is released ,they can upgrade the game ,all they want..with new features.. just like Halflife1 which was upgraded so many times.

 

[Asus]

Link
Here is a related one but the first Link is the "wall" video he was refering to.

 

[vann7]

Good post.
I know HL2's "reflections" are painted although I have not seen "reflections" in doom3 really at all. I guess it seems D3 is relying on RT lighting/shadows and maybe are having to live without a lot of DX9 features or at least just not including too many. The only footage/SS of HL2 with most uptodate DX9 implementation that I know of is the source_hdr video.
We really should wait to find out how each looks in it's own environment. These next few games will get the ball rolling so to speak. In a year or so some games will probably implement RT lighting/shadows, reflection/illumination to shape softshadows and HDR that should really improve things and the hardware will be there to support it.

i have never seen Reflections in Doom3 neither..
when i said "reflections" i mean -Speculars reflections-. accurate light reflections ,which Doom3 really support. -Surface Reflections- in another thing.. True Surfaces Reflections and Refractions are only possible with Raytracing .. a no game will support that for a loooooong time. (funny valve use the word raytracing in their features..but later they tell is pre-rendered and static ) i guess with words anything is possible :upstare: Yes there are "surface reflections" ,walls with Mirrors in Doom3 and many old games.. but those are hacks. projected textures of the characters in the "reflective" surfaces. The day games support real surfaces reflections/refractions and caustics ,realistic water will be possible in games.

 

[Pseudonym_]

WOW, hl2 wins? I would expect the usual amount of bias on a hl2 forum, but not this much. I don't see how anyone could possibly believe that hl2 is graphically superior to D³.

Hl2 looks decent enough, but cmon. It's an average engine with some new dx9 shaders. Thats all! Nothing else is special or very impressive about it graphically.

*The static lighting is glitchy(shadow errors are common throughout all the media released so far, and in some cases is plain ugly)

*The textures are very grainy when viewed up close(at distances of 3 or 4 ft.)

*Effects such as Normal maps and Specular maps are dissapointingly sparse(as apposed to D³ where EVERY surface has Normal and Specular maps) . I mean, we have seen Normal maps on a total of 1(rock surface) wall, and specular maps on a total of 1(tile wall from bugbait) wall. The HDRI video should not be included because those effects have not been seen in other media, and because the HDRI video was a tech demo of Source's dx9 capabilities and NOT a demo of how hl2 will look upon release.

*The animation is laughable at many places(such as Alyx in the Kliener's Lab bink video.) Just watch that bink again and tell me if you would be impressed with that in-game. The animation for the crouched walk those allies do in the Barricade is also very goofy. D³ on the other hand is some of the best animation I have ever seen in a game, and not the usual goofy poses you get in older games and in hl2.

*The effects in the D³ engine are top-notch. The glass breaking effect, the fire, animated Normal maps, hell there are a total of 32 effects from the point a gun is fired to the point the bullet impacts the target, including physically simulated projectiles which are not in hl2.


Don't get defensive and start flaming, I'm not saying hl2 looks bad. It looks very decent. But it's just a series of small evolutionary steps(upping polycount a bit, put in supoprt for purdy Dx9 shaders, thats about it.). This is the bare minimum you would expect from a next gen game. Small incremental steps. D³, on the other hand, changes graphics on a fundamental and revolutionary(as opposed to evolutionary) way. Instead of adding small hacks to existing technology like hl2, D³ creates new technology from the ground up. Every surface can have the detail of a 500k poly object, and with true dynamic lighting moving over it real-time and casting shadows. Nothing that hl2 has can compete with that graphically. It's a no-brainer.

 

[flupke]

DOOM III for sure... It's like the doom3 graphics are 1 massive beatifully designed object. Well it's hard to explain. All other games have graphics which look beautiful but you can see that the 'animals' aren't 1 object. Doom3 is perfect for that.

http://doom3maps.ngz-network.de/images/screenshots/scs4.jpg
http://doom3maps.ngz-network.de/images/screenshots/scs19.jpg
http://doom3maps.ngz-network.de/images/screenshots/scs35.jpg

Like, these are REALLY real-life object. It's like you can touch & hold that structure. It's like real metal. I've never felt that before... Not even HL2 gives me that feeling.

 

[flupke]

WOW, hl2 wins? I would expect the usual amount of bias on a hl2 forum, but not this much. I don't see how anyone could possibly believe that hl2 is graphically superior to D³.

Hl2 looks decent enough, but cmon. It's an average engine with some new dx9 shaders. Thats all! Nothing else is special or very impressive about it graphically.

*The static lighting is glitchy(shadow errors are common throughout all the media released so far, and in some cases is plain ugly)

*The textures are very grainy when viewed up close(at distances of 3 or 4 ft.)

*Effects such as Normal maps and Specular maps are dissapointingly sparse(as apposed to D³ where EVERY surface has Normal and Specular maps) . I mean, we have seen Normal maps on a total of 1(rock surface) wall, and specular maps on a total of 1(tile wall from bugbait) wall. The HDRI video should not be included because those effects have not been seen in other media, and because the HDRI video was a tech demo of Source's dx9 capabilities and NOT a demo of how hl2 will look upon release.

*The animation is laughable at many places(such as Alyx in the Kliener's Lab bink video.) Just watch that bink again and tell me if you would be impressed with that in-game. The animation for the crouched walk those allies do in the Barricade is also very goofy. D³ on the other hand is some of the best animation I have ever seen in a game, and not the usual goofy poses you get in older games and in hl2.

*The effects in the D³ engine are top-notch. The glass breaking effect, the fire, animated Normal maps, hell there are a total of 32 effects from the point a gun is fired to the point the bullet impacts the target, including physically simulated projectiles which are not in hl2.


Don't get defensive and start flaming, I'm not saying hl2 looks bad. It looks very decent. But it's just a series of small evolutionary steps(upping polycount a bit, put in supoprt for purdy Dx9 shaders, thats about it.). This is the bare minimum you would expect from a next gen game. Small incremental steps. D³, on the other hand, changes graphics on a fundamental and revolutionary(as opposed to evolutionary) way. Instead of adding small hacks to existing technology like hl2, D³ creates new technology from the ground up. Every surface can have the detail of a 500k poly object, and with true dynamic lighting moving over it real-time and casting shadows. Nothing that hl2 has can compete with that graphically. It's a no-brainer.

Yeah, well this is the perfect explanation for my post above. Truly perfectly done

 

[Sparta]

Dude, we've only seen 1 video with Half Life 2's graphics up full, if we saw every video like that then it still would be a very close race, but Half Life 2 would still win for realism, i'm looking at Doom 3 screenies now (Mmmmmm Shiny) but whilst they looks with the metal and all they still have the graniness of Half Life 2 but Doom 3 just looks too much like freakin plastic. Its like im in some kind of shiny world with plastic mannequin-kinda things chasing me.

The only thing HL2 can't do is the dynamic lighting. Those 500k poly object surfaces are created using bump-maps, the same thing HL2 can do. Its jsut that Doom 3 uses 100 times as much as HL2 from what we've seen. But if everything was done up like it is in the Source HDR video, then HL2 wins hands down over Doom 3. Every surface but the wood had bump-maps on them and the light was reflecting off multiple surfaces. Not to mention the specular bump-mapping on the Ant Lion Guard is twice as cool as anything in Doom 3, and 3 times as realistic.

 

[Pseudonym_]

I don't equate graphical quality to realism. hl2 clearly goes for more realistic(real world) visuals, while D³ strives for more sci-fi, stylized visuals. Those are just the styles of the two games. But that doesn't really mean anything. We are talking about graphical capability, not which game looks more "real-world" like.

It's like Carmack said, they could have either added to the existing technology and created a more realistic looking game the way hl2 did(hl2 surpasses D³ in that area IMO), or they could create new technology from the ground up to create a realistic acting environment (D³ does this better, hands down). One of these two approaches is a small evolutionary step, the other revolutionizes what is capable in games.

Which one you like better depends on personal taste, but D³ is obviously superior as far as graphical technology is concerned. No other engine is as advanced graphically.

As far as the plastic argument goes, the only instances where the game ever had a plastic look to me was in the alpha. Every official screenshot does not have this "plastic" effect.

What is plastic about this ?
or this ?

Looks incredible to me.

 

[Styloid]

Just imagine what each game would look like on each other's engine. HL2 would look glossy and plastic, losing its oil painting/movie-like look. Doom 3 would not have it's real-time shadows and self-shadowing, losing its CG-like look. I'd say that they both made the right decision with what type of graphics they should use and I don't think there can really be that much criticism on that. That leaves the rest up to taste (as said so many times before).

 

[vann7]

I don't equate graphical quality to realism. hl2 clearly goes for more realistic(real world) visuals, while D³ strives for more sci-fi, stylized visuals. Those are just the styles of the two games. But that doesn't really mean anything. We are talking about graphical capability, not which game looks more "real-world" like.

good analogy..
Hl2 use (realistic) art for the game ,but using less realistic techniques (commonly used in games) for the graphics and Doom3 use less realistic art (Sci-fi) for the game but with more natural techniques ,(that are commonly used in professional graphics).

each game have a diferent style in Art.. Sci-fi versus Real word art. What many people dont know is that you can use HL2 art textures of (real word) in Doom3 and Sci-fi art textures of doom3 in Hl2. it will be fun to see Mods of HL2 in Doom3 and mods of Doom3 in Hl2. that way people will see the real capabilities of each game. but as other have said ,each game engine was designed for the needs of each game developers .there is no way for doom3 to be playable with the huge outdoors in Hl2 +Ps2.0 of water and no way for Hl2 to be playable with a RT lighting system like Doom3. every engine was done for diferent goals in mind.

 

[Sparta]

Ok you've convinced me, Doom 3 and HL2 are both better then each other in certain ways.

 

[jonbob]

Well, people thought that Zelda game (Windwaker I think) looked rubbish too, but then they played it...

 

[PvtRyan]

Vann7, seriously, what the hell are you talking about? There are no such things in HL2 as painted on reflections, the reflections are done dynamically. And this doesn't mean it has some heavy raytracing engine, it's done in other ways. The thing you're pointing at (probably) is the reflections games like UT2003 uses. That game uses static pre-rendered maps to simulate relflection of it's surroundings, thus it doesn't reflect dynamic things as player models. HL2 does reflect everyhting, also players and objects.
And static normal maps? Isn't that a contradiction? The appearance of normal maps in HL2 changes with the angle you look at them, this is calculated realtime. The don't selfshade like in Doom 3 (not sure if Far Cry does though) but they do react to lights like your flashlight. For some bumpmapping examples, watch the bugbait video, all white tiles are bump and specular mapped.

So I'm not exactly sure what you're point is, but fact is reflections are dynamic, and reflect dynamic stuff like players. Possibly things like the crowbar uses static maps of the surrounding to render it's reflections (cube mapping) because this doesn't need to be accurate.
Reflections are refractions are shader effects, you could call this faking the effect but the end-result is the same.

 

[Flyingdebris]

well now, hl2 DOES reflect.... the plot thickens

 

[Dile]

Quite an unfriendly poll to me...

How can we determine which is nicer if they aren't even complete games!

Come on people, get real!

 

[vann7]

There are no such things in HL2 as painted on reflections, the reflections are done dynamically. And this doesn't mean it has some heavy raytracing engine, it's done in other ways. The thing you're pointing at (probably) is the reflections games like UT2003 uses. That game uses static pre-rendered maps to simulate relflection of it's surroundings, thus it doesn't reflect dynamic things as player models. HL2 does reflect everyhting, also players and objects.
And static normal maps? Isn't that a contradiction? The appearance of normal maps in HL2 changes with the angle you look at them, this is calculated realtime. The don't selfshade like in Doom 3 (not sure if Far Cry does though) but they do react to lights like your flashlight. For some bumpmapping examples, watch the bugbait video, all white tiles are bump and specular mapped.

So I'm not exactly sure what you're point is, but fact is reflections are dynamic, and reflect dynamic stuff like players. Possibly things like the crowbar uses static maps of the surrounding to render it's reflections (cube mapping) because this doesn't need to be accurate.
Reflections are refractions are shader effects, you could call this faking the effect but the end-result is the same.

Painted "reflections" or (projected images textures) can be "dynamic".the only thing you need to do is animate the prerendered image (of an object) something that you want to be "reflected". and you get the look of reflections.. "reflections" in games for years have been "dynamic" .. but that doest mean anything .Unreal1 back at the time of quake2 have "dynamic" "reflective" floors that "reflect" objects and players in motion ... but they are Pre-rendered textures projected and animated in the surfaces. quake3 also have the same "reflections" since there were mirrors in that game.

if you notice the screenshot you have posted.. the splash of the water -is not reflected in the water" . neither the man? projected textures /images /objects is not real reflections. what you see as "surfaces reflections" in Hl2 and all games is just a Trick. because this doesn't need to be accurate. but also because for real surfaces reflections in a game you need a real time raytracing engine!

and yes.. the word NOrmalmaps,Bumpmaps/Speculars and the word static is a contradiction.because those things are dynamic and in RT in the real life. but that doesnt means that those tricks coould not be used in a game.and Hl2 ,like many other games does that. look just that the angle of the Bumpmaps/Normals whatever is always the same. just need to be very close to the surface to observe that.

possibily not,All weapons in Hl2 ,characters use static Speculars .. (painted textures of shininess).surfaces maybe not that much ,because its very easy to notice the fake there. and there is not such a thing like reflective water in a game my friend .dont believe for a second in that.is not reflective at all technically speaking ,in any game you can name. Projective maybe. this is not saying that those techniques are wrong.. Programming tricks have been used in games since they exist.
as others have pointed out REalism not necessarily mean Better, it just about what you want to do in a game.

 

[Dile]

Why don't you just e-mail Valve?
I guess they would answer all your questions.

 

[vann7]

ok.. this is probably my last post..
unless i find something new that will like to discuss..

Look at this interview of VAlve..

http://www.hl2source.com/?content=interviews&article=1

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoaxer: What kind of shadows are used in Source engine - are they fully dynamic, or are they partially static lightmaps - do you use a combination of lightmaps and dynamic shadows?

Gabe Newell: We use a combination of dynamic and static lighting. Objects that move cast dynamic shadows whereas static objects cast, well, static shadows that are cheaper. On DX9 you get soft dynamic shadows as well. We also have a full radiosity solution :angel: for static bumped lighting (bump maps work with static lights). If you were to put a static light next to a bump-mapped object, the light direction would be correct (traditionally light maps and bump maps have been mutually exclusive).

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

and If you were to use a Dynamic light close to a static bumpmapped object it will look not correct. just turn on a FLashlight and illumate in diferent angles a bumpmapped surface. nothing wrong with that ,since those tehcniques used in HL2 are very smart for FASt performance and good quality .far more advanced that what we have seen in many games in the past. the only trade off is that those features like BUmps/speculars/Normals are not used at its fullest potential.same with HDR lighting effects.. not used at its fullest potential.
and True reflections (the reflections of surfaces and objects on others)are not real reflections in any game ,but projections ,since those things are too expensive for being done in the real way in RT in today games .

 

[OCybrManO]

You don't need a raytracing engine to do proper reflections/refractions of your vision (doesn't affect the actual lighting). Shaders can do it just as well. The only thing a raytracing engine would add that would be very hard (if not impossible) to do properly with shaders is caustics (which, in current games, should be faked because of the massive overhead) and proper reflection of the light itself (like if you shine a light into a mirror)... and I haven't even seen any media of the amazing Doom3 showing those abilities. All Doom3 has that is "new" is per-pixel lighting (it's "new" because it is used on everything instead of only certain objects)... that is evolutionary, not revolutionary.

Revolutionary would be games with real-time multi-bounce (light doesn't completely stop when it hits a surface, unlike Doom 3) photon mapping. I say it can be done in under 5 years if hardware designers see lighting as a top priority. Without any hardware support for it programmers have been able to get the render time down to several seconds for simple scenes.

I'm not trying to say Doom3 looks bad. It looks great... but it's not a revolutionary step forward for gaming.

 

[Asus]

I think why some ppl put D3 down is because it is a game that uses realistic lighting and to some ppl the models become like toys, plastic or clay because other than light there is not much that makes it look realistic to them.
I think the lighting makes it look realistic to just about everybody but what does it become when it is realistic? Plastic/Clay or Metal/Flesh? Comes down to individual interpretation.
Some ppl will identify with HL2's facial detail and say...thats real even though it is clearly a game. Because they can identify with the character they say it is real rather than lighting.
I agree, D3 and stalker are better than HL2 behind the scenes but whats up front is what counts and that is all personal judgement.
That is what makes H2 #1 in graphics possible...oh yeah plus this is hl2.net

 

[Styloid]

and If you were to use a Dynamic light close to a static bumpmapped object it will look not correct. just turn on a FLashlight and illumate in diferent angles a bumpmapped surface.

So in the 'wall' video, they showed a clip of a flashlight shining on a normal mapped cave wall and said that it reacts accurately... that was... faked somehow?

 

[vann7]

So in the 'wall' video, they showed a clip of a flashlight shining on a normal mapped cave wall and said that it reacts accurately... that was... faked somehow?

Indeed..

HAve not seen that video.. downloading it now.. im on a slow conection .. if anyone can post screenshots ,only to not download again a video if i have seen it. but unless you have not noticed this.. even Valve admits their Bumpmaps are static..for the people that doesnt know what this means ,it means they are somehow ->faked . because Static bumps is a contradiction about what bumpsmaps really are..

I think thats the main reason a feature like that is used in few places in Hl2. its because their bumps need to be used very carefully in few places because static bumpmaps will only look "to be correctly" with static light. WHat i think Valve is doing is using more than one Static texture bumpmapped at times.."when it looks that is dynamic" one for this angle and another for this other.. etc.. in other words it Swap static textures!! on the fly.. but in other times is more Obvious since there is not swapping at all ,and you see clearly that some shadows are impossible to iluminate ..in Bug bait video on the floor i saw this...im really sure that if you manage turn on the flashlight and illunminate a crater in the floor in that level,moving slowly the light you will see the swapping of textures . in E3_techvideo of the cave wall with BUmpmaps and water same too.. i think i have seen videos that the water in that demo doesnt reflect the main character . only the cave..that can be fixed projecting an image of the player on the water. but its a clear sign that Reflections /True reflections are not there . with True REflections like the Ones you can get with RAytracing Proffesional Software if a flashight illuminate the water ,the light will deflect inside the water and in the walls of the cave. Nice eh.. Gdevelopers can only dream to do this one day.. the Static Bumps is not something that you will notice if you are playing the game ,but if you look at it directly at diferent angles ,it can look weird.
this shows that Valve is very Creative and that they are working Really hard (because to do something like that should require a lot of effort.)to simulate realism in their game. It is a smart idea. but its still a workaround and it can be Dificult to implement it in the game, to look correctly if you have not enough expertise of a proffesional Artist..if you are a level editor or MOdmaker how easy will be for them to do something like that. Dark places seems the best place to use that technique ,since there is more dificult to notice the swapping of textures there.

 

[Pseudonym_]

All Doom3 has that is "new" is per-pixel lighting (it's "new" because it is used on everything instead of only certain objects)... that is evolutionary, not revolutionary.

Revolutionary means "bringing about a major or fundamental change". What is so new about D³ is the unified lighting system. Every surface is treated the same, and casts shadows on every other surface. This is indeed a major and fundamental change in how RT games are rendered, and therefore the D³ engine is revolutionary gaming technology. There is nothing revolutionary about hl2 because its the same old technology with small additions and improvements. The technique hl2 uses for rendering "dynamic" shadows has been used for quite a while now, as has using a mixture of static lighting maps and projected shadow maps. In this age of gaming technology, with games such as DeusEx:IW, Doom³, and Thief3, the projected shadow maps used in hl2 is a very primitive technique for creating "dynamic" shadows, and I doubt we will see any more use of this technique in the future.

What Carmack is doing with the new D³ engine is creating a rendering system that acts more like it should. The D³ engine has hard edged shadows and what not, but this is just the first generation of this new technology. What is important is that the lighting acts like it should, and that we start moving away from static light maps. The technology will be added to just like gaming technology always has been, but it is vital to the progression of graphics that we lay down the groundwork now so that we can start improving upon it. That is why the D³ technology is revolutionary, because it throws out the old technology and sparks the age where graphics can reach a much higher level of integrity and consistancy than they ever would have if we remained on the path we are now, just adding small hacks to the same old static and inconsistant methods of lgihting we used in the past.

 

[Pseudonym_]

So in the 'wall' video, they showed a clip of a flashlight shining on a normal mapped cave wall and said that it reacts accurately... that was... faked somehow?

Vann7 is right, I just think you misunderstood what he was trying to say.

In the wall video when the guy says the "lighting information is accurate", he is referring to the fact that the area of illumination on the wall will follow the contour of the normal map. What I mean is, suppose you had a 1 poly object with that same "rock wall" normal map on it like he had in Softimage. When he says the lighting information is accurate, he means that the circle of illumination the flashlight will project onto the wall will fallow the contour of the normal map, instead of being a perfect circle as it would be on a 1poly object without a normal map. Does that make sense?

But what you will not see is the lighting on the wall istelf change due to the flashlight, because the highlights and shadows are baked into the wall texture during the compilation of the map. This is what vann7 was trying to say, I think. Watch the wall video again and you will see that even when the flashlight is pointed right at a part of the wall that is in shadow, the shadow remains unaffected by the introduction of the new light source. This is why a unified lighting system is the future, and static light maps will very soon be obsolete.

Check out that cool dynamic effect that he gets when he moves the lighting rig around inside of Softimage. you will never get that in hl2, the part where he shines the flashlight on the wall in-game isnt nearly as impressive. You will get that effect in D³ though.

 

[Subz]

oh cmon.what game do you think is gonna win in a hl2 forum.

anyways doom3 and stalker are graphically more impressive than hl2 i really beleive this. just check out high-res screens of all 3 games.

 

[Caminante]

well .. many interesting points have been said here.. lets see..

Hl2 -does not support-
1) True SPeculars ..
2) real Bumpmaps,neither real NOrmal maps.
because when simulating realism in professional graphics animations they are dynamic and what Valve does is something static. even there are quotes where they have said that their Bumpmaps are static.. pre-rendered. what valve do in Hl2 is a workaround painting by hand all of those "reflections". yes .its better than not having those at all ,but still they are far from realism. because those things needs a real time lighting system to work propertly. and Hl2 engine is a LIghtmap engine. with DX9 effects.

a picture speak better than words.. lets see.. what i can find...
ok.. here
look at the latest screenshot released by valve..

http://www.planethalflife.com/screenshot.asp?src=/half-life2/screenshots/01n.jpg

the speculars there in all the Gun are painted. more easily noticeable the Big one.the light comes from the sky ,but the speculars are in the left corner. there is no way to make those "speculars" that "shininess" to shine in another place of the gun. look also at the walls ,there is not a single specular there ,or Bumpmaps.the walls are perfectly smooth.(not like real life) if you look at all the screenshots of the weapons in Hl2 you will notice that -all of them- looks Opaque or atificially illuminated.
the light interaction in the characters cloths also looks artificial.

why? because HL2 lacks of real reflections and True specular/real bumpmaps ,real normalmaps. losing realism in the graphics.

http://www.planethalflife.com/screenshot.asp?src=/half-life2/screenshots/hl2_091.jpg

the "light" in the characters body and faces looks inaccurate too. very Opaque here and in other shots too much illuminated . like if the light doesnt exist at all ,or if it "exist" they are artificially illuminated. you dont need to be a rocket scientist to notice that the light illumination doesnt look natural.

thats why Idsoftware Dropped Lightmaps in their NExt engine of D3,because Surfaces and characters looks more cartoony (hanna barbera effect) and if you are not extremely carefull about the shadows they will be displayed incorrectly .

http://www.planethalflife.com/screenshot.asp?src=/half-life2/screenshots/13.jpg


if the goal is realism . the dificulty with using Painted Bumpmaps and speculars is that THEy are always in the same place. you can turn on a flashlight or another source of light and there is no way,to illuminate the painted small shadows..because ->is painted. they are always in the same place at the same angle. :dozey: an this is clearly far for realism.in the other Hand Doom3 doesnt have this dificulty ,because everthing that involves lighting is done on the fly. thats why a Halflife1 map compiling can take you up to many hours ,calculating all the lightmaps and in doom3 just seconds . maybe is because Hl1 have more accurate lighting.

LEvel editors and Modmakers will notice -HUge- diferences making levels for Hl2 and Doom3. another interesting topic.. because in Doom3 the lighting is done in realtime ,even in the editor. a more clear way to see that the speculars in Hl2 are not speculars at all ,but painted textures that simulate reflections" of your weapon .pick the crowbar or any weapon walk to a corner where there is no light and still part of the reflections and the shininess will be there in the weapon..and in the same corners :dozey: but obviously there is no way to see that until the final game is released..

the "reflections" you see in Hl2 like the the Helmet of soldiers and the "glossy eye" are.-> painted textures. simulating that light is there. but is not. the water "reflections" are not reflections but painted textures.. of the sorroundings.. by the way the waters looks really cool. and there is no other choice since water is one of the most dificult things to recreate in games ,and even in the professional market. is very complex.. to do it in a realistic way.

yes.. Valve can make the "light" to "interact" with all surfaces.. at least make you believe light is there. and that is painting the textures,but again this technique in not accurate ,neither realistic. there is nothing wrong with lightmaps or with painted textures ,heck we have been playing all those years Amazing games QUake1/2/quake3/Unreal1/2/Ut2003/Moh:AA/battlefield/Rpgs ,adventures games ,thousands!!!....etc..with techniques like that. HDR effects are cool ,its unfortunate that HDR doesnt enhance the quality of surfaces or character in Hl2 neither.. why ? read again at the top of my post. Too many cool features in Hl2 ,but that are not used in its fullest potential.

hope people here dont take this post ,as a negative thing .Hl2 is a great game..in my opinion will be One of the most advanced in graphics in 2004,no doubt about that. this post was made to help people to understand a bit more ,the tricks that are used in that game .to make more clear ,what those new games are doing to make you believe you are looking at the real thing.

vann7 and you seem to be one the few people around here with commun sence. By the way, these HL2 screene shown are the most horrible yet, they don't look any better then any actual game out there. And yes, it's true, HL2 water effects look outstanding indeed - kudos to Valve, i was really blewn away when i first saw them:thumbup:. Nonetheless, Valve did not do a so great job in the water's edge, thus making the surfaces look too edgy or in other words a straight line. Perhaps this would be address is the future - although i doubt it. Heck even UT2003's engine horrible water effets renders the interatction bettween the water and shore more natural then does the more "advance" HL2's engine.

The bottom line is that, all this feature -IMO- does not make HL2 graphics the best around. The game's geometry levels are too simplistic and not having some sort of semi-dynamic lighting and shadowing effects implemented, makes it all look too commun.

 

[Sparta]

Oh for the love of god people, we've only seen 1 video where HL2 Graphics were up full. I think its best to end this argument now and resume when we've all PLAYED THE GAMES

Besides, Games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R and Doom 3 are all showing as much of their graphics as they can because thats the main thing their riding on to help sell the game (Since Doom 3 only has 4 player multi-player, I'd be advertising the graphics as well, and STALKER just sounds dull, like a hunting game except with mutants)

Half Life 2 doesnt need to establish itself graphically because everyone already knows the main reason people will buy it is because of the Multiplayer and the Mods(I'm getting it for Singleplayer though) This is what will topple the other games coming out this year, not the graphics, but the multiplayer. What good is this "Per Pixel shading" crap for us right now if the main reason games are still being played for is because of the multiplayer? Counter-strike is still being played by hundreds of thousands of people, and the games out-dated like anything.

Besides, STALKER and DOOM 3 are showing off how graphically advanced they're engines can be rather then how flexibile and scalable they can be, like what Half Life 2 is going to demonstrate through its Modding tools. If it is as Scalable and moddable as vavle says it is, then the Source engine could be modified to do the exact same things Doom 3 and STALKER can

 

[Pseudonym_]

Besides, Games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R and Doom 3 are all showing as much of their graphics as they can because thats the main thing their riding on to help sell the game

Hardly. Both D³ and Stalker offer much more than graphics, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. Stalkers main selling point is the scale of the world, freedom of choice, and the ability to take the story in multiple directions, plus the co-op is highly anticipated. Doom³, by all indications, is a very story driven, atmospheric, immersive, thrilling horror game. Plus the fact that the D³ is completely moddable. Dont kid yourself into thinking that the only reason people say these games are graphically superior to hl2 is that its all the developers can offer.

This is what will topple the other games coming out this year, not the graphics, but the multiplayer.

I find this highly amusing considering that Valve refuses to give away the slightest details of the Mp component of hl2. the fact that they have stated they dont want to say anything about MP until the game is already out only points to the conclusion that they dont see it as a selling point, and infact arent very confident about it. On the same vein, newell doesnt seem very confident in hl2 at all, which worries me.

What good is this "Per Pixel shading" crap for us right now if the main reason games are still being played for is because of the multiplayer? Counter-strike is still being played by hundreds of thousands of people, and the games out-dated like anything.

What good is graphical improvements? only good to the graphical quality of the game. Dont tell me you would rather play cs2 with halflife quality graphics rather than hl2 quality graphics. Graphics certaintly arent the most important thing in a MP game, but players will always want better graphics in their games. No one is playing cs tonight because they like they favor 50 poly models over 3000 poly models.

Besides, STALKER and DOOM 3 are showing off how graphically advanced they're engines can be rather then how flexibile and scalable they can be

I cant speak for Stalker, but Doom³ can be played with 1ghz and a geforce3. Sounds plenty scaleable to me at this point in time. It wont look as neat as the high quality screenshots, but neither will hl2. Dont kid yourself into thinking that when valve developers say it will work fine on low end comps that they mean it will look anywhere near as good as the official screenshots. It will be downright ugly when played on minimum specs, just like all other games.

Since Doom 3 only has 4 player multi-player, I'd be advertising the graphics as well

People who have gotten their hands on Doom³ MP have given it nothing but rave reviews so far, and to hear them describe it it sounds like a MP experience which is origonal and fresh in this age of CS clones and shitty true combat/ww2 mods. I dont understand where you guys who bash the MP(which you have never played) get the idea that a small scale game cannot be fun, especially when ALL previews of D³ MP are as positive as they are. Whatever.

Doesnt matter, since the MP is 4 player by default and is easily changed to whatever you want.

like what Half Life 2 is going to demonstrate through its Modding tools.

Again, I dont know about Stalker. Last I heard the developers were still deciding wether they should release the map editor. Doom³, on the other hand, will be 100% moddable.

If it is as Scalable and moddable as vavle says it is, then the Source engine could be modified to do the exact same things Doom 3 and STALKER can

Stalker.....maybe. Doom³? Wont happen. Anything is possible with talented modders, just look at Tenebrea(sp?). But you would basically have to rewrite the entire render engine to get hl2 anywhere near Doom³. No one will do that. No reason to since Doom³ will already be out.



What you did here is what usually happens when graphical debates are started on a hl2 forum. hl2ers start to feel threatened so they divert attention from graphics to some other aspect of the game(moddability and MP, in your case). This is a discussion about graphics, you cant throw in random non-graphical aspects of a game into the discussion. Thats a whole other debate, and one which D³ or Stalker could easily compete with hl2.

Im tired..........

 

[Caminante]

Sparta you are talking as though you had the opportunity to play both game STALKER and Doom3 and also had a chance to try the SDK as well. Fanboy!

 

[vann7]

vann7 and you seem to be one the few people around here with common sence. By the way, these HL2 screene shown are the most horrible yet, they don't look any better then any actual game out there. And yes, it's true, HL2 water effects look outstanding indeed - kudos to Valve, i was really blewn away when i first saw them:thumbup:. Nonetheless, Valve did not do a so great job in the water's edge, thus making the surfaces look too edgy or in other words a straight line. Perhaps this would be address is the future - although i doubt it. Heck even UT2003's engine horrible water effets renders the interatction bettween the water and shore more natural then does the more "advance" HL2's engine.

The bottom line is that, all this feature -IMO- does not make HL2 graphics the best around. The game's geometry levels are too simplistic and not having some sort of semi-dynamic lighting and shadowing effects implemented, makes it all look too commun.

hehe.. thanks for the compliments.. im just learning like most people here.. This forum is the source of most technical information correct and incorrect i have ever seen. the fact is that most of the the things i have learned from Doom3 and Hl2 comes from this Forum.. Lol!! and of course with a little background i have in Animation software. you dont need to know a single line of programming to know the tricks that games can use to simulate realism ,since almost all those tricks can be used too in 3danimation software like Max/Lightwave and XSI and many others to make things faster with less hours of waiting.

but remember that "Best" graphics its a matter of opinion.. since Realism is not synonym of Better . it just depend of your goal.. the movies [Toy story,A bug life] have no better graphics ,neither worse than Final FAntasy :SW. the movie. it just a diferent Art for a diferent purpose. i still see GIants citizen kabuto ,as a miracle in graphics ,one of the most good looking game in all times.. the engine of that game was perfect for that style even if the technology behind that is already really old , but it just my opinion because i like that style of graphics.. Technology alone doesnt make graphics too look good. its the artists behind the tech the ones that makes the biggest diference.

to speak about more advanced technology is a diferent story..
because the more advanced an engine is ,the more freedom you give to the artists. but also this is not a guarantee the graphics will be "better".the talent of the artist is what makes the biggest diference. and Hl2 without doubt is made by one of the most talented Gdevelopers in the industry. .same with the developers of Stalker ,D3,FArcry,and HALO2 that nobody have mentioned it.. and deserves to be in that list .if it were not by the BIG limitations of the hardware inside the Xbox.. im really sure that those developers have the potentials to steal the show to All those other games .. in Graphics /dx9 effects and in gameplay .

 

[Sui]

posted by vann7
"Best" graphics its a matter of opinion

the words..... so true.......

 

[PvtRyan]

Vann7 is right, I just think you misunderstood what he was trying to say.

In the wall video when the guy says the "lighting information is accurate", he is referring to the fact that the area of illumination on the wall will follow the contour of the normal map. What I mean is, suppose you had a 1 poly object with that same "rock wall" normal map on it like he had in Softimage. When he says the lighting information is accurate, he means that the circle of illumination the flashlight will project onto the wall will fallow the contour of the normal map, instead of being a perfect circle as it would be on a 1poly object without a normal map. Does that make sense?

But what you will not see is the lighting on the wall istelf change due to the flashlight, because the highlights and shadows are baked into the wall texture during the compilation of the map. This is what vann7 was trying to say, I think. Watch the wall video again and you will see that even when the flashlight is pointed right at a part of the wall that is in shadow, the shadow remains unaffected by the introduction of the new light source. This is why a unified lighting system is the future, and static light maps will very soon be obsolete.

Check out that cool dynamic effect that he gets when he moves the lighting rig around inside of Softimage. you will never get that in hl2, the part where he shines the flashlight on the wall in-game isnt nearly as impressive. You will get that effect in D³ though.

I now I see what he meant. But that isn't really a "static" normalmap, it still contains the direction and height of the polygons, but it's in the nature of lightmaps that they don't react to new lighting information of the normal maps.

But about the reflections, everything can be reflected, it's not just the enviroment stored in a reflection map that the water reflects, but also characters, objects, SFX (water splashes)
You don't have to have a RT engine to do dynamic reflections, shaders can accomplish the same effect. But they can't do REAL refractions, they won't actually bend the lightbeams or create caustic effects. This won't be done in realtime for a long long time, altough current hardware is capable of doing realtime photon mapping (showed at some SIGGRAPH I believe)

But I totally agree with Vann7's approach to taste, I also think Giants is still one of the best looking games. It's not the technology that does it, it's the art and style. And to me, the crisp textures make Stalker and HL2 a lot better looking than Doom 3, and no fancy lighting is gonna change that.

 

[Sui]

And to me, the crisp textures make Stalker and HL2 a lot better looking than Doom 3, and no fancy lighting is gonna change that.

yes but that is DARN GOOD lighting lol

 

[Murray_H]

I find this highly amusing considering that Valve refuses to give away the slightest details of the Mp component of hl2. the fact that they have stated they dont want to say anything about MP until the game is already out only points to the conclusion that they dont see it as a selling point, and infact arent very confident about it. On the same vein, newell doesnt seem very confident in hl2 at all, which worries me.

Right. They keep the development of a game secret for 5 years. If it wasn't so special, why keep it a secret? Have you seen the 40min interview with Gabe (stream it off Gamespot if you haven't)? He says he is keeping MP a secret cos he wants a few surprises for the gamer - when he says this he is smiling and looking pretty excited about it. If it was just a bog-standard DM affair, why all the secrecy?

And where does this lack of confidence for HL2 from Gabe come from? 5 years he has been working on this, and for those 5 years he's been dying to tell someone apart from within Valve or family members about this (its all in the interview). If you are basing this lack of confidence on the media blackout recently, i would say that the only thing Gabe is trying to keep quiet on is the release date so he doesn't disappoint any more people when he is forced to set an unrealistic target to keep the masses happy, knowing he can't achieve it, resulting in more disappointment.