PDA

View Full Version : Half-Life 2 High Dynamic-Range Rendering nitpicking


Pages : [1] 2 3

GlowStick
09-14-03, 02:53 AM
Hi,

After viewing all of the HL2 high res videos, like others, i start to nitpick at things i see : O

Anyways, with the most recent release, the High Dynamic-Range Rendering stuff, i noticed some flaws.

The arrow, you can see the Light should be a Square, but on the Two Planks, there is no light, but you can see the Corner of the Light Square. The planks should be light up, but are not.

The Red Line shows the path of where the Light should be shineing, again, the Planks do not have the light drawn on them.

My only conclusion is the Planks are a Model, and they can be moved, and broke via the Physics engine. However, like traditonal games, The effects applyed to the WORLD brushes do not effect those objects.

http://home.insightbb.com/~glowstick/HL2HDL.jpg

Edge
09-14-03, 03:23 AM
You guessed it, certain entities aren't affected by world effects. The HL2 engine is a lot more limited then some people realise. The shadow effects in particular are lacking, it's interesting when they show screenshots that look like they have acurate shadows for the soldiers...until you notice that their guns don't cast shadows. HL2 has some nice surface effects and physics engine, but as far as continuity it's lacking a bit. Actually it reminds me of the way Trespasser was: full physics and nice surface effects, yet strangely nothing moveable has shadows cast on it.

Oh, and that tech-demo also had a few minor defects in it, but they're kinda hard to explain. And anyone else thing those light rays look kinda stupid up close? From far away they look great, but when the camera gets right into them they have very jagged edges and look more like random lines across the screen. Also, in many of the videos they showed, animations look very stiff and ridged, and the ragdoll effects for some creatures look pretty off. I donno, for something they spent so long on I almost expected more. Oh well, it looks very realistic, but it takes a crude way of making it look that way (though I guess the end justifies the means). Love the shader effects, though.

Nutty
09-14-03, 04:59 AM
Yeah this is why I think doom3 is nicer, its unified across everything, environments, objects, characters etc..

I have this ongoing argument at work, about 90% of the ppl there think HL2 makes doom3 look like crap.. I just dont see it myself. The HDR is nice, but the shadows suck IMO. The boards on the roof of that latest vid look like they're floating in mid-air.

I'm very surprised they weapons dont shadow, I suppose they're just not equiping them onto the models while they do the shadow pass. Ah well..

RAY16
09-14-03, 05:15 AM
Nothings perfect.

mrsabidji
09-14-03, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Nutty
Yeah this is why I think doom3 is nicer, its unified across everything, environments, objects, characters etc..

I have this ongoing argument at work, about 90% of the ppl there think HL2 makes doom3 look like crap.. I just dont see it myself. The HDR is nice, but the shadows suck IMO. The boards on the roof of that latest vid look like they're floating in mid-air.

I'm very surprised they weapons dont shadow, I suppose they're just not equiping them onto the models while they do the shadow pass. Ah well..

Yeah, I totally agree. HL2 looks really nice but DooM3 shadows still look way more realistic. I noticed the boards on the roof thing too. They cast a little too big shadow like they were floating a few inches above the roof surface. The shiny effect on the rusted roof could have been rendered a tad better too, in my opinion. Looking carefully, you can notice some big pixels like they were using a small glow map or whatever that is. Hoppefully this will be fixed in the final engine.

mrsabidji

edit : and they definitely should enable v-sync when recording the videos. There's always that annoying stut..tutter..ttering when the player looks around...

digitalwanderer
09-14-03, 09:59 AM
Meh, from what Dave Baumann is saying the HDR looks a lot better than the DX8.1 or partial precision path...and it looks pretty good to me. ;)

GlowStick
09-14-03, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Meh, from what Dave Baumann is saying the HDR looks a lot better than the DX8.1 or partial precision path...and it looks pretty good to me. ;) yeah it looks good, but we are nitpicking here : P

anyways, so for all you nitpickers out there, you guys could consider reading this

http://www.city-17.net/index.php?section=article&PHPSESSID=b5effbdc42c0c30641a29f38c27ef895

digitalwanderer
09-14-03, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by GlowStick
yeah it looks good, but we are nitpicking here : P

anyways, so for all you nitpickers out there, you guys could consider reading this

http://www.city-17.net/index.php?section=article&PHPSESSID=b5effbdc42c0c30641a29f38c27ef895
But we're really nitpicking without enough evidence to fairly weigh in on the matter, none of us has seen the pure DX9 path run the benchmark compared to the DX8 or PP path.

I'm not going to really try and argue it, I think time will prove me right. :)

sytaylor
09-14-03, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Nutty
Yeah this is why I think doom3 is nicer, its unified across everything

I love the way carmacs projects scale. They're simply stunning from a technical standpoint, i mean look at quake 3, you can still use it as a benchmark to differentiate cards because every part of it is willing to accept a boost. The engine is so pure its simply staggering, but at the end of the day what matters most, a technical marvel or a good game?

GlowStick
09-14-03, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
But we're really nitpicking without enough evidence to fairly weigh in on the matter, none of us has seen the pure DX9 path run the benchmark compared to the DX8 or PP path.

I'm not going to really try and argue it, I think time will prove me right. :) the High Dynamic-Range (HDR) can only be shown on the Pure DX9 path, its a feature valve said recently implemented, and they stated all of the tech demos were run on a 9800pro so id assume they would use directx9 path.

GlowStick
09-14-03, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by sytaylor
I love the way carmacs projects scale. They're simply stunning from a technical standpoint, i mean look at quake 3, you can still use it as a benchmark to differentiate cards because every part of it is willing to accept a boost. The engine is so pure its simply staggering, but at the end of the day what matters most, a technical marvel or a good game? Id defiantly go with technical marvel. I do have the feeling just like every toher Id game, all future games are gonna work like his. They will see how he did his unified rendering, copy it, tweak it etc.

No one has ever changed the way games were renderd untill Doom3, and its gonna start a whole new generation of game engines that are much better!

I also feel that Id's super new way of makeing models and maps is defiantly going to be how the industry will do things, thats just so cool how they do it.

Hypothetical speaking, they could just save their High Res models, and when better hardware comes out, recompile the maps but with better quality, and redo the game exactly but with even more detail!

digitalwanderer
09-14-03, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by GlowStick
the High Dynamic-Range (HDR) can only be shown on the Pure DX9 path, its a feature valve said recently implemented, and they stated all of the tech demos were run on a 9800pro so id assume they would use directx9 path.
Are there any DX8 or PP path videos available for comparison though is my point, we've only seen how it will look for ATi users....we haven't seen how it looks on the FX.

GlowStick
09-14-03, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Are there any DX8 or PP path videos available for comparison though is my point, we've only seen how it will look for ATi users....we haven't seen how it looks on the FX. DX8 and 8.1 will still carry the same flaws (physics, things dont sit properly, world effects not applyed to models, shadowing) as the dx9 counterpart.

poursoul
09-14-03, 12:56 PM
Gentlemen, isn't this just a beautiful thing... gaming now-a-days. Remember Doom I anyone? Remember when we all OOOHed and AAAHHed at turning around. Or how about the COUNTLESS hours invested into QuakeI online? How about when we had \timerefresh instead of time demo.

Like everyone else, i'm always looking forward to the next thing, but isn't it just awsome when you look back to where we've been.

Look at the things we're nagging about now and compare it to the things we were lacking. LOL.

"How come all the bad guys look the same?"
"Why is there only one light in the whole level?"
"How come the hero makes the same sound whether he jumps, gets hit, or has sex?"

Man, we are spoiled little bitches! LOL!

GlowStick
09-14-03, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by poursoul
Gentlemen, isn't this just a beautiful thing... gaming now-a-days. Remember Doom I anyone? Remember when we all OOOHed and AAAHHed at turning around. Or how about the COUNTLESS hours invested into QuakeI online? How about when we had \timerefresh instead of time demo.

Like everyone else, i'm always looking forward to the next thing, but isn't it just awsome when you look back to where we've been.

Look at the things we're nagging about now and compare it to the things we were lacking. LOL.

"How come all the bad guys look the same?"
"Why is there only one light in the whole level?"
"How come the hero makes the same sound whether he jumps, gets hit, or has sex?"

Man, we are spoiled little bitches! LOL! We are spoiled, but its fun : D

"How come the hero makes the same sound whether he jumps, gets hit, or has sex?"

hehe, that was genius! Maybe the Doom guy is a man of few words/sounds!

Edge
09-14-03, 02:23 PM
Wait a second...why DO all the enemies look alike? Bah, it figures. Oh...and now that I think about it...Gordon never makes a sound...ever. You never hear him scream when he gets shot, or grunt when he falls of a 50 foot cliff...bah, why'd you have to remind us of all that! Oh well, at least they fixed that "why is there one light in the entire level" problem:D

Oh, and those articles on things that are wrong with HL2 are pretty good. I noticed quite a few of those issues myself (it confused the hell out of me when I saw sparks on the OTHER side of a solid object). Ya know, the more I learn about Source, the more limited it seems to be. Especially when games like Deus Ex: Invisible War will be using the same physics engine except with perfect lighting and shadows (well, aside from the lack of soft shadows). Source does have some high points to it, but brute force graphic power is not one of them.

GlowStick
09-14-03, 02:41 PM
My favorite effect is water effects, so far HL2's looks really good, Water effects allways have a soft spot for me!

LordCorwin
09-15-03, 12:20 AM
Well, I guess what really matters is what you think makes a good game. A game that looks good, plays fun, and in general looks conviencing, or a tech-fest.

To me, doom3s "ooo SEXY STENCIL SHADOWS" look less realistic. I mean, come on guys, stencil shadows? Tell me, have you EVER seen a stencil shadow like in doom3, in real life? ever? No, ofcourse you havn't. You just like stencil shadows because they look scary, and give it a more horror feel. Either that or you admire the technical aspects.

Now, this is not to say that I think the Source engine does anything perfectly. I agree, the shadows are far from perfect. However, consider that Source is also a technical marvel in other ways, and it will greatly improve the gaming world. Valve software went in a differant direction from allot of other game devs, and I think that's a very good thing. It seems as if everyone in the world has this manlove obsession with Stencil Shadows, when really it's nothing that spectacular.

Doom 3, Deus ex 2, and HL2 all look gloriously good. I think HL2 looks the best, personally, because it seems a little more versatile.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

GlowStick
09-15-03, 12:26 AM
Well i do think that Doom 3 looks great, my opinion is it looks better than HL2.

I also do feel that Doom 3 is going to revolutonzie how future engines are made. I feel that though Id did pritty much start everything with doom/quake, and everyone just copyed them. The same will happen with doom 3, games will copy how Id made doom3 work, and improve upon it.

btw doom3 has a physics engine in it too : P

LordCorwin
09-15-03, 01:34 AM
I am very aware of the fact that Doom 3 has a physics engine. A physics engine means very little. It's a fad, just like Stencil-Shadows.

It's the implementation of DX9 features, and simply a smoother, cleaner looking game that makes me think HL2 looks better. The physics, shadows, all of those things mean little to me. What matters to me is if the game looks pleasing to the eye, under most or all circumstances.

I'd still like a detailed explanation on why stencil shadows are so important. It will be years until our hardware and games are able to handle realistic looking shadows, and I think stencil shadows look kind of ugly.

Just keep in mind that Id software invented the method of using darkness to hide the less-than-pretty parts of their game. They're masters of it, and I respect them for that.

I, personally, don't care about what the devs use to trick us into thinking the games look good, all that matters to me is IF it looks good.

So yea, there's bad shadows in Steam, the peoples faces in STALKER look really pathetic, the general graphics level in DX2 seems to be a little behind the rest, and Doom 3 has chainsaws n **** that look like they're made out of clay.

All of those games excite my senses, and I think trying to argue about which one is the best kinda makes all of them less fun.

RAY16
09-15-03, 04:28 AM
I am very aware of the fact that Doom 3 has a physics engine. A physics engine means very little. It's a fad, just like Stencil-Shadows.



So you rather play a game where a cardboard box can stop a person in there tracks? Physics engines make it possible to kick that box out of the way. How would you like it if you were being chased by somebody or something, but you get blocked by a chair? No offense, but you are wrong, its not a fad.

mrsabidji
09-15-03, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by LordCorwin
All of those games excite my senses, and I think trying to argue about which one is the best kinda makes all of them less fun.

Well, we're all having different opinions and try and explain others why we prefer this or that, taking their own opinions in account, thus changing our minds or not. That's how a discussion works and as for me, I kind of enjoy sharing my thoughts with others. Or what should we do? Say everything looks good and buy every game for no reason ?

mrsabidji

GlowStick
09-15-03, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by LordCorwin
I am very aware of the fact that Doom 3 has a physics engine. A physics engine means very little. It's a fad, just like Stencil-Shadows.

It's the implementation of DX9 features, and simply a smoother, cleaner looking game that makes me think HL2 looks better. The physics, shadows, all of those things mean little to me. What matters to me is if the game looks pleasing to the eye, under most or all circumstances.

I'd still like a detailed explanation on why stencil shadows are so important. It will be years until our hardware and games are able to handle realistic looking shadows, and I think stencil shadows look kind of ugly.

Just keep in mind that Id software invented the method of using darkness to hide the less-than-pretty parts of their game. They're masters of it, and I respect them for that.

I, personally, don't care about what the devs use to trick us into thinking the games look good, all that matters to me is IF it looks good.

So yea, there's bad shadows in Steam, the peoples faces in STALKER look really pathetic, the general graphics level in DX2 seems to be a little behind the rest, and Doom 3 has chainsaws n **** that look like they're made out of clay.

All of those games excite my senses, and I think trying to argue about which one is the best kinda makes all of them less fun. The reason why Stencile shadows are so important is because they are so accurate.

Your statement that our hardware is not ready is ture, accept for the case of Id, who happen to find ways to make the impossible possible, a Geforce4 ti4200 will run doom with all effects. Hell a geforce 1 has the tech to do it, just not the raw speed.

Everyone seems to blame the API for holding back games, where its really the genius of the engine, Id proves it over and over, they can make better looking games with no new flashy api, and revolutionize the industry at the same time.

No one belive you could make game like doom run on a 486, then they saw Doom, looked at his code and said "oh i could do that"

StealthHawk
09-15-03, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by RAY16
So you rather play a game where a cardboard box can stop a person in there tracks? Physics engines make it possible to kick that box out of the way. How would you like it if you were being chased by somebody or something, but you get blocked by a chair? No offense, but you are wrong, its not a fad.

I would say his statement was 50% right and 50% wrong. Physics engines can have a great effect on the enjoyability, fun factor, immersion, playability, and mechanics of a game. But rag doll physics actually are a fad in the sense of Doom3. I think we all heard the story. Some guys at iD wanted rag doll physics and Carmack didn't want it, but they said "everyone else is doing it" and so it got added. Sounds like a fad to me :) Albeit a fad that isn't going away. Better and better physics engines are things that are here to stay, they will only become more ubiquitous as time passes.

sytaylor
09-15-03, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by GlowStick
No one belive you could make game like doom run on a 486, then they saw Doom, looked at his code and said "oh i could do that"

The genuis of doom is that it isnt actually 3d, its just a raycasyer, a 2d map with various blocks given a texture, thats why you can't look up or down etc..

So you couldn't make a "proper" 3d game run on a 486 without overclocking it a couple of hundred mhz..

When people blame the API, they're wanting it to do something the more conventional way, and the way which will eventually be taken on once the hardware is capeable.. What carmack is capeable of is finding the middle ground, the 3rd way that nobody else can see.