Go Back   nV News Forums > Software Forums > Gaming Central

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-19-05, 01:16 AM   #37
Nv40
Agent-Fx
 
Nv40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: everywhere
Posts: 2,216
Default Re: DEvmaster.net article Hl2 vs D3 engine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intel17
Yeah, I remember, and that thread was linked to many forums as well :-)

So yeah, D3 has HDR...and it's not, as Nv40 puts it "a low dynamic range hack". :-)

You never change... hehe

Doom3 have many limitations.. dude.. dont take my words.. but JC words... carmacks even calls them ->"FLAWS" "Obvious things to change" etc.. ..limitations in the shadows ,in the speculars ,in the normal maps ,in the lighting.. and it was a design decision because Doom3 engine was finished 4 years ago around the possibilities of Geforce1/3. once you finish the engine you can't continue to modify it .. just small tweaks ,otherwise take the chance of breaking the work already done by the team. and cause nasty bugs in the game. and the could end being another Daykatana or Dukenuken forever game. where their developers delayed for so many years their game because of this..


NExt IDsoftware engine looks very very exciting on paper.. as he explain here ... however it will also have limitations like every other game because hardware have limits. some of his very long fragment shaders will need to be "DOwngraded" to allow R300 class hardware to work with its intructions limits. this is just an example why is important for us that ATI/NVidia give developers the tools they need..no only "fast hardware" ,but also with plenty of features. hardware needs to arrive first and years later the games using those features.

the good news is that is very possible that he will allow very high fidelity graphics "pixar quality" for the people that dont mind to use the engine for offline renderings in a few fps..

DOom3 engine is a good step in the right direction ... and im really sure the MOD community will do amazing things there.. but there will be a limit somewhere.. because again the engine was made with geforce3/1 hardware limitations in mind. Epic already had demostrated in public to have the higher hand in graphics ,the best engine with their new unreal3 . im really sure that every other top developers including idsoftware/valve will be forced to push the envelop of graphics in their next work to comparable levels *at least*.. otherwise they will have a lot of trouble licensing their game/engine in the future and will lose their pride of not being anymore the best in the industry.. but just another one. and thats the best thing about competition

Last edited by Nv40; 02-19-05 at 01:46 AM.
Nv40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-05, 06:03 AM   #38
jolle
Registered User
 
jolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,804
Default Re: DEvmaster.net article Hl2 vs D3 engine.

Just finished reading all that, interesting stuff..
Seems there wont be any demoing of the new tech for a year or so tho..
shame, but I guess its not a bad idea, seeing D3 engine demo on GF3 release on Macworld 2000 (the video of it) really got me worked up and then there was years of waiting hehe..
__________________
Q6700, Abit X38 QuadGT, 8Gb (4x 2GB) OCZ Reaper DDR2 1066MHz, Gainward GTX 285 1Gb, X-Fi XtremeMusic
jolle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-05, 09:29 AM   #39
Intel17
Is not an Intel fanboi
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Burlington, VT
Posts: 1,368
Default Re: DEvmaster.net article Hl2 vs D3 engine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nv40
You never change... hehe

Doom3 have many limitations.. dude.. dont take my words.. but JC words... carmacks even calls them ->"FLAWS" "Obvious things to change" etc.. ..limitations in the shadows ,in the speculars ,in the normal maps ,in the lighting.. and it was a design decision because Doom3 engine was finished 4 years ago around the possibilities of Geforce1/3. once you finish the engine you can't continue to modify it .. just small tweaks ,otherwise take the chance of breaking the work already done by the team. and cause nasty bugs in the game. and the could end being another Daykatana or Dukenuken forever game. where their developers delayed for so many years their game because of this..


NExt IDsoftware engine looks very very exciting on paper.. as he explain here ... however it will also have limitations like every other game because hardware have limits. some of his very long fragment shaders will need to be "DOwngraded" to allow R300 class hardware to work with its intructions limits. this is just an example why is important for us that ATI/NVidia give developers the tools they need..no only "fast hardware" ,but also with plenty of features. hardware needs to arrive first and years later the games using those features.

the good news is that is very possible that he will allow very high fidelity graphics "pixar quality" for the people that dont mind to use the engine for offline renderings in a few fps..

DOom3 engine is a good step in the right direction ... and im really sure the MOD community will do amazing things there.. but there will be a limit somewhere.. because again the engine was made with geforce3/1 hardware limitations in mind. Epic already had demostrated in public to have the higher hand in graphics ,the best engine with their new unreal3 . im really sure that every other top developers including idsoftware/valve will be forced to push the envelop of graphics in their next work to comparable levels *at least*.. otherwise they will have a lot of trouble licensing their game/engine in the future and will lose their pride of not being anymore the best in the industry.. but just another one. and thats the best thing about competition
I'm a stubborn S.O.B., but sufficient fact will be able to sway my opinion :-)

Anyway, you CAN change an engine, even though it was finished four years ago. Why do you think that there are different rendering paths? Carmack added Cg into the D3 engine about a year ago, but they didn't feel like utilizing it for the game, as they wanted to keep the visual experience the same on all machines. Heck, Doom 3 has had fragment program support since January of 2003! It was he who first pointed out how NV30's had issues with fragment programs.

Also, in an email with Robert A. Duffy, I asked him in 2003 about fragment programs in Doom 3, and he said

"We are basically presenting the same visual experience on nv10, nv20,
nv30+, R200, R300 hardware.. due to this we do not use fragment programs a
lot. The support is in to use them but we basically use them for special
effects features on the newer hardware. The engine ignores the material
passes that include them on older hardware.

robert..."


Also, in Carmack's next engine, he hasn't been advocating reducing quality for lower stuff, he just said he'd have to segment the programs so they'd run on the R300. John has always been a proponent of doing stuff in multiple passes on older hardware rather than cut features from the engine, for example, and email from the man himself...

"The experimental code used pbuffers, and wasn't all that well integrated with the entire system, so no, it wouldn't be completely trivial for licensees to use it. I was also using the NV40 floating point blends, so supporting ATI cards and NV30 cards would require more code to do extra passes to simulate blending.

John Carmack"


Not only proving Doom 3's engine has HDR (albeit hard for artists to use), but that he isn't planning on cutting out HDR for the R300 cards, but he's planning on making it take another few passes to get the effect.

Next, for Carmack's next engine (let's call it "CNE" from now on), he said he'd toss in midpoint rendering for higher quality while providing front faces only for a lower quality option, and for the shadows, he's going to toss 64 sample shadow buffers to allow for film quality shadowing once the power is there, or if it's viable in real-time.

Also, a lot of the things he's planning to add/change is all in fragment programs, since he's stated most of the work he's doing isn't api specific but it's all moved toward fragment and vertex processing, so many features can be added through the programmable paths of Doom 3. Including as you say, the "gloss hack".

Finally, please don't mention Valve in the same sentence as Id software! Their engine is utter garbage, and i'd take UE2 over it anyday. Heck Source has Quake 1 code still in it, believe it or not. Valve is lying when they say "We built it from scratch". My God, how they hyped that steaming pile of ****.

Nv40, the Doom 3 Engine is the best out today...I don't think Source, CryEngine can beat it, and D3 will stand up QUITE NICELY to UE3, since it's fundamentally correct, unlike UE3 which still hasn't done unification of light and shadow, and just uses a bunch of hacks, and this combined with superb artists makes everyone go wow.

I assure you, if one used UE3 content with D3 (content including shaders), it could look better in some cases.

Remember, fragment programs are considered part of an engine, so that's what Carmack means, when he's adding some of the trivial stuff in, and you seem to make a big deal about it! :-)

In anycase, my point is, Doom 3's engine is the best out now, and will continue to be on (or near) the top for a very long time.

Oh and that comment about how Carmack wouldn't be half as good as he is if it wasn't for the artists? That's incorrect. Carmack wrote the original Doom 3 renderer and then he showed it to the folks at Id, and then they decided what game to make

Wow, this is the longest post i've ever made!
Intel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-05, 09:32 AM   #40
Intel17
Is not an Intel fanboi
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Burlington, VT
Posts: 1,368
Default Re: DEvmaster.net article Hl2 vs D3 engine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HIWTHI
Thanks for forwarding that one email even though that wasn't what I was asking for. I never asked about HDR lighting, as I already knew that id had worked on it, but had only experimented on nVidia cards. Still, the email was an interesting couple of lines. The email I was talking about was the one from Brian Harris where he talked about the gloss map problem and running Doom 3 with the original high-poly models.
Ok, will forward...

By the way, now do you guys believe D3 Engine (not game) has HDR rendering?

Also, Doom 3's engine has some experimental shadow-buffer stuff, but it's nVidia only.
Intel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-05, 10:24 AM   #41
Knot3D
Registered User
 
Knot3D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ShadowMosesIsland
Posts: 734
Default Re: DEvmaster.net article Hl2 vs D3 engine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intel17
In anycase, my point is, Doom 3's engine is the best out now, and will continue to be on (or near) the top for a very long time.
.....Ok, but what other games are due in the vicinity which use the D3 engine and make it shine in gameplay and artistic style as well ?
__________________
AMD X2 4800, Asus A8N32sli-D, Corsair Twinx 2Gb PC3500LLpro, Asus X1900XTX & 2 WD Raptors
Knot3D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-05, 10:28 AM   #42
Intel17
Is not an Intel fanboi
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Burlington, VT
Posts: 1,368
Default Re: DEvmaster.net article Hl2 vs D3 engine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knot3D
.....Ok, but what other games are due in the vicinity which use the D3 engine and make it shine in gameplay and artistic style as well ?
I don't know of any, but you've still got to look past Doom 3's art and look at the engine and what it can do.

There are hardly (and I mean HARDLY) any textures in Doom 3 greater than 256x256, and the ones that are 512x512 are character body textures.
Intel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-05, 01:06 PM   #43
HIWTHI
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 80
Default Re: DEvmaster.net article Hl2 vs D3 engine.

Thanks for the email. Interesting stuff, but after trying several high-poly models in the engine the fps really suffered with only one monster on the screen. As Carmack has said before, combining the engine with prerendering could prove to be really useful for CG movies. I didn't see any mention at all about the gloss maps, which have been a known problem.

As for your question about HDR, yes, the Doom 3 Engine can do it on top-end nVidia cards, but if you were a licenser it would be tough to integrate that into the game since it hasn't been completed. The Crytek Engine has had HDR on it using pixel shader 3.0, but once again it only works on nVidia. This is a point where the hardware is holding back the engines. When I was browsing the author of the article's site a while back I found a .plan discussing his conversation with an ATI employee. Here's the quote:

Quote:
While at the ATI booth I was talking about how I was disappointed the new X800 series of video cards didnít support Shader model 3.0 for advanced graphics. The new NVIDIA 6800 series does, and I wanted to know why ATI decided to go with that one. The employee told me it was due to the fact that not many games support it. The next most obvious question was when ATI cards would support it, He quickly said 3 months until demo products with them aiming for a summer release. After realizing the mistake he told me that he couldnít elaborate anymore other then to say they would be out in the next series of their cards. Without the Internet I wasnít able to research this, but with this being the first that of heard of it I think I may be writing a world exclusive article. Since this came from ATIís mouth I can guarantee that you will see Shader Model 3.0 supported in the next brand of cards from ATI, which should be demoed in 3 months. Look to see the products on shelves as early as May and no later then this summer.
This is great news for all gamers and should finally allow developers to put in full time and effort on creating HDR among other effects. Valve is going to release a HL2 map in a month or so that is going to fully take advantage of their engine's HDR. Whether it will be fake or real I'm not sure since you can't trust what they claim since they said Source uses real-time radiosity.

No offense or anything Intel17, but you seem to look past the facts and start to become over zealous when discussing the Doom 3 Engine. Unfortunately, you can't tell us to "look at the engine and what it can do" when their isn't anything showing what it can do. Doom 3 is one of the top engines out there and will continue to be until the next phase of engines, but as with any engine it has flaws. You seem educated on the topic, but sometimes I have problems trusting what you say when you argue like an id fanboy after seeing concrete facts.
HIWTHI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-05, 02:20 PM   #44
HIWTHI
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 80
Default Re: DEvmaster.net article Hl2 vs D3 engine.

Must have skipped this earlier, but it's hard to believe your comments are subjective when you say

Quote:
Finally, please don't mention Valve in the same sentence as Id software! Their engine is utter garbage, and i'd take UE2 over it anyday.
Currently, more games have been made with Source, more copies of those games have been sold, and many gamers say Source has better graphics than the Doom 3 Engine. From a technological point this is of course not true, but what really matters is what the consumers think. Many mod makers see that Half-Life 2 is more popular and easier to mod than the Doom 3 Engine, which makes them create great mods for it. Developers see the great fanfare and mod community around Source and that might just make them pick Source over Doom 3. I'm not some crazy fanboy of either company, and this is the truth of a possible scenario. To discredit the Source Engine is fanboyish of you, because even though it uses some older code the results of the engine are amazing. I think this has been reiterated many times, but I'll say it again, both engines are good and both suffer from flaws.
HIWTHI is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 02-19-05, 02:48 PM   #45
Knot3D
Registered User
 
Knot3D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ShadowMosesIsland
Posts: 734
Default Re: DEvmaster.net article Hl2 vs D3 engine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HIWTHI
Whether it will be fake or real I'm not sure since you can't trust what they claim since they said Source uses real-time radiosity.
AFAIK Source uses baked-to-texture-radiosity. Not realtime. Any CGi dude can tell you it takes renderfarms to compute radiosity.

Sure, Source does have soft shadows on character models for the videocards which are up to it, but no realtime radiosity.

But indeed, it comes down to this ; the end user product, be it game or mod engine ; Source is really more popular concerning this.
__________________
AMD X2 4800, Asus A8N32sli-D, Corsair Twinx 2Gb PC3500LLpro, Asus X1900XTX & 2 WD Raptors
Knot3D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-05, 02:58 PM   #46
HIWTHI
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 80
Default Re: DEvmaster.net article Hl2 vs D3 engine.

That's what I was referring to. I guess I worded it wrong. What I was trying to say is it's hard to trust what Valve says when they claim the Source Engine uses real-time radiosity lighting.

Last edited by HIWTHI; 02-19-05 at 03:11 PM.
HIWTHI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-05, 03:01 PM   #47
jolle
Registered User
 
jolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,804
Default Re: DEvmaster.net article Hl2 vs D3 engine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knot3D
AFAIK Source uses baked-to-texture-radiosity. Not realtime. Any CGi dude can tell you it takes renderfarms to compute radiosity.

Sure, Source does have soft shadows on character models for the videocards which are up to it, but no realtime radiosity.

But indeed, it comes down to this ; the end user product, be it game or mod engine ; Source is really more popular concerning this.
Dont need "renderfarms" to render radiosity, I do it on my computer in 3dsmax, tho its pretty heavy stuff..
ofcource it depends on what the scene looks like, and your settings...
Anyhow, its not "realtime" stuff at any rate, and what they do is what games has done for ages, do radiosity at Compile which bakes it into the textures..

Max has a neat render to texture function aswell, could do the radiosity first and have it rendered to texture there aswell, might be better depending on the renderquality in "hammer" compile..

The soft realtime shadows are shadowmaps, and they can be somewhat buggy as they arent "as real" as D3s stencil shadows.
they work, but seem a bit oldschool..

EDIT
Source is definatly NOT gathering photons and doing radiosity, they might have some sort of hack to allow color to bleed, think I saw some of that in the "leak" with the orange placeholder textures bleeding color onto the models, or maybe I was just imagining...
__________________
Q6700, Abit X38 QuadGT, 8Gb (4x 2GB) OCZ Reaper DDR2 1066MHz, Gainward GTX 285 1Gb, X-Fi XtremeMusic
jolle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-05, 06:36 PM   #48
Intel17
Is not an Intel fanboi
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Burlington, VT
Posts: 1,368
Default Re: DEvmaster.net article Hl2 vs D3 engine.

The "baked to texture" radiosity was in Quake 2, nothing special. Carmack removed it as it caused a bit of a hassle for the artists, for Quake 3.

Also, the HDR itself works (for NV40 cards), but it just needs to be well implimented with the game systems (material, particle, etc..), but the core tech is there (which to be honest, isn't a big deal at all to impliment once people have an NV40).

Of course the Doom 3 renderer has flaws, i'm just saying, for a game engine, it's immensely advanced and is an excellent engine. It will stand up to UE3 if need be, but I doubt it will be necessary.

The fundamental basics of the Doom 3 technology are those for cinematic (literally) rendering. Now with the lighting and shadowing fundamentals are there, it's just a matter of changing out different algorithms for another one (e.g. Stencils for Shadow-buffers) and adding new things (midpoint rendering, better surface interaction), but now Carmack doesn't have to worry about "how can I get dynamic lighting with static shadowing" or "How can I mix dynamic shadows with static ones".

CryTek, UE2/UE3 (best of these), and (not so much) source are pretty good engines, but they're not on level ground, fundamentally, with Doom 3. Riddick's engine (albeit not able to handle complex geometry or large level sizes) is a good attempt to match D3.

In short, Doom 3's Engine is the best, CryEngine rocks, UE2 rocks and source is pretty good.
Intel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Regression with 295.33 and GeForce GT 240 maro NVIDIA Linux 16 06-29-12 06:47 PM
Valve's Source engine to power upcoming animated film News Archived News Items 0 06-10-12 09:20 PM
Gorgeous Unreal Engine 4 brings direct programming, indirect lighting News Archived News Items 0 06-08-12 09:20 PM
May 24 Webinar: How Do You Make Grid Engine Faster? News Archived News Items 0 05-22-12 06:30 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2014, nV News.