Go Back   nV News Forums > Software Forums > Gaming Central

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-19-05, 07:41 PM   #49
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
Must have skipped this earlier, but it's hard to believe your comments are subjective when you say



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.
It's not the engine, it's the artwork. I can literally make Source quality stuff in Unreal Engine 2. There's no real, key, fundamental engine difference there, other than maybe the pixel shader interface is pretty good.

Doom 3 is harder to mod for, but the fruits of the effort required can produce amazing results.

Source is the last major renderer of the generation pioneered by Quake. We're already seeing CryEngine which is a good mix of next generation and the previous. Unreal Engine 3 will be a hybrid which is much closer to Doom 3, but still some notchy pre-computations going down on there, as is we'll be seeing with most next generation stuff. Doom 3 is the father of this generation, the real-time lighting, shadowing paradigm.

Not that I cared for Doom 3 the game, that is.
Intel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-05, 11:07 PM   #50
HIWTHI
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 80
Default Re: DEvmaster.net article Hl2 vs D3 engine.

I hate sticking up for the Source Engine, because it has flaws and is made by the same company that makes Steam (). That said, you can't just write off the Source Engine as just a rehashed engine without any improvements. The facial animation system is amazing and I doubt another company will go to such great length to create an engine that can animate voice-overs automatically. The use of shaders is quite good, and the water is unmatched. That is borderline artistic, but the technology was there to create that great water. There are a few other minor things that Source excels at, but you’re right that most of the engine is not the best out there right now. The thing is that Source might only have the second best stuff, but it's all wrapped up into one engine. Unreal Engine 3 should be a very cool engine, and hopefully Epic will have something to show at next month's GDC.

Quick question, I have only seen the unimpressive water in the Doom 3 Can Do It To demo trailer. Are there any other examples of good water that you know of?
HIWTHI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-05, 11:59 PM   #51
Subtestube
Anisymbolic
 
Subtestube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 1,365
Default Re: DEvmaster.net article Hl2 vs D3 engine.

Water is essentially a shader effect. As the D3 engine has a full featured Cg interface, there's no reason it can't do really nice water.
__________________
Dr Possible: Core 2 Duo E6400 on Gigabyte GA-965P-DS4. Galaxy GeForce 7600GT. 2GB Corsair XMS 2 DDR2-6400 RAM (CL5). ATi Theatre 550 Pro. Windows XP MCE. All stored in Piano black Antec Sonata II, with a broken door.

Mobile: ASUS M2400N, Pentium M 1.5 GHz. 512 MB DDR RAM. Intel EXTREME graphics. Windows XP SP 2 / Ubuntu 5.10.

Ridiculous DOES not have an 'e' in it. It comes from "ridicule" and has less than nothing to do with the colour red.
Subtestube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-05, 12:06 AM   #52
HIWTHI
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 80
Default Re: DEvmaster.net article Hl2 vs D3 engine.

I'm aware of that, but I've just never seen any great water effects done.
HIWTHI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-05, 03:41 AM   #53
Vagrant Zero
I'm a Back Door Man
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,750
Send a message via AIM to Vagrant Zero
Default Re: DEvmaster.net article Hl2 vs D3 engine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HIWTHI
I'm aware of that, but I've just never seen any great water effects done.
I've also never seen water on mars. What's your point. Source doesn't guarantee awesome looking water, just look at Bloodlines. It's up to the developer. And D3's fire just looks so much better than Source fire. Kinda funny how everyone always mentions water but never fire.

I think the basic gist of the argument goes like this: Souce is the the ultimate engine of the Quake3 era [not in terms of time of release but technology], D3 is the pioneer of the D3 engine era. I don't think anyone with their brain attached to their fingers is going to argue that.
__________________
o <---- Dev
|\_o <---- Paladin
// \
Vagrant Zero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-05, 05:09 AM   #54
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.

While shaders do count as part of an engine to most people, I look at engines and say "can it do floating point fragment programs?" since that's actually an engine architectural decision.

Note, Source uses shaders for fire, Doom 3 doesn't
Intel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-05, 05:17 AM   #55
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
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.
Real-time radiosity lighting? How about Valve try to use real-time lighting without the Radiosity first.

To have arbitrary, unconstrained radiosity in games, we're going to need to see a significant leap in terms of power. Even if they were the best in the industry(which they are far from), with current hardware, it's just not viable.
Intel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-05, 06:52 AM   #56
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 Intel17
Unreal Engine 3 will be a hybrid which is much closer to Doom 3, but still some notchy pre-computations going down on there, as is we'll be seeing with most next generation stuff. Doom 3 is the father of this generation, the real-time lighting, shadowing paradigm.
UE3.0 seems pretty flexible in the shadow& lighting department, that is prolly a great idea when you make a engine to be licensed alot.
This engine is prolly gonna be used ALOT, due to scalability and flexibility.
http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html...ogy/ue30.shtml

Quote:
# Support for all modern per-pixel lighting and rendering techniques including normal mapped, parameterized Phong lighting; virtual displacement mapping; light attenuation functions; pre-computed shadow masks; and pre-computed bump-granularity self-shadowing using spherical harmonic maps.
# Advanced Dynamic Shadowing. Unreal Engine 3 provides full support for three shadow techniques:

* Dynamic stencil buffered shadow volumes supporting fully dynamic, moving light sources casting accurate shadows on all objects in the scene.
* Dynamic characters casting dynamic soft, fuzzy shadows on the scene using 16X-oversampled shadow buffers.
* Ultra high quality and high performance pre-computed shadow masks allow offline processing of static light interactions, while retaining fully dynamic specular lighting and reflections.

# All of the supported shadow techniques are visually compatible and may be mixed freely at the artist's discretion, and may be combined with colored attenuation functions enabling properly shadowed directional, spotlight, and projector lighting effects.
The D3 engine is a bit "bound" by its own technology innovations, as it might not be the best choice for all types of enviroments, if your going for a forest it wouldnt be the best idea performancewise to go for the D3 engine I would guess (even tho it would prolly look stunning hehe)
But if your making a new WH40K: Space Hulk, it would be ideal (some make a new space hulk on D3 engine!! DO IT NOW!!!)
__________________
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 02-20-05, 11:47 AM   #57
HIWTHI
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 80
Default Re: DEvmaster.net article Hl2 vs D3 engine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagrant Zero
I've also never seen water on mars. What's your point. Source doesn't guarantee awesome looking water, just look at Bloodlines. It's up to the developer. And D3's fire just looks so much better than Source fire. Kinda funny how everyone always mentions water but never fire.
I've never seen demons, a space station, or a monorail on Mars, what's your point? Source comes with those shaders and if desired that great water can be used in the engine. I was simply asking if anyone had a screenshot of great water, because I've never seen great water rendered in the Doom 3 Engine. Bloodlines didn't take advantage of Source at all, and although not a bad game for a design perspective as in the past Troika had many technical problems. As Intel17 stated shaders are part of the engine, and should be taken into consideration. About the fire, I never said Source had better fire or anything to that point. I was simply asking about the water since that's one thing that Half-Life 2 is praised for.

Quote:
Real-time radiosity lighting? How about Valve try to use real-time lighting without the Radiosity first.
I expect their next engine to have real-time lighting, because it will be a requirement for all next-gen engines. True real-time radiosity, would be a first for games and is very impressive even when hacked out in tech-demos.

Quote:
The D3 engine is a bit "bound" by its own technology innovations, as it might not be the best choice for all types of enviroments, if your going for a forest it wouldnt be the best idea performancewise to go for the D3 engine I would guess
On current hardware, a large amount of foliage in Doom 3 is impossible without turning off certain effects. You can shadow by each leaf of a model, which would look incredibly impressive, but until future hardware comes out isn't applicable. By turning off realistic shadows you can easily get really good foliage. Viewing distance is what concerns me, because I haven't seen Doom 3's capabilities. I'm not sure what effects it's using to achieve better viewing distances, but we'll see whether it works when playing Quake 4.

Last edited by HIWTHI; 02-20-05 at 01:08 PM. Reason: Added Quotes
HIWTHI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-05, 12:55 PM   #58
superklye
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MKE
Posts: 13,629
Default Re: DEvmaster.net article Hl2 vs D3 engine.

I really hope VALVe does something about the fire, becuase 2D sprites are SO 1996.
superklye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-05, 03:44 PM   #59
Subtestube
Anisymbolic
 
Subtestube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 1,365
Default Re: DEvmaster.net article Hl2 vs D3 engine.

Real time Radiosity in shaders is a 2 pass solution from what I've seen, and only works for very simple scenes. Bear in mind that for passable REAL radiosity, you're looking at a hundred passes or more. I see real time photon mapping with some kind of time offset so instead of firing, say, 10 000 000 photons all at once, one fires 1 000 each frame, and just lets their energy decay slowly over time (so that, say, by the time a full group is alive there are 65 000 or so in action at any given time) as a much more feasible global lighting solution. Radiosity is also problematic in that it doesn't handle specular reflections AT ALL.
__________________
Dr Possible: Core 2 Duo E6400 on Gigabyte GA-965P-DS4. Galaxy GeForce 7600GT. 2GB Corsair XMS 2 DDR2-6400 RAM (CL5). ATi Theatre 550 Pro. Windows XP MCE. All stored in Piano black Antec Sonata II, with a broken door.

Mobile: ASUS M2400N, Pentium M 1.5 GHz. 512 MB DDR RAM. Intel EXTREME graphics. Windows XP SP 2 / Ubuntu 5.10.

Ridiculous DOES not have an 'e' in it. It comes from "ridicule" and has less than nothing to do with the colour red.
Subtestube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-05, 04:08 PM   #60
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
I've never seen demons, a space station, or a monorail on Mars, what's your point? Source comes with those shaders and if desired that great water can be used in the engine. I was simply asking if anyone had a screenshot of great water, because I've never seen great water rendered in the Doom 3 Engine. Bloodlines didn't take advantage of Source at all, and although not a bad game for a design perspective as in the past Troika had many technical problems. As Intel17 stated shaders are part of the engine, and should be taken into consideration. About the fire, I never said Source had better fire or anything to that point. I was simply asking about the water since that's one thing that Half-Life 2 is praised for.



I expect their next engine to have real-time lighting, because it will be a requirement for all next-gen engines. True real-time radiosity, would be a first for games and is very impressive even when hacked out in tech-demos.



On current hardware, a large amount of foliage in Doom 3 is impossible without turning off certain effects. You can shadow by each leaf of a model, which would look incredibly impressive, but until future hardware comes out isn't applicable. By turning off realistic shadows you can easily get really good foliage. Viewing distance is what concerns me, because I haven't seen Doom 3's capabilities. I'm not sure what effects it's using to achieve better viewing distances, but we'll see whether it works when playing Quake 4.
Valve will be reusing Source for Half-Life 3.

Radiosity, I don't think, will even be needed for games. I mean, we're at least 10 years away from having that kind of power to just throw at it.

However, since Carmack's next engine will be used for offline stuff...hmm

Doom 3 can handle much larger map sizes than Source could ever dream. It easily rivals FarCry. This is due to the fact that it's not BSP based, and portal based.
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 07:47 PM
Valve's Source engine to power upcoming animated film News Archived News Items 0 06-10-12 10:20 PM
Gorgeous Unreal Engine 4 brings direct programming, indirect lighting News Archived News Items 0 06-08-12 10:20 PM
May 24 Webinar: How Do You Make Grid Engine Faster? News Archived News Items 0 05-22-12 07:30 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:12 AM.


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