Go Back   nV News Forums > Software Forums > Gaming Central

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-04-05, 06:51 AM   #37
Intel17
Is not an Intel fanboi
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Burlington, VT
Posts: 1,368
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

Oh, and I'd like to point out, with the Final Fantasy graphics thing...

Considering Doom 3 uses only 1500 polys for their characters and 256x256 textures for all of their stuff, I'd find it hard to believe, even with RENDERMAN you could get FF quality.

What would be REALLY interesting is if a skilled artist got their hands on the Shrek art assets and plugged them into Doom. I think since everything is lit and shadowed correctly, it would probably look VERY good and VERY close.
Intel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-05, 07:21 AM   #38
pat777
NV420
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 446
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

IMO, some parts of Doom 3 looked like a new CG movie.
pat777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-05, 01:35 PM   #39
Nv40
Agent-Fx
 
Nv40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: everywhere
Posts: 2,216
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pat777
IMO, some parts of Doom 3 looked like a new CG movie.
noone is denying the quality graphics Doom3 can get at times..
the more DArk is the game.. the more "cinematic it looks" because darkness hide the limitations of the Renderer.



Quote:
Originally Posted by John Carmack Any soft shadows in Doom are from projected lights with fuzzy boundaries in the actual light texture, not from an occluder in the world.
WHat does that means to you INTEL7?

Doom3 use FAKE SHADOWS!! in fact they arent "shadows" at all.. since shadows are the result of an occluder but projected textures.. you can project the thundercats logo if you like with projected textures.. thats the cheapiest way to simulate "shadows" for a perpixellighting engine. and doom3 use them everywhere ,everytime.. in every single Doom3 level. they are static .. NON_REALTIME , NON UNIFIED ,Not the groundbreaking stuff they were preaching. Doom3 is not any better than FARcry when it comes to shadows tech.. Doom3 simulate them better because is a dark indoors game . the only diference Doom3 have over FC is that they use Perpixel lghting at all times and that the polycounts/animations the engine can use for their characters are very nice indeed. others Developers use perpixellighting them only in small closed areas (not large closed areas) what people call "indoors" for performance reasons. they are not "engine limitations" as you would believe they are.. just design decisions ,restricions Developers place on purpose for the mod community in the game editor for performance reasons...but they can code whatever they want.. like the next IDSOFTWARE game that will use "just like FARCRY" pre-computed shadows for the outdoors scenes..

Doom3 is a great game.. dont take me wrong.. but is not the the mother of all engines as you think .. but far from that. it just another one of the good ones.just an evolutionary game. like all others.. there is not such a thing like "BEST ENGINE" today..we will need to wait for UNReal3 because all big limitations in some places. NExt Idsoftware game will have a complete NEW RENDERER... using LIGHTMAPS/SHADOWmaps real Softshadows everywhere .. and that should tell you something about "how powerfull" doom3 is.. if is its so Good ,then why change it ,in the first few months since the game is released?

the answer is simple .. because he already knows there are many others developers with more interesting stuff in development and that others already released similar graphics a year earlier than them.. ->CroniclesofRIDDICK. JC underestimated greatly what others developers could do.. by the time the game was finished..

and unfortunately his past Plann updates have been deleted from WEBDOG

http://www.webdog.org/

so i can't show you the times he told ,his engine was the last coke in the desert..and that there will not be needed more engines ,since his engine will be good enough next 5 years..

QUake3 engine was truly revolutionary.. still today 6 years ago is in Latest games and it can match the quality of UNREALT2k4 graphics. and game released 4 years later .and while it doesnt support perpixel lighting stuff it doesnt have as much limitations when it comes to create other style of games.. diferent than the one the engine was done. never have heard there in quake3 world of a single MOD that was cancelled because the engine was not good enough for what they wanted to do.we will be lucky if doom3 community reach 1/10 of the size quake3 community was. and the performance impact of quake3 was even worse when quake3 was released.. fastest computers/graphics cards.. could barely get 50fps without AA ,without AF ,at 1024x768. while Doom3 at launch played great in geforce4mx hardware ,and looked near indeticall to the higher end GPus.. So it looks very clear to me ,that what IDsoftware wanted it wasn't to create a revolutionary engine ahead of its times, but to design a good game/engine that anyone with very low hardware requirements could play it and have a similar experience there than anyone with a Highend PC. and they have suceeded very well with this.

Last edited by Nv40; 03-04-05 at 02:58 PM.
Nv40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-05, 08:24 PM   #40
Intel17
Is not an Intel fanboi
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Burlington, VT
Posts: 1,368
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nv40
noone is denying the quality graphics Doom3 can get at times..
the more DArk is the game.. the more "cinematic it looks" because darkness hide the limitations of the Renderer.





WHat does that means to you INTEL7?

Doom3 use FAKE SHADOWS!! in fact they arent "shadows" at all.. since shadows are the result of an occluder but projected textures.. you can project the thundercats logo if you like with projected textures.. thats the cheapiest way to simulate "shadows" for a perpixellighting engine. and doom3 use them everywhere ,everytime.. in every single Doom3 level. they are static .. NON_REALTIME , NON UNIFIED ,Not the groundbreaking stuff they were preaching. Doom3 is not any better than FARcry when it comes to shadows tech.. Doom3 simulate them better because is a dark indoors game . the only diference Doom3 have over FC is that they use Perpixel lghting at all times and that the polycounts/animations the engine can use for their characters are very nice indeed. others Developers use perpixellighting them only in small closed areas (not large closed areas) what people call "indoors" for performance reasons. they are not "engine limitations" as you would believe they are.. just design decisions ,restricions Developers place on purpose for the mod community in the game editor for performance reasons...but they can code whatever they want.. like the next IDSOFTWARE game that will use "just like FARCRY" pre-computed shadows for the outdoors scenes..

Doom3 is a great game.. dont take me wrong.. but is not the the mother of all engines as you think .. but far from that. it just another one of the good ones.just an evolutionary game. like all others.. there is not such a thing like "BEST ENGINE" today..we will need to wait for UNReal3 because all big limitations in some places. NExt Idsoftware game will have a complete NEW RENDERER... using LIGHTMAPS/SHADOWmaps real Softshadows everywhere .. and that should tell you something about "how powerfull" doom3 is.. if is its so Good ,then why change it ,in the first few months since the game is released?

the answer is simple .. because he already knows there are many others developers with more interesting stuff in development and that others already released similar graphics a year earlier than them.. ->CroniclesofRIDDICK. JC underestimated greatly what others developers could do.. by the time the game was finished..

and unfortunately his past Plann updates have been deleted from WEBDOG

http://www.webdog.org/

so i can't show you the times he told ,his engine was the last coke in the desert..and that there will not be needed more engines ,since his engine will be good enough next 5 years..

QUake3 engine was truly revolutionary.. still today 6 years ago is in Latest games and it can match the quality of UNREALT2k4 graphics. and game released 4 years later .and while it doesnt support perpixel lighting stuff it doesnt have as much limitations when it comes to create other style of games.. diferent than the one the engine was done. never have heard there in quake3 world of a single MOD that was cancelled because the engine was not good enough for what they wanted to do.we will be lucky if doom3 community reach 1/10 of the size quake3 community was. and the performance impact of quake3 was even worse when quake3 was released.. fastest computers/graphics cards.. could barely get 50fps without AA ,without AF ,at 1024x768. while Doom3 at launch played great in geforce4mx hardware ,and looked near indeticall to the higher end GPus.. So it looks very clear to me ,that what IDsoftware wanted it wasn't to create a revolutionary engine ahead of its times, but to design a good game/engine that anyone with very low hardware requirements could play it and have a similar experience there than anyone with a Highend PC. and they have suceeded very well with this.
Ok, dude, I'm a nice guy typically, and I am logical at most times, but my teenage primal instincts are going to take over for the next statement;

WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU SMOKING?

Seriously? FarCry's shadowing is as good as Doom 3's? Really, I go through the trouble to learn the CryEngine sandbox and test out the shadowing tech, and then I spend time writing up my detailed findings, and you still insist on saying FarCry's shadowing is as good as Doom 3's.

What's this bullcrap about the developers can code what they want but the SDK doesn't have it? Well, yeah I can add HDR into the Quake 2 engine since the source code is sitting on my hard-drive, but does that make it "HDR capable"? No!

Also, Carmack's next engine isn't using pre-computed lighting or shadowing! What gave you that idea? I mean, he did not once say the word "lightmap" at Qcon.

He's moving to shadow-buffers because the hardware can handle it now, whereas it couldn't handle it before. There's also a difference between limited case shadow maps like in FarCry, and globally used like what he's proposing. He still yet may go with stencils, because of crappy hardware support with the GPU vendors, but it's unlikely.

O.K. Dammit, I don't feel like continuing, because i'm now feeling my efforts were in complete vain, with this whole write up. I feel that I wasted so much time.

The point has been made several times in this thread. Believe what you want. I'm only trying to educate people with my research in this regard,

To everyone who read and believed my write-up, thank you, it's you guys who I did the research for (and personal curiousity).


Oh, and for the record, Carmack continually talked about what he wanted in the engine after Doom. HE NEVER said Doom was the holy grail of engine technology.

(Oh, and Nv40, could you please make an effort to use capitalization and punctuation correctly if not grammar? Your posts are incredibly hard to read!)
Intel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-05, 08:41 PM   #41
Intel17
Is not an Intel fanboi
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Burlington, VT
Posts: 1,368
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

Oh, Here's ALL of JC's plans.

http://www.gamefinger.com/plan.asp?u...johnc&id=16154

Go ahead, find me that quote. Just because webdog is down, doesn't mean you can bull**** us.
Intel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-05, 09:21 PM   #42
HIWTHI
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 80
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

Nv40, I want to take my grammar statement a bit furthur and ask you to not only use proper grammar, but also to only post when you know what your talking about. No one believes you here so go take it to some FarCry fanboy forum if you want to have an audience of believers.
HIWTHI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-05, 09:41 PM   #43
Razor1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 574
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

should I step in here, its quite hot....

If your telling NV40 to shut up, I would tell you to shut up too. Be nice. In truth Carmack's Doom 3 engine can technically work well without much modification for the next 5 years, just has to add a few new shaders. Ogl unlike Dx doesn't need a complete rewrite when the next version comes out. There are many engines out there that can do what Doom 3 can and more. Developing engines has become much easier in the past few years as hardware has really improved and its no longer fine tuning every espect of the engine.

And Intel17 I've already shown that the Cry engine's shadow system is as good as Doom 3 and the Cry engine can do things the Doom 3 engine can't well if it can do things the Cry engine can do it hasn't been shown yet.
Razor1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-05, 09:48 PM   #44
AGibbon
Heh
 
AGibbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Las Vegas, Nv.
Posts: 188
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

Intel, your work wasn't in vain. It was actually a good read. Don't let NV40 get to you, because it is clear you know your stuff and he spouts ficticious info.
AGibbon is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-05, 09:49 PM   #45
noko
noko
 
noko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Orlando Florida
Posts: 735
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

My grammar is so poor that NV40 made perfect sense. . . not that I agree with him on his engine discussions.

While shadows and lights play a part in any engine, other aspects also play a part. Crytek can do sprites for those rather nice large open scenes keeping poly count down so that the less powerful video cards can render. Can Doom3 do sprites? Crytek has working HDR in the most recent patch 1.3, Doom3 does not or does not use it. I am actually looking forward more to the SeriousEngine2 when ever it is done, where object lod is addressed and scenes that can make FarCry maps look small and HL2 map area look like a joke. As for which game engine is better, the question should be which game engine is better in what aspect?
noko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-05, 09:57 PM   #46
Razor1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 574
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by noko
My grammar is so poor that NV40 made perfect sense. . . not that I agree with him on his engine discussions.

While shadows and lights play a part in any engine, other aspects also play a part. Crytek can do sprites for those rather nice large open scenes keeping poly count down so that the less powerful video cards can render. Can Doom3 do sprites? Crytek has working HDR in the most recent patch 1.3, Doom3 does not or does not use it. I am actually looking forward more to the SeriousEngine2 when ever it is done, where object lod is addressed and scenes that can make FarCry maps look small and HL2 map area look like a joke. As for which game engine is better, the question should be which game engine is better in what aspect?

Well its not purely because of the LOD system that the Cry engine can do outdoors that well, if that was the case any BSP tree engine will be able to do it with oh about 100 lines of code. Those trees aren't spirts either (they are billboards), no way can you make a sprite that rotates and has properly lighting , I've been trying to get a system of sprites to do that for over a year now its not going to happen. Keeping polygons down is only one aspect that you have to look at with wide open areas, there is still the concern of pixel overdraw which tends to get massive when using billboards, and a BSP engine definitly has issues with pixel overdraw.

Missed your point on number of lights in the cry enigne vs. lights in the doom 3 engine. The limitation is not within the engine its the hardware. Doesn't matter what engine it is. I can put in a hunderd lights in the cry engine as long as each object doesn't touch more then one light's radi everything object is rendered in one pass (pre ps2.0b or sm3.0). This is the same with Doom 3, take alook at Doom 3 closely thier light radius is very small, good reason for dark rooms

Last edited by Razor1; 03-04-05 at 10:20 PM.
Razor1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-05, 10:20 PM   #47
Zelda_fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,299
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor1
should I step in here, its quite hot....

If your telling NV40 to shut up, I would tell you to shut up too. Be nice. In truth Carmack's Doom 3 engine can technically work well without much modification for the next 5 years, just has to add a few new shaders. Ogl unlike Dx doesn't need a complete rewrite when the next version comes out. There are many engines out there that can do what Doom 3 can and more. Developing engines has become much easier in the past few years as hardware has really improved and its no longer fine tuning every espect of the engine.

And Intel17 I've already shown that the Cry engine's shadow system is as good as Doom 3 and the Cry engine can do things the Doom 3 engine can't well if it can do things the Cry engine can do it hasn't been shown yet.
First off, everyone is telling NV40 to shut up becasue he is pulling these quotes out of thin air where he says that Carmack promises the world with the Doom3 engine.

Yes, razor, I remembered when you proved that the Cry engine is capeable or Doom3 shadowing. I also have to point out that your company is working with the CryEngine to develope a game, so you have to admit there is going to be some bias in your comments.

Capeable and practical are two different things. If you ran a 100% unified lighting model, I imagine it would slow the CryEngine down to a crawl. FarCry ran at 60% of the FPS I was getting with Doom3 - and FarCry did not use a 100% unified lighting model. I'd hate to think what it would run like on my machine if it did. Doom3 was built to handle unified lighting, the CryEngine was not.

I also just do not like the feel of the cryengine as much as Doom3. Doom3 just seems to have a more polished feel. The movement in Doom3 was a lot more fluid. Alos, when I played FarCry, the game would crash from time to time for some reason or another. In Doom3 I never had a crash. The quality (not actual capabilities) of Doom3 seems to be higher than the cryengine.

Also, I'd like to know what the CryEngine can do that Doom3 can't?
Zelda_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-05, 10:25 PM   #48
Razor1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 574
Default Re: CryEngine shadowing investigation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonk
First off, everyone is telling NV40 to shut up becasue he is pulling these quotes out of thin air where he says that Carmack promises the world with the Doom3 engine.

Yes, razor, I remembered when you proved that the Cry engine is capeable or Doom3 shadowing. I also have to point out that your company is working with the CryEngine to develope a game, so you have to admit there is going to be some bias in your comments.

Capeable and practical are two different things. If you ran a 100% unified lighting model, I imagine it would slow the CryEngine down to a crawl. FarCry ran at 60% of the FPS I was getting with Doom3 - and FarCry did not use a 100% unified lighting model. I'd hate to think what it would run like on my machine if it did. Doom3 was built to handle unified lighting, the CryEngine was not.


That has no basis of what engine is better, personally I think even the Unreal 3 engine isn't that good, there is so much more we can do with todays hardware that hasn't been touched yet because of lazy programmers.

I also just do not like the feel of the cryengine as much as Doom3. Doom3 just seems to have a more polished feel. The movement in Doom3 was a lot more fluid. Alos, when I played FarCry, the game would crash from time to time for some reason or another. In Doom3 I never had a crash. The quality (not actual capabilities) of Doom3 seems to be higher than the cryengine.

Also, I'd like to know what the CryEngine can do that Doom3 can't?
The basis of me saying the cry engine is better is not due to bais, personally I think the Unreal 3 engine isn't that great. Its good but it could do alot more if it was optimized more (you might think I would say the cry engine is better, I would say its on level par with Unreal 3 because Unreal 3 is probably a more solid technology, yes there are issues with the Cry engine, but this is the first iteration of this engine, it will get better)

We are running a 100% unified lighting sytem in the cry engine, stop by nVidia's booth or check out our presentation on Thrusday 12:30 pm for our presentation on stage at GDC. And it doesn't slow it down. Aslong as we don't use HDR the engine goes well above 50 fps with 400k on the screen.

Doom 3 doesn't use a purelly undified lighting system, they do use light maps.

When I first heard Carmack talking about it I though he was talking about all lights in the world effect every object in the same way. Well I would expect that much from his engine. It never happend, they do use light maps just rarely.

The Doom 3 engine at the stage of what it was when Doom 3 was released can't do outdoors the way the Cry engine can do. Even the Unreal 3 engine can't do it. Its because the base of the engine has to be structured for outdoor terrains if it wasn't it never will be able to handle that number of object counts and overdraw that happens in outdoor scenes.
Razor1 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
Amazing Soft-Body Physics in CryEngine 3 News Archived News Items 0 05-29-12 08:40 PM
CryEngine 3 / Beam Physics: Soft Body, Hard Metal News Archived News Items 0 05-29-12 05:30 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:59 AM.


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