So why in hell does Doom3 have such high performance requi..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Doug wrote:

> So there are no wide open spaces on Mars? Gee, I thought Mars was a planet
> not a space station...

Erm it is.

Are you really that stupid?

But again, : The Game is set inside a Space Station. get it?

Really not that difficult.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Werner Spahl wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Doug wrote:
>
>
>>Duh, how hard can pathfinding be when there are only two or three
>>possible paths the AI can take? Far Cry's wide open spaces allow for
>
>
> I never had problems with pathfinding in Doom 3 but in my opinion it is
> much more difficult to move in such closed and crowded environments like
> in Doom 3 without sticking to something as it often happened with older
> games. In Far Cry the wide spaces make it easier for the AI to move...
>

I explained this to someone a while back.

There really isnt that much cleverness in Far Cry despite Lewis spouting
about its "autonomous AI". Not much in Doom 3 either, but its a
corridoor FPS FFS - what do people want.

This "Doug" character seems to want to redefine what Doom 3 is inorder
to compare it with a totally different game.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

What a dumbass. There's no comparison between the AI in Doom3 and Far Cry,
because Doom3 doesn't have any. Case in point, in Doom3 I can hide in plain
sight under a staircase (or in a crawlspace) and the AI can't find/shoot me,
try that in Far Cry and you'll end up dead. Doom3, Far Cry and Half Life 2
are all FPS's how am I redefining anything? My question is simple: what
makes Doom3 the superior game engine to Far Cry or Half Life 2? Any answer
numbnuts?

--
Remove nospam to email
"Walter Mitty" <mitticus@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d42v8k$ocu$2@domitilla.aioe.org...
> Werner Spahl wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Doug wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Duh, how hard can pathfinding be when there are only two or three
>>>possible paths the AI can take? Far Cry's wide open spaces allow for
>>
>>
>> I never had problems with pathfinding in Doom 3 but in my opinion it is
>> much more difficult to move in such closed and crowded environments like
>> in Doom 3 without sticking to something as it often happened with older
>> games. In Far Cry the wide spaces make it easier for the AI to move...
>>
>
> I explained this to someone a while back.
>
> There really isnt that much cleverness in Far Cry despite Lewis spouting
> about its "autonomous AI". Not much in Doom 3 either, but its a corridoor
> FPS FFS - what do people want.
>
> This "Doug" character seems to want to redefine what Doom 3 is inorder to
> compare it with a totally different game.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 08:39:36 -0700, "Doug" <pigdos@nospamcharter.net>
wrote:

>What a dumbass. There's no comparison between the AI in Doom3 and Far Cry,
>because Doom3 doesn't have any. Case in point, in Doom3 I can hide in plain
>sight under a staircase (or in a crawlspace) and the AI can't find/shoot me,
>try that in Far Cry and you'll end up dead.

Then what's the point of the stealth meter in FarCry if the AI can
detect you from 1km away?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Werner Spahl" <spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote in message
news😛ine.LNX.4.58.0504191351130.24971@cicum1.cup.uni-muenchen.de...
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Doug wrote:
>
>> But doesn't Far Cry and Half Life 2 feature all the below as well? I know
>> Far Cry has real-time shadows (just try moving under some trees).
>
> HL2 and other older engines (Source is still based on Quake 1!) can't do
> multiple shadows from multiple light sources and the one shadow they can
> do is limited (at least in HL2) to one light source which usually is the
> sun. Just look closer at some HL2 maps and you will see that the shadows
> are always casted in the same direction, regardless of the light source.
>
> More modern engines like Unreal or Riddick do shadows fixed to specific
> light sources but often these look wrong, at least I though so about the
> shadows in Riddick. I think those in Thief 3 were almost right though...
>
> As far as I know Far Cry is the only other game besides Doom 3 that can do
> multiple shadows from multiple light sources but when it does, it becomes
> as slow as Doom 3 and unplayable on my old Celeron 1GHz. I haven't tried
> it on my new Athlon64 3000+ to see if the shadows are as good as those in
> Doom 3 and I don't know if lighting and shadows works on models as well. I
> think on these regards Doom 3 is top and therefore the high requirements.
>
> --
> Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
> "The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

But why are nearly all shadowed areas pitch black? You in rooms that are
well lit from above but have a window overlooking part of the base exterior,
and the shadow cast from the external lightsource is pitch black with no
regard for ambient lighting levels.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Werner Spahl wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Doug wrote:
>
>
>>But doesn't Far Cry and Half Life 2 feature all the below as well? I know
>>Far Cry has real-time shadows (just try moving under some trees).
>
>
> HL2 and other older engines (Source is still based on Quake 1!) can't do
> multiple shadows from multiple light sources and the one shadow they can
> do is limited (at least in HL2) to one light source which usually is the
> sun. Just look closer at some HL2 maps and you will see that the shadows
> are always casted in the same direction, regardless of the light source.
>
> More modern engines like Unreal or Riddick do shadows fixed to specific
> light sources but often these look wrong, at least I though so about the
> shadows in Riddick. I think those in Thief 3 were almost right though...
>
> As far as I know Far Cry is the only other game besides Doom 3 that can do
> multiple shadows from multiple light sources but when it does, it becomes
> as slow as Doom 3 and unplayable on my old Celeron 1GHz. I haven't tried
> it on my new Athlon64 3000+ to see if the shadows are as good as those in
> Doom 3 and I don't know if lighting and shadows works on models as well. I
> think on these regards Doom 3 is top and therefore the high requirements.
>

And of course totally configurable. Which is why D3 takes most of the
more complex configuration away from the end user (who is normally not
too well versed in engine intricasies, lets face it) : it makes smart
guesses on just what to enable in order to make the game run ok on lower
end HW. Something the majority were in agreement about that it did very
well. Except for Doug of course.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Hi,

Mother Farquhar <fake@ddress.com> wrote:
#Pity it's such a bad, boring, fawning-fanboy game.

I won't argue with that. I'm probably 1/4-1/3 of the way through, I
haven't finished the game, and doubt I ever will. I'm certainly not
going to buy the expansion pack. I just figure, if you're going to
criticize something, at least get it right.

I did, on the other hand, buy the CoD:UO expansion pack and then another
CoD plus UO expansion for my second computer. There are so many things
just so right about that game, whatever flaws (most PunkBuster related)
are easily excused.

As for D3, it turned out to be much more playable (at low res/low
detail) and scalable than anyone anticipated. While it doesn't have the
artistic dyslexia of Q3 it just lacks something in single user, is
highly repetitive, and multiuser is highly limited. I think these are
valid criticisms that are hard to deny.

Sure is pretty, though (provided you up the Gamma, of course). I think
its significance will be long remembered in the games that license its
engine, and of course, the boost it (and HL2) provided to the CPU and
GPU sales.

Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Just say "no" to liars SCO and Soyo
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | Return services to local CIS offices!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 13:53:41 -0700, Aldwyn Edain <ae@invalid.email> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 08:29:43 -0700, "Doug" <pigdos@nospamcharter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>The demons survive outside w/no problems whatsoever.
>
>Bah! It's not realistic then.

Doom 3 is only a game. It doesn't have to be 100% realistic.

You might as well hate Doom 3 because it translates your health into a
single number when it really should take into account damage from the many
different body parts (e.g. a grazing hit on the pinky should only stun that
finger without doing damage elsewhere.)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 14:01:13 -0700, Aldwyn Edain <ae@invalid.email> wrote:

>Then what's the point of the stealth meter in FarCry if the AI can
>detect you from 1km away?

The stealth meter indicates that you have been detected - in this case,
it's usually by an enemy with a sniper rifle or rocket launcher.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 08:39:36 -0700, "Doug" <pigdos@nospamcharter.net>
wrote:

>What a dumbass. There's no comparison between the AI in Doom3 and Far Cry,
>because Doom3 doesn't have any. Case in point, in Doom3 I can hide in plain
>sight under a staircase (or in a crawlspace) and the AI can't find/shoot me,

The AI already found you. The bug involves the fact that there is no
crouched-movement animations for the enemies.


> My question is simple: what
>makes Doom3 the superior game engine to Far Cry or Half Life 2?

If you want to find out which one is superior, do (or have a friend do) a
1:1 port of the maps, models and other graphics from Doom to the other two
games you listed. Repeat with Far Cry and HL2.

You will notice that Doom 3 is the best graphically for indoor environments
- with a large chunk of graphical processing spent on rendering shadows. .
It doesn't yet do large-scale outdoors, since it isn't yet optimized for
that kind of map. I'd say it can mimic HL2 very easily (even if it has
slightly different looks), but will have trouble rendering a FarCry map.

While HL2 could render a Doom 3 map, it would take forever if you wanted
the same level of detail - unless you written code to add support for
dynamic lighting and shadows. Far Cry can render both indoor and outdoor
environments, but I doubt it can handle the indoor complexity found in a
Doom map (while maintaining detail.)

Thus, take your pick - Doom 3 for indoor stuff, or FarCry for outdoor
stuff. Or you can wait until Unreal 3 gets released.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 18:34:13 -0400, bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau)
wrote:


>Doom 3 is only a game. It doesn't have to be 100% realistic.
>
>You might as well hate Doom 3 because it translates your health into a
>single number when it really should take into account damage from the many
>different body parts (e.g. a grazing hit on the pinky should only stun that
>finger without doing damage elsewhere.)

Show me a game that can do those kinds of calculations and I might buy
it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:38:34 -0400, bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau)
wrote:


>You will notice that Doom 3 is the best graphically for indoor environments
>- with a large chunk of graphical processing spent on rendering shadows. .
>It doesn't yet do large-scale outdoors, since it isn't yet optimized for
>that kind of map. I'd say it can mimic HL2 very easily (even if it has
>slightly different looks), but will have trouble rendering a FarCry map.
>
>While HL2 could render a Doom 3 map, it would take forever if you wanted
>the same level of detail - unless you written code to add support for
>dynamic lighting and shadows. Far Cry can render both indoor and outdoor
>environments, but I doubt it can handle the indoor complexity found in a
>Doom map (while maintaining detail.)
>
>Thus, take your pick - Doom 3 for indoor stuff, or FarCry for outdoor
>stuff. Or you can wait until Unreal 3 gets released.
>

Chronicles of Riddick does indoor environments far better than D3.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 02:05:05 -0700, Aldwyn Edain <ae@invalid.email> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 18:34:13 -0400, bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau)
>wrote:
>
>
>>Doom 3 is only a game. It doesn't have to be 100% realistic.
>>
>>You might as well hate Doom 3 because it translates your health into a
>>single number when it really should take into account damage from the many
>>different body parts (e.g. a grazing hit on the pinky should only stun that
>>finger without doing damage elsewhere.)
>
>Show me a game that can do those kinds of calculations and I might buy
>it.

Expect delivery in 6-8... decades. We aren't at that tech level.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Aldwyn Edain wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:38:34 -0400, bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau)
> wrote:
>
> >Thus, take your pick - Doom 3 for indoor stuff, or FarCry for outdoor
> >stuff. Or you can wait until Unreal 3 gets released.
>
> Chronicles of Riddick does indoor environments far better than D3.

The Riddick environments were bare compared to D3 and the shadows were all
wrong too. It seems here are as many Riddick fanboys around as for HL2 😉.

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:43:16 +0200, Werner Spahl
<spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:


>The Riddick environments were bare compared to D3 and the shadows were all
>wrong too. It seems here are as many Riddick fanboys around as for HL2 😉.

Better a Riddick fanboy than a Doom3 lightweight bitch. Answer this;
which was the better game? Owned!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Les Steel wrote:

> But why are nearly all shadowed areas pitch black? You in rooms that are
> well lit from above but have a window overlooking part of the base exterior,
> and the shadow cast from the external lightsource is pitch black with no
> regard for ambient lighting levels.

I agree that this is a weakness of the Doom 3 shadows, also that these
shadows always have completely sharp edges. Another is that shadows casted
on objects sometimes don't look right. But then I think Doom 3 is the only
game trying to do this at all.

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Doug wrote:

> Obviously you've never implemented a pathing algorithm in your life. If
> there are mulitple paths from one place to another which one do you take?

I never implemented pathing algorithm but I guess it's something like: if
rnd > 0.5 then path A else path B, with both represented by waypoints 😉.
I doubt that the AI in Far Cry doesn't use some. Seeing and avoid sticking
to the environments is another thing, which had to be in Far Cry as well.

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Of course Far Cry uses pathing algorithms, the thing I'm pointing out is
that they're leagues more complicated than Doom3's (boundary layer problems
alone complicate pathing algorithms). Boundary layer problems here
referring to mountains (e.g. deciding when a path becomes too steep to
continue and how to calculate an alternative path), water (e.g. how deep
should the water be before the AI gives up on that path, and how to
calculate an alternative). Doom3's level designs are pretty much Quake2 all
over again so there are no complex pathing problems to overcome...

--
Remove nospam to email
"Werner Spahl" <spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote in message
news😛ine.LNX.4.58.0504201255140.32118@cicum1.cup.uni-muenchen.de...
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Doug wrote:
>
>> Obviously you've never implemented a pathing algorithm in your life. If
>> there are mulitple paths from one place to another which one do you take?
>
> I never implemented pathing algorithm but I guess it's something like: if
> rnd > 0.5 then path A else path B, with both represented by waypoints 😉.
> I doubt that the AI in Far Cry doesn't use some. Seeing and avoid sticking
> to the environments is another thing, which had to be in Far Cry as well.
>
> --
> Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
> "The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Werner Spahl" <spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote in message
news😛ine.LNX.4.58.0504191351130.24971@cicum1.cup.uni-muenchen.de...
> (Source is still based on Quake 1!)

Evidence? Of the renderer having any legacy code from Quake, I mean?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Aldwyn Edain wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:43:16 +0200, Werner Spahl
> <spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>
> >The Riddick environments were bare compared to D3 and the shadows were all
> >wrong too. It seems here are as many Riddick fanboys around as for HL2 😉.
>
> Better a Riddick fanboy than a Doom 3 lightweight bitch. Answer this;
> which was the better game? Owned!

Sorry, but I had much more fun with Doom 3 and think it is the better
game. But then IMHO Vampire Bloodlines beats both and HL2 hands down!

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, One Punch Mickey wrote:

"Werner Spahl" <spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote in message
> news😛ine.LNX.4.58.0504191351130.24971@cicum1.cup.uni-muenchen.de...
> > (Source is still based on Quake 1!)
>
> Evidence? Of the renderer having any legacy code from Quake, I mean?

I don't know about the renderer but John Carmack said somewhere that id
still gets money for each Source engine game. May be from the basics...

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Werner Spahl" <spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote in message
news😛ine.LNX.4.58.0504201703120.32118@cicum1.cup.uni-muenchen.de...

> I don't know about the renderer but John Carmack said somewhere that id
> still gets money for each Source engine game. May be from the basics...

I'd say that some ancillary parts could well be recycled, that's true of the
current Unreal as well and is good programming practice I suppose. But I'd
be very surprised if any of the sharp end, like the renderer, sound system
and so on are anything but brand new.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, One Punch Mickey wrote:

> I'd say that some ancillary parts could well be recycled, that's true of the
> current Unreal as well and is good programming practice I suppose. But I'd

I don't know if you can call basic level and model structures ancillary.

> be very surprised if any of the sharp end, like the renderer, sound system
> and so on are anything but brand new.

Valve wrote a new renderer, which still can't do real shadows, and a new
sound system that stuttered like hell. Regarding engine design I'll choose
id anytime, but regarding games, even HL2, it is the other way round 😉.

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On , "Doug" <pigdos@nospamcharter.net> wrote:

>
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:53:44 MST
>Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:52:22 -0700
>Xref: news.verizon.net comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action:214501
>X-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:53:32 EDT (nwrddc01.gnilink.net)
>
>Considering the the meh graphics and lousy AI why does Doom3 have
>requirement specs any higher than RTCW? Why can't the engine handle having
>large battles with the AI? Instead they had to resort to monster closets and
>monsters teleporting in. Since the game is a corridor shooter it's not like
>the monsters have a complicated pathing algorithm to follow (unlike say, Far
>Cry). I guess Id must have spent all it's time ensuring the game would run
>on the Xbox and ended up w/the meh game of the year.
>
>--
>Remove nospam to email
>
>

Having started played AvP2 (released 2001) for the very first time
( YES! ) a couple of weeks ago, I have again realized how unimportant
fancy graphics-embellishments are to an FPS-action game, and how
important the level-design, modeling/animation, sound-effects,
voice-acting and story-line are. HL1, Deus Ex and AvP2 are all classic
instances demonstrating that a great FPS-style-game can still be
totally immersive in spite of not having the latest graphics
technology... with the side-benefit that when run on a modern machine,
the frame-rate runs like a bat out of hell, even with all graphics
maxed out !

Doom3 is a sacrifice at the altar of graphics-technology, to the
detriment of story-line and level-design (and frame-rate performance
on modest machines ) a dark-shadowy melange of HL1 and Doom2,
with AI inferior to that in HL1. Obvious appeal to the vast teenage
(-minded?) let's-bash-yet-another-monster crowd. It quite obvious that
Id is now out to maximize the $$-return on the Doom franchise, and
that their days of *innovative* contributions to *game-play* are
finally over.

John Lewis

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

My only real beef with Doom3 is the incredibly BAD AI. When monsters
repeatedly shoot into walls or ceilings while allowing me to fill them full
of lead with no response save dying it really ruins the game. Other
contributions to ruining the game are: zombies that never have to reload
(shotgun zombie, machinegun zombie, pistol zombie, chaingun zombie) and
monsters that can't find me in plain sight under a stairwell or in a
crawlspace. Even Quake2 featured monsters that had to reload (the chaingun
dude). Any AI that had firearms in the original Half Life had to reload.

I don't understand:
a. why Doom3 took so long to develop and they didn't address the above
glaring problems
b. why I paid so much for a game that wasn't even as good (or as long as)
the original Half Life or System Shock

I thought Far Cry and Half Life 2 were much better, more entertaining games,
I felt ripped off buying Doom3 for ~$65 US (I bought the Collector's
Edition). Needless to say, I won't be buying the Expansion Pack for any
price...

Hopefully Quake IV will show off more of what the Doom3 engine can do...

Remove nospam to email
"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:42668fc5.6778013@news.verizon.net...
>
> Having started played AvP2 (released 2001) for the very first time
> ( YES! ) a couple of weeks ago, I have again realized how unimportant
> fancy graphics-embellishments are to an FPS-action game, and how
> important the level-design, modeling/animation, sound-effects,
> voice-acting and story-line are. HL1, Deus Ex and AvP2 are all classic
> instances demonstrating that a great FPS-style-game can still be
> totally immersive in spite of not having the latest graphics
> technology... with the side-benefit that when run on a modern machine,
> the frame-rate runs like a bat out of hell, even with all graphics
> maxed out !
>
> Doom3 is a sacrifice at the altar of graphics-technology, to the
> detriment of story-line and level-design (and frame-rate performance
> on modest machines ) a dark-shadowy melange of HL1 and Doom2,
> with AI inferior to that in HL1. Obvious appeal to the vast teenage
> (-minded?) let's-bash-yet-another-monster crowd. It quite obvious that
> Id is now out to maximize the $$-return on the Doom franchise, and
> that their days of *innovative* contributions to *game-play* are
> finally over.
>
> John Lewis
>