Unreal Engine 3.0 -The Next Evolution In Gaming-

[Kschreck]

Unreal Engine 3.0 has either not been talked about or not been talked about much. First off why do I consider it the next evolution?

Because at lease half of the most popular games are based on the Unreal Engine. A huge wave of games were bases on Unreal Engine 1, then the new Directx 8 and 9 games started using Unreal Engine 2 (Things like Splinter Cell and Rainbow Sixe 3). The Unreal 3.0 engine is litterally a work of art. If anyone has been keeping up with it's annoucement you will know exactly what I'm talking about. Unreal Engine 3.0 has been in development for about 18 months now and utilizes every special effect that the latest graphics cards have. Not only does it support Pixel Shader 3.0 and Hight Dynamic Range Lighting, but it uses a HDR64 Bit Color display now among many other new features. The Unreal 3.0 Engine blows even the most anticipated games such as Half-Life 2, Doom 3, Far Cry and Stalker, out of the water. They are already working on a title which is due to ship in early 2006. Major rumors say that it's a sequel to "Cannon Fodder" due to the Cannon Fodder looking creatures in the tech demo displayed at E3 2004 and Nvidia's 6800 Launh Event. They are working on an Unreal Tournament 2005 and 2006 on the regular Unreal Engine 2.0 however Unreal Tournament 2007 will utilize the Unreal Engine 3.0 technologies. Sadly at the time they have no plans to do an unreal 3, but they promise to make one eventually. You will see this engin most likely used on both PC and all next generation consoles. Below are some sites where you can see screenshots, a trailer, and a new interview that was released on July 15th.



The Sites:


http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html/technology/ue30.shtml (Images And Tech Break Down)

http://www.fileplanet.com/files/140000/140731.shtml (The Trailer) -Yes I know it's File Crappit but they have the best version of it. It's definetly worth the wait. You can find lower quality crappy versions on sights like www.gametrailers.com if you really don't want to wait for the good version.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=55942 (Interview)

What do you guys think of this new graphics engine and it's capabilities?

[Eywanadi]

Unreal3 is not the next evolution, doom 3 was because it changed the way games are built. Unreal 3 seems to be like a beefed up Doom 3 engine. I expect the Doom 3 engine in 2006 to be able to do everything the Unreal 3 engine can. As of right now the Doom 3 engine can do 90% of the stuff the Unreal 3 engine is able to do. Epic like allways is one step behind ID and just ends up building a similar engine but then uses higher resolution textures and more polys to make it look better and fool people into thinking it is more advanced tech.

[Mac]

I have seen it, and it is amazing, but 2 years off just seems a bit... too far off to be gettin overly excited about.

Although when the day comes for it to be realesed, I dunno if ill be going outside much :O

[Neo_Kuja]

And don't forget the cost of upgrading ........

[DarkStar]

Unreal Engine 3.0 has either not been talked about or not been talked about much.

Actually, it's been talked about to death.

[Pi Mu Rho]

Unreal Engine 3.0 has either not been talked about or not been talked about much. First off why do I consider it the next evolution?

Because at lease half of the most popular games are based on the Unreal Engine.

No they're not.

Unreal Engine 3.0 has been in development for about 18 months now and utilizes every special effect that the latest graphics cards have. Not only does it support Pixel Shader 3.0 and Hight Dynamic Range Lighting, but it uses a HDR64 Bit Color display now among many other new features.

Pity it doesn't run at anything like a playable rate on current cards.

The Unreal 3.0 Engine blows even the most anticipated games such as Half-Life 2, Doom 3, Far Cry and Stalker, out of the water.

The Unreal 3.0 engine isn't a game. By the time it's out, if, Valve etc will have comparable engine technology.

They are already working on a title which is due to ship in early 2006. Major rumors say that it's a sequel to "Cannon Fodder" due to the Cannon Fodder looking creatures in the tech demo displayed at E3 2004 and Nvidia's 6800 Launh Event.

Sorry, that makes no sense whatsoever. Cannon Fodder was a military strategy game. The creatures in the tech demo were demonic-looking.




Sadly at the time they have no plans to do an unreal 3,

Broad assumption. Epic are working on something, and they're not saying what it is.

[redundant]

dude, if it comes out in 2 years, and it DOESN'T look better than hl2 and doom 3 now, then epic really need to take a good long look at themselves. seriously, that's like saying, "don't get hl2, because hl3 is going to be better"

DUH.

[The Dark Elf]

Cannon Fodder was one of the games I originally worked on and yup Unreal 3 looks bugger all like it. It's like saying Alien was a sequel to the Brady Bunch.......... ok so maybe it could have been, oh shut up! :p

[DarkStar]

Cannon Fodder was one of the games I originally worked on and yup Unreal 3 looks bugger all like it. It's like saying Alien was a sequel to the Brady Bunch.......... ok so maybe it could have been, oh shut up! :p

You worked on Cannon Fodder? Sweet Fenric! I loved that game when I was a kid.

[Alsi]

I used to play cannonfodder on my AMIGA 500+ ........ that was like 8 years or something ? Veeeery long ago :)

Nice Fenric! that game was really great.


ooop - at least some topic. First game will be released 2006 ? Way too long to compare with current games/engines.

[The Dark Elf]

You worked on Cannon Fodder? Sweet Fenric! I loved that game when I was a kid.
It was too much fun. I just worked on the conversion to the PC version not the original Amiga one.. I found it a few months ago on one of those abandonware sites. Brought back a lot of memories.. surprised nobody has said they'd do a Source version to be honest :)

[Pi Mu Rho]

Now there's an idea...

[PvtRyan]

Unreal Engine 3.0 has either not been talked about or not been talked about much. First off why do I consider it the next evolution?

Every little change is evolution... so yes, Unreal 3 is certainly evolution.



The Unreal 3.0 Engine blows even the most anticipated games such as Half-Life 2, Doom 3, Far Cry and Stalker, out of the water.

I think it's a bit unfair to compare an engine that considers a P4 3.2 and a 6800 Ultra low end spec to engines that are supposed to perform well on a GF3.

[The Dark Elf]

Now there's an idea...


You'd be one of the few people I'd trust to do it justice :)

[Chris_D]

I think Pi Mu Rho touched on it but games won't start using the Unreal 3.0 engine for another 2-3 years yet. Valve have said that Half-Life 3 won't take as long as HL2 did, simply because they won't have to build an engine from scratch. They will just update the Source engine and naturally it will be comparable to any other engines in development at the time.

I can remember having Cannon Fodder - was it on the Mega Drive too?

[The Dark Elf]

I think Pi Mu Rho touched on it but games won't start using the Unreal 3.0 engine for another 2-3 years yet. Valve have said that Half-Life 3 won't take as long as HL2 did, simply because they won't have to build an engine from scratch. They will just update the Source engine and naturally it will be comparable to any other engines in development at the time.

I can remember having Cannon Fodder - was it on the Mega Drive too?
I think Sensible Software converted it to a lot of platforms yeah.

[IchI]

The Unreal 3.0 engine isn't a game. By the time it's out, if, Valve etc will have comparable engine technology.

It won't be with the Source Engine though. Also if Valve did make an engine of this capabilitie you will have to wait for that game/engine to be released as well, which from the looks of it would proberly be about 1 year after Unreal Engine 3. I don't really see anyone beating Unreal Engine 3 to the punsh at all. Also I dought very much the Unreal Engine 3 showed the full capabilities of the engine.

[Cybernoid]

Half-Life 2 is SO outdated because the new Stalker 3 engine is coming in 2010! I'm already saving money to upgrade (the 2048 megabyte NVIDIA 90 000) for the FUTURE GAMES.

[Pi Mu Rho]

It won't be with the Source Engine though. Also if Valve did make an engine of this capabilitie you will have to wait for that game/engine to be released as well, which from the looks of it would proberly be about 1 year after Unreal Engine 3. I don't really see anyone beating Unreal Engine 3 to the punsh at all. Also I dought very much the Unreal Engine 3 showed the full capabilities of the engine.

So you don't think Valve are going to add those features (which are purely evolutionary - it's not some uber-technology that only Epic are privy to) by 2006? Of course they are.

Epic have just pulled off an advertising coup by showing their next-gen technology now, instead of waiting until there's a game released that uses it.

Valve and id have released a game now that is aimed at current technology. By the time 2006 comes around, PCs will have the grunt to run games with all of the Unreal 3.0 tech features. You can guarantee that id and Valve will have those features.

[Devilphish]

Source probably won't be heavily updated to the point of the Unreal3 engine until they go in to update it for HL3. But wether they will update it that heavily and how it will look when it's all said and done is speculation. The Doom3 engine on the other hand is already as powerfull as the Unreal3 engine. So yes, Doom3 engine "beat it to the punch".

[Gunner]

Unreal3 is not the next evolution.

QFE.

Just because it has purdy graphics does not necessarily mean it's an evolution.

[The Dark Elf]

Could all backfire for epic too.. They've played their cards very early on. They will now have to do something simply spectacular in two years time to compete with others who now, thanks to epic doing what they did at E3, have a better idea what they should be aiming to beat. Epic can't sit back and relax atall now because they'll all be trying to beat them.

Wow, I was on topic in this thread for once. Go me.

[Brian Damage]

Cannon Fodder was one of the games I originally worked on and yup Unreal 3 looks bugger all like it. It's like saying Alien was a sequel to the Brady Bunch.......... ok so maybe it could have been, oh shut up! :p

Blimey.

I never could figure that game out, though... Always got splattered by a helicopter...

[marksmanHL2 :)]

Cannon Fodder was one of the games I originally worked on and yup Unreal 3 looks bugger all like it. It's like saying Alien was a sequel to the Brady Bunch.......... ok so maybe it could have been, oh shut up! :p



Holy crap!


I absolutely loved that game. A true clasic. :cheers:

[Hudson]

I went forward in time and saw the ending of Unreal Tournament 2033.

According to the screen, I win.

[EVIL]

It won't be with the Source Engine though. Also if Valve did make an engine of this capabilitie you will have to wait for that game/engine to be released as well, which from the looks of it would proberly be about 1 year after Unreal Engine 3. I don't really see anyone beating Unreal Engine 3 to the punsh at all. Also I dought very much the Unreal Engine 3 showed the full capabilities of the engine.
Source is a Hybrid Engine, you can add and replace engine modules like the renderer, psychics, sound etc.. Source will be updated with better capabillity's as time allows it. It will be on the bleeding edge of game tech for a very long time.

They haven't spend 40 million in technology to let it outdate in two years, and thats also what they said themselves in some interview a while back.

[Devilphish]

Source is a Hybrid Engine, you can add and replace engine modules like the renderer, psychics, sound etc.. Source will be updated with better capabillity's as time allows it.

FFS, Source didn't invent the idea of an updatable engine. Source is not special in this reguard. It's amazing the way Valve pimps things that have been done for many years by many people and makes it so their fans think it is something amazing and revolutionary Valve has invented. ALL major engines are updated as time goes by, either by the developers or liscensees. This doesn't give Source any kind of edge over other engines.

It will be on the bleeding edge of game tech for a very long time.


It isn't on the bleeding edge of technology now =\ The gaming industry recognizes this. Peep out Source's TWO liscensees, DEVELOPING RPGS! Source will never be a major competitor in FPS. The engine is ugly by todays standards. Look at Bloodlines. Ugly. Look at CS:S. Ugly. HL2 barely competes with modern games graphically, and the only reason it gets away with being behind is because it is the sequel to HL. Speculating about wether it will be updated to reach the "bleeding edge" at some point in the years to come is useless. Source is behind, and while Valve is updating it other engines which are already into the next generation of technology will be updating aswell. If Valve wants Source to compete with major players like Doom3 engine in the next few years, they have some major catching up to do.

[what!?]

I don't think that Epic played their cards too early. I mean the D3 engine was shown at E3 2000/2001? Epic plans to have UE3 games out by 2006/2007. Doom III is just coming out now and it is the bleeding edge.

[Gunner]

The engine is ugly by todays standards. Look at Bloodlines. Ugly. Look at CS:S. Ugly. HL2 barely competes with modern games graphically, and the only reason it gets away with being behind is because it is the sequel to HL.

Ugly? you need to see an optician my friend.

[Pi Mu Rho]

The gaming industry recognizes this. Peep out Source's TWO liscensees, DEVELOPING RPGS!

Er, those are the two announced licensees. There's more, I assure you.

Source will never be a major competitor in FPS.

Well, it must be true if you say so. Regardless, engine licensing is secondary to Valve's business plan. Contrary to popular belief, it's not an enormous money-spinner. Even Epic make more money off game sales than they do from licensing.

The engine is ugly by todays standards. Look at Bloodlines. Ugly. Look at CS:S. Ugly.

That's your opinion, and I think you'll find a great deal of people disagree - myself included.

HL2 barely competes with modern games graphically, and the only reason it gets away with being behind is because it is the sequel to HL.

Which modern games are those then? Far Cry? I'd say HL2 competes easily with that. Doom 3? Ok, HL2 doesn't use the same unified lighting technology (as a matter of choice, not inability) but aside from that, it matches everything Doom 3 does.

[what!?]

I don't think that Source can compete with D3 and UE3, but HL2 and HL3 will still own.

[thehunter1320]

Unreal Engine 3.0 has either not been talked about or not been talked about much.

you obviously weren't here the day the footage was released

[Gunner]

I don't think that Source can compete with D3 and UE3, but HL2 and HL3 will still own.

It can and it will both financially and technically.

[Devilphish]

Find me a single shot of either bloodlines or CS:S that looks good enough to seriously compete with an engine like Doom3, and I will take back what I said.

Well, it must be true if you say so. Regardless, engine licensing is secondary to Valve's business plan. Contrary to popular belief, it's not an enormous money-spinner. Even Epic make more money off game sales than they do from licensing.


I never said it wasn't secondary. Pay attention to the topic. People on this forum are so accustumed to changing the topic of discussion in order to evade the point. We are talking about the evolution of engines over the next few years. Liscensees are a valid aspect of this discussion, reguardless of how important they are to Valve's business plan. My argument is that Source will not evolve quick enough to compete, because it is already behind and has nothing over the other major players that would warrent a developer liscensing it for a FPS. It is no coincidence that the only two liscensees are for RPGs. For first person shooters, Source isn't really a competitor.

Doom 3? Ok, HL2 doesn't use the same unified lighting technology (as a matter of choice, not inability) but aside from that, it matches everything Doom 3 does.

Wether it's a matter of inability or a matter of choice is irreleveant. And a unified lighting system is a MAJOR thing in gaming technology today. Developers will not be liscensing lightmap based engines for future games. That is the past. A unified lighting system is the future. Source is the near perfection of technology that is living it's last days as we speak. It may have done the old tricks very very well, but that doesn't change the fact that those tricks are now obsolete despite their exquisite execution. Source is the last engine of the last generation, it will not compete in the next generation, which we are entering right this moment, without major fundamental changes that are very unlikely to take place within the next year or two.

[^Ben]

http://bencodegood.co.uk/images/Image1.jpg

HL2 with doom3 lolzzzz

[Gunner]

For first person shooters, Source isn't really a competitor.

You must be either ignorant or just braindead, unless you haven't noticed they're porting CS to the source engine and do I have to remind you that CS is the biggest online FPS game ever?

And if it's not "pretty" enough for you then too bad, at least it will run on most computers unlike Doom 3. You don't need to be a major in economics to see who's going to make the most profits in the next few years.

[guchi]

http://bencodegood.co.uk/images/Image1.jpg

HL2 with doom3 lolzzzz

haha! nice!

[Pi Mu Rho]

Find me a single shot of either bloodlines or CS:S that looks good enough to seriously compete with an engine like Doom3, and I will take back what I said.

No. As I said, it's your opinion. I disagree with it. There's no burden of proof.



I never said it wasn't secondary. Pay attention to the topic. People on this forum are so accustumed to changing the topic of discussion in order to evade the point.

Are they? Can't say I've noticed. I, however, am not. I suggest you stop trying to patronise me.


We are talking about the evolution of engines over the next few years. Liscensees are a valid aspect of this discussion, reguardless of how important they are to Valve's business plan.

I disagree. Licensees are irrelevant to the evolution of an engine. Games drive development of engines.

My argument is that Source will not evolve quick enough to compete,
because it is already behind and has nothing over the other major players that would warrent a developer liscensing it for a FPS.

Already behind in what aspect? Aside from you opining that it's "ugly", in what aspects is it "behind" and to what other current games?

It is no coincidence that the only two liscensees are for RPGs. For first person shooters, Source isn't really a competitor.

You're basing that assumption on the two currently announced licensees. As Valve themselves have said, they have other licensees. You have no way of knowing if they're RPGs, FPSs, RTSs or Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing. You also can't assert that it's not a competitor, when you have no idea of the competition. How many licensees does Doom 3 have? Far Cry?

Anyway, who cares if it's licensed for FPS or not? That's an argument that you're having with yourself. You said yourself that we're discussing the evolution of engines.



Wether it's a matter of inability or a matter of choice is irreleveant.

No it isn't.

And a unified lighting system is a MAJOR thing in gaming technology today.

Not if they still want to target the lower end of the hardware market (which is where the majority of the sales are).

Developers will not be liscensing lightmap based engines for future games. That is the past.

And yet, people are. Funny, that.

A unified lighting system is the future. Source is the near perfection of technology that is living it's last days as we speak.

Living it's last days? Right....
Unified lighting is, indeed, the future. When the majority of the hardware can run it.

It may have done the old tricks very very well, but that doesn't change the fact that those tricks are now obsolete despite their exquisite execution.

Yes, I can really see people not buying HL2 because it uses lightmaps. "old tricks"? Are you basing your entire argument on the lack of unified lighting? That's a very weak house of cards.

Source is the last engine of the last generation, it will not compete in the next generation, which we are entering right this moment, without major fundamental changes that are very unlikely to take place within the next year or two.

Wow! Can I borrow your crystal ball? How on earth would you know what engine changes Valve have planned/already in development? Simple answer - you don't.

[Devilphish]

You must be either ignorant or just braindead, unless you haven't noticed they're porting CS to the source engine and do I have to remind you that CS is the biggest online FPS game ever?


Valve porting CS to Source has absolutely nothing to do with the point. The point is heavy hitters in the industry aren't using Source for major FPS titles like they are with Doom3 for a reason, because Source doesn't compete. Wether Valve decides to take a popular mod and port it to Source has no bearing on the topic, nor does it change the fact that CS looks only slightly better on Source.


And if it's not "pretty" enough for you then too bad, at least it will run on most computers unlike Doom 3.

2 things here. First, this is not a discussion about wether I think HL2 is pretty. I am simply talking about how engines will evolve over time. HL2 looks decent to me, that doesn't change the fact that Source is beaten to a pulpe by other engines. Second, it amazes me that so few of you realize that the system requirements for Doom3 are only slightly higher than Source. There is only a very small percentage of people who can run Source with acceptable framerates but not Doom3. Doom3 was made to run very well on todays hardware. There is no getting around that fact.

[^Ben]

Pim just give it up mate.

I gave all the points that would ever be needed about this topic.

There is no point trying to argue with someone so set in his ways. It dosen't matter to him that you have worked in the gaming industry HE IS RIGHT CUS COOMACK IS GODlol\

[Pi Mu Rho]

Second, it amazes me that so few of you realize that the system requirements for Doom3 are only slightly higher than Source. There is only a very small percentage of people who can run Source with acceptable framerates but not Doom3. Doom3 was made to run very well on todays hardware. There is no getting around that fact.


Could you make Half-Life 2 in the Doom 3 engine? No. Doom 3 was written with that style of game in mind.

Also, stop concentrating purely on the renderer. What other aspects make a game attractive to licensees? Netcode. Robust (and proven) mod tools. Those are major plus points to licensees.

[Gunner]

First you say:

Source will never be a major competitor in FPS. The engine is ugly by todays standards. Look at Bloodlines. Ugly. Look at CS:S. Ugly.

Then you continue to ramble on:

I am simply talking about how engines will evolve over time. HL2 looks decent to me

And you add:

The point is heavy hitters in the industry aren't using Source for major FPS titles like they are with Doom3 for a reason, because Source doesn't compete.

Just major FPS titles are you talking about? seriously I haven't heard of any game coming out that's going to use the D3 engine I don't know where you get your information from and it's certainely not making sense.

And you say Source doesn't compete, doesn't compete against what? against who? against D3? against imaginary future 3D FPS games? who are these "heavy hitters" you're talking about?

OH and FYI Valve porting CS to Source is relevant because you're talking about competition. So why don't you take your own advice and stop "changing the topic of discussion in order to evade the point".

[Devilphish]

I disagree. Licensees are irrelevant to the evolution of an engine. Games drive development of engines.

And who further creates games on an engine after the initial game is released? Lisencees. I never said liscensees are a driving force in the evolution of an engine. But they ARE a relevant aspect of this duscussion. How many developers liscense and engine give a hint as to what kind of role the engine will play in the industry over the next few years. As we can see with Source, you won't see it much outside of Valve's own projects and a few RPOGs. Maybe one or two FPS titles will use it, but they won't be major titles. The rest will flock to the Doom3 engine. Look at the facts.

Already behind in what aspect? Aside from you opining that it's "ugly", in what aspects is it "behind" and to what other current games?


Rendering ofcourse. We are currently undergoing a fundamental change in the way games are rendered. Engines using the old methods will be left in the dust in favor of the new and imporoved methods. Thats just the way it is.

You're basing that assumption on the two currently announced licensees.

No, I'm basing my predictions on the FACTS. Speculating that the secret liscensees are major FPS titles and change the whole landscape of the argument at hand would be an assumption. What I am doing is looking at the facts and leaving everything else, inluding liscensees we don't know about for ALL engines, out of it.

You also can't assert that it's not a competitor, when you have no idea of the competition. How many licensees does Doom 3 have? Far Cry?


We do have an idea of the competition. Doom3 has atleast 5 developers liscensing the engine for major FPS titles, leaving out the speculation on liscensees we don't know about. I'm not arguing in favor of the Farcry engine.

No it isn't

Yes, it is. The reasons why Source is behind are not relevant, the fact remains it is behind. Developers will liscense an engine depending on the state it is in, not the particular reasons it is in that state.

Not if they still want to target the lower end of the hardware market (which is where the majority of the sales are).

We are talking about games being liscensed today and will hit the market in a matter of years. What is considered low end today is irrelevant to such games. And it bears mentioning once more, the system specs for hl2 and Doom3 are virtually identical.

Living it's last days? Right....
Unified lighting is, indeed, the future. When the majority of the hardware can run it.


It can. And once more, we are talking about games that won't hit shelves for a year atleast, which means not only the majority can run it, but there won't be many gaming systems out there that can't.

Yes, I can really see people not buying HL2 because it uses lightmaps. "old tricks"? Are you basing your entire argument on the lack of unified lighting? That's a very weak house of cards.


=\ I never said people weren't going to buy the game. Don't argue against points I havn't even made, you are just wasting my time and yours. And it's not a weak argument. A unified lighting system isn't some superficial topping on the cake. It is the new revolution in gaming. It is the way future FPS will be rendered, and wether an engine has this feature is a huge determining factor as to wether it will be liscensed for many future games.

Wow! Can I borrow your crystal ball? How on earth would you know what engine changes Valve have planned/already in development? Simple answer - you don't.

Neither do you. thats the point. We have no idea what they will do, so we must leave it out of the argument and only look at the facts.

[Pi Mu Rho]

Funtime!

And who further creates games on an engine after the initial game is released? Lisencees. I never said liscensees are a driving force in the evolution of an engine. But they ARE a relevant aspect of this duscussion. How many developers liscense and engine give a hint as to what kind of role the engine will play in the industry over the next few years. As we can see with Source, you won't see it much outside of Valve's own projects and a few RPOGs. Maybe one or two FPS titles will use it, but they won't be major titles. The rest will flock to the Doom3 engine. Look at the facts.

You're not stating facts at all. You're stating opinions. You can not state that Valve won't get any major FPS licensees, and that they'll all flock to Doom. That's pure speculation.



Rendering ofcourse. We are currently undergoing a fundamental change in the way games are rendered. Engines using the old methods will be left in the dust in favor of the new and imporoved methods. Thats just the way it is.

No, that just the way you see it.

No, I'm basing my predictions on the FACTS. Speculating that the secret liscensees are major FPS titles and change the whole landscape of the argument at hand would be an assumption. What I am doing is looking at the facts and leaving everything else, inluding liscensees we don't know about for ALL engines, out of it.

Then that's an assumption. Because two RPGs have announced that they're licensing Source, doesn't mean that all licensees of source will be RPGs. That's just asinine.



We do have an idea of the competition. Doom3 has atleast 5 developers liscensing the engine for major FPS titles, leaving out the speculation on liscensees we don't know about. I'm not arguing in favor of the Farcry engine.

Name the 5.



Yes, it is. The reasons why Source is behind are not relevant, the fact remains it is behind. Developers will liscense an engine depending on the state it is in, not the particular reasons it is in that state.

Subjective. Source being "behind" is not a fact. It's your opinion.



We are talking about games being liscensed today and will hit the market in a matter of years.

Licensees that will continue to use code drops from the licensor during that time. Look ma! Engine upgrades! Do you seriously believe that anyone starting development today will stick with the engine as-is?

What is considered low end today is irrelevant to such games. And it bears mentioning once more, the system specs for hl2 and Doom3 are virtually identical.

No, it's not irrelevant. It's the market. You write games to sell. To the market.



It can. And once more, we are talking about games that won't hit shelves for a year atleast, which means not only the majority can run it, but there won't be many gaming systems out there that can't.

That shows quite a vast lack of knowledge about the gaming market.

=\ I never said people weren't going to buy the game. Don't argue against points I havn't even made, you are just wasting my time and yours. And it's not a weak argument. A unified lighting system isn't some superficial topping on the cake. It is the new revolution in gaming. It is the way future FPS will be rendered, and wether an engine has this feature is a huge determining factor as to wether it will be liscensed for many future games.

I'm fed up with this. Prove it. I'm not going to take your word for it.



Neither do you. thats the point. We have no idea what they will do, so we must leave it out of the argument and only look at the facts.

Then don't bring it up.

[Devilphish]

Just major FPS titles are you talking about? seriously I haven't heard of any game coming out that's going to use the D3 engine I don't know where you get your information from and it's certainely not making sense.


How about Quake4 and RTCW2, to name a few.

And you say Source doesn't compete, doesn't compete against what? against who? against D3? against imaginary future 3D FPS games? who are these "heavy hitters" you're talking about?


I'm not talking agmes, I'm talking engines. Source can't compete in the next era because it's rendering technology is too far behind. Doom3 technology will no doubt dominate the next generation, just as Quake3 technology dominated the last generation, and Quake2 technology dominated before that. Do you not see a pattern developing here? Is there any reason to believe the pattern will be broken? No, there is only evidence to the contrary. How many developers have liscensed Source that we know about? 2 RPG developers. How many developers have liscensed Doom3 technology that we know about? 5 FPS developers, some of them the biggest names in the biz. Now, given id's past engines and the facts asthey are now, is it any mystery which engine will dominate this next generation of FPS gaming? It shouldn't be.

OH and FYI Valve porting CS to Source is relevant because you're talking about competition. So why don't you take your own advice and stop "changing the topic of discussion in order to evade the point".

ATM I'm talking about engines competing with engines for future games. Valve deciding to take CS into Source has nothing to do with that discussion.

[Pi Mu Rho]

How about Quake4 and RTCW2, to name a few.

That's two. Name five

Oh, and your straw man about Quake 3 licensees is pointless. Valve had no engine to license out, and the other major licensor (Epic) had just about as many licensees during that period.

[Asuka]

Good post.

[ShinRa]

Unreal3 is not the next evolution, doom 3 was because it changed the way games are built. Unreal 3 seems to be like a beefed up Doom 3 engine. I expect the Doom 3 engine in 2006 to be able to do everything the Unreal 3 engine can. As of right now the Doom 3 engine can do 90% of the stuff the Unreal 3 engine is able to do. Epic like allways is one step behind ID and just ends up building a similar engine but then uses higher resolution textures and more polys to make it look better and fool people into thinking it is more advanced tech.

I love when people make up percentages and numbers, and when they think they know companies like they work for them. :rolleyes:

[Devilphish]

You're not stating facts at all. You're stating opinions. You can not state that Valve won't get any major FPS licensees, and that they'll all flock to Doom. That's pure speculation.


It's a prediction based on and backed up by facts.

No, that just the way you see it.


You would have to be incredibly unaware to not see the change in direction in games. Just to get this straight, are you actually arguing that unified lighting systems will not very soon become standard? Are you actually arguing lightmaps will still be standard over the next few years?

Then that's an assumption. Because two RPGs have announced that they're licensing Source, doesn't mean that all licensees of source will be RPGs. That's just asinine.


I havn't assumed they are all RPGs. What I have done is refuse to assume anything and only look at facts. We don't know what any supposed unnanounced game is, therefore leave assumption of anykind at the door and only look at facts. Don't assume they are RPGs, don't assume they aren't. Just look at the facts, and the facts are that only RPGs have been announced on Source.

Name the 5.

Raven Software, Splash Damage, Human Head, Nerve Software, The name of the fith elludes me but the game being developed is called Abduction.

Subjective. Source being "behind" is not a fact. It's your opinion.

Gaming technology has continually moved forward since the beginning, using tracks and hacks and then adandoning those tricks for new and better methods. A unified lighting system is the new and better way to light the gaming world, therefore anything which uses the older method is behind.

I'm fed up with this. Prove it. I'm not going to take your word for it.

All that should be required for proof is to look at current and upcoming game trends. You can see game deve;lopers are abandoning lightmaps in favor of a UL system, and therefore setting a new standard. Anything that is not up to par with this new standard will be left in the dust. Thats the way it has always been and thats the way it will continue to be.


Then don't bring it up.

You brought up the unannounced titles, not me. I leave speculation at the door and look at the facts.

[ShinRa]

devil, lightmaps fit for what hl2 is trying to do. the engine still supports full dynamic lighting and shadowing. as for everything else your talking about, while i cant argue because im not knowledged in this area, sounds like pure speculation and doom 3 fanboy-ism.

[Pi Mu Rho]

It's a prediction based on and backed up by facts.

Please provide some of these "facts" that you keep mentioning. You haven't shown any yet.



You would have to be incredibly unaware to not see the change in direction in games. Just to get this straight, are you actually arguing that unified lighting systems will not very soon become standard? Are you actually arguing lightmaps will still be standard over the next few years?



I havn't assumed they are all RPGs. What I have done is refuse to assume anything and only look at facts. We don't know what any supposed unnanounced game is, therefore leave assumption of anykind at the door and only look at facts. Don't assume they are RPGs, don't assume they aren't. Just look at the facts, and the facts are that only RPGs have been announced on Source.



Raven Software, Splash Damage, Human Head, Nerve Software, The name of the fith elludes me but the game being developed is called Abduction.



Gaming technology has continually moved forward since the beginning, using tracks and hacks and then adandoning those tricks for new and better methods. A unified lighting system is the new and better way to light the gaming world, therefore anything which uses the older method is behind.[/quote]

No, and if you read my previous posts, you'll see that I even stated that.

All that should be required for proof is to look at current and upcoming game trends. You can see game deve;lopers are abandoning lightmaps in favor of a UL system, and therefore setting a new standard. Anything that is not up to par with this new standard will be left in the dust. Thats the way it has always been and thats the way it will continue to be.

Sorry, that doesn't prove anything. Prove that people aren't going to license Source for FPS games.

You brought up the unannounced titles, not me. I leave speculation at the door and look at the facts.

Nice try, kiddo.

Source is the last engine of the last generation, it will not compete in the next generation, which we are entering right this moment, without major fundamental changes that are very unlikely to take place within the next year or two.

That's the quote I replied to. You claimed that Valve were unlikely to add any new tech within the next couple of years. I said you couldn't possibly know what they were going to do. Then you said "neither do you", so I said "don't bring it up then"

Don't try and turn it around.


Bottom line - Valve have said that it's entirely possible for a modder to implement full dynamic lighting. The engine is capable of it. Half-Life 2 wasn't written with it in mind, because Valve chose not to. That's a fact.

Source has the ability to use UL. Licensees can make use of that ability.

Simple enough?

[ShinRa]

not to mention valve has said through steam they plan to add 64 bit support, hdr64 support, and a ton of other features.

[Onions]

surprisingly, and this may shock you, i'd rather play a game that was great fun and looked like pi on a monday morning than a game that was as much fun as munro deleting a database and looked superb. i won't miss dynamic lighting in hl2, and i doubt you will either, so fux it :)

[Devilphish]

devil, lightmaps fit for what hl2 is trying to do. the engine still supports full dynamic lighting and shadowing. as for everything else your talking about, while i cant argue because im not knowledged in this area, sounds like pure speculation and doom 3 fanboy-ism.


I'm not arguing that lightmaps are wrong for HL2. It is the best solution for HL2 at the time being. But for future games there will be no need for lightmaps. Once we firmly plant ourselves in the next generation, lightmaps will be a thing of the past. And Source certainly does not feature an untapped unified lighting system. I am not a fanboy of anygame. Just because I am aware of the advances in the Doom3 engine does not mean I am a Doom3 fanboy. I look at the information in an unbaised light. I like both HL2 and Doom3, but I'm not so blinded by my love for either game that I can't look at information objectively.

Please provide some of these "facts" that you keep mentioning. You haven't shown any yet.


Fact number one: Future games will feature a unified lighting system rather than lightmap systems.

Fact number two: Source does not have a unified lighting system, while other engines which are just as advanced in all other respects, do feature a unified lighting system. There are currently no known plans by Valve to update Source with a unified lighting system in th enear future.

Fact number three: The only games we are aware of to liscense Source are two not so high-profile RPGs.

Fact number four: The only games we know have liscensed the Doom3 engine are 5 FPS, 2 of which are very high profile titles and 3 of the developers are very hgih profile developers.

All of these facts and others leade to the only logical conclusion, that Source will not be the dominate technology in the next generation, and that Doom3 will. This is the only logical conclusion one can reach when looking at the facts.


That's the quote I replied to. You claimed that Valve were unlikely to add any new tech within the next couple of years. I said you couldn't possibly know what they were going to d

This is only more opportunity for assumption, just like the supposed unannounced Source titles. We don't know what they will do, and they have not announced any plans to upgrade to a unified lighting system. We must not assume they will, and we must not assume they won't. We must operate without assumption and only look at the facts. The facts are thus: Source does not have a unified lighting system, and Valve have not announced plans to put one in.

Bottom line - Valve have said that it's entirely possible for a modder to implement full dynamic lighting. The engine is capable of it. Half-Life 2 wasn't written with it in mind, because Valve chose not to. That's a fact.


ANY engine is capable of it. The Quak2 enbgine was capable of it. just because an engine can be heavily modified to support a unified lighting system does not mean it can compete with engines that already have a unified lighting system. The Quake2 engine can't compete with the Doom3 engine, despite it's ability to be upgraded. IF Valve puts in a unified lighting system, then we can talk about Source competing. But we have no reason to believe this will happen any time soon, so it is useless speculation with no importance in this argument.

Source has the ability to use UL. Licensees can make use of that ability.


It is a fact that Source can be updated to a unified lighting system, and it is a fact liscensees can do this. But there are already other engines designed around a unified lighting system and have no drawbacks compared to Source for them to liscense, therefore there is no incentive for them to liscense Source and upgrade it themselves when they can liscense an already modern engine. Do you think we will see developers continuing to liscense the quake3 engine and updating it with a unified lighting system? No. It would be better to just liscense Doom3 wouldn't it? Yes. Same goes for Source.

Simple enough?

[Gunner]

How about Quake4 and RTCW2, to name a few.

Hmmm Quake IV and RTCW2 are property of ID software so it's only logical that they would use their own engine you nitwit.

[Pi Mu Rho]

All of these facts and others leade to the only logical conclusion, that Source will not be the dominate technology in the next generation, and that Doom3 will. This is the only logical conclusion one can reach when looking at the facts.

I'm sorry? When did this turn into a Doom 3 vs Source argument? Frankly, I couldn't give a flying Munro which one gets more licensees.

This is only more opportunity for assumption, just like the supposed unannounced Source titles. We don't know what they will do, and they have not announced any plans to upgrade to a unified lighting system. We must not assume they will, and we must not assume they won't. We must operate without assumption and only look at the facts. The facts are thus: Source does not have a unified lighting system, and Valve have not announced plans to put one in.

And to then draw conclusions from that is foolish.

id haven't announced plans to put HDR in Doom 3. Therefore, we must assume that they never will.

That's exactly what you're doing.



ANY engine is capable of it. The Quak2 enbgine was capable of it. just because an engine can be heavily modified to support a unified lighting system does not mean it can compete with engines that already have a unified lighting system.

Slow down there, boyo.

Heavily modified? No no no. Valve said that a mod could do it. As has been pointed out (and ignored by you) the engine does support dynamic lighting. A mod could use purely dynamic lighting - that's UL. Ergo, the engine is capable of supporting UL.


The Quake2 engine can't compete with the Doom3 engine, despite it's ability to be upgraded.

Quake 2 had UL added after the source was released. Not the same thing at all.


IF Valve puts in a unified lighting system, then we can talk about Source competing.

Are you being deliberately ignorant? The. Engine. Already. Supports. Unified. Lighting.

But we have no reason to believe this will happen any time soon, so it is useless speculation with no importance in this argument.

See above. In fact, read it twice, just to make sure that you get it.



It is a fact that Source can be updated to a unified lighting system, and it is a fact liscensees can do this.

See above. Again.

But there are already other engines designed around a unified lighting system and have no drawbacks compared to Source for them to liscense, therefore there is no incentive for them to liscense Source and upgrade it themselves when they can liscense an already modern engine.

Subjective. You pick the engine that suits your needs. As was already discussed, Valve chose not to use UL because their style of game didn't require it.


Do you think we will see developers continuing to liscense the quake3 engine and updating it with a unified lighting system?

Quite possibly, yes. Much like what was done with Splinter Cell on the Unreal engine. And Deus Ex 2. Sometimes, licensees replace the renderer....

No.

Don't presume to answer questions for me. Thanks.

It would be better to just liscense Doom3 wouldn't it?

No. There's so many other factors that you're ignoring. Cost, tools, staff experience etc. There's a lot of good reasons that a developer may choose to continue using Q3 and modify the renderer.

Yes.

Oops. You did it again.

Same goes for Source.

See above.

Simple enough?

Undeniably simple.

[Devilphish]

Doesn't matter, they are liscensing out their engine to Raven and whoever it is that is developing RTCW2. Well, I'm out of time for now. It's been interesting. The unwraveling of time will no-doubt prove me right. id's engines have always been and will continue to be masterpieces and the major driving force of each generation. Hell, the release of id's engines have defined the generations. You should know how it goes by now.

EDIT: No, Source does not have UL in it right now. Yes it has dynamic lighting, and yes a modder can put all dynamic lights into a map. No, that would not be a unified lighting system producing DOom3 type lighting. No, all shadows would not be correct. No, dynamic objects would not selfshadow and cast shadows onto other dynamic objects. You have to accept the fact, Source has a very primitive lighting system and shadowing system compared to Doom3. It's Quake3 ear stuff.

[Pi Mu Rho]

Doesn't matter, they are liscensing out their engine to Raven and whoever it is that is developing RTCW2. Well, I'm out of time for now. It's been interesting. The unwraveling of time will no-doubt prove me right. id's engines have always been and will continue to be masterpieces and the major driving force of each generation. Hell, the release of id's engines have defined the generations. You should know how it goes by now.

And once, again, failing to address any of the salient points. I applaud you.

EDIT: No, Source does not have UL in it right now. Yes it has dynamic lighting, and yes a modder can put all dynamic lights into a map. No, that would not be a unified lighting system producing DOom3 type lighting. No, all shadows would not be correct. No, dynamic objects would not selfshadow and cast shadows onto other dynamic objects.

and your source for this is?

You have to accept the fact, Source has a very primitive lighting system and shadowing system compared to Doom3. It's Quake3 ear stuff.

As used by the game Half-Life 2, it uses a method of lighting that is static and baked. "Primitive" is the wrong word. It also goes far beyond Quake 3. But hey, you've already left. Bye!

[EVIL]

Fact number two: Source does not have a unified lighting system, while other engines which are just as advanced in all other respects, do feature a unified lighting system. There are currently no known plans by Valve to update Source with a unified lighting system in th enear future.
Source has UL (EDIT: stated as fact, my fault)

Fact number three: The only games we are aware of to liscense Source are two not so high-profile RPGs.
Known since 2003
Fact number four: The only games we know have liscensed the Doom3 engine are 5 FPS, 2 of which are very high profile titles and 3 of the developers are very hgih profile developers.
known since 2000

Simple enough?

[Onions]

who cares? its only lighting :)

[SidewinderX]

EDIT: No, Source does not have UL in it right now. Yes it has dynamic lighting, and yes a modder can put all dynamic lights into a map. No, that would not be a unified lighting system producing DOom3 type lighting. No, all shadows would not be correct. No, dynamic objects would not selfshadow and cast shadows onto other dynamic objects. You have to accept the fact, Source has a very primitive lighting system and shadowing system compared to Doom3. It's Quake3 ear stuff.





anyway, i'd jsut like to add that Evolution is defined as "the change in the genetic makeup of a population over time"

So if all engine, in 3 or 4 years, have unified lighting, then yes, it will have been an evolution.

So UE3 can't be an evolution, as it's not all of the population. Mutation, yes. And mutation is a force behind evolution....

[Gunner]

who cares? its only lighting :)

It appears to be a matter of life and death to this man...

[Pi Mu Rho]

No, the only thing that's important to him is that Doom 3 has more licensees than Source.

That's all this was - Doom 3 vs Source. Notice the lack of any "other engines" that he frequently mentioned? How every single post was about Doom 3, and how it was better than Source? Seen it before, we'll see it again.

He just needs the attention, bless him.

[EVIL]

It appears to be a matter of life and death to this man...
I wouldnt even commented if there wasn't a gun in my neck *auch* "you don't have to shove it in my spinal cord .. SJEESH"

[Pi Mu Rho]

btw - in case none of you had realised, devilphish is none other than our dear friend, EvilEwok 2.0, the well-known Doom 3 fanboi and serial arguer.

[Gunner]

btw - in case none of you had realised, devilphish is none other than our dear friend, EvilEwok 2.0, the well-known Doom 3 fanboi and serial arguer.

Well well, I see what he was trying to do now.

So this was a another D3 vs HL2 thread in disguise!

[Pi Mu Rho]

Yep. It's what he does. He hijacks a convenient thread, and starts his argument. He initially comes across as knowledgeable, but on closer in spection, his "facts" tend to be strongly-presented opinions or speculation.
If there's a point which he can't argue against or deny, he just ignores it.
He attempts to twist what you've said by arguing against points you haven't made.
He always loses and quits in the same way.
He's been banned numerous times.

[^Ben]

Hot digidy damn!

Wel we didnt see that one coming :p (yeh right)

[marksmanHL2 :)]

btw - in case none of you had realised, devilphish is none other than our dear friend, EvilEwok 2.0, the well-known Doom 3 fanboi and serial arguer.



I thought I recognised his posts from somewhere.... :rolleyes:

[Brian Damage]

btw - in case none of you had realised, devilphish is none other than our dear friend, EvilEwok 2.0, the well-known Doom 3 fanboi and serial arguer.

Bloody hell! I made a guess at that weeks ago. I think I even PM'd the guess to a mod... err... probably Fenric, if memory serves...

Never thought I got it right...

[Eywanadi]

I love when people make up percentages and numbers, and when they think they know companies like they work for them. :rolleyes:


All I said was the Doom3 engine is 90% of the way to what was shown in the Unreal3 engine movie at E3. Sure it may not be exactly 90% but it is close. The only things U3 has that D3 does not is virtual displasment mapping, multiple cube maps for soft shadow effects (BTW it is a hack and only one shadow from that light can be soft shadowed and even then it has to be a 2d image and not a 3d object.) and HDR lighting ... but that may be allready be in D3.

Face it people ID software was the company that was inovative and re-defined the way games are built not Epic not Valve. It has allways been this way so is anyone really surprised that it happened again?

[kidrock450]

All I said was the Doom3 engine is 90% of the way to what was shown in the Unreal3 engine movie at E3. Sure it may not be exactly 90% but it is close. The only things U3 has that D3 does not is virtual displasment mapping, multiple cube maps for soft shadow effects (BTW it is a hack and only one shadow from that light can be soft shadowed and even then it has to be a 2d image and not a 3d object.) and HDR lighting ... but that may be allready be in D3.

Face it people ID software was the company that was inovative and re-defined the way games are built not Epic not Valve. It has allways been this way so is anyone really surprised that it happened again?


I dont think this debate(arguement?) would be going on if the game was released last year...For me I think Source is still a good engine but definetly not top of the line. If it were released last year before Far Cry and all the new Doom3 footage we (well I) would have been a little more pleased with the engine. Just my honest opinion...flame away.

[Pi Mu Rho]

All I said was the Doom3 engine is 90% of the way to what was shown in the Unreal3 engine movie at E3. Sure it may not be exactly 90% but it is close. The only things U3 has that D3 does not is virtual displasment mapping, multiple cube maps for soft shadow effects (BTW it is a hack and only one shadow from that light can be soft shadowed and even then it has to be a 2d image and not a 3d object.) and HDR lighting ... but that may be allready be in D3.

Face it people ID software was the company that was inovative and re-defined the way games are built not Epic not Valve. It has allways been this way so is anyone really surprised that it happened again?

I'd just like to modify your statement a bit here...


Face it people ID software was the company that was inovative and re-defined the way engines are built not Epic not Valve. It has allways been this way so is anyone really surprised that it happened again?

In terms of gameplay, Half-Life beat anything that id have ever done. Half-Life redefined the FPS genre.

[PvtRyan]

Devilphish, Evil Ewok, whatever your name is, can you show me what's so special about the unified lighting system of Doom 3? Basically, all it does is dump lightmaps and bruteforce per pixel lights. So all Source has to do, is dump lightmaps and implement per pixel lights and switch from projected shadows to the per pixel shadows.
This isn't blind fanboyism, it's just plain true, there's no reason why Valve wouldn't be able to do this.

Stop promoting UL like it's the best thing since sliced bread, it's not a brilliant secret in a conspiracy only Epic and id know of.

[Pi Mu Rho]

PvtRyan:

Don't bother. He's a troll.

[PvtRyan]

PvtRyan:

Don't bother. He's a troll.

No, a troll just likes to piss people off, I think this one actually believes everything he says.

[Eywanadi]

I'd just like to modify your statement a bit here...


Face it people ID software was the company that was inovative and re-defined the way engines are built not Epic not Valve. It has allways been this way so is anyone really surprised that it happened again?

In terms of gameplay, Half-Life beat anything that id have ever done. Half-Life redefined the FPS genre.


Yes you are 100% right, I worded it wrong.

[IchI]

Tbh, I am on Devilphish's side. Pi Mu Rho is totally missing his point.

Also I am getting pritty sick of everyone bumbing out the Source engine. Its basiclly HL1 with better textures and loads of small features put together. The main problem with the Source engine is the fact that it still uses textured lighting. I can proberly see it been the last game to use it as well.

Just to mention something, HL2 was never about pimped out graphics it was about gameplay. They could have done this and that blah blah blah but they didn;t want to to nor did they need too. But this doesn't mean that the engine still isn't crap in terms of eye candy. The End...

HL2 will be good, but the engine is the end of its kinda. FACE IT!

[Gunner]

HL2 will be good, but the engine is the end of its kinda. FACE IT!

omfgz0r not again... here face this!

[EVIL]

UL the way of the future huh? what if somehow everyone desides to use VOXELS :O

[^Ben]

Hehehe voxels going back there sonny jim!

[brink's]

But this doesn't mean that the engine still isn't crap in terms of eye candy. The End...


Well thats your own opinion and you will find that more people then not think HL2s eye candy is very impressive.

[El Cid]

I'd just like to know what other "major" FPS's he was talking about that are using the Doom3 engine(other then RTCW2). Almost all "major" FPS's HAVE THERE OWN engine.

[Neutrino]

I'd just like to know what other "major" FPS's he was talking about that are using the Doom3 engine(other then RTCW2). Almost all "major" FPS's HAVE THERE OWN engine.

I don't know who you were quoting or what they were talking about but:

- RTCW2 (Known)
- Quake IV (Known)
- The Quest (http://www.gamestar.de/news/pc-spiele/action/16272/ and http://www.doom3world.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=1433)
- Dark Harvest (http://www.doom3world.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=1371)
- Maybe something by Human Head (http://www.ferrago.com/story/1370)

And: http://www.ownt.com/specials/2003/doom3/doom3.shtm

Todd Hollenshead says, engine licensing accounts for 20% of id
Software's revenue.

It's speculation, but based on that statement and the amount of attention surround the D3 engine I'd assume that quite a few companies are going to be after licensing the engine for their games. Of course you can argue that these either are or aren't "major" FPS games. Some may be and others may not. Doesn't really matter to me, but just thought I'd list some possible D3 engine users.

[Eywanadi]

Only the programers make any money off the D3 engine licences ... maybe the co-owners but the artists I bet do not see a penny of the money from licensing ... so I find it hard to swallow that ID is in it to make engines only.

[Neutrino]

... so I find it hard to swallow that ID is in it to make engines only.

Who said that?

[Eywanadi]

Who said that?

I mis-read the post above mine but none the less someone was probably thinking it.

[Zoorado]

All I said was the Doom3 engine is 90% of the way to what was shown in the Unreal3 engine movie at E3. Sure it may not be exactly 90% but it is close. The only things U3 has that D3 does not is virtual displasment mapping, multiple cube maps for soft shadow effects (BTW it is a hack and only one shadow from that light can be soft shadowed and even then it has to be a 2d image and not a 3d object.) and HDR lighting ... but that may be allready be in D3.

Face it people ID software was the company that was inovative and re-defined the way games are built not Epic not Valve. It has allways been this way so is anyone really surprised that it happened again?

Well, looks like DOOM 3 now has soft shadows (http://d3c.ngz-network.de/e107_files/downloads/wallpapers/doomguy.jpg).

And they already look more impressive (softer, smoother, and more realistic) than those in the released UE 3.0 screens, at least IMO. If the soft shadows in DOOM 3 are fully dynamic, per-pixel accurate and unified across the gameworld (which I think it will be), then there's no doubt it blows the next-gen Unreal Engine out of the water, in terms of shadowing techniques.

Robert Duffy mentioned in the PCGamer article that the DOOM 3 engine contains extremely advanced features that no current hardware can render at acceptable framerates, making the engine and the game looks more future-proof. I guess dynamic soft shadowing is probably one such feature.

[^Ben]

That is not soft shadowing there.

If you look just under his arm you can see the super hard shadow that the doom engine uses.

Now as i've said doom 3 "can" do soft shadowing but it's a very intensive recourcse hack and pretty frankly looks like crap.

[Neutrino]

Well, looks like DOOM 3 now has soft shadows (http://d3c.ngz-network.de/e107_files/downloads/wallpapers/doomguy.jpg).

And they already look more impressive (softer, smoother, and more realistic) than those in the released UE 3.0 screens, at least IMO. If the soft shadows in DOOM 3 are fully dynamic, per-pixel accurate and unified across the gameworld (which I think it will be), then there's no doubt it blows the next-gen Unreal Engine out of the water, in terms of shadowing techniques.

Robert Duffy mentioned in the PCGamer article that the DOOM 3 engine contains extremely advanced features that no current hardware can render at acceptable framerates, making the engine and the game looks more future-proof. I guess dynamic soft shadowing is probably one such feature.

Lol, there aren't any soft shadows in that pic.

And it's not going to "blow Unreal 3 out of the water." Oh please, Unreal 3 is the next generation engine after Doom3. You can't even compare them. :rolleyes:

[EVIL]

Lol, there aren't any soft shadows in that pic.

And it's not going to "blow Unreal 3 out of the water." Oh please, Unreal 3 is the next generation engine after Doom3. You can't even compare them. :rolleyes:
There are definatly soft shadows in that image, or else you would have the same effect that new HELLKNIGHT wallpaper had on the model.

[Eywanadi]

Lol, there aren't any soft shadows in that pic.



Actually taking a close look it looks like the shadow gets soft in the upper left corner ... so maybe ... lets wait and see ...
:D :cheers: :D

[Neutrino]

Where the heck are you people seeing soft shadows? If your referring to the shadowing on the character model, that's not soft shadowing. Soft shadowing would be if the shadow cast by the character were soft.

Look, Doom 3 is not going to have soft shadowing. Even Ureal 3 has to use a hack that uses interpolation to achieve the effect, and it's not running on today's hardware. You can even see that in the latest techtv video that there is no soft shadowing. The only soft shadows will be projected shadow maps used for things like grates and fans. But those aren't real shadows and won't be all that common.

[Zoorado]

Lol, there aren't any soft shadows in that pic.

And it's not going to "blow Unreal 3 out of the water." Oh please, Unreal 3 is the next generation engine after Doom3. You can't even compare them. :rolleyes:

Did you even look at the pic? Look at the guy's left forearm. Look at his right arm. Look at his chestplate. Look at the right hand side of the wall (on which his entire body, along with his shotgun casts a really soft shadow). In fact, I can't even spot a single hard-edged shadow being cast on the marine.

[Zoorado]

Where the heck are you people seeing soft shadows? If your referring to the shadowing on the character model, that's not soft shadowing. Soft shadowing would be if the shadow cast by the character were soft.

Totally wrong. :rolleyes:

[Neutrino]

Totally wrong. :rolleyes:

Please enlighten us then. Sources would be helpful too.:)

Because I don't think I am wrong. These are soft shadows:

http://www.ce.chalmers.se/old/staff/tomasm/images/soft2003_balls.jpg

Just like I said. Soft shadowing is when the shadows cast by a model are blurred with distance. The farther the distance the more blurred the shadow becomes. The lighting on the model on the other hand is the interaction of the light itself and the normal map of the model.

Please feel free to ask anybody who knows about these things. Ask one of the mods here. Fenric's a good one as he's in the gaming business. D3's just not going to have soft shadows. Sorry.

[^Ben]

Well i can see hard edged shadows in the picture.

And wha i think your getting confuzzled with is self projected softshadows.

[Zoorado]

Please enlighten us then. Sources would be helpful too.:)

Soft shadows are shadows with soft and fuzzy edges. It doesn't matter who or what cast them. Look at other DOOM 3 pics or screenshots. The self-shadowing looks good, but notice that they are always hard-edged. This shot of the DOOM marine is different, in that all the self-shadowing involves soft shadows. In fact, like I mentioned in my previous post, the marine himself does cast a really soft shadow on the right side of the wall (look closely and you'll see).

Furthermore, the UE3 was demonstrated on a 6800 Ultra with smooth framerates, whereas Robert Duffy, in his interview with PCGamer, said that DOOM 3 contains graphical features that no current hardware can support reasonably yet (more details in the upcoming official FAQ). Well, like most engines evolve over time, I guess id merely pre-empted the evolution and incorporated addition state-of-the-art features into the DOOM 3 engine.

Finally, soft shadowing and self shadowing are not mutually exclusive. But if you insist that it is, well, I've nothing more to say.

[^Ben]

The UE3 demo was not smooth.

In tight corridors with a small draw distances it was smooth. In the outside levels it was low FPS.

You cant really tell if that is him casting the shadow and it's still not actually soft. (JPG compression anyone?)

If you look just under his arm where the bumpy bit is on his wrist that is a hard edged shadow right there.

Also how did they manage to slink in soft shadowing within a tiny time frame of the last official media coming out.

And why isnt there a big media thing going on?

[Neutrino]

Soft shadows are shadows with soft and fuzzy edges. It doesn't matter who or what cast them. Look at other DOOM 3 pics or screenshots. The self-shadowing looks good, but notice that they are always hard-edged. This shot of the DOOM marine is different, in that all the self-shadowing involves soft shadows. In fact, like I mentioned in my previous post, the marine himself does cast a really soft shadow on the right side of the wall (look closely and you'll see).

Furthermore, the UE3 was demonstrated on a 6800 Ultra with smooth framerates, whereas Robert Duffy, in his interview with PCGamer, said that DOOM 3 contains graphical features that no current hardware can support reasonably yet (more details in the upcoming official FAQ). Well, like most engines evolve over time, I guess id merely pre-empted the evolution and incorporated addition state-of-the-art features into the DOOM 3 engine.

Finally, soft shadowing and self shadowing are not mutually exclusive. But if you insist that it is, well, I've nothing more to say.

I still maintain that it's not going to have true soft shadowing. Also, soft shadows are not just "shadows with soft and fuzzy edges". That's just a blurred shadows. A soft shadows changes that amount of "fuzziness" over distance.

I just don't see anything in that pic that really shows soft shadowing. Plus you can't discount the fact that the shadows in the latest movie aren't soft.

[Zoorado]

The UE3 demo was not smooth.

In tight corridors with a small draw distances it was smooth. In the outside levels it was low FPS.

Fair enough. But I'm not really concerned with outdoor levels here, since DOOM 3 will not have much outdoors.

You cant really tell if that is him casting the shadow and it's still not actually soft. (JPG compression anyone?)

You can say that about every UE3 screenshot with soft shadows.

If you look just under his arm where the bumpy bit is on his wrist that is a hard edged shadow right there.

Well, it's about as hard-edged as the shadows here (http://www.unrealtechnology.com/screens/DynamicLight.jpg).

Also how did they manage to slink in soft shadowing within a tiny time frame of the last official media coming out.

Carmack has been playing with per-pixel floating point features and whatnot since the introduction of R300 and OGL 1.5's fragment and vertex programs. That was at the beginning of 2003. Details can be found in his last .plan update (the very long one).

And why isnt there a big media thing going on?

Cos it can't run or run well on today's high-end hardware, probably.

[IchI]

Tbh, I think Neutrino is correct. A Soft shadow would get harder as its close to a wall and softer as it is moved away until it disapears completely.

[^Ben]

Im not saying every UE3 screenshot has softshadows.

Im just saying i dont belive doom 3 has them yet.

[Zoorado]

I still maintain that it's not going to have true soft shadowing. Also, soft shadows are not just "shadows with soft and fuzzy edges". That's just a blurred shadows. A soft shadows changes that amount of "fuzziness" over distance.

I just don't see anything in that pic that really shows soft shadowing. Plus you can't discount the fact that the shadows in the latest movie aren't soft.

I don't know what is "true" soft shadowing, but if you mean life-like soft shadows generated via bounced lighting or GI, then no, I'm sure DOOM 3 ain't gonna have it. And I don't see the difference between your definition of soft shadows and mine. But never mind. :)

You choose to believe what you want to believe, I guess. That is, until concrete proof shows up. But it won't be long until that happens, hopefully.

P.S. If current hardware can't render stencil soft shadows or whatever soft shadowing technique id might be using, I doubt they would want to release videos or movies of it running at <10 fps. :P

Sorry if I seem to be spamming, didn't mean it.

[Pi Mu Rho]

Ichi: with regards to your Source/Doom 3 rant - don't state your opinions as facts. Thanks.

[IchI]

Also I am getting pritty sick of everyone...

I can proberly see it been the last game to use...

I...

HL2 will be good, but the engine is the end of its kinda.

Why will first person shotters use textured lighting again? may be for a low budget game, but then again you lot where blabing on about how easy it is to implement. Also the fact that we are talking about major corporation games like ID Valve and Epic and not some random crappy game.

so... I don't get how I tryed to bring it across as fact, its just a speculation about what will happen and is happening. Its also semi opinion as well.

:cheers:

[Snakebyte]

A friend and I have decided the best use of the U3 engine would be to make a third-person view dark/moody Diablo 3.
It would be beautiful.

[Asuka]

A friend and I have decided the best use of the U3 engine would be to make a third-person view dark/moody Diablo 3.
It would be beautiful.

Diablo 1,2 are the worst games ever. NO SKILL AT ALL TO PLAY. BORING! At least thats my opinion.

[IchI]

Diablo 1,2 are the worst games ever. NO SKILL AT ALL TO PLAY. BORING! At least thats my opinion.

LOL, tbh. I have never actually liked them my self. But that doesn't stop them been ****ing amazing.

1. They are made by Blizzard, I can't even remember Blizzard making a bad game...
2. Try asking telling that to the millions of Koreans that still play them as proffesionals (Kinda means your no skill point is.... pointless):P