Doom 3 engine programmed with efficiency?

[jkostans]

I would love to get some additional input here. I set the quality to low, and disabled everything in the advanced options menu, and set the resolution to 640x480. Then I did timedemo demo1.demo, and all I got for a score was ~72fps. This is my system:

Windows XP Pro
Athlon XP 3000+ (Barton 166Mhz fsb)
1GB DDR333 RAM running at 333Mhz
Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB

I don't understand how the score can be that low with this system. Theres nothing special going on with the graphics as far as I can tell. The polygon count is very low, the texture resolution is very low, and no advanced effects like bump mapping or specular highlights are enabled. I would think I would be getting 200+ fps with these kind of conditions. I mean the graphics can't possibly be anything more than quake3 at its highest level (and I get around 300fps high quality 1024x768) . I would love for someone to come up with a good explanation for this horrendous performance on pretty decent hardware. And please, if you have doom 3, post your results and system specs. Set the quality to low, turn all of the advanced options off, and run timedemo demo1.demo .

 

[notfred]

Doom 3 engine programmed with efficiency? I certainly don't think so

Like you would know. Ever written OpenGL code? How about a physics modelling system? Maybe a raytracer? WTF do you knowabout 3D games programming?

 

[clicknext]

Why don't you try playing the game instead of turning all the graphics off and benchmarking pointlessly? Afterall, games are for playing.

 

[RichieZ]

Originally posted by: notfred

Doom 3 engine programmed with efficiency? I certainly don't think so

Like you would know. Ever written OpenGL code? How about a physics modelling system? Maybe a raytracer? WTF do you knowabout 3D games programming?

I've written a ray tracer in openGL, and all I can say it doom3 looks a hell of a lot better than anything i did, and mine was butt slow

 

[DefRef]

John Carmack has written the engines for Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Quake, Quake 2, Quake 3 & Doom 3 which have not only powered their titular games, but countless licensees.

jkostans has written 8 posts, one of which asserting that Doom 3 is a lousy piece of code writing.

Hmmmm....who to believe?:roll:

 

[masterxfob]

your system sucks

 

[Schadenfroh]

john carmack's doom 3 runs without low frame rates on my 6800GT, as a matter of fact, BF: vietnam runs choppier than doom 3. I get 100FPS according to the FPS meter, but it just feels horrible, physics suck, 2 foot fall kills me, cant turn withotu the image skipping, even tho im at a constant 100FPS with it. (vietnam BTW, not doom 3), carmack did an amazing job with doom 3 in terms of graphics/performance ratio.

 

[Deadtrees]

Wow....just Wow...
What do you know about OPENGL coding? I mean, what do you know about coding 3d FPS engines?
You certainly don't have a clue about those stuffs, yet you have guts to say all those stuffs here?
Man, you're just a retard.

 

[Staples]

Effects are logrithmic. Little fine finishing touch details are going to stress you video card the most.

 

[screw3d]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
john carmack's doom 3 runs without low frame rates on my 6800GT, as a matter of fact, BF: vietnam runs choppier than doom 3. I get 100FPS according to the FPS meter, but it just feels horrible, physics suck, 2 foot fall kills me, cant turn withotu the image skipping, even tho im at a constant 100FPS with it. (vietnam BTW, not doom 3), carmack did an amazing job with doom 3 in terms of graphics/performance ratio.

I can't agree more. EA needs to hire better programmers who actually know what efficiency is :frown:

 

[BFG10K]

Stencil volume shadows are quite taxing on the hardware and if this game was programmed by anyone else other than the ID team you can be certain it'd run far slower.

 

[Murphy Durphy]

I thought the time demo was posting low results. It said 33fps for me but seemed to run much higher. *shrug*.

 

[Yanagi]

I wish you would try to code DOom 3 yourself. Get back to us in 4 years and we'll see what you have achieved

 

[Nebor]

Your game has much better graphics, and less demanding system requirements, right? What was the title again?

 

[jkostans]

It's pretty funny how only one person actually tried to give an explanation (thank you BGFG10K and Staples), while the rest of you pointlessly spammed me. I never said it was a piece of crap engine, I'm just curious as to why it performs so poorly when all of the advanced graphics options are turned off. I really didn't think i was goign to offend 90% of the people who read the post. I would still like to hear some other explanations, and other people's results would be nice too. But if you're planning to add another "what do you know about coding mr. 8 posts" reply, then please just don't. Hope that's not too much to ask.

 

[DefRef]

Original version of the last post follows:

ITS PRATY FUNY HOW ONLY ON3 P3RSON ACTUALY TREID 2 GIEV AN EXPLANATION (THANK U BGFG10K AND STAPL3S) WHIEL TEH REST OF U POINTLESLY SPMMED ME!1!!!11 OMG I N3VER SADE IT WAS A PEIC3 OF CRAP ANGIEN IMM JUST CURIOUS AS 2 Y IT PERFORMS SO PORLY WHAN AL OF DA ADVANCED GRAPHICS OPTIONS R TURNED OF!!1!1!1 WTF LOL I RILLY DIDNT THINK I WAS GOIGN 2 OF3ND 90% OF TEH PEOPLA WHO R3AD TEH POST1!!! OMG WTF LOL I WUD STIL LIEK 2 H3AR SOM3 OTHER AXPLANATIONS AND OTH3R P3OPLES R3SULTS WUD B NIEC 2!1!1!! WTF LOL BUT IF UR PLANNG 2 AD ANOTHER WUT DO U KNOW ABOUT CODNG MR!!11!1! WTF 8 POSTS R3PLY THEN PLZ JUST DONT11!1! WTF LOL HOP3 TAHTS NOT 2 MUCH 2 ASK!1!! OMG LOL

You came in here implying that your poor performance was due to Carmack being a lousy coder and wonder why everyone jumped on you? You probably wonder why your car (1985 Plymouth Horizon) doesn't go 0-60 in 3.2 seconds after you change into shorts and use premium gas.

clicknext said it best - "Why don't you try playing the game instead of turning all the graphics off and benchmarking pointlessly? Afterall, games are for playing." - and maybe you should try playing the game and seeing if it works for you instread of defeating the purpose of the engine (to make pretty pictures) by stipping away all the candy-coating for some juvenille wang-measuring purpose.

 

[Modeps]

You should uninstall AOL, Bonzai Buddy and Comet Cursor, they hurt your computer's performance.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: DefRef
John Carmack has written the engines for Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Quake, Quake 2, Quake 3 & Doom 3 which have not only powered their titular games, but countless licensees.

jkostans has written 8 posts, one of which asserting that Doom 3 is a lousy piece of code writing.

Hmmmm....who to believe?:roll:

:thumbsup:

 

[Mareg]

Originally posted by: jkostans
I would love to get some additional input here. I set the quality to low, and disabled everything in the advanced options menu, and set the resolution to 640x480. Then I did timedemo demo1.demo, and all I got for a score was ~72fps. This is my system:

Windows XP Pro
Athlon XP 3000+ (Barton 166Mhz fsb)
1GB DDR333 RAM running at 333Mhz
Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB

I don't understand how the score can be that low with this system. Theres nothing special going on with the graphics as far as I can tell. The polygon count is very low, the texture resolution is very low, and no advanced effects like bump mapping or specular highlights are enabled. I would think I would be getting 200+ fps with these kind of conditions. I mean the graphics can't possibly be anything more than quake3 at its highest level (and I get around 300fps high quality 1024x768) . I would love for someone to come up with a good explanation for this horrendous performance on pretty decent hardware. And please, if you have doom 3, post your results and system specs. Set the quality to low, turn all of the advanced options off, and run timedemo demo1.demo .

The engine I think was coded with mainstream performance in mind. Yes there are Doom3 system bitch, but the fact is most of the recently bought system (< 1 year) with a decent video card (FX5600U/R9600 and up) will get the most out of the game.
I base this opinion on my personnal score. Being able to play this game with every eye candies options on, a video quality set to HIGH and in 800X600 at average FPS of 45 and dip that wont go below 30 (in game, no stupid timedemo please) with a 9600 pro on a P4 2.8 and budget 1gig of memory is a huge achievement in my book. I wouldn't even dream of cranking all options to high in a game like FarCry and put Aniso8X expecting my FPS to be that good.

I think Carmack is a god reincarnated for offering me the next gen game with all the graphics flavor at very playable frame rate.

 

[tinyabs]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Stencil volume shadows are quite taxing on the hardware and if this game was programmed by anyone else other than the ID team you can be certain it'd run far slower.

How to turn that off. I hate shadows. It's dark everywhere and I have to shine the damn torch all the time. And not to mention the dark and narrow corridors.

Anyway, I'm playing well with my FX5200, though choppy.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: DefRef
John Carmack has written the engines for Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Quake, Quake 2, Quake 3 &amp; Doom 3 which have not only powered their titular games, but countless licensees.

jkostans has written 8 posts, one of which asserting that Doom 3 is a lousy piece of code writing.

Hmmmm....who to believe?:roll:

:thumbsup:

 

[BFG10K]

How to turn that off. I hate shadows.

You can turn off some dynamic shadows in the video options section but the rest are always there because they're inherent to the game and the engine.

 

[Cawchy87]

Originally posted by: clicknext
Why don't you try playing the game instead of turning all the graphics off and benchmarking pointlessly? Afterall, games are for playing.

amen. if you pay money to see numbers get higher...

 

[yhelothar]

get a faster cpu... at those settings, you're being cpu limited, and your cpu isn't that fast..

 

[MrChad]

id games have always pushed the envelope of computer technology. Quake II required a 3D accelerator to run well (not very commonplace at the time), Quake 3 taxed even the most powerful systems at the time of its release. It should come as no surprise that Doom 3 now requires the absolute state-of-the-art to run it at high quality settings. It's not about inefficiency, it's about raising the bar for 3D graphics engines, which id has done for over ten years now. It's important that games like Doom 3 not cater to the majority of systems out there. Without "killer apps", the state of the art will never advance.