Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
If nobody else has told you, Doom III is hard capped at 60fps. So that will always be the maximum framerate for the game. Until its hacked that is
Unless you are running it in benchmark mode (e.g. timedemo).
id hasn't done me wrong for the past 6+ years. Valve made Half-life, which was nice (based on an id engine), and the community made CS and Team Fortress which are also nice. Then Valve made HL: Opposing Force, HL: Blue Shift, Steam, CS: Condition Zero, and the little thing about lying to your community about release dates. Even assuming it wasn't to sell more video cards. Yea, I think I know who I trust.
I think it looked great, and even ran decently. Just that it isn't as polished an engine as you would see from id or Epic.
isnt doom 3 gonna be a slow paced game anyway? i mean for ut u need nice fluid framed 60+ because theres so much action......but i find it playable all the way down to 20fps....i wouldnt no i was doin crap fps if i didnt use fraps
Demanding of what? GPU or CPU/system?
As lovely as doom 3 looks, I think HL2 will be more taxing on the GPU because it's more shader intensive from what we've seen so far. I think it'll be more CPU intensive too; it'll undoubtably have more complex AI than Doom 3 coz the baddies need to do more than just scare the sheeeets out of you in confined spaces, and all that clever facial animation and lip-syncing has got to cost something too.
I'm really looking forward to both though and I'm sure I'll find them equally engrossing for different reasons.
As lovely as doom 3 looks, I think HL2 will be more taxing on the GPU because it's more shader intensive from what we've seen so far. I think it'll be more CPU intensive too; it'll undoubtably have more complex AI than Doom 3 coz the baddies need to do more than just scare the sheeeets out of you in confined spaces, and all that clever facial animation and lip-syncing has got to cost something too.
I'm really looking forward to both though and I'm sure I'll find them equally engrossing for different reasons.
Doom III will be more taxing, although FAR CRY makes any video card stretch it's legs. HL2 will probably be the funnest game out of the 3 and Doom III the scariest:wine:
Huh?
You can have as many shaders as you want to cripple the game but it will still look like s***. Just compare the screenshots of DooM 3 and HL2 and then read about the engines behind them.
I think Unreal was better than Half-Life because it pioneered most of the stuff HL got credit for - for example, friendly NPCs and elaborate scripted sequences.
Plus, I agree, I think the level design was superior and it just generally had more of a *wow* feeling...
But, hey, there's no accounting for taste.
carmack says that he starts out coding engines predicting where the hardware technology will be a few years out.. he actually has enough power and sway to move hardware where he wants it to go to match what he wants development-wise apparently...
plus right before NV30 got released he was continually updating how the game interacted with that hardware, and im sure there are now Geforce6 optimizations, especially with that shadowing feature that the GF6 supports now.
John Carmack seems to be really picky about his engines, they are his babies... especially Doom3. He's really been taking his time with the team going over and optimizing everything. im sure the game has been in a playable state for the longest time...they want everything smoothed out and clean.
and I always see people talking about what kind of environments Half Life 2 vs Doom 3 are 'optimized' for, or 'run best with'.
We just havent seen Doom3 ripping through the terrain of mars...the main reason isnt cause the engine cant do it well or do it efficiently, its just not in the nature of the game! you cant walk around on mars...its not scary, and its a little more of a stretch than a space base on mars
But theres no question that the mod community will apply the engine to something more real-life or outdoors, then theres a more apples to apples comparison i suppose.
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
If nobody else has told you, Doom III is hard capped at 60fps. So that will always be the maximum framerate for the game. Until its hacked that is
I wasn't aware of that up until now. In any event, all indications point towards DoomIII being a more demanding game than HL2.
I dunno which will be most demanding but I can SURE tell you which I will be demanding most: HALF-LIFE 2!!!!! GET THAT SUCKER OUT ALREADY!!! /cheers at HL2 but boos at Sierra
demanding and best looking/most advanced are two different things...
Carmacks engine will most likely run the best, and look the best out of the 3 games.
And a little known fact...
If doom 3 used high resolution textures like the UE3 demo, and they upped the poly count a bit (these are all purely content not engine limitation), it would rival UE3. And im sure the vertex shader function to enable VDM wont be hard for a third party dev to implement.
And UE3 still uses lightmaps for static objects. So in some ways Doom 3's engine can beat UE3
Carmacks engine will most likely run the best, and look the best out of the 3 games.
And a little known fact...
If doom 3 used high resolution textures like the UE3 demo, and they upped the poly count a bit (these are all purely content not engine limitation), it would rival UE3. And im sure the vertex shader function to enable VDM wont be hard for a third party dev to implement.
And UE3 still uses lightmaps for static objects. So in some ways Doom 3's engine can beat UE3
No one will know the answer to this forsure until all 3 games are released (well except far cry of course). Speculation from what we have seen of HL2 & doom don't count. Optimization of code is actually one of the last steps developers take until then they have a lot of junk in them like debug code. Carmack is known in the game industry to make gound breaking games and have very tight code. Look at quake 3 when it was released; it had great graphics for the time and ran good on medium range video card like the TNT but past performance doesn't mean future performance (looks like a rule from the stock market belongs here )
)
Regs
Lifer
- Aug 9, 2002
- 16,665
- 21
- 81
I think they'll both require the same amount of horse power.
I don't know why anyone would care if it's capped at 60. You'll be missing out a lot of eye candy if you tweak your top-o-line hardware to run the game that fast. The game of Doom does not need 80 FPS ++.
And If Half Life 2 runs sluggish, then Valve should just shoot himself because his life as a game developer has ended. But HL2 is at the moment is vaporware to me. So I can only compare D3 and FC.
I don't know why anyone would care if it's capped at 60. You'll be missing out a lot of eye candy if you tweak your top-o-line hardware to run the game that fast. The game of Doom does not need 80 FPS ++.
And If Half Life 2 runs sluggish, then Valve should just shoot himself because his life as a game developer has ended. But HL2 is at the moment is vaporware to me. So I can only compare D3 and FC.
Doom 3 will be most demanding on the graphics card. I think Far Cry will be most demanding overall, and Half Life 2 will be most demanding on the CPU (phyiscs).
Just judging from the doom alpha which is far from the final game image quality wise, is as good or in some cases better.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter