• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How is it HL2 runs so much smoother than Doom3?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: VanillaH
since when does one need 1 gig of memory to play a fvcking game?
i must be in the boondocks.
Click to expand...
it never hurts to have more ram. you should have gotten in on that $40 AR deal at oupost.

Originally posted by: dwell
Doom3 engine > Source engine

Play Vampire Bloodlines and you see how bad the Source engine looks with normal textures. Valve used some really good texture work to hide the fact that the geometry is pretty simple. Doom3 levels are a lot more complex and there is a lot beating on the GPU like the lighting engine.
Click to expand...

kinda reminds me of the age old quake3 vs UT graphics debate. doom3 had way more polygons to boot, but UT did look pretty good for its time.
Click to expand...
To the original quoted post:
Valve used crappy textures, AFAIK (512x512) compared to something like UT2004 (1024x1024).
If you think they used good texture work, well, they could do better, and some of the HL2 textures look crap.
And if Vampire looks crap, it's the devs fault, not the engine.
I'm sure someone couold make a crap looking game with the Doom 3 engine, it wouldn't mean the engine sucked.
And UT rules 😛
 
Originally posted by: dwell
Originally posted by: purbeast0
i think the route that valve went was actually better. performance makes the gameplay, not the graphics. not to mention the graphics in HL2 are incredible (as are doom)
Click to expand...
Not just performance, but visuals go a long way. Doom3 only looks "technically" better than HL2 because of the lighting and bump-mapping. Artistically, HL2 blows Doom3 away and that's all that really matters when you are playing the game. Valve allowed HL2 to not only look great, but to play on modest hardware. Great work!
Click to expand...

Hmm.. perhaps HL2 as more "artistic" value...

Anyway... Doom3 will also play on modest hardware with the right settings, and to me with older hardware (GF3) Doom3 actually looks better than HL2. I can't say about older ATI cards as i have none to test other than my current 9600xt.
 
cause Doom3 sucks, that's why 😛

Halflife2 ran surprisingly well on a $30 Radeon 7000 with the default settings the game felt like using. and the best part, it STILL LOOKED GOOD.

Great game.
 
Valve used crappy textures, AFAIK (512x512) compared to something like UT2004 (1024x1024).
If you think they used good texture work, well, they could do better, and some of the HL2 textures look crap.
And if Vampire looks crap, it's the devs fault, not the engine.
I'm sure someone couold make a crap looking game with the Doom 3 engine, it wouldn't mean the engine sucked.
Click to expand...
i have never seen HL2 in action, i was just making a comparison between quake and the very first UT (came out back in 2000 i believe)

And UT rules 😛
Click to expand...
no doubt about it 🙂
 
Your video tweaks in doom3 must have screwed something up, because my computer is slower than yours and I never get slowdowns at 640x480 medium quality. In fact I run 1024x768 medium and it doesn't lag enough to lower the resolution or turn the settings down with zero tweaks.
 
its because doom 3 a truly a next geration engine. all the lighing in dynamic much more complicated geomerty, and thier is alot mroe going on in the textures than in HL2. now given this fact HL2 in my opinion is the better game but doom3's engine is far better and it will be itneresting too see what comes of it in the following mounth/years
 
Originally posted by: dwell
Doom3 engine > Source engine

Play Vampire Bloodlines and you see how bad the Source engine looks with normal textures. Valve used some really good texture work to hide the fact that the geometry is pretty simple. Doom3 levels are a lot more complex and there is a lot beating on the GPU like the lighting engine.
Click to expand...

That doesn't have anything to do with the engine. You make your models completely separately. Have you seen how they make the models? They make concept art, then a very very high res, many polys model. Then they "optimize" the model by cutting out as many polys as they can while still getting a decent looking figure. Then they stick that in the game.

The engine is completely independent of textures and models. That's something completely different. Seen those screens of D3 running on 2 V2 1000s in SLI? Looks like shyte (but kinda cool they got it to work). Can you say D3 looks bad? No. Does this have anything to do with the D3 engine and source engine? No. What does this have to do with anything? Nothing. Just like how models and textures have nothing to do with the engine.
 
I'm in the same boat as the OP (with worse hardware-1600+ and 256MB of RAM). Tried all the tweaks for Doom3 and it almost ran as fast as HL2 does for me. I agree that we'll probably see some sweet stuff coming out of the Doom3 engine from other companies. Once I'm done with HL2, I plan to try Bloodlines.
 
Originally posted by: dwell
Doom3 engine > Source engine
Click to expand...

I don't know about that.

"Doom 3 engine graphics > Source engine graphics", yes
but
"Current Source engine capabilities > Current Doom 3 engine capabilities", absolutely
 
They both ran pretty well, but I was able to run HL2 at 1600x1200 more comfortably.
I'd be inclined to say Doom3 uses more lighting and shaders but it's impossible to know for sure unless you can get into some of the code. Maybe someone can create a benchmark map for each game, totally identical in each. But then again, there's more than one way to do many things, and each engine may be optimized for different processes. I'm sure they're both capable of great performance.


"Current Source engine capabilities > Current Doom 3 engine capabilities", absolutely

Which capabilities exactly? Physics is handled by the Havok physics engine. I can't think of anything else...?
 
Originally posted by: EpsiIon
Originally posted by: dwell
Doom3 engine > Source engine
Click to expand...

I don't know about that.

"Doom 3 engine graphics > Source engine graphics", yes
but
"Current Source engine capabilities > Current Doom 3 engine capabilities", absolutely
Click to expand...

doom3 didnt give us much for its capabilities, T&L aside. of course, rendering a black screen *shouldnt* be as hard as it is 😛 HL2 definitely showed off more, that's for sure.
as others have said, new stuff using both engines will be interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top