Quake 4?

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: ikickpigeons

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Man, this thread is nothing but misinformation.

No, Quake 4 will not be based on DirectX 10 tech. It is using the EXACT same engine as Doom 3 - in other words, DirectX 7 technology.

It is not outsourced to Gray Matter, who did RtCW (crap). It has been given to the vastly talented Raven Software, who basically do the something Id can never do: Build a good game on an Id engine.


For the record Id has let me down. Every game since Doom 1 has been the same. Space Marine. Zombies. Same damn thing. Doom 3 does not have me excited in the least except for the pretty face, and no I don't plan to buy it.

Quake 4, on the other hand, since it's being done by Raven, is definitely on my watch list.

I'm not suprised you don't plan to buy it, since it is the same as Doom, they are just rehashing the story.
I don't see how you can say Quake 3 was the same though, totally different angle on it all. Not zombies, humans Multiplayer, not single player.

(Never really got into iD games though, Epic all the way for me, from Unreal to UT2k4, I have bought them all).

i wonder how the unreal 3 engine is going to compare against the doom3 one.. its gonna get interesting.

Unreal Engine 3 will of course be better overall visually. Considering a 6800UE on a custom tweaked system provided by nvidia with god knows what hardware was pushing a whopping ~25fps on the scene with no monsters/players on screen.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: Childs
I guess I still don't quite get what you're saying. The graphics in id's games have nothing to do with Direct X. From what I undertstand graphic features like their uniform lighting system has nothing to do with Direct X, and I'm not even sure another game has made use of this kind of tech yet. A Geforce 256 can be DX 7 compliant, but that doesn't matter. The OpenGL support and performance is the real requirement. The DX part is for sound, networking, IO, etc. Unless I'm mistaken, implying Doom 3 is DX7 tech is very misleading.

Ugh, ok, infer some here.

Yes, Id's renderer's are built on OpenGL, so they technically have nothing to do with DX technology. However, the features that are being put to use in the Doom 3 tech mostly came around in the timeframe of DX7 and the original GeForce.

I suppose a clearer way to state it would be that Doom 3 is built on GeForce 1 level tech?

heh...I think its still somewhat misleading, because the GF1 was the absolute minimum. Most of the tech they created for D3 was written after GF1. Otherwise, its kinda like saying the UT2004 engine is base on Intel Extreme Graphics, or whatever lowend graphics can load up UT. If you want to see all the goodies, GF1 won't cut it, and probably a GF4/9600 wont cut it, so it would essentially exceed GF1 tech. And since Nvidia's architecture is unified, it would be like saying a 6800 is built on GF1 tech. It maybe true, but it hardly means that they have equal capabilities.

This is probably turning into semantics, and I see what youre saying, but I guess dont agree.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Childs
heh...I think its still somewhat misleading, because the GF1 was the absolute minimum. Most of the tech they created for D3 was written after GF1. Otherwise, its kinda like saying the UT2004 engine is base on Intel Extreme Graphics, or whatever lowend graphics can load up UT. If you want to see all the goodies, GF1 won't cut it, and probably a GF4/9600 wont cut it, so it would essentially exceed GF1 tech. And since Nvidia's architecture is unified, it would be like saying a 6800 is built on GF1 tech. It maybe true, but it hardly means that they have equal capabilities.

This is probably turning into semantics, and I see what youre saying, but I guess dont agree.

Yes the tech was written after GF1, but what I'm saying is that the features first came about and were first supported by the GF1 - we're just now getting to use them.

Kind of like high instruction shaders. Technically, NV30 supported shaders with 60,000-some instructions. But any shader longer than a few hundred instructions will slow even a 6800U/X800XTPE to a crawl. It's going to be a good while (probably, oh, 4 generations of video cards ) until we see shaders with instruction counts in the thousands - if they're even needed. From the looks of next gen engines (i.e. Unreal Engine 3, which uses shaders with a few hundred insctructions, mostly), we might not even NEED to go to thousands of instructions to get to photo realism. Hundreds may be enough.

 

[Marsumane]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: Childs
heh...I think its still somewhat misleading, because the GF1 was the absolute minimum. Most of the tech they created for D3 was written after GF1. Otherwise, its kinda like saying the UT2004 engine is base on Intel Extreme Graphics, or whatever lowend graphics can load up UT. If you want to see all the goodies, GF1 won't cut it, and probably a GF4/9600 wont cut it, so it would essentially exceed GF1 tech. And since Nvidia's architecture is unified, it would be like saying a 6800 is built on GF1 tech. It maybe true, but it hardly means that they have equal capabilities.

This is probably turning into semantics, and I see what youre saying, but I guess dont agree.

Yes the tech was written after GF1, but what I'm saying is that the features first came about and were first supported by the GF1 - we're just now getting to use them.

Kind of like high instruction shaders. Technically, NV30 supported shaders with 60,000-some instructions. But any shader longer than a few hundred instructions will slow even a 6800U/X800XTPE to a crawl. It's going to be a good while (probably, oh, 4 generations of video cards ) until we see shaders with instruction counts in the thousands - if they're even needed. From the looks of next gen engines (i.e. Unreal Engine 3, which uses shaders with a few hundred insctructions, mostly), we might not even NEED to go to thousands of instructions to get to photo realism. Hundreds may be enough.

Actually you can get the same result by running multiple shaders on the same area versus one long shader. Part of SM3.0 is longer shaders (R420 can "only" do around 100ish in shader length give or take some i dont remember the exact number) but NV40 can do way more (dont remember that number either). But the point is that you can get the same result by running multiple shaders as opposed to one long shader. (SM2.0 vs SM3.0 argument that we all know)

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
For the record Id has let me down. Every game since Doom 1 has been the same. Space Marine. Zombies. Same damn thing. Doom 3 does not have me excited in the least except for the pretty face, and no I don't plan to buy it.

I agree. Action Quake (a mod for Quake 2) is a better game than Quake 2 AND Quake 3. It was made by a bunch of 14-year olds! What does that tell you?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: Childs
I guess I still don't quite get what you're saying. The graphics in id's games have nothing to do with Direct X. From what I undertstand graphic features like their uniform lighting system has nothing to do with Direct X, and I'm not even sure another game has made use of this kind of tech yet. A Geforce 256 can be DX 7 compliant, but that doesn't matter. The OpenGL support and performance is the real requirement. The DX part is for sound, networking, IO, etc. Unless I'm mistaken, implying Doom 3 is DX7 tech is very misleading.

Ugh, ok, infer some here.

Yes, Id's renderer's are built on OpenGL, so they technically have nothing to do with DX technology. However, the features that are being put to use in the Doom 3 tech mostly came around in the timeframe of DX7 and the original GeForce.

I suppose a clearer way to state it would be that Doom 3 is built on GeForce 1 level tech?

AFAIK stencil shadows are NOT DX7 GF1-level tech. They are uber-tech, initially only possible on the R9700PRO AFAIK (I may be incorrect here). And what about the lighting? Isn't it DX9-level HDR or something?

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Man, this thread is nothing but misinformation.

No, Quake 4 will not be based on DirectX 10 tech. It is using the EXACT same engine as Doom 3 - in other words, DirectX 7 technology.

It is not outsourced to Gray Matter, who did RtCW (crap). It has been given to the vastly talented Raven Software, who basically do the something Id can never do: Build a good game on an Id engine.


For the record Id has let me down. Every game since Doom 1 has been the same. Space Marine. Zombies. Same damn thing. Doom 3 does not have me excited in the least except for the pretty face, and no I don't plan to buy it.

Quake 4, on the other hand, since it's being done by Raven, is definitely on my watch list.

Speaking of misinformation

dx7 != OpenGL

That is all.

 

[oldfart]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Man, this thread is nothing but misinformation.

No, Quake 4 will not be based on DirectX 10 tech. It is using the EXACT same engine as Doom 3 - in other words, DirectX 7 technology.

It is not outsourced to Gray Matter, who did RtCW (crap). It has been given to the vastly talented Raven Software, who basically do the something Id can never do: Build a good game on an Id engine.


For the record Id has let me down. Every game since Doom 1 has been the same. Space Marine. Zombies. Same damn thing. Doom 3 does not have me excited in the least except for the pretty face, and no I don't plan to buy it.

Quake 4, on the other hand, since it's being done by Raven, is definitely on my watch list.

I really liked RTCW. One of the best QuakeX engined games I've ever played.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Man, this thread is nothing but misinformation.

No, Quake 4 will not be based on DirectX 10 tech. It is using the EXACT same engine as Doom 3 - in other words, DirectX 7 technology.

It is not outsourced to Gray Matter, who did RtCW (crap). It has been given to the vastly talented Raven Software, who basically do the something Id can never do: Build a good game on an Id engine.


For the record Id has let me down. Every game since Doom 1 has been the same. Space Marine. Zombies. Same damn thing. Doom 3 does not have me excited in the least except for the pretty face, and no I don't plan to buy it.

Quake 4, on the other hand, since it's being done by Raven, is definitely on my watch list.

Speaking of misinformation

dx7 != OpenGL

That is all.

But OpenGL is constantly adding new features to accomodate what the newer graphics cards can do.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: Childs
I guess I still don't quite get what you're saying. The graphics in id's games have nothing to do with Direct X. From what I undertstand graphic features like their uniform lighting system has nothing to do with Direct X, and I'm not even sure another game has made use of this kind of tech yet. A Geforce 256 can be DX 7 compliant, but that doesn't matter. The OpenGL support and performance is the real requirement. The DX part is for sound, networking, IO, etc. Unless I'm mistaken, implying Doom 3 is DX7 tech is very misleading.

Ugh, ok, infer some here.

Yes, Id's renderer's are built on OpenGL, so they technically have nothing to do with DX technology. However, the features that are being put to use in the Doom 3 tech mostly came around in the timeframe of DX7 and the original GeForce.

I suppose a clearer way to state it would be that Doom 3 is built on GeForce 1 level tech?

Wont D3 incorporate HLSL? Hasnt this only recently begun to be added to the drivers of both ATi and nV?

 

[kylebisme]

he didn't say dx7 = opengl. he said doom3 is based on directx7 technology, which is the most effective way to explain the level of techology doom3 was designed around.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Man, this thread is nothing but misinformation.

No, Quake 4 will not be based on DirectX 10 tech. It is using the EXACT same engine as Doom 3 - in other words, DirectX 7 technology.

It is not outsourced to Gray Matter, who did RtCW (crap). It has been given to the vastly talented Raven Software, who basically do the something Id can never do: Build a good game on an Id engine.


For the record Id has let me down. Every game since Doom 1 has been the same. Space Marine. Zombies. Same damn thing. Doom 3 does not have me excited in the least except for the pretty face, and no I don't plan to buy it.

Quake 4, on the other hand, since it's being done by Raven, is definitely on my watch list.

Speaking of misinformation

dx7 != OpenGL

That is all.

But OpenGL is constantly adding new features to accomodate what the newer graphics cards can do.

Yes recent OpenGL has begun to advance again at a dramatic rate. I believe d3 uses HLSL which has only recently been supported. I am not sure what the requirements for stencil shadows is but im sure youre probably right that it is recent technology.

I just love it when someone says the game will be dx7 technology after they were complaining about how misleading the thread was. HLSL is supposed to be on par with ps3. OpenGL has always been more customizable (ie branching code etc) than dx.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
he didn't say dx7 = opengl. he said doom3 is based on directx7 technology, which is the most effective way to explain the level of techology doom3 was designed around.

I would like to see a GeForce1 run DoomIII with all features turned on, even at 0.1FPS. I would love to see a screenshot. Basically what I'm saying is that a DX9-level card will be required to run DoomIII with all of its advanced features turned on.

Yes, the DoomIII engine started off in DX7. It became considerably more advanced over the years though, to the point that it now requires DX9-level features to run the way it is meant to be run. HL2 took 5 years to make; I'm sure DoomIII took close to that as well. 5 years ago they didn't have the technology we have today so of course when Carmack started programming he was stuck using older tech.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
he didn't say dx7 = opengl. he said doom3 is based on directx7 technology, which is the most effective way to explain the level of techology doom3 was designed around.

Just because it will run on a card that is dx7 doesnt mean it is designed around that card. For instance I can play halo on a geforce2 but actually it was designed around a geforce 3.

It is like saying farcry is a ps1.1 game when in actuality it has some ps2 and ps3 features. It is hardly a dx8 game just because you can substitute PS1.1.

 

[Regs]

They most of started the new Unreal engine off of DX8. Now they started working DX9 features, soon to be DX10 and whatever technologies come out in 2005-2006.

 

[Insomniak]

Ok, lots of replying to do here...

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
he didn't say dx7 = opengl. he said doom3 is based on directx7 technology, which is the most effective way to explain the level of techology doom3 was designed around.

Firstly, he's right, and everyone else but me is wrong if you disagree with me.

Originally posted by: SickBeast

I would like to see a GeForce1 run DoomIII with all features turned on, even at 0.1FPS. I would love to see a screenshot. Basically what I'm saying is that a DX9-level card will be required to run DoomIII with all of its advanced features turned on.

I never argued against this. All I have been saying is that the Doom 3 engine is three year old technology. Want proof? It's been in development for four years. This is the same deal as Unreal Engine 3 - the technology exists today - it actually existed a year or so ago when Epic demo'd it at the NV30 launch, and has been in development for 20 months or so now. UE3 is close to two years old. By the time we see a game on it, it'll be 3.5 - 4 year old tech.

Cutting edge games are not made on new technology. It's just New To You. The features are supported by the graphics cards LONG before the graphics cards have the juice to run them at playable frame rates.

I think I actually said somewhere back there that there was no prayer in hell of a GeForce 1 running Doom 3, but I'm too lazy to check.

Anyway, the long short response: No duh.

Originally posted by: stnicralisk
Just because it will run on a card that is dx7 doesnt mean it is designed around that card. For instance I can play halo on a geforce2 but actually it was designed around a geforce 3.

Have you all been passing around the same dope? Who said anything was designed for DirectX 7? Who said games were designed around certain cards?

(The hell? Games are designed around selling them to whoever the hell wants to buy)


Let me re-condense this thread to close off all the off topic and completely unrelated tangents people have felt the need to inject:


THE GRAPHICS ENGINE POWERING DOOM 3 IS BASED ON A FEATURE SET FIRST INTRODUCED BY DIRECTX 7. GRAPHICS CARDS HAVE BEEN SUPPORTING THESE FEATURES EVER SINCE, BUT HAVE NOT REALLY BEEN POWERFUL ENOUGH TO RUN THEM AT PLAYABLE FRAMERATES UNTIL THE NV30/R300 GENERATION.


k? k.

 

[BFG10K]

Q4 was going to use the D3 engine and be outsourced to the same team that did RtCW, right

No, Raven will be doing Quake IV while Gray Matter did RTCW.

Quake 4 will use DX10 level technology.

Unlikely but we'll see.

The Doom 3 engine could run on a GeForce 1 - just not at playable framerates.

And with missing features.

From what I undertstand graphic features like their uniform lighting system has nothing to do with Direct X, and I'm not even sure another game has made use of this kind of tech yet.

Games like Deus Ex 2 and Thief 3 use per-pixel lighting and stencil shadowing.

 

[ikickpigeons]

i sorta thought this thread was about quake l||l not what tech doom 3 is using.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Ok, lots of replying to do here...

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
he didn't say dx7 = opengl. he said doom3 is based on directx7 technology, which is the most effective way to explain the level of techology doom3 was designed around.

Firstly, he's right, and everyone else but me is wrong if you disagree with me.

Originally posted by: SickBeast

I would like to see a GeForce1 run DoomIII with all features turned on, even at 0.1FPS. I would love to see a screenshot. Basically what I'm saying is that a DX9-level card will be required to run DoomIII with all of its advanced features turned on.

I never argued against this. All I have been saying is that the Doom 3 engine is three year old technology. Want proof? It's been in development for four years. This is the same deal as Unreal Engine 3 - the technology exists today - it actually existed a year or so ago when Epic demo'd it at the NV30 launch, and has been in development for 20 months or so now. UE3 is close to two years old. By the time we see a game on it, it'll be 3.5 - 4 year old tech.

Cutting edge games are not made on new technology. It's just New To You. The features are supported by the graphics cards LONG before the graphics cards have the juice to run them at playable frame rates.

I think I actually said somewhere back there that there was no prayer in hell of a GeForce 1 running Doom 3, but I'm too lazy to check.

Anyway, the long short response: No duh.

Originally posted by: stnicralisk
Just because it will run on a card that is dx7 doesnt mean it is designed around that card. For instance I can play halo on a geforce2 but actually it was designed around a geforce 3.

Have you all been passing around the same dope? Who said anything was designed for DirectX 7? Who said games were designed around certain cards?

(The hell? Games are designed around selling them to whoever the hell wants to buy)


Let me re-condense this thread to close off all the off topic and completely unrelated tangents people have felt the need to inject:


THE GRAPHICS ENGINE POWERING DOOM 3 IS BASED ON A FEATURE SET FIRST INTRODUCED BY DIRECTX 7. GRAPHICS CARDS HAVE BEEN SUPPORTING THESE FEATURES EVER SINCE, BUT HAVE NOT REALLY BEEN POWERFUL ENOUGH TO RUN THEM AT PLAYABLE FRAMERATES UNTIL THE NV30/R300 GENERATION.


k? k.

It is true that the game was first being developed with that technology but with the addition of HLSL it cannot be said that a card from four years ago could support all the features (regardless of framerates)

Someone else said that you were implying it was designed around the dx7 card technology which basically is the same thing you have said in bold but just in a different manner and with generally greater rudeness. I was replying to that person.

Also if you dont think Halo was developed around GF3 then I suggest you take a look at Xbox specs.

 

[Ninjazx]

LETS ASK CARMACK!

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: stnicralisk
Also if you dont think Halo was developed around GF3 then I suggest you take a look at Xbox specs.

I'm well aware of Xbox specs. Halo was not designed around the GeForce 3. It very well may have been designed around the feature set that the GeForce 3 supported.

 

[PacFu]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
he didn't say dx7 = opengl. he said doom3 is based on directx7 technology, which is the most effective way to explain the level of techology doom3 was designed around.

See, I disagree. Carmack has even said himself one of the most challenging things as an engine coder is when you begin to design something, you have to design to where you THINK technology is going to be in 2-3 years.

Games drive hardware, and the programmers work very closely with the gpu engineers. Just because a game started being coded during a timeperiod doesnt mean thats the technology its built on. Games are coded first and technology has to catch up to it.

here found the interview....

*snip*
"We made good strategic decisions two and a half years ago," Carmack explained. He went on to describe the problem content creators face when they're trying to push the graphical envelope: predicting where the videocard market will be three or even six years down the line. That's three years to bring a state-of-the-art game engine to market, and then another three years (hopefully) of the engine being relevant for gamers. Granted, Carmack has an easier time than most: He can influence the hardware manufacturers, making his designs somewhat self-fulfilling.
*snip*

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: stnicralisk
Also if you dont think Halo was developed around GF3 then I suggest you take a look at Xbox specs.

I'm well aware of Xbox specs. Halo was not designed around the GeForce 3. It very well may have been designed around the feature set that the GeForce 3 supported.

Also, it was designed for Mac, IIRC, then PC, THEN XBox, after they were probably already a way through the design, and hence was optimised and added to for the GF3 hybrid used in the XBox, but it was not designed for it, just made so it would work on it and wouldn't exceed for the platform the feature set.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Cutting edge games are not made on new technology. It's just New To You. The features are supported by the graphics cards LONG before the graphics cards have the juice to run them at playable frame rates.

I don't entirely agree with this. The Aurora engine Neverwinter Nights uses was created around the time when the GeForce 2 was popular. Neverwinter Nights supports Bump Mapping; my GF2 Ti does not.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I would like to see a GeForce1 run DoomIII with all features turned on, even at 0.1FPS. I would love to see a screenshot. Basically what I'm saying is that a DX9-level card will be required to run DoomIII with all of its advanced features turned on.

I never argued against this. All I have been saying is that the Doom 3 engine is three year old technology. Want proof? It's been in development for four years. This is the same deal as Unreal Engine 3 - the technology exists today - it actually existed a year or so ago when Epic demo'd it at the NV30 launch, and has been in development for 20 months or so now. UE3 is close to two years old. By the time we see a game on it, it'll be 3.5 - 4 year old tech.

So then I suppose you'll say that HL2 is based on DirectX 6 technology or something? It's been in development for over 5 years. The last time I checked, it was a DX9 game. They're saying it CAN run on older cards, even DX7, but it is a DX9 game, and must be run in DX9 to be played the way it was designed and meant to be played.

I always find these comments silly. I have read many times over that DoomIII is basically a DX7 game and it's simply ridiculous IMO. Simply because they started working on it when DX7 was the standard doesn't make it a DX7 engine. It would be like saying that all X86 CPUs are 1980's technology. Sure, the standard was created in the 80's, but 99% of the technology in the CPUs came far after that.