Suddenly Doom 3 looks like horse poo.

[DRGrim]

A quote from the guy who made them:

and all images renderde by lightscape

The software did all the lighting. Thats the only thing that makes these images better then other ones. If you take any CGI scene and render it with radiosity, it will look much more realistic. Of course, it also takes much longer.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: DRGrim
A quote from the guy who made them:

and all images renderde by lightscape

The software did all the lighting. Thats the only thing that makes these images better then other ones. If you take any CGI scene and render it with radiosity, it will look much more realistic. Of course, it also takes much longer.

Exactly. I'm not a 3d modeler by any means, but I'm sure if I took a quake 3 level, threw in a few models, and rendered it with radiosity it would look just as good.

 

[Lunarcade]

Originally posted by: maladroit
Computer generated?

No way???

:Q

 

[SHoddyCOmp]

Wow, regardless how it was done it looks great :Q

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Exactly. I'm not a 3d modeler by any means, but I'm sure if I took a quake 3 level, threw in a few models, and rendered it with radiosity it would look just as good.

I'm sorry, but your opinion just lost all merit. What about poly counts or texture quality or light placement or the architecture in general? Just running a Quake3 map through radiosity routines will not make it look this good - not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Supermercado]

Wow, some of those are really spectacular. Who cares if they're not real-time? They still look incredible.

 

[BD2003]

Where do you see high poly counts? Most of the pics are of rooms without a hint of furniture. Architecture has nothing to do with photo-realism. As far as texture quality, I assumed it went without saying that higher quality textures would be used.

The main point is the geometry is lacking in most pics. Its mostly just damn good lighting, and that has nearly nothing to do with the artist.

 

[DRGrim]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Exactly. I'm not a 3d modeler by any means, but I'm sure if I took a quake 3 level, threw in a few models, and rendered it with radiosity it would look just as good.

Funny you should say that. Quake 3 uses simple radiosity for the maps (not in-game lighting).
But essentially that?s right.

I'm sorry, but your opinion just lost all merit. What about poly counts or texture quality or light placement or the architecture in general? Just running a Quake3 map through radiosity routines will not make it look this good - not by any stretch of the imagination.

You are blinded by the light
If you look closely, you will see things like misaligned textures, repeated textures, bad lighting, et cetera.
Poly count has nothing to do with it. You can fake it with bump mapping, displacement mapping, and so on.
If you rendered those scenes without radiosity, they would probably look plain and uninteresting.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Where do you see high poly counts? Most of the pics are of rooms without a hint of furniture. Architecture has nothing to do with photo-realism. As far as texture quality, I assumed it went without saying that higher quality textures would be used.

The main point is the geometry is lacking in most pics. Its mostly just damn good lighting, and that has nearly nothing to do with the artist.

The lighting has everything to do with the artist. He has to set the points where the light comes from, the color of the lighting, the intensity of the light and the reflectivity(is that a word?) of the objects. A lot more went into those pictures than you can comprehend.

 

[BD2003]

The same things went into every FPS level. Which is why I said nearly nothing. This is just higher quality.


You just simply wouldnt be impressed without the radiosity lighting. Thats the only thing that truely sets it apart. Looks like I'm not alone either.

 

[joohang]

DAMN! :Q

 

[DaiShan]

Those pictures are amazing, there were several that I could NOT distinguish from a real photograph.

Looks like Casiotech has some competition

 

[Czar]

when we get player character models like this one I'll be happy

 

[phatcow]

i wonder what software program was used for that anyways?

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Lunarcade

Originally posted by: maladroit
Computer generated?

No way???

:Q

I agree. Anyone else think these two ARE real? Funny how some of those pics look like corridors or rooms in a high quality fps game, and then there's these two.
If these are fake, then I'm sold.

 

[pcmodem]

Yo,
The jump from the Quake III engine to the Doom III engine is pretty hefty.

For the first time, heads look the proper 3D shape, instead of like a 2D shaded polygon.

Yeah, it's not perfect, but the Doom III engine looks good enough to keep me happy for a while. By the time of Carmacks next generation (Doom IV or whatever it's titled) engine, video cards will be many generations advanced and capable of even greater realism.

My prediction is nearly photographic realism with the Doom IV engine and whatever generation video card (nVidia or whoever), 3-4 years from now. Of course, demands may change the path of development... for example, people may start demanding wrap-around capability in the view.

-PCM