doom 3 and wolfenstein engine?

[cornbolish]

When i first saw wolfenstein i wa like WOA!!! my computer wont be able to handle that if it has troubles with halflife... but what surprized my was that my computer could handle wolfenstein and more AND IT LOOKED AWSOME! http://forums.newdoom.com/UBB/biggrin.gif while halflife had allot of lag issues and it looks 7/10 compares to wolfensteins 10/10....

ANYWAYS...

Do you think that doom3 will be able to run in high res on slower computers just like wolfenstein?

(talking about RTCW)

[Deathgiver]

Not very likely, cornbolish.

[Doom_Dude]

I really doubt it will.

------------------
http://www.newdoom.com/hosted/themegawad/sig/vilesig1.GIF (http://www.newdoom.com/hosted/themegawad/ndcp)
http://www.newdoom.com/hosted/themegawad/Ndcp/themegawad.JPG (http://www.newdoom.com/hosted/themegawad)
----Linedef Technician and Sector Maker Upper----

[The Undertaker]

RtCW is based on Q3, which we can do 300+ fps at 1600x1200. Doom3 will be the complete opposite.

[Aliotroph?]

If Carmack does a good job optimizing his code then DooM III won't be too bad but it won't run fast on slower computers or computers with anything less than a GeForce3. I have a GeForce2 MX on my nicer computer and I can run engines like Tenebrae without much problem if I don't turn on the all the slowest features. Bump-mapping isn't the worst. It's not bad at all. The shadows are bad but they're still not the worst. There are reflection and fancy glare features that really lag games.

The next version of Tenebrae is supposed to be a huge rewrite so it will be interesting to see how that goes on my computer. It will be closer to Quake3 crossed with DooM III than Q1.

I think the thing that's eating frames in DooM III right now is probably all the really high-polygon models. Stencil shadows get really slow when they have loads of polygones to deal with.

------------------
"Once in a while a programmer really writes something he's proud of, a slick, elegant, blazingly fast routine that stands as a benchmark against which other code will be judged by. However, this is not the case with TED's fill routine. This slow, stupid algorithm will casually fill one plane of data in a painfully creeping manner. Press ESC when it gets confused." - John Romero on TED (Tile EDitor)

Aliotroph?.postCount++;

[Mad Max RW]

Everyone thought the same thing for Quake 3.

[Ninja_of_DooM]

Unreal II looks like a monster of an engine but it only lags in certain areas like big gun fights and such. It actually runs quite well for me and I think DooM II will run smoother than unreal II.I think with a bit more work, Unreal IIs graphics engine could have run better. http://forums.newdoom.com/UBB/smile.gif

------------------
Member of the NewDooM megawad team. Map 14: Jail Break.

My own little bunch of WADs. Containing 3 individual maps. Download it here (http://sparky.suhost.com/pub/hosted/ninja/ninja_of_doom_wads.zip)

Thanks to Sparky for the hosting.
If you would wish to host this then contact me at by E-mail. mailto:AndrewAFE@aol.comAndrewAFE@aol.com</A>

Hint to all Katana owners: Never sit on yours, It'll give you a very sore ass indeed.

[The Undertaker]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, serif">quote:</font><hr width="100%" size="1" noshade><font face="Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, serif" size="2">I think DooM II will run smoother than unreal II</font><hr width="100%" size="1" noshade></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course it does.

[ToXiCFLUFF]

Well, in the alpha I broke down what caused the slowdown. Unsurprisingly, the specular lighting on every surface in the game caused the largest slowdown, which is unfortunate since it is one of the main reasons Doom3 has that excellent shiny hi-tech look.

Without the specular lighting, lights don't overbright, giving the game a flat unreal-ish appearance. My system can't handle it with specular lighting on so I don't use it.

Which is a shame because I've always hated environment mapping's crappy random suggestions of reflection - and some games stick the effect on everything, so I can't wait until the specular method becomes standard.

The stencil shadows cause fuck all slowdown really, it's only when you have an enemy/enemies lit by 3 or more lights that it really starts computer killing. I don't know too much about stencil shadowing, but I'm betting that multiple lights multiply the polycount by a hell of a lot. That's what will be the real challenge of editing I think, the fact that you can only have a few lightsources in a room. I think one of the ID guys said it's much more like lighting a film and therefore needs a different approach.

I wasn't very impressed with Unreal2's visuals - not that visuals are of primary importance to me in a game (I'm on a doom forum after all), but a game as flaccid as Unreal 2 depends on their merits more. I've just never liked the look of most unreal games - the lighting seems to have a lower brightness range than Quake3 and no matter how much detail they stick into the architecture and scenery, the games still look flat to me.

I think lighting is the most important thing in making a game look good - with Tenebrae, even quake with it's ancient blocky levels and models looks better than many modern games. To me, case in point that higher detail doesn't necessarily make a game look better (obviously assuming that we're not talking about a cube or something here).

Alio: Isn't the next Tenebrae release without content though??? Just a standalone platform for mod developers?