Quake3World.com • View topic - Why the doom3 engine completely sucks…

Quake3World.com Forums

id legends

Why the doom3 engine completely sucks…

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Topic Starter

Topic: Why the doom3 engine completely sucks…

inphlict
eminent

Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 9004

Posted: 05-02-2005 04:29 PM

I was trying to play through ROE and it hit me, the game completely blows. Then I realized that it’s not only the gameplay but the whole engine. The engine is way too dark and having sharp dark shadows is annoying and not realistic, in reality you can see in shadows but in doom3 you can never see anything under the dark shadows.

[lvlshot]http://satanael.free.fr/doom3/shot00011.jpg[/lvlshot]

This is a good example, how the hell can something cast a shadow so dark close to a light source? Anyway I uninstalled doom3 and ROE, disappointed and frustrated.

Top

Psyche911
True Nightmare

Joined: 02 Jan 2002
Posts: 3495

Posted: 05-02-2005 04:33 PM

I'll buy RoE from you for $5.

Top

inphlict
eminent

Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 9004

Posted: 05-02-2005 04:46 PM

I never said I owned it...

Top

Grudge
Approaching the singularity

Joined: 28 Jan 2002
Posts: 13393

Posted: 05-02-2005 11:54 PM

oh noes, Doom3 is not realistic!!!

Top

4days
4days

Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Posts: 8183

Posted: 05-03-2005 01:31 AM

inphlict wrote:
I was trying to play through ROE and it hit me, the game completely blows. Then I realized that it’s not only the gameplay but the whole engine. The engine is way too dark and having sharp dark shadows is annoying and not realistic, in reality you can see in shadows but in doom3 you can never see anything under the dark shadows.

This is a good example, how the hell can something cast a shadow so dark close to a light source? Anyway I uninstalled doom3 and ROE, disappointed and frustrated.

you're absolutely right, i don't know why iD even fucking bothered. actually, after i've had some lunch, i might knock out an engine that handles lighting more realistically than d3.

Top

r3t
the watching eye

Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 683

Posted: 05-03-2005 06:09 AM

inphlict wrote:
I never said I owned it...

but it obviously owned you

Top

nyxs-uk
Gibblet

Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 17

Posted: 05-03-2005 11:54 AM

Its the FIRST game to do real time stencil shadows & if you watched the gf3 launch video of the G5 mac you would of heard john carmack saying that for the first time hardware was starting to come out which could handle real time stencil shadows.

iD wouldn't program a ray tracing game engine if there is NO hardware out there to play the bloody thing on would they!
To show that better lighting is possible look at the link below. It was done at a uni for research purposes, knowing they couldn't sell it as nobody has the spec to do it. http://graphics.cs.uni-sb.de/~sidapohl/egoshooter/ This link shows a ray traced 3d world (using quake3 media) N.B. For some reason^misantropia^ has also posted this link below.

Try and think what the developers were thinking before you point out the obvious. Otherwise you make yourself look dimmer than the shadows your talking about.

Last edited by nyxs-uk on 05-05-2005 12:57 AM, edited 1 time in total.

Top

^misantropia^
Mentor

Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 3957

Posted: 05-03-2005 01:03 PM

Kaziganthe wrote:
someone had to take the next step and exclude lightmaps completely. we're just not at a point where hardware can cope with realtime radiosity. hopefully with the next engine or unreal3...

Makes me wonder... it shouldn't be too hard (relatively speaking) to create a hybrid engine that combines lightmaps with per-pixel lighting. That would give you soft shadows at low cost. I can think of a (theorethical) implementation already.

nyxs-uk wrote:
iD wouldn't program a ray tracing game engine

It isn't ray-tracing, strictly speaking. This is, though (do check the specs required to run this mama).

Top

Eraser
Cool #9

Joined: 01 Dec 2000
Posts: 36603

Posted: 05-04-2005 01:32 AM

Christ inphlict, your post just oozes with ignorance

_________________
Get mods & maps at Engines of Creation

Top

o'dium
Eh?

Joined: 25 Mar 2001
Posts: 32047

Posted: 05-04-2005 02:03 AM

Kaziganthe wrote:
Someone already did that exact thing, check out the q3map2 forums @ splashdamage. 'deluxemapping' it's called

The way it works is that you use your normal maps to get the data etc etc for the textures, so that lights look correct on walls etc etc blah blah yaddle yaddle... It looks good when you get ingame.

However, once you start firing, walking around and looking at things in depth, you notice that it is indeed, quite ugly

Top

R. Tetzlaff
Grunt

Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Posts: 50

Posted: 05-04-2005 02:06 AM

inphlict wrote:
in reality you can see in shadows but in doom3 you can never see anything under the dark shadows.

You can see in shadows outside when there´s enough diffused light to lit the shadowy areas. But for enclosed indoor scenes Doom3´s lighting is as realistic as you can currently get. Also, you actually aren´t limited to maps full of dark shadowed places in the Doom3 engine. It´s currently more of an hardware issue. If you have a computer strong enough to run the Unreal Engine 3 for example, it will also be strong enough to render luxuriously lit environments with high-res textures in the very same Doom3 engine we have now.

Top

o'dium
Eh?

Joined: 25 Mar 2001
Posts: 32047

Posted: 05-04-2005 02:27 AM

This guy is kinda right... Doom 3 might be lacking a lot of the cool toys UE3 has, like the new tree stuff, smart bloom and "decent" physics. But, when it comes down to it, Doom 3 only looks shit because of what id had to do to get it to run on PC's out when it was released.

Doom 3 looks like plastic? Solution; Make new textures. This was id's fault here, but they had never really worked with specular maps before I guess. Thats why Doom 3 looks, for the most part, cartoony.

Doom 3 looks low detail, those textures are ugh? Solution; Make new textures again. Doom has to use very low res textures, because they had to make sure the game would run on lower end PC's. Thats why everything looks so dull and ugly, its because of how low the textures are. When you are used to looking at HL2/UT2k4 faces which use 1024x1024 texture maps, then you look at doom 3's 128x128 or, if we are lucky, 256x256 textures, you start to see WHY the face looks so poor. Image loading 1024x1024x4 MINIMUM textures just for one head? and then the same again for the body? Thats abig hit for low end PC's. Of course if you can run doom 3 60 frames locked NOW, then thats not a big hit at all. I did a quick resize of all the "model" textures up to 1024x1024. No detail boost obviously, but because i have a 256meg card, i hardly lost any performance. But still, it needs to be played on lower end machines...

Doom 3's models are pointy, ugly, and just shit looking? Solution; Make new models. Obviously, the models have to cast an infinite number of shadows dependi9ng on how many lights in the scene, as well as cast shadows on itself. Thats a big drop in performance. But again, an Imp is only 1.5k polies, and i have upped said imp with mesh smooth to 6k polies there abouts, had about 5 of them on screen by spawning them, and still stayed above 50 frames a second in your average doom 3 map. So again, its more down to system specs and "needing the game to run" than technology.

Doom 3's map are dark, i cant see jack shit? Solution; Make new maps. Doom 3's real time lighting is quite the performance killer and at the end of the day, the biggest drop in frame rate comes from the lights. You can have 400 lights in a room and it will drop a little obviously. But you can have 2 large lights in a room that cross over eachothers paths, and that will kill performance. Its just the way it is. Better computers will allow more lights to be placed, but ATM, it really does kill your PC when you have a bright room.

None of these are limits of the doom engine, just limits imposed by id when the game was released. I think they were a tad too low myself. I shouldn't be playing a next gen, amazing, brand new tech game at 60frames solid at 1280x1024, but thats what they wanted. If you want all of the above fixed, you need to do it yourself or wait for a pro team to buy the engine and do said things.

Unfortunatly, the biggest name to use the engine next is raven with quake 4, and it looks like they are gonna be just as bad as doom 3 with ALL the above. But hey, they know best.

Top

seremtan
Etile

Joined: 19 Nov 2003
Posts: 26779

Posted: 05-04-2005 05:10 AM

^misantropia^ wrote:
It isn't ray-tracing, strictly speaking. This is, though (do check the specs required to run this mama).

"about 20 fps@36 GHz in 512x512 with 4xFSAA" :lol:

And the screens still look pretty horrible.

Top

MKJ
Messatsu Ko Jy-ouu

Joined: 24 Nov 2000
Posts: 39788

Posted: 05-04-2005 05:30 AM

seremtan wrote:
^misantropia^ wrote:
It isn't ray-tracing, strictly speaking. This is, though (do check the specs required to run this mama).

"about 20 fps@36 GHz in 512x512 with 4xFSAA" :lol:

And the screens still look pretty horrible.

watch it running. youll be amazed.
although most people are more amazed by hard shadows than subtle lighttraces :o but thats beside the point

_________________

Top

Eraser
Cool #9

Joined: 01 Dec 2000
Posts: 36603

Posted: 05-04-2005 12:07 PM

MKJ wrote:
watch it running. youll be amazed.

There's download links for a video on their site, just in case no one else had noticed

_________________
Get mods & maps at Engines of Creation

Top

redfella
The Illuminated

Joined: 11 May 2003
Posts: 1498

Posted: 05-06-2005 04:55 PM

Kaziganthe wrote:
realtime radiosity.

umm, that sounds yummy

_________________
black & white blanket logic

Top

Scourge
Pestilence

Joined: 25 Mar 2002
Posts: 15073

Posted: 05-06-2005 08:31 PM

Eraser wrote:
MKJ wrote:
watch it running. youll be amazed.

There's download links for a video on their site, just in case no one else had noticed

I've had it on my hard drive for a while. Pretty impressive. I used to play around with povray some and to see raytracing in real time was a treat. I remember it taking 12+ hours to render a single image on a 386 in povray.

Top

Eraser
Cool #9

Joined: 01 Dec 2000
Posts: 36603

Posted: 05-08-2005 11:55 PM

scourge34 wrote:
I've had it on my hard drive for a while. Pretty impressive. I used to play around with povray some and to see raytracing in real time was a treat. I remember it taking 12+ hours to render a single image on a 386 in povray.

lol yeah povray I remember using that with that program that allows you to play around with LEGO on your computer and render it with povray. People made amazingly realistic looking this with LEGO.
If I'm not mistaken, povray is still used very much and updated as well.

_________________
Get mods & maps at Engines of Creation

Top

SOAPboy
Soccer Practice!

Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 15265

Posted: 05-09-2005 02:31 AM

MKJ wrote:
seremtan wrote:
^misantropia^ wrote:
It isn't ray-tracing, strictly speaking. This is, though (do check the specs required to run this mama).

"about 20 fps@36 GHz in 512x512 with 4xFSAA" :lol:

And the screens still look pretty horrible.

watch it running. youll be amazed.
although most people are more amazed by hard shadows than subtle lighttraces :o but thats beside the point

no shit, its fucking amazing honestly..

id like to get ahold of that thing and tinker with it.. ^_^

_________________
I once had a glass of milk.

It curdled, and then I couldn't drink it. So I mixed it with some water, and it was alright again.

I am now sick.

Top

^misantropia^
Mentor

Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 3957

Posted: 05-09-2005 03:57 AM

You might just want to wait a little longer for the prices of 36Ghz processors to come down just a little more.

Top

Scourge
Pestilence

Joined: 25 Mar 2002
Posts: 15073

Posted: 05-09-2005 05:01 PM

Eraser wrote:
scourge34 wrote:
I've had it on my hard drive for a while. Pretty impressive. I used to play around with povray some and to see raytracing in real time was a treat. I remember it taking 12+ hours to render a single image on a 386 in povray.

lol yeah povray I remember using that with that program that allows you to play around with LEGO on your computer and render it with povray. People made amazingly realistic looking this with LEGO.
If I'm not mistaken, povray is still used very much and updated as well.

Yeah, it's fairly well updated. I've got the latest version and still play with it a bit. They changed a bit of the language, but still basically the same with updated features.

Top

Furtive
Mercenary

Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 231

Posted: 05-20-2005 10:53 PM

Why in the hell would you say the Doom 3 engine sucks? Maybe multiplayer wasn't that great, but that doesn't mean you should hate the whole engine.

dam..everyone is always changing thier minds..
first they're all hyped up about doom 3...
then when it actually comes out they turn around on it and utterly crush it..

and so what if it's dark??
wtf?? that's the point. its supposed to be scary.
and thats why they included a FLASHLIGHT moron...
imagine how id must feel about the feedback they get from a game they've worked so hard on...
poor fellas.

well i loved doom 3 myself.

Top

SOAPboy
Soccer Practice!

Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 15265

Posted: 05-20-2005 11:34 PM

^misantropia^ wrote:
You might just want to wait a little longer for the prices of 36Ghz processors to come down just a little more.

Even if i could only get it to run for 1 second at 1fps, id be happy

_________________
I once had a glass of milk.

It curdled, and then I couldn't drink it. So I mixed it with some water, and it was alright again.

I am now sick.

Top

Eraser
Cool #9

Joined: 01 Dec 2000
Posts: 36603

Posted: 05-21-2005 01:40 AM

inphlict wrote:
I was trying to play through ROE and it hit me, the game completely blows. Then I realized that it’s not only the gameplay but the whole engine. The engine is way too dark and having sharp dark shadows is annoying and not realistic, in reality you can see in shadows but in doom3 you can never see anything under the dark shadows.

This is a good example, how the hell can something cast a shadow so dark close to a light source? Anyway I uninstalled doom3 and ROE, disappointed and frustrated.

[lvlshot]http://www.gamer.nl/images/content/Erwie/200505/1116269168_0.jpg[/lvlshot]

......me points and laughs at inphlict :lol:

_________________
Get mods & maps at Engines of Creation

Top

^misantropia^
Mentor

Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 3957

Posted: 05-21-2005 05:19 AM

They've been hacking away at the engine so ET:QW might not be the best example. Besides, I have yet to see the first first-person demo. Until then, we can't be really sure how it'll look like.

Top

implicit
Recruit

Joined: 25 May 2005
Posts: 7

Posted: 05-25-2005 07:00 AM

Eraser wrote:
inphlict wrote:
I was trying to play through ROE and it hit me, the game completely blows. Then I realized that it’s not only the gameplay but the whole engine. The engine is way too dark and having sharp dark shadows is annoying and not realistic, in reality you can see in shadows but in doom3 you can never see anything under the dark shadows.

This is a good example, how the hell can something cast a shadow so dark close to a light source? Anyway I uninstalled doom3 and ROE, disappointed and frustrated.

[lvlshot]http://www.gamer.nl/images/content/Erwie/200505/1116269168_0.jpg[/lvlshot]

......me points and laughs at inphlict :lol:

Look at the shadows, it looks like they fixed what I was talking about.

Top

MKJ
Messatsu Ko Jy-ouu

Joined: 24 Nov 2000
Posts: 39788

Posted: 05-25-2005 07:07 AM

Eraser wrote:
inphlict wrote:
I was trying to play through ROE and it hit me, the game completely blows. Then I realized that it’s not only the gameplay but the whole engine. The engine is way too dark and having sharp dark shadows is annoying and not realistic, in reality you can see in shadows but in doom3 you can never see anything under the dark shadows.

This is a good example, how the hell can something cast a shadow so dark close to a light source? Anyway I uninstalled doom3 and ROE, disappointed and frustrated.

[lvlshot]http://www.gamer.nl/images/content/Erwie/200505/1116269168_0.jpg[/lvlshot]

......me points and laughs at inphlict :lol:

obviously, that shot doesnt use any of the things that bothered inphlict.
so actually, the doom3 engine is a nice base, but it needs some heavy modding and someone who knows how to fucking use colors to make it look good

_________________

Top

o'dium
Eh?

Joined: 25 Mar 2001
Posts: 32047

Posted: 05-25-2005 08:15 AM

MKJ is, in my eyes, correct.

id, while ownage in terms of style and what they "CAN" do, really let everybody down on the design front with doom 3. It was all so grey, so... Average... So done before. If it wasn't for the PPL it would just be another "generic FPS".

The ET:QW stuff isn't done by id, thats why it looks good and has some cool ideas/style/design. The Quake 4 shots, while not as good as ET:QW, are STILL better than Doom 3...

Top

Guest

Posted: 05-27-2005 09:08 PM

And just imagine what can be accomplished in a few years like what has been done with the quake engines. The possibilities are huge. o'dium, you yourself ought to know that. Really, look what you guys are doing with the Q2 engine. I don't think the D3 engine has seen 1/10 of its potential.

Top

shadd_.
Insane Quaker

Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 390

Posted: 05-28-2005 07:45 AM

isnt nvidia really fast at drawing black? the main reason why they do so good in doom3?

Top

f00dl3
Grunt

Joined: 19 Oct 2005
Posts: 70

Posted: 10-26-2005 06:13 PM

5 or 10 years from now, there may be a completely different company making video cards that are better than ATI or nVidia... who knows what the future holds - if video cards will even be necessary.

Remember back in the mid 90's when 3dfx was the bomb? Remember when Unreal 1 was the best graphics engine around? Things change. 10 years from now, CPUs may run 10-15 GHz, and we may have 5 GB / 20 GHZ video cards all storing memory on holographic media. In a matter of fact, in 10-15 years we may have holographic games popping up where its like you're there - kind of like in Star Trek.

Top

Eraser
Cool #9

Joined: 01 Dec 2000
Posts: 36603

Posted: 10-27-2005 12:58 AM

shadd_. wrote:
isnt nvidia really fast at drawing black? the main reason why they do so good in doom3?

what?!

_________________
Get mods & maps at Engines of Creation

Top

Underpants?
Elite

Joined: 21 Oct 2001
Posts: 6430

Posted: 11-01-2005 10:07 AM

Finally broke down and bought it (15 bucks, why not) and am now close to finishing. Although I'm not experiencing the original doom's fervishly addictive grip, I really enjoy the game, overall, and wonder why people build themselves up to be so predictably let down over these things.

Top

Quake3World.com | Forum Index | id legends

I'll buy RoE from you for $5.

I never said I owned it...

oh noes, Doom3 is not realistic!!!

inphlict wrote:I never said I owned it... but it obviously owned you

Christ inphlict, your post just oozes with ignorance

^misantropia^ wrote:It isn't ray-tracing, strictly speaking. This is, though (do check the specs required to run this mama). "about 20 fps@36 GHz in 512x512 with 4xFSAA" :lol: And the screens still look pretty horrible.

MKJ wrote:watch it running. youll be amazed. There's download links for a video on their site, just in case no one else had noticed

Kaziganthe wrote:realtime radiosity. umm, that sounds yummy

You might just want to wait a little longer for the prices of 36Ghz processors to come down just a little more.

^misantropia^ wrote:You might just want to wait a little longer for the prices of 36Ghz processors to come down just a little more. Even if i could only get it to run for 1 second at 1fps, id be happy

They've been hacking away at the engine so ET:QW might not be the best example. Besides, I have yet to see the first first-person demo. Until then, we can't be really sure how it'll look like.

And just imagine what can be accomplished in a few years like what has been done with the quake engines. The possibilities are huge. o'dium, you yourself ought to know that. Really, look what you guys are doing with the Q2 engine. I don't think the D3 engine has seen 1/10 of its potential.

isnt nvidia really fast at drawing black? the main reason why they do so good in doom3?

shadd_. wrote:isnt nvidia really fast at drawing black? the main reason why they do so good in doom3? what?!

Finally broke down and bought it (15 bucks, why not) and am now close to finishing. Although I'm not experiencing the original doom's fervishly addictive grip, I really enjoy the game, overall, and wonder why people build themselves up to be so predictably let down over these things.

inphlict wrote:
I never said I owned it...

but it obviously owned you

^misantropia^ wrote:
It isn't ray-tracing, strictly speaking. This is, though (do check the specs required to run this mama).

"about 20 fps@36 GHz in 512x512 with 4xFSAA" :lol:

And the screens still look pretty horrible.

MKJ wrote:
watch it running. youll be amazed.

There's download links for a video on their site, just in case no one else had noticed

Kaziganthe wrote:
realtime radiosity.

umm, that sounds yummy

^misantropia^ wrote:
You might just want to wait a little longer for the prices of 36Ghz processors to come down just a little more.

Even if i could only get it to run for 1 second at 1fps, id be happy

shadd_. wrote:
isnt nvidia really fast at drawing black? the main reason why they do so good in doom3?

what?!