Quake3World

I remember one time "back in the day" I wanted to make a cool skin for the male... Looked great, had lush colours, all sorts of blues... Then i had to convert it to Q2's pallete...

LOL.

BIG FUCKING MISTAKE.

I dont want another SP game I don't want another compromise of resourses.
I want a bloodline pure MP game. There isn't anything else out there that satisfies my MP craving. I don't want another Doom 3 with sped up action and differend models FFS, I want to see Quake 3 to its full glory which was probably not possible do to the hardware and engine. I want to see a players speed slow down if I injure his legs, I want to see accuracy drop if I injure his arms, and I want to see visual and audio diminisment if I pummel an opponents face in. Not to a realistic level but towards an intuitive yet fun approach on the issue.
I say the hell with the SP...full speed ahaid to claming the MP throne again.

From the things you want, it sounds like you want a game made by a company other than id software. Because i doubt id will ever make a game that stops a player dead when you shoot them in the leg.

o'dium wrote:From the things you want, it sounds like you want a game made by a company other than id software. Because i doubt id will ever make a game that stops a player dead when you shoot them in the leg.

k I see how you would think that but my main point here being the compromise of their resources . a SP and MP game hardly excels on either point

Oldfriend wrote:

o'dium wrote:From the things you want, it sounds like you want a game made by a company other than id software. Because i doubt id will ever make a game that stops a player dead when you shoot them in the leg.

k I see how you would think that but my main point here being the compromise of their resources . a SP and MP game hardly excels on either point

Why not? Honestly? thats a silly idea to have?

Ever hear of a game called "goldeneye"? That had the BEST single player, and an amazing multiplayer.

Its all about having the resources to do so. At raven, its possible because its a big team, PLUS id software. But id software by themselves? It would just be another doom 3, with both the MP "AND" the SP being "just ok".

o'dium wrote:TBH, yes, they could. At least i could tell them their weapons all look shite and nothing like the original ones.

But hey, dont worry about it.

I just can't imagine why game companies haven't hired you for your amazing skills.

Oh wait.

o'dium wrote:Its true. Why do you think when the archvile in doom 3 causes a big slow down? Fragment program + intersecting point lights + blended particles = performance loss.

:icon19: :icon19: Those new age blended particles are such a performance hit.

inolen wrote:

o'dium wrote:Its true. Why do you think when the archvile in doom 3 causes a big slow down? Fragment program + intersecting point lights + blended particles = performance loss.

:icon19: :icon19: Those new age blended particles are such a performance hit.

When you have so many of them, all high res, they DO cause a drop in performance.

o'dium wrote:

inolen wrote:

o'dium wrote:Its true. Why do you think when the archvile in doom 3 causes a big slow down? Fragment program + intersecting point lights + blended particles = performance loss.

:icon19: :icon19: Those new age blended particles are such a performance hit.

When you have so many of them, all high res, they DO cause a drop in performance.

I was experimenting with Doom3's particle system when getting some lame particles done for my water assets, I had hundreds if not thousands coming out from a single source point without a major performance lost.

Then obviously, thats good for what you want to do. When you have lots and lots of particles that bldn, and are small, they take up very little fillrate. Yet when you have that same amount that takes up a lot of screenspace, i.e., something on the same scale as a player, then it takes up a lot of fillrate, so you either need to drop the particle count or reduce the size.

o'dium wrote:Then obviously, thats good for what you want to do. When you have lots and lots of particles that bldn, and are small, they take up very little fillrate. Yet when you have that same amount that takes up a lot of screenspace, i.e., something on the same scale as a player, then it takes up a lot of fillrate, so you either need to drop the particle count or reduce the size.

You are acting like the "fill rate" is some resource the way you use it in your post. Fill rate is simply the amount of pixels that can be rendered per second. Which, can be slowed down if multiple blend operations have to be applied when calculating the final color for that pixel.

Yes but to much fillrate equals more cost, and that reduces overall performance. Why on Earth would you would something to eat up fillrate from a firstperson view? Quake 4 will already be demanding on most peoples computers, probably even my own, so why would i want to recude my game to a crawl every time i use a weapon? Maybe if it was a one shot recharge railgun type weapon, but the LG is a constant shaft, that needs to be on all the time when attacking.

o'dium wrote:Yes but to much fillrate equals more cost, and that reduces overall performance.

:icon27: You are missing something here.

o'dium wrote:TBH, yes, they could. At least i could tell them their weapons all look shite and nothing like the original ones.

But hey, dont worry about it.

:icon19: Wow, just when I thought this thread couldn't get funnier.

o'dium wrote:Quake 4 just went down hill again...

Willits just confirmed there is a lightning gun... Woo...

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/quake-iv/61100 ... ?fromint=1

You are an absolute douche.

inolen wrote:

o'dium wrote:Not to mention it will either look shit, or kill your FPS, in a per pixel engine.

You talking about rendering is rather funny.

He talks like he's been in the industry for years :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think he's worse than methyd.

edit: my previous post still stands, you're an absolute douche o'dium.

:lol:

you totally didn't mention all the good shit. q4 at E3 wtf

duffman91 wrote:

inolen wrote:

o'dium wrote:Not to mention it will either look shit, or kill your FPS, in a per pixel engine.

You talking about rendering is rather funny.

He talks like he's been in the industry for years :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think he's worse than methyd.

edit: my previous post still stands, you're an absolute douche o'dium.

What he has done in his spare time gives him room to talk.

bitWISE wrote:

duffman91 wrote:

inolen wrote: You talking about rendering is rather funny.

He talks like he's been in the industry for years :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think he's worse than methyd.

edit: my previous post still stands, you're an absolute douche o'dium.

What he has done in his spare time gives him room to talk.

A hoby and a business are two very distinct things.

What inolen says has more merit than o'dium. Why? Because inolen is in the BUSINESS. Notice, ironically, that they both say different things.

duffman91 wrote:

bitWISE wrote:

duffman91 wrote: He talks like he's been in the industry for years :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think he's worse than methyd.

edit: my previous post still stands, you're an absolute douche o'dium.

What he has done in his spare time gives him room to talk.

A hoby and a business are two very distinct things.

What inolen says has more merit than o'dium. Why? Because inolen is in the BUSINESS. Notice, ironically, that they both say different things.

Me and inolen are NOT saying two different things like you probably think we are. Its not as if hes saying the apple is green and im saying the apple is red.

What i'm saying is true. What he is saying is true. It just depends on what way you look at it. From my point of view, fillrate is indeed a very important factor to think about.

I can't take playing another game that's so dark like Doom 3 was. I couldn't see a damn thing during that entire game. It was ridiculous.

HL2 rocked, and with light, no less

o'dium wrote:Me and inolen are NOT saying two different things like you probably think we are. Its not as if hes saying the apple is green and im saying the apple is red.

What i'm saying is true. What he is saying is true. It just depends on what way you look at it. From my point of view, fillrate is indeed a very important factor to think about.

I still don't think you actually understand what the fill rate is.

inolen wrote:

o'dium wrote:Me and inolen are NOT saying two different things like you probably think we are. Its not as if hes saying the apple is green and im saying the apple is red.

What i'm saying is true. What he is saying is true. It just depends on what way you look at it. From my point of view, fillrate is indeed a very important factor to think about.

I still don't think you actually understand what the fill rate is.

I know what fill rate is, its the number of pixels that can be rendered on your screen every second. So if you up the resolution its only natural that your performance will lower, with regards to actually drawing more pixels, thus having a bigger impact on "fill rate".

Which is what your saying, and that’s true. However, what you draw has just as big a part in it than simple pixels. Just because you have drawn a picture, doesn't mean its job is done with. If you render a typical scene in say Quake 3, then it should run fine because, in regards to what’s going on, its very limited. However, when you add mass blended images that require not only the additive (in this case) blending but also depth sorting, as well as drawing behind them, then that "pixel" has more information, thus the cpu/gpu/whoever has the task (cpu i think?) takes a longer time at rendering that "portion" of your screen.

So, here we have a minimum detail game, like quake 3, where there is hardly anything going on in compared to, say, my mod, Quake 2 Evolved, where we can have sometimes hundreds of particles drawing over the top of each other, with additive blending.

Now, the biggest concern here is obviously screen space. If you have a small trail that takes up hardly any space on screen (pixels), it isn't as big a load as say the same effect, only 4x as big. Obviously, because the effect is much smaller, so less pixel space is needed. Up your resolution and notice that your get a bigger drop than if the effect was simply not there. Large resolution = Bigger area for effect to cover over pixels = More performance loss.

So, yes, its not everything to do with fill rate. Its not the be all and end all. But it does play a big part in design, performance, detail and target audiences.

Its not so much a big issue with the latest cards as they have upped the performance on this a hell of a lot, but even then, there are still limits that need to be imposed. Not everybody can afford a voodoo3