I just realised that id tech 6 is kind of like id tech 1

Doom 2016 might be not the bestest looking game ever but it runs amazingly fast for its image quality. Doom 1993 was kinda like this too. There were far better looking games already, like Daytona USA, that did require powerful arcade hardware, or Strike Commander that required a beast of pc to run well, but id tech 1 was optimized to run on a common 486DX PC that was 4 years old in 1993.

That's all ID Techs.

ForgottenChaingunner said:

That's all ID Techs.

Doom 3 not

Even DOOM 3. Compare DOOM 3 to Half-Life 2. DOOM 3 looks bit worse than Half-Life 2, but unlike HL2 which needed good GPU, DOOM 3 ran even on toasters.

Doom 3 did not look worse than HL2 (the original, not EP1 or EP2). In fact you needed a very good GPU for max details. John Carmack even told people not to OC their GPU because "Doom stresses the video card more than others".

HL2 had higher res textures but Doom 3s lighting, shaders and animations were better.

Edit: Just have a look at this benchmarks: http://www.anandtech.com/show/1416/3

You needed a 6800 Ultra for 60+ Fps at highest settings...

Edit 2: Just to compare. My Gtx 1070 had no problems in running Doom 2016 at highest settings in 1200P at very high FPS. The 6800 ultra would be something like 1080 Ti today.

This thread has an impressive amount of misinformation for being so short.

Orchid87 said:

Doom 2016 might be not the bestest looking game ever

That's ludicrous, it looks as good as any 60fps console game to come out.

Orchid87 said:

There were far better looking games already, like Daytona USA, that did require powerful arcade hardware,

Comparing Doom which ran on consumer PCs to a dedicated arcade cabinet running on custom hardware that cost thousands of dollars is not a valid comparison.

Orchid87 said:

or Strike Commander

if you say so

Orchid87 said:

but id tech 1 was optimized to run on a common 486DX PC that was 4 years old in 1993.

It would "run", sure, but was not a particularly good experience on anything older than a 486 DX2/66 which came out in late 1992.

ForgottenChaingunner said:

unlike HL2 which needed good GPU, DOOM 3 ran even on toasters.

worth noting that the original version of hl2 could run in dx7 hardware. You lose a lot of fancy features, but the environment is still lit and it mostly works. (several graphics techniques were picked because they could run without shaders. Interestingly this was also one of the driving factors for the alpha-tested magnification thing used in TF2, even though that game only supported DX8 and above...) the dx7 render path has been removed from relatively recent updates, though.

I tried running Doom 1 on a 386 before. It wasn't quite pleasant, if I'm honest. Granted, the machine was a really slow one (20mhz), but I do wonder how much better in practice a 33mhz 386 would be.

Yeah, I had a 486/33 with 4MB of RAM in 1994 and I had to boot to DOS to play it. If Windows was loaded then I didn't have enough RAM available to play it unless I turned the sound off. Even then I had to turn low resolution on with F5, and shrink the screen just slightly to play it at a decent frame rate. So I'll call BS. Doom was a system hog when it came out, it still looked great, but it was really advanced when it came out. Once the computer was upgraded to 8MB of RAM it ran fine, but in 1994 4MB of RAM was a $200 investment.

I used to play Doom in 1995 with my friend's 386 Laptop with 8MB RAM and it ran great with pc speaker sounds! :)

I remember when Doom3 and HL2 came out, my argument for Doom3's engine being better was that the ragdolls would interact with eachother if they collided and they did not in HL2 (and then learned they could with a console command)
I was also 14

ForgottenChaingunner said:

Even DOOM 3. Compare DOOM 3 to Half-Life 2. DOOM 3 looks bit worse than Half-Life 2, but unlike HL2 which needed good GPU, DOOM 3 ran even on toasters.

I feel like you have those two backwards. Doom 3 has better lighting effects than HL2, though HL2 had bigger environments and could be tweaked to run on crap.

Yeah, I remember Doom 3 running pretty miserably slow on my computer which handles early 2000s games pretty well. It really needed a lot of horsepower due to those damn lighting effects. Also it's worth noting that Daytona USA came out in 1994, during a time when a single year could mean a major difference in 3D rendering performance...

I had an eMachine that came with this basic Intel Chip that straight up couldn't really run shaders at all. Doom 3 didn't run, it didn't meet the requirements. Half-Life 2 ran but had pretty much no effects, so water just looked like an animated texture. I got a GeForce FX 5200 128MB that allowed Doom to run but it still ran pretty terribly, even on low settings, and it actually gave Half-Life 2 water refractions which I remember thinking was a big deal at the time because of how beautiful it looked. Looking back on it, the FX 5200 was a pretty terrible card for its DX level but HL2 definitely ran a lot better on it than Doom 3 did.

id Tech 6 looks and runs a helluva lot better than id Tech 5. I think Carmack flubbed 5 hard before he left the company which would explain the really bizarre and extremely bipolar performance between people's rigs, even ones with the same exact specs it will perform totally differently for every person every time so it's definitely something internally that's way off. Ever since the CryTek guy's been on board and the people who've worked on 6 haven't taken any (if very little) notes from Carmack's work they've managed to produce a far more stable and nicer looking engine than 5.

I really wanted to enjoy my playthrough of Wolf TNO and eventually get Dishonored 2 someday as well as The Evil Within because it looks awesome but id Tech 5 is such a horribly optimized engine considering how ugly most of the textures look it's despicable how awful it performs. Even Unreal Engine 3 and 4 weren't this unstable in amateur developers' hands.

Despite growing up on the cusp of that generation (uncle had a 386 then a 486SX IIRC which were my first computing experiences (besides Apple IIe)) I never had heard of Strike Commander. However I did play many hours of Falcon 3.0 on that system so it's possible he knew of the game but couldn't afford to upgrade. 

I found an interesting article about the game and how groundbreaking it was at the time. Pretty fascinating that they pushed the boundaries back then. Also, the source code was lost but has been partially recovered.

http://www.fabiensanglard.net/reverse_engineering_strike_commander/index.php