yellowjacket626262 Posted March 2, 2006 Some maps i made to look like doom 3 using some editor. http://www.upload2.com/?cmd=_viewer&file=71cd18015d5c59a74f1a717e2e086b8c.jpg&s=file-upload] http://www.upload2.com/?cmd=_viewer&file=19498e006b28a7d470da0ea8e6e7ce9d.jpg&s=file-upload] http://www.upload2.com/?cmd=_viewer&file=9f72cd06e258ab48cbd1c2dee98254f8.jpg&s=file-upload] http://www.upload2.com/?cmd=_viewer&file=759337b7d1d9682d14abb0e8afbed6c8.jpg&s=file-upload] 0 Share this post Link to post
wildweasel Posted March 2, 2006 This is pretty neat-looking - are you actually using Doom 3 textures, or are you using custom-made or SS2 base textures? 0 Share this post Link to post
Sporku Posted March 2, 2006 They're Doom 3 textures alright. They just look like they lack their normal and specular maps. 0 Share this post Link to post
Sharessa Posted March 2, 2006 Haha...mostly this looks really good, but the shot of the outdoor area is kind of hilarious compared to the real Doom 3 stuff. 0 Share this post Link to post
Nmn Posted March 2, 2006 Danarchy said:Haha...mostly this looks really good, but the shot of the outdoor area is kind of hilarious compared to the real Doom 3 stuff. It's because that terrain on the screenshot is really shitty. Not only the topmap barely has any shadows, I can't see a rocky layer that would enhance the appearance. If done properly, it could come close to D3's terrain. Serious Engine is a pretty piece of code. They had real-time lightning (as in dynamic lightmaps) way before Doom 3. 0 Share this post Link to post
Sporku Posted March 2, 2006 It MIGHT have looked pretty good if the textures didn't look so much like garbage. 0 Share this post Link to post
AirRaid Posted March 2, 2006 Nmn said:They had real-time lightning (as in dynamic lightmaps) way before Doom 3. I agree that the Serious Engine is awesome, and the new one is even prettier, but that's not true. SS1 had Bumpmapping and stencil shadows, sure, but it did not have a unified lighting renderer. People always seem to miss the point of Doom3's engine. It's not that things cast stencil shadows. It's that EVERYTHING casts shadows from the same kind of light source. OP: That stuff is pretty good apart from that some areas seem 'empty', kinda, and the textures/lighting let some areas like the outdoor shot down. 0 Share this post Link to post
leileilol Posted March 2, 2006 Nmn said:They had real-time lightning (as in dynamic lightmaps) way before Doom 3. IT'S NOT THE SAME THING Serious Sam and Q3A had the "omg stencil shadows" as an option, but it's not close to doom3's per pixel lighting effects at all 0 Share this post Link to post
Koko Ricky Posted March 3, 2006 If you look at this and say that it's unimpressive or ugly, then you're probably just one of those snobby graphics card whores who feels that anytihng that isn't top of the fucking line is some inferior piece of visual garbage; the same type of people who were praising the original Unreal Tournament when it first came out and then spitting on it when the next, more visually stunning version arrived (this is not a personal attack on anyone, but we all know gamers like that). For what the SS2 engine seems to be capable of doing, and compared to what one might expect from current PC gaming technology, I'd say it looks pretty damn good, except for the outside shot, the human characters and a few architectual pieces here and there lacking the proper shinyness. 0 Share this post Link to post
Vegeta Posted March 3, 2006 Do this for Gzdoom or Edge (doesn't matter if you have to remove 3/5 of the details) and I'll love you forever. 0 Share this post Link to post
Nmn Posted March 3, 2006 gargoylol said:IT'S NOT THE SAME THING I'm not talking about variable lightmap size. Play SS1 map 02, inside of the temple, there are some headless morons running around. One is carrying a point light that makes a pillar cast shadows in various directions, real time. 0 Share this post Link to post
AndrewB Posted March 3, 2006 GoatLord said:If you look at this and say that it's unimpressive or ugly, then you're probably just one of those snobby graphics card whores who feels that anytihng that isn't top of the fucking line is some inferior piece of visual garbage; the same type of people who were praising the original Unreal Tournament when it first came out and then spitting on it when the next, more visually stunning version arrived (this is not a personal attack on anyone, but we all know gamers like that). For what the SS2 engine seems to be capable of doing, and compared to what one might expect from current PC gaming technology, I'd say it looks pretty damn good, except for the outside shot, the human characters and a few architectual pieces here and there lacking the proper shinyness. Interesting. You're right that some gamers are hypocritical in that they praise new games but later call them "crappy." However, game snobs like me are NOT like this. I actually call ALL new flashy-graphics tech-demo games crappy, because they are crap games after all. I'm unimpressed by this technology because it's yet another step forward in the wrong direction for games. 0 Share this post Link to post
yellowjacket626262 Posted March 3, 2006 Textures are from Doom3,Quake3,serioussam2ssecondencounter,internet and others i made.In serious sam your allowed to set the shadow size to "sharp or blur".When set at sharp it looked pretty good but ran slow.When editing i set it high, added fake shadows "gradient" over the real shadows then set the wall to fullbright "wall does not recevie shadows from light source" it speed things up by 50%.The shadows look real but most of the levels are fullbright with gradient.The picture of the outside base is actually tiny to make it seem bigger and give it depth,you dont go outside.thanks for the feedback. 0 Share this post Link to post
Scuba Steve Posted March 3, 2006 AndrewB said:I actually call ALL new flashy-graphics tech-demo games crappy. You call anything but Mario 3 ugly. My point? You're an idiot or something. 0 Share this post Link to post
Nmn Posted March 3, 2006 Well, he said crappy, not ugly. For me, it's as always, a matter of gameplay. 0 Share this post Link to post
AndrewB Posted March 3, 2006 Scuba Steve said:You call anything but Mario 3 ugly. My point? You're an idiot or something. True, I am something. 0 Share this post Link to post
AirRaid Posted March 4, 2006 Nmn said:I'm not talking about variable lightmap size. Play SS1 map 02, inside of the temple, there are some headless morons running around. One is carrying a point light that makes a pillar cast shadows in various directions, real time. AirRaid said:SS1 had Bumpmapping and stencil shadows, sure, but it did not have a unified lighting renderer. SHUT UP 0 Share this post Link to post
AndrewB Posted March 4, 2006 Great now "Can yooouuu feel the love tonight..." is going through my head. 0 Share this post Link to post
leileilol Posted March 5, 2006 seeing as he lives on the zdoom furums, i am not surprised 0 Share this post Link to post
Job Posted March 5, 2006 Nmn said:Hmm.. fuck you too Both of you shut up. 0 Share this post Link to post
Shaviro Posted March 5, 2006 GoatLord said:If you look at this and say that it's unimpressive or ugly, then you're probably just one of those snobby graphics card whores who feels that anytihng that isn't top of the fucking line is some inferior piece of visual garbage Right. No. This is so far from the visual quality of Doom3. Good job on converting the architecture and such, but it doesn't exactly look good. The textures seriously miss their depth, and everything seems overbright. 0 Share this post Link to post
Job Posted March 5, 2006 AirRaid said::( I'm sorry. : / I meant "please." 0 Share this post Link to post
AndrewB Posted March 6, 2006 gargoylol said:run cmd. bam, instant doom3. That's the best one I've heard yet. 0 Share this post Link to post