Laguna Posted June 27, 2003 Okay, I don't know if anyone has the alpha and I don't think this is a bannable offense for asking (god I hope not) but can you tell me if the Doom3 engine has Ragdoll physics a la UT2K3/Raven Shield? The models in the game look great, but am I going to have people hanging over cliffs by their ankles, and so on, or do the models conform to the environment? It would be an awful shame for such an exciting game to have the same non-existant physics that you saw in other good games like Quake3, MOH, etc... While I'm at it, my new system... Would it run it? AMD Athlon XP 2200 1.67 ghz VisionTek Nvidia GeForce3 Ti200 64 mb 256 Megs PC2100 SDRam 100 Gigs HD Space spanning two hard drives I don't want to buy anything else... lol 0 Share this post Link to post
Ichor Posted June 27, 2003 1 - No, you won't be banned for talking about the "demo", only for posting links to it or constantly asking for it. 2 - This really should be in the Doom 3 General forum. I'd move it myself, but I'm not a super moderator. 3 - Read this FAQ about that. 0 Share this post Link to post
NiGHTMARE Posted June 27, 2003 The minimum system is something like 800mhz with a GeForce 2, although obviously you'll have to turn every single graphical option to the minimum to run it on a system like that. 0 Share this post Link to post
AndrewB Posted June 27, 2003 GeForce256, or Radeon 7000, ain't it? And you probably wouldn't have to turn them all to minimum. Turning off real-time shadows would probably be the, well, you know the rest. I suggest waiting until the thing comes out, read a few reviews, and decide if it's right for you. 0 Share this post Link to post
BNA! Posted June 28, 2003 Laguna said:... if the Doom3 engine has Ragdoll physics... Yes. 0 Share this post Link to post
AirRaid Posted June 28, 2003 Ichor said:2 - This really should be in the Doom 3 General forum Why? His primary question is asking about ragdoll technology in Doom3... Which as BNA has said, is included in Doom3. 0 Share this post Link to post
The_Tonx Posted June 28, 2003 AirRaid said:Why? His primary question is asking about ragdoll technology in Doom3... Which as BNA has said, is included in Doom3. Yes, DOOM III includes so called "advanced" physics engine, but AFAIK it's not Ragdoll, but something that id did by themselves. It was shown on leaked video, have been discussed several times and I've even tested it with leaked alpha. The physics of DOOM III was even discussed in these forums I guess, did you try to search? 0 Share this post Link to post
AirRaid Posted June 28, 2003 Eh? Ragdoll is actually a specific engine or something? I was just using that word as a general description for the type of physics, ie, bodies fall and distort like ragdolls. 0 Share this post Link to post
Zaldron Posted June 29, 2003 AndrewB said:And you probably wouldn't have to turn them all to minimum. Turning off real-time shadows would probably be the, well, you know the rest. CPU-wise, second only to the physics engine. Vidcard wise, scaling down the resolution is the biggest advantage ever, just like in the software rendering days. 0 Share this post Link to post
The_Tonx Posted June 29, 2003 Zaldron said:CPU-wise, second only to the physics engine. Vidcard wise, scaling down the resolution is the biggest advantage ever, just like in the software rendering days. What about AA? Scaling down resolution won't help as much as disabling AA IMO. 0 Share this post Link to post
The_Tonx Posted June 29, 2003 Laguna said: AMD Athlon XP 2200 1.67 ghz VisionTek Nvidia GeForce3 Ti200 64 mb 256 Megs PC2100 SDRam 100 Gigs HD Space spanning two hard drives 1.67 GHz Athlon XP is 2000+, not 2200+. Or have you down-clocked you'r AXP 2200+? AMD Athlon XP 2200+ should be 1.8 GHz. 0 Share this post Link to post
AndrewB Posted June 29, 2003 The_Tonx said:What about AA? Scaling down resolution won't help as much as disabling AA IMO. They'll both make a difference, but I would much rather lower resolution than disable AA. Most newer graphics systems support "Performance" AA, which is really superior to "Quality" AA. So "Performance" 6xAA uses about the same power as "Quality" (normal) 2xAA, but looks WAY better. 0 Share this post Link to post
The_Tonx Posted June 30, 2003 AndrewB said:They'll both make a difference, but I would much rather lower resolution than disable AA. Most newer graphics systems support "Performance" AA, which is really superior to "Quality" AA. So "Performance" 6xAA uses about the same power as "Quality" (normal) 2xAA, but looks WAY better. Yup, but talking of Laguna's GeForce 3 Titanium 200? 0 Share this post Link to post
Tyockell Posted June 30, 2003 Well I played half of the damn thing on a P3650 256 ram and a geforce 2 mx400 and it ran like shit but it still ran. 0 Share this post Link to post
The_Tonx Posted July 1, 2003 Tyockell said:Well I played half of the damn thing on a P3650 256 ram and a geforce 2 mx400 and it ran like shit but it still ran. Well, it ran almost normally (20-30 fps) on my system General specs: AXP2000+ KT333 0.5GB PC2700 9700 PRO (OC: 330/347 DDR) Video settings: videomode: 3 AA: 6x AF: 16x Texture (etc.) quality: Max 0 Share this post Link to post
AndrewB Posted July 1, 2003 If you can actually play the game, then in no way can it be considered unplayable. If it's not worth playing with all graphics settings at low, then it's not a very good game. On a Dell discussion site, two computer nerds were telling others that Doom 3 would not run on a Radeon 9000. They said that it would require AT LEAST a GeForce FX 5600 for bare minimum, and that it has a ton of features that require a DirectX 9 card. Freaks. 0 Share this post Link to post
Zaldron Posted July 1, 2003 The_Tonx said:What about AA? Scaling down resolution won't help as much as disabling AA IMO. Enabling AA/Anisothropic Filtering is more of a global, personal preference rather than a game option. That's why I'm ignoring it. 0 Share this post Link to post
PhobosKosmos Posted July 1, 2003 I'm 'planing' to buy and build my own computer with: 2.53GHz p4 512Mb ddr sdram radeon 9700 pro everything else is not important right now 0 Share this post Link to post
gatewatcher Posted July 1, 2003 PhobosKosmos said:everything else is not important right now Well, then your other parts are useless, heh. 0 Share this post Link to post
PhobosKosmos Posted July 1, 2003 Note My Post: PhobosKosmos said:I'm 'planing' to buy and build my own computer with: 2.53GHz p4 512Mb ddr sdram radeon 9700 pro everything else is not important right now gatewatcher said:Well, then your other parts are useless, heh. All ready owning a Hdd, SoundCard, Modem, Case, Cd-Rom, FloppyDrive, Mouse, Keyboard, Monitor, Printer, Speakers, and so on and so forth I did not feel, at the time, that it was important to list all of it , and I didn't. I will try to make it more clear next time. heh A mainboard and a power supply is not any thing I will do any big research on because that is not as important to me. I only want to see if I can use it or not for my other components. 0 Share this post Link to post
The_Tonx Posted July 1, 2003 PhobosKosmos said:I'm 'planing' to buy and build my own computer with: 2.53GHz p4 512Mb ddr sdram radeon 9700 pro everything else is not important right now I think, that it is almost pointless to buy Radeon 9700 PRO while looking at Radeon 9800 PRO's prices ;) 0 Share this post Link to post
PhobosKosmos Posted July 2, 2003 The_Tonx said:I think, that it is almost pointless to buy Radeon 9700 PRO while looking at Radeon 9800 PRO's prices ;) you got a good point but an extra 100 smackers is a lot for me(i'm ghetto) ;) 0 Share this post Link to post
Radea` Posted July 18, 2003 AndrewB said:GeForce256, or Radeon 7000, ain't it? Anything support T&L, but Im not sure if the 7000 (RV100 core) does support T&L; ATI may have ripped it out (Cant remember :/) I dont think Doom will be as demanding as everything thinks it will be either. There are tradeoff's being made, instead of ultra-high polgygon counts we have ultra-realistic lighting, and so on. Even HL2's renderer seems like it will be more demanding. 0 Share this post Link to post
toxicfluff Posted July 18, 2003 Radea` said:There are tradeoff's being made, instead of ultra-high polgygon counts we have ultra-realistic lighting, and so on. You are definitely right about this... I've seen more detailed Q3 maps out there. They manage to make it look really detailed though, so I guess the lower level geom. polycount doesn't mean shit. 0 Share this post Link to post
Radea` Posted July 18, 2003 ToXiCFLUFF said:so I guess the lower level geom. polycount doesn't mean shit. Except for the pointy heads ;), but that doesnt bother me :P 0 Share this post Link to post
Lucifer Posted July 19, 2003 Laguna said:While I'm at it, my new system... Would it run it? AMD Athlon XP 2200 1.67 ghz VisionTek Nvidia GeForce3 Ti200 64 mb 256 Megs PC2100 SDRam 100 Gigs HD Space spanning two hard drives I don't want to buy anything else... lol I think I would invest in some RAM... Say, some higher-end PC3200 DDR. 0 Share this post Link to post
toxicfluff Posted July 21, 2003 Radea` said:Except for the pointy heads ;), but that doesnt bother me :P Level geometry I said. The pointy heads annoy me, though. 0 Share this post Link to post
Aliotroph? Posted August 2, 2003 Whoever those Dell guys were, they're being silly fools. Carmack hates coding for DirectX. He said as much in the Quake days. He's been doing everything with GL, except when he needed some ASM code in there or something. From what he himself has said in interviews, DooM III should be able to run (in theory) on a GF1, just really badly. However, playing this game without the shadows will probably ruin it since the gameplay is designed around the really really scary atmosphere. There's a neat little mod started up for Tenebrae that shows that. You can see the shadows coming around the corner and it's damn scary. The physics engine in DooM III is good too. Can't wait to compare specifics in it with HL2. 0 Share this post Link to post
gatewatcher Posted August 2, 2003 For anyone interested, here's some new info on Doom III becnchmarks. Hm, I think we're fooling ourselves at this point by saying Doom will be playable with old cards. Sure you might be able to technically play it, but will you be playing it how it was meant to be played? 0 Share this post Link to post
auxois Posted August 3, 2003 AndrewB said... If you can actually play the game, then in no way can it be considered unplayable. If it's not worth playing with all graphics settings at low, then it's not a very good game. Gatewatcher said... Hm, I think we're fooling ourselves at this point by saying Doom will be playable with old cards. Sure you might be able to technically play it, but will you be playing it how it was meant to be played? My point exactly. If you can't play a game with the settings maxed, you're not really playing the game. You're playing an approximation of the game. It's pointless to play any non-competitive game if you have to reduce it to a gooey mush to play it at any sort of decent framerate. At any rate, we've been over this a thousand thousand times, and this point has been established over and over, so I don't know why I bother. If people aren't getting it now, they're not going to. 0 Share this post Link to post