Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
AndrewB

Minor Thought

Recommended Posts

It seems that one of Doom 3's speed-optimizations for the lighting system is that it will not texture areas that are shadows, in areas with only one light source. The theory of course is that in areas with multiple light sources, the shadows will not be completely black and therefore that optimization will not be utilized. So in areas with one light source, for example, a bathroom with one hanging light bulb, all shadows will be completely black (and untextured). Does anyone see the lack of logic in this? Imagine a real bathroom with only one light source, a single light bulb in the ceiling. Is the shadowed area under the sink completely black when you look at it? Of course not. That's because all surfaces in a room which have light cast upon them reflect light of their own. Is this a fundamental law of science that John Carmack somehow failed to understand? I doubt it. It's more likely that Carmack thought about it and decided that there's no way he could implement realistic surface light reflection. The technology simply isn't there. What is the point of this paragraph? To point out that Doom 3 won't be photorealistic-looking at all, and there are still lots of innovations left to be made in 3D gaming.

Share this post


Link to post
AndrewB said:

photorealistic-looking

Of course it won't be. They haven't got close to simulating a "photo-realistic" game at all...

And who cares? As if you would pay attention to the amount of light in a room when you are fighting hordes of demons...well I would if I had cheats on and stuff, but fuck I don't care about details like that. Afterall, nothing is perfect.

Share this post


Link to post

Of course details like that aren't important. Heck, you'll see me first in line at any "graphics aren't important" sale. However, some people on these forums have quipped that Doom 3 will be the game that ends all technological advancements. They say it'll be the game that people will look back at 15 years from now and drop their jaws at how realistic it is. I don't know exactly who said this and when it was said, but it was indeed said.

Share this post


Link to post

You go too much into detail - it's actually pretty damn annoying that you keep bitching about Doom 3 and all. You don't know shit about the game really and neither do any of us.

So, the shadows are non-textured? So fucking what? The rest of the game looks superb - it doesn't have to look like "Reallife Mk 2" or something. And let me point out: We have only seen like 5% of the overall gameplay of the fucking game, so you're in no position to judge it.

Hell, if you're convinced that the game wont be so fun gameplay-wise than that's fine by me, BUT SPARE US FOR ALL THAT GODDAMN BITCHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post

I concur, this is nothing but complaining for complaining's sake. Anyone who ever says that Doom 3 will be the most technologically advanced game ever made is indeed dumb, but to bitch and moan about something involving the engine and how it's advanced but not really super advanced is equally dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Linguica said:

I concur, this is nothing but complaining for complaining's sake. Anyone who ever says that Doom 3 will be the most technologically advanced game ever made is indeed dumb, but to bitch and moan about something involving the engine and how it's advanced but not really super advanced is equally dumb.


I agree.

DOOM III is one hell of a breakthrough technology wise, but there just ain't any hardware on the market right now and probably won't be for another 5-10 years that will be able to offer radiosity realistic dynamic lighting, this will take some times guys.

Share this post


Link to post

Heck, you'll see me first in line at any "graphics aren't important" sale.

You are so mad and wrong. Content and presentation are equally valuable, and that's it.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with you that lighting is unrealistic, but as we have said it's hardly a moot point as far as Doom3's projected release date is concerned taking into account present technology.

One solution could be to increase 'ambient' light within a map, but again due to present technology in fps games this can lead to bland, washed-out looking levels. Shadowing may not be always correct, but it gives the impression of more detail.

Share this post


Link to post
AndrewB said:

Is this a fundamental law of science that John Carmack somehow failed to understand? I doubt it.

Indeed. The lack of pure black shadows in the real world is the product of light reflecting off from surfaces several times. In Quake 2/3 engined games, to calculate a static representation of this phenomena takes several days to compute, even in powerful pcs. And that's taking in mind you're using Quake 2/3 era geometry detail.

If Carmack was the absolute genious, he could code it in, but it would take five, six times more time than a regular scanline renderer. Radiosity is a real bitch, not all movies use it for their special effects, just because it takes so much goddamn time to process and sometimes you cant even make it look good without manipulating the data manually.

Share this post


Link to post
Zaldron said:

In Quake 2/3 engined games, to calculate a static representation of this phenomena takes several days to compute, even in powerful pcs.

Quake 2 had radiosity calculations in the light compile phase. In fact an early complaint by the level designers was they couldn't do dramatic transitions from dark to bright like they did in Quake 1 because of the new radiosity code.

Share this post


Link to post
Zaldron said:

In Quake 2/3 engined games, to calculate a static representation of this phenomena takes several days to compute, even in powerful pcs.


That's a bit of an overstatement. The longest it has taken to light any Q3 maps I've made is a few hours. Most less than 45 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post

Depends heavily on your processing power, of course. I've never compiled a big map in Q2/Q3, though a medium-sized Q3 map I did took about 2 hours for a full -vis -light extra. Thank good compile times are gone for Doom III :)

Share this post


Link to post

Congratulations Zaldron, on the first insightful, non-knee-jerk-reaction reply on this thread. What others mistaked for complaining, Zaldron recognized as observing, and responded accordingly. AndrewB applesauces.

Edit: Actually, it's Pritch who made the first appropriate reply, Zaldron came in second. My oversight.

Share this post


Link to post

Turns out the packet of milk had critical feelings about my choice of clothing. I guess I'll try my luck arguing with a Cuisinart. :Þ

Share this post


Link to post

I hear Raman Noodles are especially insightful around this time of year.

Share this post


Link to post

Go talk to your good friend Cheese. He's probably wanting to hear what you have to say.

Share this post


Link to post
DooMBoy said:

Go talk to your good friend Cheese. He's probably wanting to hear what you have to say.

lol. why didn't your parents just name you "Stupid", jeez. people who weren't involved in this discussion would have kept out of it, or just not have said anything about food after Lut's post. but then you go and bring cheese into the fray. but it was quite ammusing, thank you. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Mastaba said:

That's a bit of an overstatement. The longest it has taken to light any Q3 maps I've made is a few hours. Most less than 45 minutes.

Lucky you. Last time I compiled a big project it was a Half-Life level depicting a real geometry city view from a rising glass elevator. It took 19 hours to compute on a, true, medium-range PC, but we're talking about 2 minutes of gameplay here.

Share this post


Link to post
gatewatcher said:

lol. why didn't your parents just name you "Stupid", jeez.

They decided my current name would sound better. :P

people who weren't involved in this discussion would have kept out of it, or just not have said anything about food after Lüt's post. but then you go and bring cheese into the fray. but it was quite ammusing, thank you. :P [/B]

Thanks for the insult, I really appreciate it. It makes me human again. :P

Share this post


Link to post
DooMBoy said:

Thanks for the insult, I really appreciate it. It makes me human again. :P

it wasn't realy an insult. i could never insult you!
EDIT: it was an insult

Share this post


Link to post

I agree totally, i dont know why everybody is jumping down your throat. I guess its sorta like wallace on the Detroit Pistons lol.

Andrew dont back down because people knee-jerk Doom 3 fans refuse to ACTUALLY READ

anyhow, im glad you brought this to my attention, because i have to admit *I* was one of the people who thought it would look very close to realistic, now im realizing that Quake 2 and 3 (and maybe even one) will lok a LOT BETTER in certain situations

you people missed andrews point totally i think, because for many situations (i.e. EVERYTHING OUT DOORS) the game will look WORSE THAN QUAKE. Thats the point

Share this post


Link to post

I think that Doom 3 will look very nice and we will all enjoy it.
There really isnt any point in arguing whether or not it will be the most realistic thing we've ever seen becuase eventually there will be something better. Will it set gaming standards for years to come? Maybe, maybe not. There's no way to tell. Building it up to this degree will only cause you to experienc disapointment when you get your hands on the final product.

Share this post


Link to post

AndrewB: John has (from what I heard) implemented a sort of beam-tree for the lighting system that prevents polygons hidden in shadows from being considered during the shadow-volume rendering.

So basically, if you have a table with a bunch of stuff under it and a light dangling above the table, the engine won't calculate the shadow volumes for all the stuff under the table, because they are inside the shadow volume casted by the table itself.

It's an optimization that kinda follows your idea. Rather than not texture what's in a shadow, it doesn't calculate shadows for things in shadows.

The thing I don't understand is why John didn't set it up so Doom3 could self-shadow the models. In the legacy video, the demon's foot is clearly in the shadow of the demon itself (pinky in the bathroom scene) but it remains illuminated as if the shadow wasn't being casted upon it.

I concluded that this is a simple hack to prevent the shadows from 'popping' as polygons on the model turn towards/away from the light source.. This can be resolved by simply casting shadow volumes from the backfaces of the model, as opposed to from the front faces. The model will still look the exact same, except it can cast shadows onto itself.

The popping can be seen in the scene of the legacy video where the one demon is walking through the large room with golden/bronze looking pillars and the light is moving in a circle around. If you watch the pillars themselves, the shadow volumes cause a popping where they connect with the pillars. This is due to the fact that the pillars are not truly round, they are just polygonal representations of a smooth surface.

Share this post


Link to post

now I am just confused. I was watching the legacy video again, and it is extremely clear that the pinky isn't self-shadowing but then just before the clip with trent, it shows a demon snarling and approaching the camera that is self-shadowing. what's going on!?

Share this post


Link to post

ok, new idea. the flourescent light in the bathroom scene could be more closely approximated if the models didn't cast shadows onto themselves, making it appear less point-lightish. The bathroom scene appears to be the only scene where models don't self-shadow themselves. I can't imagine it being a glitch.

Share this post


Link to post

I imagine there is a set of flags you can customize for every light in the world. Things like "Player self-shades", "Monsters self-shade", "Cast Shadows", "Shadow overall intensity" among the usual Color and Range values. That kinda stuff is imperative in 3D modelling/rendering packages when you're trying to render photorealistic scenes without a renderer that features radiosity and other photon-tracing effects.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmm, this gets more confusing the longer I think about it. If you have the leaked video you'll see Pinky doesn't self-shadow in the bathroom scene (at least I haven't spotted any self-shadowing), though the marine DOES self-shadow in the cutscene as he enters the room. Odd.

EDIT: Zaldron's post kinda explains it. Still, id works in mysterious ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×