Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Dima

Unreal 2 Vs Doom 3

Recommended Posts

For anyone who doesn't know, the first information about Unreal 2 has beeb released!
You can read everything here: http://www.voodooextreme.com/articles/unrealiiinformation.html
2 Pc gamer shots can be found here: http://www.veforums.com/Forum28/HTML/000072.html
Personally, I think it looks like a typical unreal engine graphics with added large terrain support, more complex characters and no Glide (only Direct3D now).
It is uncomparable to Doom 3!!
Honestly, I think Quake 3 engine looks better than this!

Share this post


Link to post

I saw screenshots from an Unreal2 character with animated face, it looked good, but basicly just like an UT model with more polys, and it came nowhere near to the faces we have seen in the Geforce3 demo.

The building on that forum screenshot looks like they still weren´t able to build curves like in Q3 with heir engine(?). But the landscape in the background looks really nice. I hope we will see some sort of natural landscapes also in Doom3.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree. It's not that sweet at all, barely catching up to Q3 and adding more polys + the unreal engine's cool effects.

I plan to build a q3 map with insane detail. Just do everything with basic "material" textures and do the rest with polys, just to see how good it can get. I'm talking every brick being at least 5 polys. It'll probably run like shit on pretty much every computer there is today, but it might be fun loading it up when we have GF3's and 32343ghz cpu's :)

Share this post


Link to post

Im guessing, just by reading the url address and the first few words of your post, that UT2 will require lots of system resources just like doom3 will (anything with voodoo extreme or any other 3d accelerator card website in it applies with this).

Im not against it being a 3d accelerated technology (too damn many people have it nowadays, I think it sucks), Im just against games taking up more and more resources just because people's newer computers can handle it. Think about it, there is a set-point for resources that a good game would need, to exceed that in any vast amount (like doom3 is doing [blasphemy!]) is a waste of resources when it could have been optimized better or some of the bells and whistles could ahve been cut out.

Quake 3 is an example of this republicanist attitude (lets cut down all the trees - that's what they're there for [::growls like a demon at these people::]).

Share this post


Link to post

Of course Unreal 2 doesn't have much of the cool effects Doom 3 is going to have (logical because DOOM 3 IS STILL MORE THAN A YEAR AWAY), though I am impressed with the screenshots, especially the bottom one.

In fact, the structure on the upper screenshot looks so cool, I'm afraid I'm going to have to steal it for use in Re-Born :) (which, by the way, is coming along nicely)

Share this post


Link to post
Guest CRiZ
Lord FlatHead said:

Of course Unreal 2 doesn't have much of the cool effects Doom 3 is going to have (logical because DOOM 3 IS STILL MORE THAN A YEAR AWAY), though I am impressed with the screenshots, especially the bottom one.

In fact, the structure on the upper screenshot looks so cool, I'm afraid I'm going to have to steal it for use in Re-Born :) (which, by the way, is coming along nicely)

Actually, did you see in the voodooextreme article that it says Unreal 2 has 12 months lefts in its development? I was under the impression that it was supposed to come out sooner. I bet they're reworking aspects of the engine in the anticipation of the GF3's pixel shading capabilities.

Does anyone know if the GF2 had pixel-shaders?

Share this post


Link to post
Tetzlaff said:

I saw screenshots from an Unreal2 character with animated face, it looked good, but basicly just like an UT model with more polys, and it came nowhere near to the faces we have seen in the Geforce3 demo.

The building on that forum screenshot looks like they still weren´t able to build curves like in Q3 with heir engine(?). But the landscape in the background looks really nice. I hope we will see some sort of natural landscapes also in Doom3.

I am wondering, are you able to walk in that landscape or what? It looks a bit like a background pic to me hehe;). Whole unreal2 looks more like cartoon , other then doom 3 looking more like a real movie.

Share this post


Link to post
CRiZ said:

Actually, did you see in the voodooextreme article that it says Unreal 2 has 12 months lefts in its development? I was under the impression that it was supposed to come out sooner. I bet they're reworking aspects of the engine in the anticipation of the GF3's pixel shading capabilities.

Does anyone know if the GF2 had pixel-shaders?

Nope. Sweeney commented some time ago that he´s waiting a little more to add that features, when the market supports it. Anyway, Carmack took like 10 months of research to develop the algorythms, and U2´s 12 months away from now. The math doesn´t match.

Yes, the GF2 haves them. In fact, the GF2 can play DooM3, altough you´re limited to 640x480 and some features off (due to fill rate, you can´t hit 30 fps).

Share this post


Link to post

There´s something I really hate about the publicity surrounding U2 : "We have 150 to 200 times more polys than UT"

My ass.

That´s COUNTING the new terrain renderer. Ooh, how smart. The terrain system´s defined by a basic set of rules that makes each poly preparation and renderization faster than normal brushes. Besides, they can apply heightfield technollogy over the terrain mesh to speed things up. And just like Q3TA, terrain meshes are lightmap-free, since the system would :

1) Chug like a bastard
2) Make maps larger than 50 MB
3) Don´t enhance that much the view.

Plain regular vertex shading is all you need for single Z point terrains.

Show me a castle with 200 times more detail than UT, and absolutely no terrain meshes, and I´ll accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
AIRmichael said:

I am wondering, are you able to walk in that landscape or what? It looks a bit like a background pic to me hehe;). Whole unreal2 looks more like cartoon , other then doom 3 looking more like a real movie.

I think you will be able to walk in that landscape.
BTW, I wouldn´t call it "cartoon" just because it isn´t made in our days realistic scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest CRiZ
Zaldron said:

Nope. Sweeney commented some time ago that he´s waiting a little more to add that features, when the market supports it. Anyway, Carmack took like 10 months of research to develop the algorythms, and U2´s 12 months away from now. The math doesn´t match.

Yes, the GF2 haves them. In fact, the GF2 can play DooM3, altough you´re limited to 640x480 and some features off (due to fill rate, you can´t hit 30 fps).

But Sweeney talks about being limited to what I assume are the GF3's 12 pixel shading instructions. Wouldn't that imply that he's using them? Or is he just saying that they limit originality and aren't enough for photorealism in future games?

I feel bad for Sweeney. I certainly woulnd't want to compete against Carmack. I was thinking the same thing, Zaldron. I knew those references had to be related to the terrain engine but I guess these little white lies are neccessary if U2 is going to compete with D3.

Share this post


Link to post

Even Carmack has it´s own set of complaints about the GeForce3. I think every respectable graphic programmer in the community has already evaluated the GF3 inner workings and made their review.

12 pixel shading instructions are enough for now. The problem is the texture passes. Carmack´s applying 20 filtering over each triangle. That´s the biggest hit in framerate, since each card supports X passes per rendering loop. Having to do 2, 3 or more passes cut the speed in 1/2, 1/3 and so on...

Share this post


Link to post
AIRmichael said:

Hey, is re-born a game you're working on? It sounds cool. Are you programming it?

Actually I'm a mapper on the project. Check out www.planetquake.com/reborn. Maybe you'll find some screenshots of my work soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Zaldron said:

There´s something I really hate about the publicity surrounding U2 : "We have 150 to 200 times more polys than UT"

My ass.

That´s COUNTING the new terrain renderer. Ooh, how smart. The terrain system´s defined by a basic set of rules that makes each poly preparation and renderization faster than normal brushes. Besides, they can apply heightfield technollogy over the terrain mesh to speed things up. And just like Q3TA, terrain meshes are lightmap-free, since the system would :

1) Chug like a bastard
2) Make maps larger than 50 MB
3) Don´t enhance that much the view.

Plain regular vertex shading is all you need for single Z point terrains.

Show me a castle with 200 times more detail than UT, and absolutely no terrain meshes, and I´ll accept it.

The easy way to make terrains is do it the way "Bryce" does it. You have an image of xx' pixels by yy' pixels and the program interpolates those values into the heights of each vertex in the terrain based upon the brightness of the pixel in the image - this can be done real time (and easily too).

And the images only ahve to take up maybe a few 'K because they can give outstanding effects even when the res is as low as 128x128. In other words, it's not a brush.

And to get it to work in a map, all you would have to do (as the game's programmer/map designer) is make a reference to a certain image somewhere for the terrain, include a few other variables such as scaling and resizing, and whala! A brush that is about 7K instead of 115K.


---
The answer to making good character models is not more polys... but how well the polys are designed to utilize the skin they wear. Quake 2 didn't have that many polys per model (i don't think) but their characters looked outstanding because they had excellent cooperation between the skins and the polygons (ntm, alot of their characters had lots of flat surfaces on them from armor and whatnot).
----

What I am waiting for is when these guys start making the rounded edges on their gun barrels and other objects more smooth. Six sides doesn't cut it for an ejected bullet casing, Ten sides doesn't cut it for chaingun barrels (actually chaingun barrels should be individually cut, ie, no more of this one-object with a chaingun barrels skin on it).

oh, and btw: when ARE things going to get more optimized?

From what iv'e gathered on the epic website, they're in bed with the video card manufacturers too.

Share this post


Link to post
Zaldron said:

Nope. Sweeney commented some time ago that he´s waiting a little more to add that features, when the market supports it. Anyway, Carmack took like 10 months of research to develop the algorythms, and U2´s 12 months away from now. The math doesn´t match.

Yes, the GF2 haves them. In fact, the GF2 can play DooM3, altough you´re limited to 640x480 and some features off (due to fill rate, you can´t hit 30 fps).

Who says I would even play in 640x480?

I may be one of the few people left who still likes the feel of low-res.

I run my doom sourceport in 320x200, I run quake 1 in 320x200, I run my 3d programs (like bryce) in 320x200 (well, i make the document size smaller anyway).

I even play quake 2 in 320x200 (or 240), and if I could run quake 3 I would run it in 320x200.

Actually, no, I run quake 2 in 400x300 windowed because I like things small. And it's not because I cant run it faster. I took it to the computers at school and installed it so I could play multiplayer (im in college, they dont give a fuck what you install), and I still play it 320x240 windowed (runs smooth as a bitch too!).

I can't stand High-res, and even more so, larger screens. If the monitor I am working on is 19-inch, I have to shrink the game's window down to about half-size. It's just that with a small screen, you can focus on everything in the environment and you dont have to turn yor head or keep moving your eyes all over the place just to see what is on the peripherial vision of your character (ie, sides of the screen).

I am near-sighted (where things far away get fuzzy, it's not that bad actually, but 15ft is my range for reading a small sign [letters 2 inches tall]), I don't have bad nearsightedness (maybe 20x45 vision) bit it's bad enough so that I have to sit less than a foot away from the monitor to see individual pixels.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
×