Photorealistic 3D models for Doom?

[hardcore_gamer]

Why are there no photorealistic 3D characters and weapons for Doom? I know Risen3D has 3D models but they look cartoonish and frankly just not that great. Is there any technical limitation or has simply nobody made them?

[snapshot]

I believe it's because none of the existing engines can produce High quality lighting or make use of textures and materials without making them look like crap.

[scifista42]

Obviously, besides the fact that making models is hard, more detailed models lead to worse rendering performance, so overdoing it would cause the game to lag too heavily. If you read further into this thread, you'll find out that even though the guy worked hard on making his models highly detailed, he considered it necessary to make alternate, less detailed versions of them for actual usage in the game.

Edited August 20, 2017 by scifista42

[hardcore_gamer]

45 minutes ago, scifista42 said:

Obviously, besides the fact that making models is hard, more detailed models lead to worse rendering performance, so overdoing it would cause the game to lag too heavily. If you read further into this thread, you'll find out that even though the guy worked hard on making his models highly detailed, he considered it necessary to make alternate, less detailed versions of them for actual usage in the game.

 

I see so it is because of technical limitations. Would it not be possible to simply recreate the game in another engine like Unity or Unreal? Or would that get shut down via cease and desist like Disney did to that Star wars game?

[snapshot]

Yeah, looking forward for a Quality remake on a modern engine.

[scifista42]

It would both risk being cease-and-desisted AND not really "simply" help, as "more detailed models lead to worse rendering performance" is true in all game engines.

[snapshot]

Models can still be retopologized, helps perfomance and keeps quality good.

[Lila Feuer]

Because you can only push a 24 year old engine so far, even on the best rigs this game will manage to still fall into single digits when simply staring at too many sprites.

[Tea Monster]

 

[hardcore_gamer]

11 hours ago, Tea Monster said:

Videos

 

That looks pretty cool though I think the lack of good animation kinda kills it. I also would not consider the models close to photorealistic like modern games are.

[Cheshire Sphinx]

Photorealism only really works if everything surrounding that object is also that way. Cohesive graphical style re-enforce the aesthetic instead of distracting from it. Look at Rage's hidden Doom segments or Doom 2016's 'classic' segments. I hate to say it, but even the community's (awesome) HD texture packs and these models (which are also awesome) don't mesh in such a way to create a unified aesthetic; something you can attribute to lack of a single art director or art direction.

 

It can be something as massive as lines and colors, or something as (relatively) minor as animation frame timings and stuff.

 

Yeah, I know nobody asked for my opinion, but I think the drive for photorealism in an engine like this is kind of a Stygian endeavor. >_>

[Bauul]

A lot of it is down to the lighting engine too.  Doom has no directional lighting as in real life, merely light values, so all shadows need to be baked in manually.  On a low res sprite you can just draw them, but on a 3D model it just doesn't look great.

[Agentbromsnor]

On 23-8-2017 at 8:27 AM, Tea Monster said:

.

I'm usually not a fan of model replacements for Doom, but these actually look very good. The jerking animations still look strange, like when the Cacodemon turns, but it looks like there's a lot of detail put into them.

[snapshot]

It's also due to the way levels are structured, to my knowledge using too many 3D floors hurts the FPS, and dealing with Complex Geometry is alot harder than the regular 3D Modelling, It'd be best to just do it on an engine designed for that kind of work.

Edited August 25, 2017 by dmg_64

[VGamingJunkie]

Also doesn't help that the Source Ports don't seem to be well optimized with 3D in mind, or at least GZDoom doesn't seem to. Maybe it's just my imagination but it doesn't seem like it utilizes culling or mipmaps or the like since performance takes a hit when you're in a larger Environment and facing towards most of it, as if it's rendering literally everything at once regardless if the player can even see it or not.

[cybdmn]

On 20.8.2017 at 8:23 PM, hardcore_gamer said:

 

Would it not be possible to simply recreate the game in another engine like Unity or Unreal?

Uh, Unity and Unreal can handle photorealism? When will we see the first titles with photorealistic graphic? In ten years or more?

 

[hardcore_gamer]

42 minutes ago, cybdmn said:

Uh, Unity and Unreal can handle photorealism? When will we see the first titles with photorealistic graphic? In ten years or more?

 

 

Unreal can do near photorealism. Not 100% photorealism, but still pretty awesome graphics. Unity graphics are just pretty bad honestly. I don't think I have ever seen a Unity game with good looking graphics. Or at least not good in the realistic sense of the word. Unity games also tend to suffer from poor performance.

[cybdmn]

2 hours ago, hardcore_gamer said:

 

Unreal can do near photorealism.

Doesn't even comes close to photorealism.

[hardcore_gamer]

3 hours ago, cybdmn said:

Doesn't even comes close to photorealism.

 

I guess your definition of photorealism is just different from mine then. I don't really use the term to describe graphics that literally look like real life, but just realistic graphics in general that can wow you. My original point was that Unreal engine 4 can produce amazing graphics where as I have never seen such a game made in Unity.

[cybdmn]

Yea, your definition of photorealism ist that of the typical marketing bullshit, which calls graphics photorealistic for every new game since twenty years.

[Tea Monster]

'Photorealism' means it looks like a photograph. 

 

Like this: https://www.unrealengine.com/marketplace/asia-modern-apartment

 

And this: https://ue4arch.com/shop/complete-projects/barcelona-pavillion/

 

 

 

 

[cybdmn]

I know, what photorealism means.

 

Both of your pics are NOT photorealistic. They are examples for UEs capability for archviz, not for photorealism. Even with big renderers like VRay you need lots of work and a big machine for photorealism in single images. Photorealism in real time is sci-fi at the moment.

 

[snapshot]

Ugh, obviously we're not talking about Photorealism as no machine is capable of handling that much polygons, Photorealistic is used often to refer to assets that look Real, ain't rocket science.

[NEANDERTHAL]

Specular and bump maps would go a long way towards making things more realistic.