Hmmm, which one, which one... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, let's see... you're comparing a cave scene in Doom3 with quite detailed terrain in 360 degrees to a HL2 open vista shot with blocky-as-hell terrain (the point I was illustrating earlier) and distance fog. RandomEngy, remember those 'tricks' you were looking at earlier? Looks like HL2 does the <b>exact same thing</b>. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Forlorn, we also have no idea how HL2 will run on Eek's computer. We don't have his system specs and exact settings. The sys requirements for each aren't actually all that far apart. And the D3 engine in that shot looks to be pushing a hell of a lot more polys than Source in the comparison shot.
<!--QuoteBegin-RandomEngy+Aug 25 2004, 01:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (RandomEngy @ Aug 25 2004, 01:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I already explained that. Thanks for reading the thread before posting. The reason it's able to render that environment is you're not able to actually go over there so it can just use huge, far-off polys. Hence my statement "Doom 3 requires these tricks to depict outdoor environments." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I read the thread. Thanks. The reason you're completely wrong is that the green line in the center of the screen and the miniscule blue line below it are measuring the cyberdemon and the height of the player character if he were to go over and stand there. The way you talk about Doom3 using tricks to show expansive environments makes me wonder if you can actually see the distance fog in the HL2 shot. They're both equally impressive in my eyes, but I have to say FarCry beats the pants off of both for distance.
1) More screenshots, please <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> 2) Less annoying fan-boyism, less annoying ranting, less arguing. More discussion, if you can't do pictures. 3) It's not a ****-measuring contest. It's not about who has the biggest number of polys, or triangles, or trans-dimensional nuclear light rays, or whatever. It's about what looks and works the best. 4) You can't compare. So don't say "Your points are invalid, you can't compare!.... But here are my points."
To the person who said Doom III has excellent physics is lying. I shot a rocket to a chair and it moved just an inch across the room. While Doom III's atmosphere/graphics are mind boggling, the physics are not.
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Aug 25 2004, 12:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 25 2004, 12:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No, I'm tired of those who don't ugprade their computers <b>and complain when they can't run current games, or expect to be able to run said games</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oops. Ok, I get it.
MedHead, making games work for older systems is a bad idea?
Is that why HL2 is like the oldest played game in the world? Same with Starcraft? Somehow, I think performance is a good indicator of how well it will do in sales.
The thing about these people complaining that "Hey, if it doesn't work on my system I'm not gonna play it." They aren't being cheap, they are being realistic. If they don't wanna upgrade their system, they don't lose, the <b>game companies do</b>. It is far better to make a game that runs well across all platforms, but if these people still want higher fps then they will find reason to upgrade. I would have never upgraded my computer to what it is now had I never played HL; it ran okay on my system but I wanted 100 fps solid to go pr0.
Games that run well cause people to upgrade, not games that run like crap on today's system. And doom 3 runs chugs like a train on both newer system (EEK's expansive area) and older system (getting above 20 fps is a challenge in fights...).
The stress tests in HL2 indicate I'm probably going to get at least twice as many frames as I do in doom 3, and I'll tweak that even more by lowering resolution and lowering other settings for raw FPS.
KFS:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, let's see... you're comparing a cave scene in Doom3 with quite detailed terrain in 360 degrees to a HL2 open vista shot with blocky-as-hell terrain (the point I was illustrating earlier) and distance fog. RandomEngy, remember those 'tricks' you were looking at earlier? Looks like HL2 does the exact same thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um, well first the cave in doom 3, like the stress tests indicate, the same scene in HL2 I'm probably gonna get twice as many fps (that's huge). Next, the Hl2 terrain is blocky, but as I look around in this room I'm sitting in, I see:
- A blocky door - Blocky courners to the walls - Blocky desks - Blocky cabients
Man, these real life graphics suck! Or maybe I just don't understand how blocky = bad.
Next, the fog is not a trick as much as it is intentional.
And the ploy counts look pretty high in that HL2 shot, just look at the bridge's architecture, as well as the rock wall which seems rather detailed.
As for the scale of the pictures, they appear the same.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1) More screenshots, please 2) Less annoying fan-boyism, less annoying ranting, less arguing. More discussion, if you can't do pictures. 3) It's not a ****-measuring contest. It's not about who has the biggest number of polys, or triangles, or trans-dimensional nuclear light rays, or whatever. It's about what looks and works the best. 4) You can't compare. So don't say "Your points are invalid, you can't compare!.... But here are my points."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just because I hate it when people tell others what to do, I feel like killing a post:
1.) What does that have to do with the thread? 2.) READ THE TOPIC TITLE No arguing? Rediculous... 3.) Actually, these things matter and there definately are trends between the corralation between how a game preforms, it's sales, as well as lasting popularity... 4.) You can compare.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Aug 25 2004, 12:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Aug 25 2004, 12:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> MedHead, making games work for older systems is a bad idea?
[1]Is that why HL2 is like the oldest played game in the world? Same with Starcraft? Somehow, I think performance is a good indicator of how well it will do in sales.
[2]The thing about these people complaining that "Hey, if it doesn't work on my system I'm not gonna play it." They aren't being cheap, they are being realistic. If they don't wanna upgrade their system, they don't lose, the <b>game companies do</b>. It is far better to make a game that runs well across all platforms, but if these people still want higher fps then they will find reason to upgrade. I would have never upgraded my computer to what it is now had I never played HL; it ran okay on my system but I wanted 100 fps solid to go pr0.
[3]Games that run well cause people to upgrade, not games that run like c**p on today's system. And doom 3 runs chugs like a train on both newer system (EEK's expansive area) and older system (getting above 20 fps is a challenge in fights...).
[4]The stress tests in HL2 indicate I'm probably going to get at least twice as many frames as I do in doom 3, and I'll tweak that even more by lowering resolution and lowering other settings for raw FPS. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> [1] I imagine you're talking about Half-Life, which, strangely enough, was <b>built using an id engine.</b>
[2] Yeah, you're right. Game companies lose if they don't sell. But, by going to the lowest bidder, they're stagnating themselves. I was saying what I would <b>like</b> to see, not what was <b>actually happening</b>.
[3] What's your point? It's an <b>older</b> system. You can't <b>expect</b> it to run <b>new</b> games.
[4] I don't really think we should be pointing to Valve for an example of a company that has software that runs on all computers. Remember, Half-Life was built on id technology. Steam, Valve's first venture into ground-up coding, requires a faster system for the <b>same game</b> that ran fine on older computers - all for a simple GUI. I'm not sure if we should be lauding Valve's accomplishments just yet.
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
I'm doing it again, I'm agreeing with Forlorn. ^^
I have to say, that DOOM3 cavern isn't terribly impressive to me. Look closely at all the stalactites and stalagmites... they're angular, low-poly, BLOCKY. The only obviously block part of the HL2 shot put up for comparison, IMO, is the buildings. The coastline is convincing, the bridge is convincing, the cliff wall is convincing.
EEK has complained (and will probably remind us all) of the simplicity in HL2 structures. He has a point -- HL2 makes a big block and textures it with a wall with windows on it. It saves tons of polys when it could be actually modeling individual window frames. Yes, it's a cut corner. But if you all remember the HL2 DX9 showoff bink video (the one with the antlion on the roof), you could see a HUGE distance. You could see a mile across the rooftops, until details were obscured by the hazy day. And the haze wasn't the draw-distance fog of yestergames, it was the haze of a working city. It convinced me it could be real.
There's no question that DOOM3 has more interesting lighting that HL2's. However, it's very stark lighting - black and white, 0 and 1, lit and not-lit. We have yet to see what Valve has to show with its lighting. It won't be as impressive, and after games like DOOM3 and Chronicles of Riddick, that may stick in our throats a bit. When I was playing Psi-Ops, one of my roommate's first comments was that the lighting and shadows just weren't up to par with DOOM3's or Riddick's. Will it be the downfall of HL2? Maybe. We'll have to see what happens. Personally, I thought Psi-Ops' lighting was good enough, since the game was really more about the physics. But that's really neither here nor there.
KungFuSquirrelBasher of MuttonsJoin Date: 2002-01-26Member: 103Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
edited August 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Aug 25 2004, 12:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Aug 25 2004, 12:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Man, these real life graphics suck! Or maybe I just don't understand how blocky = bad. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Blocky = bad when one game is criticized for low poly terrain when its terrain work is far higher poly than the blockier of the two. Only comparison I was trying to make.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have to say, that DOOM3 cavern isn't terribly impressive to me. Look closely at all the stalactites and stalagmites... they're angular, low-poly, BLOCKY. The only obviously block part of the HL2 shot put up for comparison, IMO, is the buildings. The coastline is convincing, the bridge is convincing, the cliff wall is convincing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They're convincing because you look at the entire picture, not the edges. But when it comes to the competing technology, it suddenly is all too convenient to look straight for the edges and then slag off the entire technology as a result (saying people in general do this, not necessarily you). Comparing games on different standards is no comparison.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Aug 25 2004, 12:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Aug 25 2004, 12:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It was built with id technology. Big deal. Valve used id's tech better than they ever could have, so your point is pointless <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, no. My point still stands. Valve modified an engine. They're lauded for it. Modifying is easier than making it from scratch. I was pointing out that Valve, until Steam and Source, had yet to actually make their own engine, instead working on id technology - which was ironic, since the very designers of the technology were also being called "inferior" to Valve.
We're only just now seeing Valve work on it's own engine, and what do we see? Cut corners (which, ironically, is what you're saying id did in Quake II). If someone came along and modified the Source engine, does that make them "better" programmers? Hah, no.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Aug 25 2004, 06:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Aug 25 2004, 06:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->MedHead, making games work for older systems is a bad idea?
Is that why HL2 is like the oldest played game in the world? Same with Starcraft? Somehow, I think performance is a good indicator of how well it will do in sales. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ofcourse you mean HL<b>1</b>. The reason why HL is so popular is mainly because of Counter-Strike, what am I saying, only because CS. You honestly think people are going to stick with a piece of sh*t engine that HL has, because it runs better on old systems? Who are you kidding. As a matter of fact, HL is <b>slower</b>, yes <b>SLOWER</b>, than Quake3. So the HL engine essentially loses the only thing it had coming for it. HL gained popularity and thereby more mods kept coming, and gained more popularity. There's nothing to thank Valve for, infact, din't they once try to 'update' the CS models? They did a proper terrible job at it. So much for their abilities.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Games that run well cause people to upgrade, not games that run like crap on today's system. And doom 3 runs chugs like a train on both newer system (EEK's expansive area) and older system (getting above 20 fps is a challenge in fights...).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And he pulls that argument of out his arse again, very nice indeed Forlorn. Ofcourse it din't come to mind Eek's system actually wasn't a top-of-the-line PC? No ofcourse it din't, bloody idiot. I'm getting a 60FPS straight, ala <b>SILK</b> framerate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the same scene in HL2 I'm probably gonna get twice as many fps (that's huge). Next, the Hl2 terrain is blocky, but as I look around in this room I'm sitting in, I see:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK now i'm not even going to move further into your post, as this is absolutely the best piece of sheer comedy i've seen yet. You PROBABLY are gonna get twice the FPS in HL2's scene? Probably eh? Ok so how did you come that conclusion? What? Oh you're just pulling more **** out of your arse? Well be my guest, it wouldn't be the first time...
[EDIT] More offensive than my intention was, but my point still stands...
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They're convincing because you look at the entire picture, not the edges. But when it comes to the competing technology, it suddenly is all too convenient to look straight for the edges and then slag off the entire technology as a result (saying people in general do this, not necessarily you). Comparing games on different standards is no comparison.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Perhaps, but I think my point still stands. I look at the DOOM3 cave and say "ooh, nice cave. Ooh. low-poly rocks." If I'm walking along in a game and something suddenly strikes me as out-of-place in terms of detail level, I notice it. That cave is a striking difference to the standard DOOM3 shots I've seen, because it sports many fewer polys-per-unit-area.
In contrast, the HL2 shot looks no more or less realistic than every other HL2 shot I've seen. They have not compromised their visuals to render a large outdoor image. Does that mean that HL2 is generally simpler than DOOM3? Maybe. But it presents a more coherent picture because they don't have to simplify to the degree that id did in making that cave.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuSquirrel+Aug 25 2004, 07:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuSquirrel @ Aug 25 2004, 07:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Man, these real life graphics suck! Or maybe I just don't understand how blocky = bad. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Real life aint blocky, there are dents of stuff in the surface, instead of just planes spliced together <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ofcourse you mean HL1. The reason why HL is so popular is mainly because of Counter-Strike, what am I saying, only because CS.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If i recall correctly, HL got quite a number of awards on its own. It also shipped alot of copies before Counter-Strike was even released.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OK now i'm not even going to move further into your post, as this is absolutely the best piece of sheer comedy i've seen yet. You PROBABLY are gonna get twice the FPS in HL2's scene? Probably eh? Ok so how did you come that conclusion? What? Oh you're just pulling more **** out of your arse? Well be my guest, it wouldn't be the first time...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to the Source stress tests, he is. He came to that conclusion because, strangely, it just might be a possibility that the results on the Source stress test will be similiar, if not lower (There is alot of effects happening) than the results while running the actual game on Source.
<!--QuoteBegin-Travis Dane+Aug 25 2004, 12:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Travis Dane @ Aug 25 2004, 12:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Aug 25 2004, 06:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Aug 25 2004, 06:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->MedHead, making games work for older systems is a bad idea?
Is that why HL2 is like the oldest played game in the world? Same with Starcraft? Somehow, I think performance is a good indicator of how well it will do in sales. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ofcourse you mean HL<b>1</b>. The reason why HL is so popular is mainly because of Counter-Strike, what am I saying, only because CS. You honestly think people are going to stick with a piece of sh*t engine that HL has, because it runs better on old systems? Who are you kidding. As a matter of fact, HL is <b>slower</b>, yes <b>SLOWER</b>, than Quake3. So the HL engine essentially loses the only thing it had coming for it. HL gained popularity and thereby more mods kept coming, and gained more popularity. There's nothing to thank Valve for, infact, din't they once try to 'update' the CS models? They did a proper terrible job at it. So much for their abilities.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Games that run well cause people to upgrade, not games that run like crap on today's system. And doom 3 runs chugs like a train on both newer system (EEK's expansive area) and older system (getting above 20 fps is a challenge in fights...).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And he pulls that argument of out his arse again, very nice indeed Forlorn. Ofcourse it din't come to mind Eek's system actually wasn't a top-of-the-line PC? No of course it din't, bloody idiot. I'm getting a 60FPS straight, ala <b>SILK</b> framerate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the same scene in HL2 I'm probably gonna get twice as many fps (that's huge). Next, the Hl2 terrain is blocky, but as I look around in this room I'm sitting in, I see:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK now i'm not even going to move further into your post, as this is absolutely the best piece of sheer comedy i've seen yet. You PROBABLY are gonna get twice the FPS in HL2's scene? Probably eh? Ok so how did you come that conclusion? What? Oh you're just pulling more **** out of your arse? Well be my guest, it wouldn't be the first time...
[EDIT] More offensive than my intention was, but my point still stands... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Try reading
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ofcourse you mean HL<b>1</b>. The reason why HL is so popular is mainly because of Counter-Strike, what am I saying, only because CS. You honestly think people are going to stick with a piece of sh*t engine that HL has, because it runs better on old systems? Who are you kidding. As a matter of fact, HL is <b>slower</b>, yes <b>SLOWER</b>, than Quake3.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And why was CS made for HL and not any other engine? HL was super popular when it came out, and then CS kept it going.
CS happened because of a well built, highly scalable engine at the time that was easy to configure.
Who gives a crap if it used a pre-existing one? Applied science is just as good as Theoretical science.
And what the hell does 'Updating CS modesl' have to do with the left side of pluto again? Or are we off-subject?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And he pulls that argument of out his arse again, very nice indeed Forlorn. Ofcourse it din't come to mind Eek's system actually wasn't a top-of-the-line PC? No of course it din't, bloody idiot. I'm getting a 60FPS straight, ala <b>SILK</b> framerate. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EEK stated he got 60 fps in smaller enviroments, and in fights... that's a damn good system. So is yours if you get 60 fps straight. Just realize,
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>People who get 60 fps in doom 3 nice and silky are not the norm, good bye</span>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OK now i'm not even going to move further into your post, as this is absolutely the best piece of sheer comedy i've seen yet. You PROBABLY are gonna get twice the FPS in HL2's scene? Probably eh? Ok so how did you come that conclusion? What? Oh you're just pulling more **** out of your arse? Well be my guest, it wouldn't be the first time...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, after <a href='http://eslus.com/LESSONS/READING/READ.HTM' target='_blank'>Reading this</a>, I would like to point you to this post which shows some <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=78511&view=findpost&p=1204583' target='_blank'>some stress tests and benchmarks</a>, both very good indicators of what we can expect. Esp. of what I can expect, as the only limiting thing on my system is my card.
<!--QuoteBegin-TheMuffinMan+Aug 25 2004, 07:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TheMuffinMan @ Aug 25 2004, 07:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ofcourse you mean HL1. The reason why HL is so popular is mainly because of Counter-Strike, what am I saying, only because CS.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If i recall correctly, HL got quite a number of awards on its own. It also shipped alot of copies before Counter-Strike was even released.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OK now i'm not even going to move further into your post, as this is absolutely the best piece of sheer comedy i've seen yet. You PROBABLY are gonna get twice the FPS in HL2's scene? Probably eh? Ok so how did you come that conclusion? What? Oh you're just pulling more **** out of your arse? Well be my guest, it wouldn't be the first time...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to the Source stress tests, he is. He came to that conclusion because, strangely, it just might be a possibility that the results on the Source stress test will be similiar, if not lower (There is alot of effects happening) than the results while running the actual game on Source.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm hinting towards the multiplayer side of the players. I doubt people in fast amounts will be playing HL singeplayer (or it's deathmatch (wasnt fantastic)) up to 6 years.
I can't see any way you could base the FPS in the stresstest against the FPS on a completely different scene. If I remember correctly the stresstest was mostly small indoor area's. You're basing an outdoor scene on that? Not at all realiable. It's rediculous either way guessing one's FPS against the FPS you got on another test with vastly different scenes.
<!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Aug 25 2004, 02:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Aug 25 2004, 02:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-RandomEngy+Aug 25 2004, 01:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (RandomEngy @ Aug 25 2004, 01:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I already explained that. Thanks for reading the thread before posting. The reason it's able to render that environment is you're not able to actually go over there so it can just use huge, far-off polys. Hence my statement "Doom 3 requires these tricks to depict outdoor environments." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I read the thread. Thanks. The reason you're completely wrong is that the green line in the center of the screen and the miniscule blue line below it are measuring the cyberdemon and the height of the player character if he were to go over and stand there. The way you talk about Doom3 using tricks to show expansive environments makes me wonder if you can actually see the distance fog in the HL2 shot. They're both equally impressive in my eyes, but I have to say FarCry beats the pants off of both for distance. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe it's hard to tell because the picture's so darned dark, but he's standing on (or floating over) a really blocky area which is overlooking the detailed area. It you only concentrate on the detailed area, then yeah the shot is amazing.
As for that HL2 shot, I can only remember seeing fog in a few areas, and then it always allowed quite a long visibility. It's not as good as Farcry, but that's really not the point, is it? And that certainly doesn't look like "blocky-as-hell" terrain to me. You also say that the Doom 3 shot is pushing a lot more polys. That might explain why it's chugging at that point. Though look at the HL2 shot again. Look closely at the bridge latticework. Look at the two statues or whatever they are at the left of the bridge. Look at the rock wall and the windmill. Or instead, watch the speedboat chase in the E3 2004 video. I can guaruntee you if Doom 3 tried that it would fall over and die.
People are getting really defensive about Doom 3. I'm not saying it's a bad game. I'm just pointing out what I thought were obvious defeciencies in the engine.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Aug 25 2004, 07:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Aug 25 2004, 07:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And why was CS made for HL and not any other engine? HL was super popular when it came out, and then CS kept it going.
CS happened because of a well built, highly scalable engine at the time that was easy to configure.
Who gives a crap if it used a pre-existing one? Applied science is just as good as Theoretical science.
And what the hell does 'Updating CS modesl' have to do with the left side of pluto again? Or are we off-subject?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And he pulls that argument of out his arse again, very nice indeed Forlorn. Ofcourse it din't come to mind Eek's system actually wasn't a top-of-the-line PC? No of course it din't, bloody idiot. I'm getting a 60FPS straight, ala <b>SILK</b> framerate. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EEK stated he got 60 fps in smaller enviroments, and in fights... that's a damn good system. So is yours if you get 60 fps straight. Just realize,
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>People who get 60 fps in doom 3 nice and silky are not the norm, good bye</span>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OK now i'm not even going to move further into your post, as this is absolutely the best piece of sheer comedy i've seen yet. You PROBABLY are gonna get twice the FPS in HL2's scene? Probably eh? Ok so how did you come that conclusion? What? Oh you're just pulling more **** out of your arse? Well be my guest, it wouldn't be the first time...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, after <a href='http://eslus.com/LESSONS/READING/READ.HTM' target='_blank'>Reading this</a>, I would like to point you to this post which shows some <a href='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=78511&view=findpost&p=1204583' target='_blank'>some stress tests and benchmarks</a>, both very good indicators of what we can expect. Esp. of what I can expect, as the only limiting thing on my system is my card.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll have to go out on a limb here and call HL lucky... Not only was Quake3 around the corner at the time, there were also other Games\Engines competing wich IMO were better. Sin for example, struck by terrible bugs, all fixed in it's first patch, but lost it's popularity anyway. I'd see CS made for Sin.
Somehow, what you're keep trying to say is, if you're getting 60FPS you generally have a superior system? I can't help but to disagree. Eek actually din't mention any of his system specifics (couldnt find any anyway), for all you know he could be having a 9800pro, wich is quite possibly going by people's experiences ive read.
As i've mentioned on my previous post, general, VERY general, indicators maybe. But you're expecting 20FPS times two? That's just way out of line for you to guestimate...
KungFuSquirrelBasher of MuttonsJoin Date: 2002-01-26Member: 103Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<!--QuoteBegin-RandomEngy+Aug 25 2004, 01:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (RandomEngy @ Aug 25 2004, 01:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> People are getting really defensive about Doom 3. I'm not saying it's a bad game. I'm just pointing out what I thought were obvious defeciencies in the engine. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But if anything, they're art/design 'deficiencies' (or, rather, decisions), not engine deficiencies.
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuSquirrel+Aug 25 2004, 06:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuSquirrel @ Aug 25 2004, 06:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-RandomEngy+Aug 25 2004, 01:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (RandomEngy @ Aug 25 2004, 01:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> People are getting really defensive about Doom 3. I'm not saying it's a bad game. I'm just pointing out what I thought were obvious defeciencies in the engine. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But if anything, they're art/design 'deficiencies' (or, rather, decisions), not engine deficiencies. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, the art and design is superb. The fact that it starts chugging on even a decently large area is an engine deficiency.
<!--QuoteBegin-Travis Dane+Aug 25 2004, 01:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Travis Dane @ Aug 25 2004, 01:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can't see any way you could base the FPS in the stresstest against the FPS on a completely different scene. If I remember correctly the stresstest was mostly small indoor area's. You're basing an outdoor scene on that? Not at all realiable. It's rediculous either way guessing one's FPS against the FPS you got on another test with vastly different scenes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://demon.x5788.net/stress_test(1).avi' target='_blank'>Stess Test</a>
The stress test has the player in a cavern with natural-looking walls that appear to have bump-mapped textures. On the bottom of the cavern is water, and it looks like there's a broken elevator shaft, too, so the scene is in the medium-poly range. However, as the camera goes down, it displays many rectangluar prisms with shader textures that refract, which are probably more expensive to compute than an outdoor scene with very little use of advanced shaders.
Maybe the poly count will balance out, but I somehow doubt it - the Unreal 2 engine is good at pulling off somewhat similar terrain while maintaining a swift 60 FPS (vSynch) on my machine, and if the Source engine has more raw poly power, which it claims to, then I think it'll be able to handle that scene just fine.
Also, I believe I read somewhere that all of the level designers use 2.0 Ghz machines with GF4MX or so cards, but then again, Valve isn't exacly the most honest company ever.
<!--QuoteBegin-Travis Dane+Aug 25 2004, 01:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Travis Dane @ Aug 25 2004, 01:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Aug 25 2004, 07:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Aug 25 2004, 07:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And why was CS made for HL and not any other engine? HL was super popular when it came out, and then CS kept it going.
CS happened because of a well built, highly scalable engine at the time that was easy to configure.
Who gives a crap if it used a pre-existing one? Applied science is just as good as Theoretical science.
And what the hell does 'Updating CS modesl' have to do with the left side of pluto again? Or are we off-subject?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And he pulls that argument of out his arse again, very nice indeed Forlorn. Ofcourse it din't come to mind Eek's system actually wasn't a top-of-the-line PC? No of course it din't, bloody idiot. I'm getting a 60FPS straight, ala <b>SILK</b> framerate. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EEK stated he got 60 fps in smaller enviroments, and in fights... that's a damn good system. So is yours if you get 60 fps straight. Just realize,
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>People who get 60 fps in doom 3 nice and silky are not the norm, good bye</span>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OK now i'm not even going to move further into your post, as this is absolutely the best piece of sheer comedy i've seen yet. You PROBABLY are gonna get twice the FPS in HL2's scene? Probably eh? Ok so how did you come that conclusion? What? Oh you're just pulling more **** out of your arse? Well be my guest, it wouldn't be the first time...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, after <a href='http://eslus.com/LESSONS/READING/READ.HTM' target='_blank'>Reading this</a>, I would like to point you to this post which shows some <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=78511&view=findpost&p=1204583' target='_blank'>some stress tests and benchmarks</a>, both very good indicators of what we can expect. Esp. of what I can expect, as the only limiting thing on my system is my card.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll have to go out on a limb here and call HL lucky... Not only was Quake3 around the corner at the time, there were also other Games\Engines competing wich IMO were better. Sin for example, struck by terrible bugs, all fixed in it's first patch, but lost it's popularity anyway. I'd see CS made for Sin.
Somehow, what you're keep trying to say is, if you're getting 60FPS you generally have a superior system? I can't help but to disagree. Eek actually din't mention any of his system specifics (couldnt find any anyway), for all you know he could be having a 9800pro, wich is quite possibly going by people's experiences ive read.
As i've mentioned on my previous post, general, VERY general, indicators maybe. But you're expecting 20FPS times two? That's just way out of line for you to guestimate... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> HL was not 'lucky'. Superior plot and gameplay made what it is today. SIN lost in these aspects, and Quake3 had higher requirements.
Also, timing, yes, is very important... much like how Playstation became popular, much like how CS became popular (imagine if NS had been relased at the same time as CS), etc. etc..
Timing is not 'lucky', it's a real part of our world that's very difficult to understand. Mastering timing will make you immensly succesful in anything you do.
And a Radeon 9800 Pro will not get 60 fps solid. (Solid means in fights too.) Even I can look at a wall and watch FPS go up to 60.
Superior plot? The plot was contrived and boring. It was good for games, but not great for plots. I don't know why this keeps getting referenced, because the plot didn't break any ground. It was a nice game, sure. But once the game left the science lab, the fun ground to a halt, and the story went just as slow.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Aug 25 2004, 07:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Aug 25 2004, 07:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->HL was not 'lucky'. Superior plot and gameplay made what it is today. SIN lost in these aspects, and Quake3 had higher requirements.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Plot and gameplay doesn't define HL's multiplayer succes. Sin actually had a nice story, and was certainly elaborated in an interactive way (ingame cutscenes etc). Quake3 system requirements were possibly higher (all be it slightly), but if I was to develop a mod I wouldn't go for an engine that would get outdated soon.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Timing is not 'lucky', it's a real part of our world that's very difficult to understand. Mastering timing will make you immensly succesful in anything you do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Half-Life got lucky in a way that Sin got overrun due it's bugs.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And a Radeon 9800 Pro will not get 60 fps solid. (Solid means in fights too.) Even I can look at a wall and watch FPS go up to 60.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
60 FPS idle and 30-40 FPS during a battle certainly isn't something i'd call unplayable though...
You are basing a game that has only bin out a few weeks to a game that isn't even released yet. There is no rock-solid proof to backup any claims made towards the source engine and it's abilities. Why? Well there is the little problem of A: lack of being released yet B: Lack of maps to test the engine with, espically any that even get close to being high poly C: NOT KNOWING ANY OF THE SPECS OF THE COMPUTERS VALVE IS RUNNING, for all we know they could be all running x800xt PEs. D: There are yet to be made any large open maps for doom 3. Why? Maybe because the engine can't handle it, or maybe because when designing the levels ID tried to keep the same level of detail over the entire game, and knew that if they tried to spread the kind of detail over a large area they would end up with polys going through the roof. Not to mention the point of, large spaces aren't exactly scary.
So I will end this post with a one last point: No matter how good the engine of a game is, it comes down to your hardware. Because you are still crunching massive numbers of polys. And if there are enough of them, you are going to get a slowdown.
Coil mentioned that we haven't seen HL2 lighting yet.
We should all go back to watch the old E3 movie. The portion where Gordon follows the ant-lions into the machine guns - he ducks around the corner and attacks them from the side. When he shoots the guns over they do rather impressive flash lighting on the wall behind them.
I don't know how it will compare to Doom 3 (haven't bought it) but I did notice in Doom 3 that the flash light had a very stagnant glow (light ring, dark ring, medium ring) on everything it shown on. It almost looked like a sprite of light is thrown in your view. I haven't seen if the shadowing from your flashlight casts realistic shadows - can anyone tell me?
However, the light doesn't eat the darkness, so even with the flashlight on, you can still see the shadows cast from other light sources, which looks weird.
Also, in Doom 3, stuff that's supposed to be big feels big... Remembering the teleporter, that thing felt huge. Source doesn't quite do that for me.
Wait and check it for youself, after that make a discision which one is the best...
[edit] sounds promising this release date, lets just hope they have the right info and we dont have to wait yet another year shall we <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/uploads//post-10-1093379977.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
or this expansive terrain?
<img src='http://www.planethalflife.com/features/articles/sigg04/phl_c17_Slide15_hi.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Hmmm, which one, which one... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, let's see... you're comparing a cave scene in Doom3 with quite detailed terrain in 360 degrees to a HL2 open vista shot with blocky-as-hell terrain (the point I was illustrating earlier) and distance fog. RandomEngy, remember those 'tricks' you were looking at earlier? Looks like HL2 does the <b>exact same thing</b>. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Forlorn, we also have no idea how HL2 will run on Eek's computer. We don't have his system specs and exact settings. The sys requirements for each aren't actually all that far apart. And the D3 engine in that shot looks to be pushing a hell of a lot more polys than Source in the comparison shot.
I read the thread. Thanks. The reason you're completely wrong is that the green line in the center of the screen and the miniscule blue line below it are measuring the cyberdemon and the height of the player character if he were to go over and stand there. The way you talk about Doom3 using tricks to show expansive environments makes me wonder if you can actually see the distance fog in the HL2 shot. They're both equally impressive in my eyes, but I have to say FarCry beats the pants off of both for distance.
2) Less annoying fan-boyism, less annoying ranting, less arguing. More discussion, if you can't do pictures.
3) It's not a ****-measuring contest. It's not about who has the biggest number of polys, or triangles, or trans-dimensional nuclear light rays, or whatever. It's about what looks and works the best.
4) You can't compare. So don't say "Your points are invalid, you can't compare!.... But here are my points."
Oops. Ok, I get it.
Is that why HL2 is like the oldest played game in the world? Same with Starcraft? Somehow, I think performance is a good indicator of how well it will do in sales.
The thing about these people complaining that "Hey, if it doesn't work on my system I'm not gonna play it." They aren't being cheap, they are being realistic. If they don't wanna upgrade their system, they don't lose, the <b>game companies do</b>. It is far better to make a game that runs well across all platforms, but if these people still want higher fps then they will find reason to upgrade. I would have never upgraded my computer to what it is now had I never played HL; it ran okay on my system but I wanted 100 fps solid to go pr0.
Games that run well cause people to upgrade, not games that run like crap on today's system. And doom 3 runs chugs like a train on both newer system (EEK's expansive area) and older system (getting above 20 fps is a challenge in fights...).
The stress tests in HL2 indicate I'm probably going to get at least twice as many frames as I do in doom 3, and I'll tweak that even more by lowering resolution and lowering other settings for raw FPS.
KFS:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, let's see... you're comparing a cave scene in Doom3 with quite detailed terrain in 360 degrees to a HL2 open vista shot with blocky-as-hell terrain (the point I was illustrating earlier) and distance fog. RandomEngy, remember those 'tricks' you were looking at earlier? Looks like HL2 does the exact same thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um, well first the cave in doom 3, like the stress tests indicate, the same scene in HL2 I'm probably gonna get twice as many fps (that's huge). Next, the Hl2 terrain is blocky, but as I look around in this room I'm sitting in, I see:
- A blocky door
- Blocky courners to the walls
- Blocky desks
- Blocky cabients
Man, these real life graphics suck! Or maybe I just don't understand how blocky = bad.
Next, the fog is not a trick as much as it is intentional.
And the ploy counts look pretty high in that HL2 shot, just look at the bridge's architecture, as well as the rock wall which seems rather detailed.
As for the scale of the pictures, they appear the same.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1) More screenshots, please
2) Less annoying fan-boyism, less annoying ranting, less arguing. More discussion, if you can't do pictures.
3) It's not a ****-measuring contest. It's not about who has the biggest number of polys, or triangles, or trans-dimensional nuclear light rays, or whatever. It's about what looks and works the best.
4) You can't compare. So don't say "Your points are invalid, you can't compare!.... But here are my points."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just because I hate it when people tell others what to do, I feel like killing a post:
1.) What does that have to do with the thread?
2.) READ THE TOPIC TITLE No arguing? Rediculous...
3.) Actually, these things matter and there definately are trends between the corralation between how a game preforms, it's sales, as well as lasting popularity...
4.) You can compare.
[1]Is that why HL2 is like the oldest played game in the world? Same with Starcraft? Somehow, I think performance is a good indicator of how well it will do in sales.
[2]The thing about these people complaining that "Hey, if it doesn't work on my system I'm not gonna play it." They aren't being cheap, they are being realistic. If they don't wanna upgrade their system, they don't lose, the <b>game companies do</b>. It is far better to make a game that runs well across all platforms, but if these people still want higher fps then they will find reason to upgrade. I would have never upgraded my computer to what it is now had I never played HL; it ran okay on my system but I wanted 100 fps solid to go pr0.
[3]Games that run well cause people to upgrade, not games that run like c**p on today's system. And doom 3 runs chugs like a train on both newer system (EEK's expansive area) and older system (getting above 20 fps is a challenge in fights...).
[4]The stress tests in HL2 indicate I'm probably going to get at least twice as many frames as I do in doom 3, and I'll tweak that even more by lowering resolution and lowering other settings for raw FPS. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
[1] I imagine you're talking about Half-Life, which, strangely enough, was <b>built using an id engine.</b>
[2] Yeah, you're right. Game companies lose if they don't sell. But, by going to the lowest bidder, they're stagnating themselves. I was saying what I would <b>like</b> to see, not what was <b>actually happening</b>.
[3] What's your point? It's an <b>older</b> system. You can't <b>expect</b> it to run <b>new</b> games.
[4] I don't really think we should be pointing to Valve for an example of a company that has software that runs on all computers. Remember, Half-Life was built on id technology. Steam, Valve's first venture into ground-up coding, requires a faster system for the <b>same game</b> that ran fine on older computers - all for a simple GUI. I'm not sure if we should be lauding Valve's accomplishments just yet.
I have to say, that DOOM3 cavern isn't terribly impressive to me. Look closely at all the stalactites and stalagmites... they're angular, low-poly, BLOCKY. The only obviously block part of the HL2 shot put up for comparison, IMO, is the buildings. The coastline is convincing, the bridge is convincing, the cliff wall is convincing.
EEK has complained (and will probably remind us all) of the simplicity in HL2 structures. He has a point -- HL2 makes a big block and textures it with a wall with windows on it. It saves tons of polys when it could be actually modeling individual window frames. Yes, it's a cut corner. But if you all remember the HL2 DX9 showoff bink video (the one with the antlion on the roof), you could see a HUGE distance. You could see a mile across the rooftops, until details were obscured by the hazy day. And the haze wasn't the draw-distance fog of yestergames, it was the haze of a working city. It convinced me it could be real.
There's no question that DOOM3 has more interesting lighting that HL2's. However, it's very stark lighting - black and white, 0 and 1, lit and not-lit. We have yet to see what Valve has to show with its lighting. It won't be as impressive, and after games like DOOM3 and Chronicles of Riddick, that may stick in our throats a bit. When I was playing Psi-Ops, one of my roommate's first comments was that the lighting and shadows just weren't up to par with DOOM3's or Riddick's. Will it be the downfall of HL2? Maybe. We'll have to see what happens. Personally, I thought Psi-Ops' lighting was good enough, since the game was really more about the physics. But that's really neither here nor there.
Blocky = bad when one game is criticized for low poly terrain when its terrain work is far higher poly than the blockier of the two. Only comparison I was trying to make.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have to say, that DOOM3 cavern isn't terribly impressive to me. Look closely at all the stalactites and stalagmites... they're angular, low-poly, BLOCKY. The only obviously block part of the HL2 shot put up for comparison, IMO, is the buildings. The coastline is convincing, the bridge is convincing, the cliff wall is convincing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They're convincing because you look at the entire picture, not the edges. But when it comes to the competing technology, it suddenly is all too convenient to look straight for the edges and then slag off the entire technology as a result (saying people in general do this, not necessarily you). Comparing games on different standards is no comparison.
Actually, no. My point still stands. Valve modified an engine. They're lauded for it. Modifying is easier than making it from scratch. I was pointing out that Valve, until Steam and Source, had yet to actually make their own engine, instead working on id technology - which was ironic, since the very designers of the technology were also being called "inferior" to Valve.
We're only just now seeing Valve work on it's own engine, and what do we see? Cut corners (which, ironically, is what you're saying id did in Quake II). If someone came along and modified the Source engine, does that make them "better" programmers? Hah, no.
Is that why HL2 is like the oldest played game in the world? Same with Starcraft? Somehow, I think performance is a good indicator of how well it will do in sales.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ofcourse you mean HL<b>1</b>. The reason why HL is so popular is mainly because of Counter-Strike, what am I saying, only because CS. You honestly think people are going to stick with a piece of sh*t engine that HL has, because it runs better on old systems? Who are you kidding. As a matter of fact, HL is <b>slower</b>, yes <b>SLOWER</b>, than Quake3. So the HL engine essentially loses the only thing it had coming for it. HL gained popularity and thereby more mods kept coming, and gained more popularity. There's nothing to thank Valve for, infact, din't they once try to 'update' the CS models? They did a proper terrible job at it. So much for their abilities.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Games that run well cause people to upgrade, not games that run like crap on today's system. And doom 3 runs chugs like a train on both newer system (EEK's expansive area) and older system (getting above 20 fps is a challenge in fights...).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And he pulls that argument of out his arse again, very nice indeed Forlorn. Ofcourse it din't come to mind Eek's system actually wasn't a top-of-the-line PC? No ofcourse it din't, bloody idiot. I'm getting a 60FPS straight, ala <b>SILK</b> framerate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the same scene in HL2 I'm probably gonna get twice as many fps (that's huge). Next, the Hl2 terrain is blocky, but as I look around in this room I'm sitting in, I see:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK now i'm not even going to move further into your post, as this is absolutely the best piece of sheer comedy i've seen yet. You PROBABLY are gonna get twice the FPS in HL2's scene? Probably eh? Ok so how did you come that conclusion? What? Oh you're just pulling more **** out of your arse? Well be my guest, it wouldn't be the first time...
[EDIT] More offensive than my intention was, but my point still stands...
Doom 3 is good at one thing
Source is good at another.
They're both pretty equal.
And why is everyone taking this argument so personally?
Perhaps, but I think my point still stands. I look at the DOOM3 cave and say "ooh, nice cave. Ooh. low-poly rocks." If I'm walking along in a game and something suddenly strikes me as out-of-place in terms of detail level, I notice it. That cave is a striking difference to the standard DOOM3 shots I've seen, because it sports many fewer polys-per-unit-area.
In contrast, the HL2 shot looks no more or less realistic than every other HL2 shot I've seen. They have not compromised their visuals to render a large outdoor image. Does that mean that HL2 is generally simpler than DOOM3? Maybe. But it presents a more coherent picture because they don't have to simplify to the degree that id did in making that cave.
Real life aint blocky, there are dents of stuff in the surface, instead of just planes spliced together <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If i recall correctly, HL got quite a number of awards on its own. It also shipped alot of copies before Counter-Strike was even released.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OK now i'm not even going to move further into your post, as this is absolutely the best piece of sheer comedy i've seen yet. You PROBABLY are gonna get twice the FPS in HL2's scene? Probably eh? Ok so how did you come that conclusion? What? Oh you're just pulling more **** out of your arse? Well be my guest, it wouldn't be the first time...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to the Source stress tests, he is. He came to that conclusion because, strangely, it just might be a possibility that the results on the Source stress test will be similiar, if not lower (There is alot of effects happening) than the results while running the actual game on Source.
Is that why HL2 is like the oldest played game in the world? Same with Starcraft? Somehow, I think performance is a good indicator of how well it will do in sales.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ofcourse you mean HL<b>1</b>. The reason why HL is so popular is mainly because of Counter-Strike, what am I saying, only because CS. You honestly think people are going to stick with a piece of sh*t engine that HL has, because it runs better on old systems? Who are you kidding. As a matter of fact, HL is <b>slower</b>, yes <b>SLOWER</b>, than Quake3. So the HL engine essentially loses the only thing it had coming for it. HL gained popularity and thereby more mods kept coming, and gained more popularity. There's nothing to thank Valve for, infact, din't they once try to 'update' the CS models? They did a proper terrible job at it. So much for their abilities.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Games that run well cause people to upgrade, not games that run like crap on today's system. And doom 3 runs chugs like a train on both newer system (EEK's expansive area) and older system (getting above 20 fps is a challenge in fights...).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And he pulls that argument of out his arse again, very nice indeed Forlorn. Ofcourse it din't come to mind Eek's system actually wasn't a top-of-the-line PC? No of course it din't, bloody idiot. I'm getting a 60FPS straight, ala <b>SILK</b> framerate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the same scene in HL2 I'm probably gonna get twice as many fps (that's huge). Next, the Hl2 terrain is blocky, but as I look around in this room I'm sitting in, I see:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK now i'm not even going to move further into your post, as this is absolutely the best piece of sheer comedy i've seen yet. You PROBABLY are gonna get twice the FPS in HL2's scene? Probably eh? Ok so how did you come that conclusion? What? Oh you're just pulling more **** out of your arse? Well be my guest, it wouldn't be the first time...
[EDIT] More offensive than my intention was, but my point still stands... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try reading
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ofcourse you mean HL<b>1</b>. The reason why HL is so popular is mainly because of Counter-Strike, what am I saying, only because CS. You honestly think people are going to stick with a piece of sh*t engine that HL has, because it runs better on old systems? Who are you kidding. As a matter of fact, HL is <b>slower</b>, yes <b>SLOWER</b>, than Quake3.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And why was CS made for HL and not any other engine? HL was super popular when it came out, and then CS kept it going.
CS happened because of a well built, highly scalable engine at the time that was easy to configure.
Who gives a crap if it used a pre-existing one? Applied science is just as good as Theoretical science.
And what the hell does 'Updating CS modesl' have to do with the left side of pluto again? Or are we off-subject?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
And he pulls that argument of out his arse again, very nice indeed Forlorn. Ofcourse it din't come to mind Eek's system actually wasn't a top-of-the-line PC? No of course it din't, bloody idiot. I'm getting a 60FPS straight, ala <b>SILK</b> framerate.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EEK stated he got 60 fps in smaller enviroments, and in fights... that's a damn good system. So is yours if you get 60 fps straight. Just realize,
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>People who get 60 fps in doom 3 nice and silky are not the norm, good bye</span>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OK now i'm not even going to move further into your post, as this is absolutely the best piece of sheer comedy i've seen yet. You PROBABLY are gonna get twice the FPS in HL2's scene? Probably eh? Ok so how did you come that conclusion? What? Oh you're just pulling more **** out of your arse? Well be my guest, it wouldn't be the first time...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, after <a href='http://eslus.com/LESSONS/READING/READ.HTM' target='_blank'>Reading this</a>, I would like to point you to this post which shows some <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=78511&view=findpost&p=1204583' target='_blank'>some stress tests and benchmarks</a>, both very good indicators of what we can expect. Esp. of what I can expect, as the only limiting thing on my system is my card.
If i recall correctly, HL got quite a number of awards on its own. It also shipped alot of copies before Counter-Strike was even released.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OK now i'm not even going to move further into your post, as this is absolutely the best piece of sheer comedy i've seen yet. You PROBABLY are gonna get twice the FPS in HL2's scene? Probably eh? Ok so how did you come that conclusion? What? Oh you're just pulling more **** out of your arse? Well be my guest, it wouldn't be the first time...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to the Source stress tests, he is. He came to that conclusion because, strangely, it just might be a possibility that the results on the Source stress test will be similiar, if not lower (There is alot of effects happening) than the results while running the actual game on Source.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm hinting towards the multiplayer side of the players. I doubt people in fast amounts will be playing HL singeplayer (or it's deathmatch (wasnt fantastic)) up to 6 years.
I can't see any way you could base the FPS in the stresstest against the FPS on a completely different scene. If I remember correctly the stresstest was mostly small indoor area's. You're basing an outdoor scene on that? Not at all realiable. It's rediculous either way guessing one's FPS against the FPS you got on another test with vastly different scenes.
I read the thread. Thanks. The reason you're completely wrong is that the green line in the center of the screen and the miniscule blue line below it are measuring the cyberdemon and the height of the player character if he were to go over and stand there. The way you talk about Doom3 using tricks to show expansive environments makes me wonder if you can actually see the distance fog in the HL2 shot. They're both equally impressive in my eyes, but I have to say FarCry beats the pants off of both for distance. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe it's hard to tell because the picture's so darned dark, but he's standing on (or floating over) a really blocky area which is overlooking the detailed area. It you only concentrate on the detailed area, then yeah the shot is amazing.
As for that HL2 shot, I can only remember seeing fog in a few areas, and then it always allowed quite a long visibility. It's not as good as Farcry, but that's really not the point, is it? And that certainly doesn't look like "blocky-as-hell" terrain to me. You also say that the Doom 3 shot is pushing a lot more polys. That might explain why it's chugging at that point. Though look at the HL2 shot again. Look closely at the bridge latticework. Look at the two statues or whatever they are at the left of the bridge. Look at the rock wall and the windmill. Or instead, watch the speedboat chase in the E3 2004 video. I can guaruntee you if Doom 3 tried that it would fall over and die.
People are getting really defensive about Doom 3. I'm not saying it's a bad game. I'm just pointing out what I thought were obvious defeciencies in the engine.
CS happened because of a well built, highly scalable engine at the time that was easy to configure.
Who gives a crap if it used a pre-existing one? Applied science is just as good as Theoretical science.
And what the hell does 'Updating CS modesl' have to do with the left side of pluto again? Or are we off-subject?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
And he pulls that argument of out his arse again, very nice indeed Forlorn. Ofcourse it din't come to mind Eek's system actually wasn't a top-of-the-line PC? No of course it din't, bloody idiot. I'm getting a 60FPS straight, ala <b>SILK</b> framerate.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EEK stated he got 60 fps in smaller enviroments, and in fights... that's a damn good system. So is yours if you get 60 fps straight. Just realize,
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>People who get 60 fps in doom 3 nice and silky are not the norm, good bye</span>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OK now i'm not even going to move further into your post, as this is absolutely the best piece of sheer comedy i've seen yet. You PROBABLY are gonna get twice the FPS in HL2's scene? Probably eh? Ok so how did you come that conclusion? What? Oh you're just pulling more **** out of your arse? Well be my guest, it wouldn't be the first time...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, after <a href='http://eslus.com/LESSONS/READING/READ.HTM' target='_blank'>Reading this</a>, I would like to point you to this post which shows some <a href='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=78511&view=findpost&p=1204583' target='_blank'>some stress tests and benchmarks</a>, both very good indicators of what we can expect. Esp. of what I can expect, as the only limiting thing on my system is my card.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll have to go out on a limb here and call HL lucky... Not only was Quake3 around the corner at the time, there were also other Games\Engines competing wich IMO were better. Sin for example, struck by terrible bugs, all fixed in it's first patch, but lost it's popularity anyway. I'd see CS made for Sin.
Somehow, what you're keep trying to say is, if you're getting 60FPS you generally have a superior system? I can't help but to disagree. Eek actually din't mention any of his system specifics (couldnt find any anyway), for all you know he could be having a 9800pro, wich is quite possibly going by people's experiences ive read.
As i've mentioned on my previous post, general, VERY general, indicators maybe. But you're expecting 20FPS times two? That's just way out of line for you to guestimate...
But if anything, they're art/design 'deficiencies' (or, rather, decisions), not engine deficiencies.
But if anything, they're art/design 'deficiencies' (or, rather, decisions), not engine deficiencies. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, the art and design is superb. The fact that it starts chugging on even a decently large area is an engine deficiency.
<a href='http://demon.x5788.net/stress_test(1).avi' target='_blank'>Stess Test</a>
The stress test has the player in a cavern with natural-looking walls that appear to have bump-mapped textures. On the bottom of the cavern is water, and it looks like there's a broken elevator shaft, too, so the scene is in the medium-poly range. However, as the camera goes down, it displays many rectangluar prisms with shader textures that refract, which are probably more expensive to compute than an outdoor scene with very little use of advanced shaders.
Maybe the poly count will balance out, but I somehow doubt it - the Unreal 2 engine is good at pulling off somewhat similar terrain while maintaining a swift 60 FPS (vSynch) on my machine, and if the Source engine has more raw poly power, which it claims to, then I think it'll be able to handle that scene just fine.
Also, I believe I read somewhere that all of the level designers use 2.0 Ghz machines with GF4MX or so cards, but then again, Valve isn't exacly the most honest company ever.
CS happened because of a well built, highly scalable engine at the time that was easy to configure.
Who gives a crap if it used a pre-existing one? Applied science is just as good as Theoretical science.
And what the hell does 'Updating CS modesl' have to do with the left side of pluto again? Or are we off-subject?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
And he pulls that argument of out his arse again, very nice indeed Forlorn. Ofcourse it din't come to mind Eek's system actually wasn't a top-of-the-line PC? No of course it din't, bloody idiot. I'm getting a 60FPS straight, ala <b>SILK</b> framerate.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EEK stated he got 60 fps in smaller enviroments, and in fights... that's a damn good system. So is yours if you get 60 fps straight. Just realize,
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>People who get 60 fps in doom 3 nice and silky are not the norm, good bye</span>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OK now i'm not even going to move further into your post, as this is absolutely the best piece of sheer comedy i've seen yet. You PROBABLY are gonna get twice the FPS in HL2's scene? Probably eh? Ok so how did you come that conclusion? What? Oh you're just pulling more **** out of your arse? Well be my guest, it wouldn't be the first time...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, after <a href='http://eslus.com/LESSONS/READING/READ.HTM' target='_blank'>Reading this</a>, I would like to point you to this post which shows some <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=78511&view=findpost&p=1204583' target='_blank'>some stress tests and benchmarks</a>, both very good indicators of what we can expect. Esp. of what I can expect, as the only limiting thing on my system is my card.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll have to go out on a limb here and call HL lucky... Not only was Quake3 around the corner at the time, there were also other Games\Engines competing wich IMO were better. Sin for example, struck by terrible bugs, all fixed in it's first patch, but lost it's popularity anyway. I'd see CS made for Sin.
Somehow, what you're keep trying to say is, if you're getting 60FPS you generally have a superior system? I can't help but to disagree. Eek actually din't mention any of his system specifics (couldnt find any anyway), for all you know he could be having a 9800pro, wich is quite possibly going by people's experiences ive read.
As i've mentioned on my previous post, general, VERY general, indicators maybe. But you're expecting 20FPS times two? That's just way out of line for you to guestimate... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
HL was not 'lucky'. Superior plot and gameplay made what it is today. SIN lost in these aspects, and Quake3 had higher requirements.
Also, timing, yes, is very important... much like how Playstation became popular, much like how CS became popular (imagine if NS had been relased at the same time as CS), etc. etc..
Timing is not 'lucky', it's a real part of our world that's very difficult to understand. Mastering timing will make you immensly succesful in anything you do.
And a Radeon 9800 Pro will not get 60 fps solid. (Solid means in fights too.) Even I can look at a wall and watch FPS go up to 60.
Plot and gameplay doesn't define HL's multiplayer succes. Sin actually had a nice story, and was certainly elaborated in an interactive way (ingame cutscenes etc). Quake3 system requirements were possibly higher (all be it slightly), but if I was to develop a mod I wouldn't go for an engine that would get outdated soon.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Timing is not 'lucky', it's a real part of our world that's very difficult to understand. Mastering timing will make you immensly succesful in anything you do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Half-Life got lucky in a way that Sin got overrun due it's bugs.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And a Radeon 9800 Pro will not get 60 fps solid. (Solid means in fights too.) Even I can look at a wall and watch FPS go up to 60.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
60 FPS idle and 30-40 FPS during a battle certainly isn't something i'd call unplayable though...
You are basing a game that has only bin out a few weeks to a game that isn't even released yet. There is no rock-solid proof to backup any claims made towards the source engine and it's abilities. Why? Well there is the little problem of
A: lack of being released yet
B: Lack of maps to test the engine with, espically any that even get close to being high poly
C: NOT KNOWING ANY OF THE SPECS OF THE COMPUTERS VALVE IS RUNNING, for all we know they could be all running x800xt PEs.
D: There are yet to be made any large open maps for doom 3. Why? Maybe because the engine can't handle it, or maybe because when designing the levels ID tried to keep the same level of detail over the entire game, and knew that if they tried to spread the kind of detail over a large area they would end up with polys going through the roof. Not to mention the point of, large spaces aren't exactly scary.
So I will end this post with a one last point:
No matter how good the engine of a game is, it comes down to your hardware. Because you are still crunching massive numbers of polys. And if there are enough of them, you are going to get a slowdown.
We should all go back to watch the old E3 movie. The portion where Gordon follows the ant-lions into the machine guns - he ducks around the corner and attacks them from the side. When he shoots the guns over they do rather impressive flash lighting on the wall behind them.
I don't know how it will compare to Doom 3 (haven't bought it) but I did notice in Doom 3 that the flash light had a very stagnant glow (light ring, dark ring, medium ring) on everything it shown on. It almost looked like a sprite of light is thrown in your view. I haven't seen if the shadowing from your flashlight casts realistic shadows - can anyone tell me?
However, the light doesn't eat the darkness, so even with the flashlight on, you can still see the shadows cast from other light sources, which looks weird.
Also, in Doom 3, stuff that's supposed to be big feels big... Remembering the teleporter, that thing felt huge. Source doesn't quite do that for me.
Wait and check it for youself, after that make a discision which one is the best...
[edit]
sounds promising this release date, lets just hope they have the right info and we dont have to wait yet another year shall we <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->