tahrikmili
Member
http://www.doomconversionmod.com/index.shtml
Looks interesting, if not very pretty
I'll try it out sometime soon..
Looks interesting, if not very pretty
I'll try it out sometime soon..
Doom 1 using the Doom 3 engine..
- Thread starter tahrikmili
- Start date
Foreign Jackass
Member
I doubt Doom 3's engine can adequately display Doom 1's huge environments.
HALF-LIFE 2 FOREVAH
HALF-LIFE 2 FOREVAH
Foreign Jackass
Member
Are you talking about that foliage simulator with a stupid story, bad monster design, AI that always knows exactly where a shot is coming from, generic Rambo scenario and boring weapons?
Yeah, it has huge maps.
Yeah, it has huge maps.
TekunoRobby
Tag of Excellence
The Crytek engine is very capable, dark10x is right on with the pimping of it. Your complaints reside with the gameplay not the engine.
Foreign Jackass
Member
True, true. But the doom 3 engine is very capable too, I was just kidding around. I completely despise the game, though.
Foreign Jackass said:
Hey, I hate Far Cry as much as the next guy (boy do I ever)...but the engine really is more capable than Source. Half-Life 2 is a really great game trapped in a limited engine that happens to do SOME things right (physics and facial expressions). Great art != great engine.
It has a terrible time handling large outdoor areas (lots of fog), its water effects fall apart in large bodies, the maps are SMALL, and there is way too much HDD thrashing on both of the Source games.
My HL2 experience was not what it should have been, and a lot of the blame falls on the Source engine. It's the next generation of LithTech (almost).
TekunoRobby
Tag of Excellence
As far as I'm concerned any current FPS engine would do justice to the original with excellent graphics and at a decent clip. The engines I'm thinking of is Doom 3, Source, CryEngine, that new Lith-Tech one, and Unreal Engine.
tahrikmili
Member
I like D3's engine and game both.. but the game isn't for everyone, granted..
I think thats what he was every so slyly implying. Doom 3 pales in comparison to the original to the point where fanmods took it among themselves to give us an updated version. I just wish they didn't feel they needed to use the Doom 3 engine just because its the freakin Doom 3 engine. Much more capable engines out there whithout all the weird texture warping and inevitable framerate issues when the Dozens of enemies are implemented.Pimpbaa said:
The number one complaint I have about most 3D engines these days is that most of them cannot support 15 plus enemies on screen without terrible slowdown so the feeling of being overwhelmed like in the original Doom is lost for the most part. *sigh*
Can't wait for the new Serious Sam.
Late Stage Marxist
Member
This project has potential. I'll def check it out when it's finished.
I said most not all. I dig serious sam but overall thats not too much to brag about. Doom engine use to support up to and including 60 plus enemies on screen without slow down I don't see any current games that come remotely close to that. It seems like I'm the only one who misses being ambushed by 20 imps, 30 bulldemons, some fire skulls, a couple revenants and a Cyber Demon in an inclosed arena so, I digress.Chony said:
Shaheed79 said:
Good lord, what do you expect? Of course you don't see any current games doing that...
I'd rather it stay that way, though. I prefer combat with fewer numbers as long as each type of enemy has unique strategies to exploit and are fun to attack. Doom 3's enemies are much more entertaining to fight than the originals...
tahrikmili
Member
I bow to the greatness in simplistic entertainment that is Serious Sam 1/2. Incredible. I hadn't had such brainless fun filled hours since I played Doom 2.. Whoever didn't play Serious Sam needs to give it a shot.
Foreign Jackass
Member
dark10x said:
I agree with you on the two latter points, but I think some maps aren't that small (granted they aren't as big as FarCry, but Doom's maps are only "big" because they curl around themselves in endless labyrinthine corridors. I absolutely loved the water in Half-Life 2, and I thought from up-close it looks 100x better than CryTek's water (which looks great when you're on top of a mountain). Large outdoor areas were pretty freaking great to me, with some fog, but without the foliage popping everywhere and weird popping geometry in CryTek.
HL2 has amazing looking water, but when in large quantities, it just doens't work. The ocean alongside Highway 17 looked flat out awful. CryTek handles large bodies of water much better than Source while Source is clearly superior at handling small pools and enclosed rivers. Both display excellent looking water, but not in all situations. CryTek's is more consistant, though. Honestly, that coast line water in HL2 is just bad looking.
Large outdoor areas in HL2 did not just feature SOME fog, they featured a LOT of fog. Far Cry allowed you to see for miles. Foliage and geometry popping is removed in version 1.3 if you use geometry instancing (which runs faster on ATI cards and slower on nVidia, for some reason). I renders all foliage with geometry instead of using sprites. Of course, in either case, HL2 didn't even feature a fraction of the foliage present in Far Cry within its maps. You know that.
Large outdoor areas in HL2 did not just feature SOME fog, they featured a LOT of fog. Far Cry allowed you to see for miles. Foliage and geometry popping is removed in version 1.3 if you use geometry instancing (which runs faster on ATI cards and slower on nVidia, for some reason). I renders all foliage with geometry instead of using sprites. Of course, in either case, HL2 didn't even feature a fraction of the foliage present in Far Cry within its maps. You know that.
I thought this was quite amazing, they've got Doom3 running on this (with 3DFX).
*** Athlon XP 2070mhz (11.5x180)
*** 256MB RAM
*** Voodoo 2 12MB and Voodoo 2 12MB SLI
*** Windows 98SE
*** FastVoodoo 2 4.5 beta2 MM
*** Wicked GL 3.02
Link: http://www.3dfxzone.it/enboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1462
*** Athlon XP 2070mhz (11.5x180)
*** 256MB RAM
*** Voodoo 2 12MB and Voodoo 2 12MB SLI
*** Windows 98SE
*** FastVoodoo 2 4.5 beta2 MM
*** Wicked GL 3.02
Link: http://www.3dfxzone.it/enboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1462
Foreign Jackass
Member
I think the problem I have with the CryTek engine is mostly the fact that all there IS in the game is foliage. Half-Life 2's game features an incredible variation of different environments, moods, effects, locations, which needs a lot more versatility dans FarCry does. I wonder if this is why CryTek's engine hasn't been used yet in another game. You gotta admit FarCry's interiors are absolutely shitty looking.
Yeah.. but Crytek has seriously limited texture rez beyond a certain distance.. something like 200ft (in game) as clearly evident in those pictures you posted. Even though the landscape is sparse in the HL2 shot.. I would say it could support the same kind of distances/geometry detail if similar methods were employed. But.. I guess it could be a trade off for the fog.. I dunno.dark10x said:
Foreign Jackass said:
No, Far Cry has some brilliant looking indoor locations...
You seem to be associating CryTek with the art design of Far Cry (rightfully so, I suppose). Howeer, FC does not represent all that the engine is capable of.
That's not bad looking at all...
The thing is, the indoor areas in FC were surrounded by entire islands. What type of results would you get if you were only working on indoor areas? Very different, I'm sure.
HL2 simply has some of the best texture work around, but Source didn't just make those textures.
Also, CryTek has come even futher. Here is a shot of the engine running in that recent tech demo (on my Radeon 9700 Pro).
Foreign Jackass
Member
Well, if you must always take in consideration the fact that some processing is lost by the fact that the indoor locations are surrounded by islands (which are NOT displayed, and therefore shouldn't involve much graphic processing), why not take in consideration the huge performance loss HL2 has to bear due to the incredible (and I mean incredible) physics system which is as close to "flawless" as we've ever witnessed?
I think this screenshot is pretty boring, by the way. Doom 3 had done that, dark murky interior look, and I didn't like it either.
I think this screenshot is pretty boring, by the way. Doom 3 had done that, dark murky interior look, and I didn't like it either.
shibbs said:I thought this was quite amazing, they've got Doom3 running on this (with 3DFX).
*** Athlon XP 2070mhz (11.5x180)
*** 256MB RAM
*** Voodoo 2 12MB and Voodoo 2 12MB SLI
*** Windows 98SE
*** FastVoodoo 2 4.5 beta2 MM
*** Wicked GL 3.02
Link: http://www.3dfxzone.it/enboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1462
:lol :lol :lol Holy fuck!
ArcadeStickMonk
Member
Crytech with pixel shader 3.0 and HDR Rendering looks fucking amazing, inside and out. Once you see the new lighting effects, you can't unsee them, and the original game instantly looks worse.
The most amazing thing is that Crytech can do interiors as close to or as good as Doom3 (no global shadows yet, though, and simpler geometry) and unquestionably has the best exteriors anywhere. All of that is in the same engine, all of that runs pretty decent.
Now, the reason I dislike Far Cry is that Crytech did an absolute terrible job with the gane's AI and enemy balancing, making it simply un-satisfying and unfun to play. But it's the best engine out there right now, bar none.
The most amazing thing is that Crytech can do interiors as close to or as good as Doom3 (no global shadows yet, though, and simpler geometry) and unquestionably has the best exteriors anywhere. All of that is in the same engine, all of that runs pretty decent.
Now, the reason I dislike Far Cry is that Crytech did an absolute terrible job with the gane's AI and enemy balancing, making it simply un-satisfying and unfun to play. But it's the best engine out there right now, bar none.
The Shadow
Member
Bregor said:
Agreed. But one more thing that people are ignoring, each of the engines mentioned has their strengths and weaknesses and I think people are giving the FarCry engine too much credit because of that. They're all capable engines IMO.
I'd give the nod to FarCry for the exterior environments without question but the HL2 engine does interiors much better. You can tell they were built for two different environments. HL2 seems to have much higher res texturing whereas FarCry seems to utilize lower res textures in addition to some heavy duty bump mapping (like Doom 3) to cover that fact up.
Another thing that bothered me about Farcry is that it seemed to have a fairly abrupt "cutoff" for the shaders. When I walk around HL2, the transition from far off textures to up close shaded textures is fairly seamless. In Farcry, I remember a few times when I'd walk along pipes and I could see a little further away how the shading would suddenly kick in. Turning on Triliniar filtering and upping the anisotropy didn't seem to help.
I remember that distinctly because I went though my video card drivers and the cfg of FarCry trying to find something that would get rid of that strange artifact. This didn't happen in either Doom 3 or HL2 and if it did, those two engines hid that transition much, much better.
ArcadeStickMonk said:
So how do you turn on PS3.0, HDR Rendering, and geometry instancing in FarCry 1.2? I just recently reinstalled it and would like to check those out if I can.
don't forget that Source is infinitely many times more scalable (backwards) than Far Cry is. I can play Half-Life 2 on my work laptop and it it runs very well (just long loads) and looks very good (for reference, it's basically got a geforce 4 MX in it). Neither of the other two engines can scale like that (well, unless you hack Doom 3 like crazy and run it on Voodoo 2's in SLI) and still run well and look good. That will be a big selling point in licensing out the source engine for Valve.
The Shadow
Member
Nerevar said:
You're absolutely right. You really couldn't do that with FarCry or Doom 3. Both of them really require a top of the line PC whereas Source scales much better.
Like I said, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. It's pretty short sighted to just declare a winner without considering things like that.
boredJonathan
Member
Bregor said:
You are right. Half Life 2's ending really felt like I hadn't completed it.
The Shadow said:
Yes, but on faster machines, Far Cry and Doom 3 run VERY well. Source has had serious problems...
The stuttering, LENGTHY load times, and other issues were really disappointing. HL2 also was unplayable during some of the later battles on my older 2.4 GHz machine with Radeon 9700 Pro. I've upgraded to a faster CPU and it runs MUCH better, but still, how many of those low-end computers had no troubles with the strider levels?
Also, Doom 3's engine was the ONLY engine which was able to display properly on low-end videocards. The DX7 mode in HL2 is UGLY compared to the DX8 or 9 versions, but Doom 3 looks virtually the same no matter the card. Speed is the only factor which changes...
Err, Doom 3 IS an action game. The actual gun mechanics are better than both Far Cry and Half-Life 2, that much is for sure.
The Shadow
Member
dark10x said:
Serious problems? I'm thinking you're overexaggerating them just a little bit.
I had sound stuttering when I first started playing HL2 but after trying some of the tweaks posted in the official HL2 thread, they pretty much disappeared. As a matter of fact, the tweaks worked much better than the patch.
ArcadeStickMonk
Member
Absolutely true, but I doubt many will appreciate this because all the real nice polish is saved for the shotgun.dark10x said:
Both HL2's and FC's gun mechanics are pretty good overall, but Far Cry robs it's weapons of all visceral quality by having random jackasses absorb full assault rifle clips into their shiny armor vests. If the weapons don't feel powerful, you won't enjoy shooting them, which is kinda the whole game.
I actually think HL2 straight shooting mechanics are really good too, but there's a bit of weight missing from them. They don't feel quite as solid as the guns in Doom3 or Halo. It's like, the models and animations are great, but when you unload two shotgun shells into a headcrab that you could kill with one weak-looking swing of the crowbar, you just feel something's lacking.