ID tech8 deep dive. Digital foundry
- Thread starter OverHeat
- Start date
OverHeat
« generous god »
Truth was said on that dayLIMITING THE AMOUNT OF SHADERS...
HEARD THAT @ EVERY FUCKING UE4/5 DEV IN EXISTENCE!? STOP MAKING A NEW FUCKING SHADER FOR EVERY FUCKING TEXTURE YOU AAAASHOOOOOOLLES!
sorry, but it had to be said...
Lagspike_exe
Member
Such a shame that id Tech never became the industry standard. Such an incredible technology.
The_Observer
Member
Barely if it even looks better than Eternal despite being nextgen only. id was always an industry leading developer, Doom 2016 was insane looking when it released. Eternal was even more advanced (on the same gen!) and now they released a nextgen only entry that I daresay 98% of people would believe is a crossgen game.
Last edited:
Lagspike_exe
Member
It runs amazingly. Compare this to any of UE5 stutter-fest games.
Durin
Member
The only major problem is that despite idtech having the most performant version of ray-tracing I've seen, it still is an effect that struggles to run on GPUs from some years back.
Not having a light-baked option does limit the audience to sell to, especially as GPUs prices/availability are worse.
That said, I wish UE5 games could run as well as Doom The Dark Ages does on my hardware.
Not having a light-baked option does limit the audience to sell to, especially as GPUs prices/availability are worse.
That said, I wish UE5 games could run as well as Doom The Dark Ages does on my hardware.
Arsic
Loves his juicy stink trail scent
I think this interview really allowed me to appreciate all of what they did. It wasn't just pushing pixels. Physics engine, more enemies on screen, terrain destruction and reaction, getting Ray tracking working at 60fps even on a series S, etc.
Eternal does definitely look better at first glance, but the tech going on at play here is astounding.
I think with a patch or two they can make the consoles sing better.
I also like in the future they want to get path tracing working on everything. That'll be amazing.
Lagspike_exe
Member
It's a shame they did not leverage Pro RTRT features more. Considering how RTRT-heavy the engine is, it should be running spectacularly on Pro.
OverHeat
« generous god »
RTRT?
Arsic
Loves his juicy stink trail scent
kevboard
Member
there's no such thing as a "next gen" looking game anymore. you could port nearly every modern game to PS4 with barely a dent in graphics quality.
this entire console generation is a transitional one, not an actual direct evolution of last gen.
this generation is the start of raytracing becoming normal.
the issue being that currently you can't have RT at a quality that is truly eye-catching. you can on PC already, but only in very few games, and only on really high end GPUs, unless you like to play at sub 1080p or with framegen.
during this transition into RT based lighting, games will look barely better than last gen games with well made baked lighting (aka. Doom Eternal).
but what would have been impossible on last gen is the destruction and scope of the battles in Dark Ages. the unfathomably shitty jaguar CPUs wouldn't have been able to cope with that at 60fps, and iD always targets 60fps
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
It's interesting that he is saying they want/dream to make the engine more scalable in order to make their games run on every hardware to increase the number of people able to play, while this game is being criticised for the raytraced implementations and poor PC performance in mid-gen PC? kinda weird
simpatico
Member
Engine updates are a disappointment. All that extra power required for nothing. If people have to point out the parts where it's really cutting edge, you're probably not using that horsepower wisely. There's something off about the IQ of this and Indy. Like the image isn't stable or it's fuzzy. Even with supposed native rendering. Uncharted 4 is more visually attractive than Indy and Eternal more so than TDA. "Oh but look at the nuanced shadowing in this crevice!"
SILKYSMOOTH30FPS
Member
Probably a mega hot take, but i don't like their engine. I love how it runs, really well optimized, but when you look at the environment, its really outdated compared to, say, HFW, which also happens to be a much bigger game. Engines such as Decima are so damn far ahead its not even close. Wish this was the engine everyone used over the shitty UE5.
Kataploom
Gold Member
1. It takes way more than saying "hey here's our engine, just give us 5% of your sales and use it as you wish", because they'd need support, documentation, probably better tools for more generic use, etc.
2. It was not, this is the best RT implementation I've seen ever this gen, it looks amazing and has amazing performance, Lumen can suck balls and all the others hybrid "raster + some RT as a gimmick" can suck them too... This is the way to go and all studios should take example.
Kataploom
Gold Member
Da fuq? Then they should use their eyes lol.
This is a clear step above visually, but I can understand if people think it's not due to YouTube compression, it does ZERO justice to this game's visuals... Not to mention when there's any kind of destruction happening, this engine is a technical marvel and when you play this game you will clearly see it, unless you see old games with pink tinted glasses or something, there are comparisons, and this game makes Eternal look flat and dated.
SolidQ
Member
he mean, in terms of sales, it's mistake. As we see result, low player count.
Madserb2023
Member
You can't really compare. Engines do different things. While Decima looks great, its not doing remotely the same thing as ID Tech 8. Death Stranding 2 will likely have amazing looking environments but you for the most part will be only thing in it. With something like Doom it will be the reverse. Decima might run at 5fps with 100 enemies on screen. This is why I am not fan of developers all using the same engine like Unreal because all engines are going to have areas its not good at.
Kataploom
Gold Member
Some of them are just salty at the mandatory RT requirement, that's it... I've seen all kind of "arguments" against the game visuals on X, it really informs you who has played the game and who has only seen it on trailers
Hudo
Member
It kinda was during the Quake 3 days.... good times.
Sept Terrion Of Nothing
Member
I didn't play any new Doom games yet but people tend to just judge everything from the graphics perspective and only graphics. The game engines are not just graphics they are whole. When I look at the video I can see there are lots of things under the hood.
New Doom game elevated from the last one. That is for sure. If ignorants or haters don't want to see these new upgrades, let them. I can see from videos and screenshots that id software improved themselves with the engine.
Last edited:
The_Observer
Member
Sure, the improvements on the CPU side are cool, no arguments there.
But if what you say is correct, devs shouldn't have pushed for RT if it's not the time for it yet. All this RT talk all the time, yet games that use it barely if they even look better (many times they look worse due to noisiness). I understand that it's a big achievement technically, but an end user doesn't care about that (well those who like to play the games and not just measuring their pc performance).
They should have just left RT for the next console gen. The declining sales are in part due to lack of innovation in many ways. We pay a lot more for games that, if strictly going by what we see on the screen, could be on lastgen.
Also to contradict all these, there is GTA VI that shits on everything and looks like a PS6 game, compared to everything what we have currently. It's not released yet so we will see, but what they showed so far is crazy. Yes, 30 fps, but we are comparing it to RDR2 and the leap is clear.
And then there is Doom Eternal and Dark Ages, both 60 fps, but where is the leap?
mrMUR_96
Member
It would probably look better in UE5 too though
The_Observer
Member
I'm not sure what we have to see in these pictures that you think look so good.Da fuq? Then they should use their eyes lol.
This is a clear step above visually, but I can understand if people think it's not due to YouTube compression, it does ZERO justice to this game's visuals... Not to mention when there's any kind of destruction happening, this engine is a technical marvel and when you play this game you will clearly see it, unless you see old games with pink tinted glasses or something, there are comparisons, and this game makes Eternal look flat and dated.
After watching the comparison video linked in this very thread, I can see that there is some improvement in textures and models, but you can only see this if you play up close to a monitor.
My point is, that there is improvement, for sure. But on the visual side you can put this next to Eternal and most people would have no idea that there is a generation difference there.
GymWolf
Member
Yes, that's my point, it would look better and run worse.
There is no secret magic going on.
Last edited:
winjer
Member
And have a ton of stutters...
I would say that a fast paced shooter like DOOM would be a shitty stutterfest with UE, not even talking about the framepacing.
You instantly recognize that super smooth snappy feel of ID-Tech and Source-Engine compared to other engines.
GymWolf
Member
Ue5 stuttering is also more exagerated than people think, people would not be able to beat some of the hardest bosses in wukong if the stuttering made the game unplayable or even close to that.
It also depends on how lucky you are\your system, you can go in any ue5 game topic and read wildly different opinions about the stuttering.
But yeah i guess that for doom, it is the best engine.
Last edited:
Branded
Member
The 2 most common stuttering issues are shader compilation and traversal.
Shader compilation is a one time event, which stops after it has been compiled but can be really annoying the first time like in Elden Ring at launch.
Traversal stutter on the other hand is always there and will never go away but only happens when you cross certain "loading" points in the level.
Has nothing do to with luck, everyone has these stutters.
The only difference is in how long they are, cause on a 9800X3D they will be shorter than on say a 3600X.
Audiophile
Member
I'm all in on RT & PT as the future and doing away with baking in any remotely dynamic world, but this just doesn't impress me to the degree it does DF. Once again as I've probably said over and over in the graphics thread: doing technically impressive things doesn't matter if it's not self-evident on the screen.
I look at many shots from this game and it looks like a solid PS4 Pro or X1X game.
I look at many shots from this game and it looks like a solid PS4 Pro or X1X game.
diffusionx
Gold Member
The move from baked/precalculated stuff to realtime is extremely expensive in terms of processing but the end result looks broadly similar. This speaks more to how good the baked stuff got but this is why you see a game today and are like why does it look like something that came out 10 years ago but the old game ran three times better.
The_Observer
Member
Yeah, I understand, but my point is that maybe devs shouldn't have pushed RT yet.
They should have waited for when the hardware will be mature enough.
I don't like it when people try to gaslight those of us who don't bow down to the mighty RT gods and point out the non-existing visual advancements.
As far as I know the main point for why devs like it is that it should speed up the development because they don't have to render everything again when they change something.
Yet Dark Ages took more time to develop than Eternal.
Or maybe they see this as an investment for the future, I don't know.
But my point stands, it was too early for RT.
Last edited:
I don't think it was too early, did people in 2010 expect games to run on gpus from 2003? First RT gpus came out in 2018. Imo the issue is the bang for RT performance. Sure Digital Foundry praises RT from instrinct value only, but for most it needs to improve visuals/game itself and not just "developer experience".
The_Observer
Member
No, but if you put a 2003 and 2010 game next to each other, the difference is HUGE and you don't need a DF video to know that the 2010 game is much more advanced.
simpatico
Member
If you have to be taught why it looks impressive via a giant paragraph, they're doing it wrong. No one had to explain how to appreciate the graphics in Halo CE or Mario 64 or which crevice to look at the nuanced shadowing in.Da fuq? Then they should use their eyes lol.
This is a clear step above visually, but I can understand if people think it's not due to YouTube compression, it does ZERO justice to this game's visuals... Not to mention when there's any kind of destruction happening, this engine is a technical marvel and when you play this game you will clearly see it, unless you see old games with pink tinted glasses or something, there are comparisons, and this game makes Eternal look flat and dated.
Last edited:
Hudo
Member
DF are retards. They would be impressed by cooking 1-minute rice in 59 seconds in a microwave.
Kataploom
Gold Member
There's a clear difference compared to Eternal, Eternal looks flat in comparison, there's nothing to explain that isn't self evident... Not to mention this is a dynamic lighting model that looks way better than a static one. Eternal is a clear generation behind compared with TDA specially having played both.
simpatico
Member
When at least half the people don't agree with something you consider "self evident", maybe it's time for a better descriptor. I would agree that yes, if you know where to look you can see shading techniques not possible in IT7, but when you're asking your customers for that much more processing power, it needs to hop off the screen to the point that even a casual layman can easily spot the difference. Otherwise they just should have baked it.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Yes, say no to unique shaders. After all, we all want this level of fidelity in 2025.
Kataploom
Gold Member
"just bake it" my god...