Half Life 2 Engine "old" compared to DOOM3?

[Cannibal Corpse]

I forgot the link, but there was an article (who bashed ATi's future, with lot of sarcastic finess in writing style) who claimed Half Life 2's engine is "old" compared to DOOM3.

Is this true? I mean I thought it utilizes the more advanced DX9 features.

Many thanks in advance.

 

[Brent_Justice]

neither are old

Doom3 was just released

and HL2 isn't even out yet

 

[Cannibal Corpse]

thanks

 

[The Batman]

Well to a certain extent they have a point. It's not as graphically appeasing as FC/D3 and nowhere near as demanding. I'm sure it'll still be a great game, they just better have a co-op compaign or something. I'm sick of deathmatches and the oh so innovative co-op deathmatch.

 

[ignitionxvi]

i thought half life 2's engine was older because it was supposed to be released a year ago, and you can run it full settings with current cards, but it still looks amazing.

 

[rancor]

I forgot the link, but there was an article (who bashed ATi's future, with lot of sarcastic finess in writing style) who claimed Half Life 2's engine is "old" compared to DOOM3.

Is this true? I mean I thought it utilizes the more advanced DX9 features.

Many thanks in advance.

Doom 3 isn't Dx, and both engines don't use the latest and greatest tech but thier shader capabilities are damn close to it. These engines were started three years back so yeah if ya look at it that way could be kinda old but then again there aren't any "new" engines that will come out for another 2 years or so.

 

[Cannibal Corpse]

DOOM3 graphics (no engine) and textures look very "plastic" like. And the gameplay is so booooring...

 

[The Batman]

What kind of a setup do you have? I didn't notice anything amiss in D3 except for the occasional crappy cabinet texture.

 

[rancor]

DOOM3 graphics (no engine) and textures look very "plastic" like. And the gameplay is so booooring...

Thats because of the shader they used, they made sure it will run on gf 3 level hardware and actually below so they had to cut some things out. Half 2 on a gf 3 will look like crap too. Carmack really could have added some better shaders in there for newer cards don't know why he didn't.

 

[retardedchicken]

i think that in CS:S i get more of a "realistic" feel to the game but the graphics in doom3 are most cetrtainly better

 

[Brent_Justice]

i think y'all forget these engines are scalable and can grow with new technology

i'm sure HL2's graphics were different when they started then engine compared to where it is now, they build upon it as time goes on making it better

and even through patches it can be made better still, for example supporting SM 3.0 in a patch, like FarCry is doing

the engines endure and are built upon

 

[Merlin45]

he said explicitly why he didn't, with the exception of a couple of things that could only be done on newer hardware (heat haze, glass distortion), everything was to look exactly the same across the target hardware, that means that you get the exact same image from a geforce 2 as you do from a x800 or a 6800. that limits what he can do in many respects. that is why many functions that could be done in math on newer hardware, are done using approximations on textures (the humus tweak changes this) so that they use the same values for spectacular as older hardware would.

 

[Silverghost]

I think its just that Doom3 has spoiled our eyes.

Everyone wants Bumpmapping and specular everything. Fancy realtime lighting.

And some of the screenshots floating around, dont show that stuff very well, so some people are unsure as to what HL2 has to offer.

 

[Brent_Justice]

i think that in CS:S i get more of a "realistic" feel to the game but the graphics in doom3 are most cetrtainly better

i wouldn't say one is better than the other grpahically, i would say they are different

i mean for crying out loud we are trying to compare two different engines built on two different API's, there are differences

not one is better than the other

they both serve their purpose and make great platforms for future games that fit the style engine it is

 

[Cannibal Corpse]

The fabric textures in DOOM3 (technicia coats, or soldiers suits) look like Dead or Alive 3 textures that we have seen and loved three years agon on Xbox (GeForce3). Same I noticed in Dr. Kruger's coat in FAR CRY. (isn't ironic that both Dr.'s last name in DOOM3 and FAR CRY are Betruger, Kruger?!)

 

[HRslammR]

i'm honestly expecting for the Source engine to have a much larger ability for generating open enviroments that should look just nifty. along with some others. while the doom 3 engine will primarily be a indoors, high detail kind of engine.

or maybe i'm just talking out my ass.

 

[Rehevkor]

I'm a little unclear about the lighting engine in HL2. I heard somewhere that they're still using the same crappy static "burned-in" raytrace lighting that's been in use since Quake. If that's the case, it's no contest who takes the prize in terms of IQ. However, if HL2 actually does have a fully real-time lighting engine, it could certainly give Doom 3 a run for its money. Can anyone confirm this one way for another?

 

[S1nF1xx]

i wouldn't say one is better than the other grpahically, i would say they are different

i mean for crying out loud we are trying to compare two different engines built on two different API's, there are differences

not one is better than the other

they both serve their purpose and make great platforms for future games that fit the style engine it is

Amen

 

[thylantyr]

I prefer;

Great gameplay first, eye candy second.

I don't know why people zoom in so much and try to isolate pixel
level details if the game as a whole is rotten

 

[Whatsisname]

He didnt because they wanted to put the games on store shelves.

Thats because of the shader they used, they made sure it will run on gf 3 level hardware and actually below so they had to cut some things out. Half 2 on a gf 3 will look like crap too. Carmack really could have added some better shaders in there for newer cards don't know why he didn't.

 

[Neurofreeze]

Technically, Doom III's engine is a bit more advanced, however there are some features in Source that are also do not have a comparable feature in Doom III which are very cool.

For instance, Doom III has per-poly hit detection, as far as I know, HL2 does not (and if that example doesn't work, well Doom III has completely dynamic lighting instead of the traditional pre-calculated lightmaps, one shadowmap per object/character like HL2). HL2 has that very mod-friendly texture properties thing, ie. slap a wood texture on an object and it'll shatter like wood, slap a metal texture on a barrel and it'll dent and make sounds like a metal barrel; Doom III does not (you can do these effects but it's done in a more traditional method which is just as robust but definitely not as easy). Theres lots of things one engine does that the other doesn't, so choosing one to mod on or (if you're a developer with big bucks) develop on is a matter of trade-offs on features and usability and not just "which is more advanced?"

 

[theNoid]

In a nutshell here is the breakdown.

Half Life 2 Engine = Advanced AI, Physics, and versatility.(Built to run on lower end PCs also, old texture, and lighting effects)
Doom 3 Engine = Advanced Lighting, Sound, Graphics (Newest cards cant push it yet, gamplay is confined and a bit slow)

HL2 engine isn't really 'old' rather older. The game was scheduled to release a year ago... anyone with 1/2 a brain, using common sense (not being blinded by picking sides) knows its not spanking new. It just took several years and plenty of delays to get the engine out.

Expect HL2 to be a good game. Don't expect a Godly game.

And lastly, Doom 3 and HL2 engines accomplish different goals for different playstyles and gameplay, trying to compare either is a waste of the human thought process. Dont worry about which is better, just buy, game, and have a great time!

Hope that helps a bit.

 

[CrazyBomber]

I'm a little unclear about the lighting engine in HL2. I heard somewhere that they're still using the same crappy static "burned-in" raytrace lighting that's been in use since Quake. If that's the case, it's no contest who takes the prize in terms of IQ. However, if HL2 actually does have a fully real-time lighting engine, it could certainly give Doom 3 a run for its money. Can anyone confirm this one way for another?

Yeah, HL2 still uses lightmaps. It sucks cause there's no true dinamic lighting, only up to a certain extent. On the other hand, they can calculate lightning in a more real way.
So HL2 won't have the beauty of the totally dinamic lightning we saw on Doom3, but it'll have more realistic looking one. It also takes a LOT more time to compile a map for HL2 than for Doom3... depending on the maps, of course. But Radiosity calculations is what takes the most time, and Doom3 does that in real-time

 

[doh-nut]

Doom 3 and HL2 engines accomplish different goals for different playstyles and gameplay trying to compare either is a waste of the human thought process. Dont worry about which is better, just buy, game, and have a great time!

yet you do it in your same post

In a nutshell here is the breakdown.

Half Life 2 Engine = Advanced AI, Physics, and versatility.(Built to run on lower end PCs also, and has terrible textures compared to Doom 3)
Doom 3 Engine = Advanced Lighting, Sound, Graphics (Newest cards cant push it yet, gamplay is confined and a bit slow)

anyways , doom3's texture quality can't touch halflife2's. halflife2 just doesn't have all the lighting and normal maps that make doom3's textures appear good from far away, but they are much sharper and clearer. please cease spreading misinformation

 

[Lord of Shadows]

anyways , doom3's texture quality can't touch halflife2's. halflife2 just doesn't have all the lighting and normal maps that make doom3's textures appear good from far away, but they are much sharper and clearer. please cease spreading misinformation

What the heck are you talking about? Normal maps affect how a player model is lit, as for diffuse and specular maps they deal with lighting the texture in doom3. As for texture quaility afaik both games use trillinear filtering, so texture quaility should be the same. Im sure you could load a hl2 texture in doom3 and vice versa with no problems.

 

[doh-nut]

What the heck are you talking about? Normal maps affect how a player model is lit, as for diffuse and specular maps they deal with lighting the texture in doom3. As for texture quaility afaik both games use trillinear filtering, so texture quaility should be the same. Im sure you could load a hl2 texture in doom3 and vice versa with no problems.

yea yea details. the point is doom3 uses low res textures because if they didn't doom3 would be much slower. hl2 has bigger textures overall but without all the effects on them. still they look sharper.

 

[Lord of Shadows]

I dont know about that, how do you know that hl2 textures are higher res without the game being released? And afaik bigger textures dont affect performance at all, just take up more vram.

 

[Merlin45]

exactly, and as it is D3 doesn't have enough room to run w/o compression on 256 mb cards, think how bad the vram situation would be if they used higher quality textures

 

[theNoid]

anyways , doom3's texture quality can't touch halflife2's. halflife2 just doesn't have all the lighting and normal maps that make doom3's textures appear good from far away, but they are much sharper and clearer. please cease spreading misinformation

First off... no hard feeling or anything. I wasn't comparing 2 engines. The post was asking if HL2's engine was old compared to say Doom 3... I listed the the basic improvements of the engines and never once said which was better.

Secondly.. HL2 does NOT use any more form of bump mapping at all. The textures are very flat but detailed. Add in the use of lightmaps and the textures look very similar to HL1. But NO WHERE near what Doom 3 is. I use Doom 3 as an example because the texture/bump mapping quality is mind blowing. The AI and physics in HL2 will be amazing.. but saying that graphics and/or texture quality is better in HL2 is laughable. HL2 was built to make modding easier and slapping on new textures makes it more versitile. IE .. Someone modding the HL2 engine could slap a different texture on a wall turning it from say a Brick wall into an Ivy wall just like that.. done. Bump mapping is much more complex, time consuming, difficult, and requires more time to convert. Do more research before trying to correct known facts.

www.google.com search "Bump mapping"

Either way.. I enjoy Doom 3 and I'm sure I'll enjoy HL2 the same. Game on.

 

[doh-nut]

First off... no hard feeling or anything. I wasn't comparing 2 engines. The post was asking if HL2's engine was old compared to say Doom 3... I listed the the basic improvements of the engines and never once said which was better.

Secondly.. HL2 does NOT use any more form of bump mapping at all. The textures are very flat but detailed. Add in the use of lightmaps and the textures look very similar to HL1. But NO WHERE near what Doom 3 is. I use Doom 3 as an example because the texture/bump mapping quality is mind blowing. The AI and physics in HL2 will be amazing.. but saying that graphics and/or texture quality is better in HL2 is laughable. HL2 was built to make modding easier and slapping on new textures makes it more versitile. IE .. Someone modding the HL2 engine could slap a different texture on a wall turning it from say a Brick wall into an Ivy wall just like that.. done. Bump mapping is much more complex, time consuming, difficult, and requires more time to convert. Do more research before trying to correct known facts.

www.google.com search "Bump mapping"

Either way.. I enjoy Doom 3 and I'm sure I'll enjoy HL2 the same. Game on.

I listed the the basic improvements of the engines and never once said which was better.

Half Life 2 Engine = Advanced AI, Physics, and versatility.(Built to run on lower end PCs also, and has terrible textures compared to Doom 3)

right. you never say which engine is better, you just say which features of the engines are better. same thing.

oh and before i get proof that HL2 will use bumpmapping, do you first have any basis for your claim that it doesn't?

 

[Sate]

I was really disappointed with D3's absent physics and many low-res textures, which no matter how you justify stick out like a sore thumb next to the prettier textures. I also will be very glad to actually be outdoors for more than 15 seconds at a time. I'll take the "old" engine that alleviates these problems any time over D3. Right now the best overall engine out is Painkiller + Havok, imho, not D3.

 

[Merlin45]

what is wrong with doom3's physics? the ragdolls work fine, there are plenty of interactable objects, it works seemlessly. what is left. (the can's crumple when you hit them for god sakes, how much more physics do you need)

 

[kick@ss]

I'm not really that impressed with the physics in CS: Source, I don't see why everyone is bragging about how awesome HL2's physics will be. It might be awesome, it might not be - we'll see when the game comes out. As it stands it looks like it will have a bunch of random things to launch at enemies using the manipulator, which is different and might be cool... but I wonder how it will really affect gameplay other than having objects being used as ammo.

 

[UltimateMan]

Well to a certain extent they have a point. It's not as graphically appeasing as FC/D3 and nowhere near as demanding. I'm sure it'll still be a great game, they just better have a co-op compaign or something. I'm sick of deathmatches and the oh so innovative co-op deathmatch.

so many people are saying this like they have played the final version. Screen shots are one thing, but to see a game in motion (that is, a non alpha version) is a totally different animal. Give the thing a chance people!

 

[Roost426]

Hey cannibal you the same guy that I been playin alot of source with? If so whats up

 

[Rehevkor]

exactly, and as it is D3 doesn't have enough room to run w/o compression on 256 mb cards, think how bad the vram situation would be if they used higher quality textures

Seems to handle Ultra well enough to me (see sig).

 

[Merlin45]

and you are using your system ram for texture caching, which cuts performance and can create situations where the game lags a bit as textures are swapped.

 

[tazdevl]

Bah too many people talking out their ass about games they don't have in their possession.

 

[Rehevkor]

and you are using your system ram for texture caching, which cuts performance and can create situations where the game lags a bit as textures are swapped.

I have seen it drop below 30fps in one or two specific places, but otherwise it floats between 50 and 60. That 512mb video card warning on Ultra mode is just a suggestion. If your system is up to snuff you can run it no problem.

In regard to textures, I'm concerned about how well they will light using Source's aging pre-rendered lightmap system. If the lightmaps aren't extremely high res, the texture quality will suffer regardless of how high res the textures themselves are. And if the lightmaps are very high res, they'll eat a ton of vram. With current technology, a real-time lighting engine is simply the better choice. I'm surprised that Valve decided to use an outdated static lighting system.

 

[Craterer]

Secondly.. HL2 does NOT use any more form of bump mapping at all.

I find that very hard to believe. Bump mapping is pretty fundamental to lighting these days. I have a Valve PDF about HL2's shading (think it's on ATI's site somewhere... not sure), and it definitely describes bump mapping (specifically normal mapping, which is a form of bump mapping) techniques throughout.