Half Life 2 Engine "old" compared to DOOM3?

normal mapping is not a form of bumpmapping, though they are somewhat similar in concept, the execution of the two is very different. (doom3 uses bump, normal, and specular maps) also bump mapping isn't a lighting technique, it is a pixel coordinate distortion techniquie
 
In my opinion Half-Life 2 looks better. especially from all the videos that are out there. The reflective sufaces and the water are just georgeous(excuse my spelling) and it seems like the gameplay will be much more interesting too. I hope i'm not disappointed again...
 
Merlin45 said:
normal mapping is not a form of bumpmapping, though they are somewhat similar in concept, the execution of the two is very different.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say the execution is very different. The only difference is that a normal map contains the actual normals instead of a height field from which perturbed normals can be derived. They both generally involve a dot product between a surface normal and a light vector in order to produce a lighting value. It's certainly more accurate to say normal mapping is just very similar to bump mapping, but graphics programmers often just refer to both as bump mapping.

(doom3 uses bump, normal, and spectacular maps) also bump mapping isn't a lighting technique, it is a pixel coordinate distortion techniquie
Click to expand...

I've been doing graphics programming for several years and I've never heard it described like that. It's pretty much always considered a lighting technique.

In case anyone wants more technical info on it, there's a pretty good article on bump/normal mapping at: http://www.delphi3d.net/articles/viewarticle.php?article=bumpmapping.htm
 
I thought that bump mapping simply altered the pixel coords of the relevant pixels and was independent of lighinting model, Apparently I was only part right, thanks for the great link. (Parralax mapping is much closer to what I was thinking of, just with texture coords)
 
UltimateMan said:
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!
Click to expand...

I was at E3 this year. I got 10 good minutes in. :p
 
good point, I do mean specular maps, dunno what I was thinking when I wrote that
 
Merlin45 said:
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)
Click to expand...

Since 90% of the time enemies disappear into ashes (for no reason) a second after death.. there isnt really any ragdoll to see. I cant imagine how my gameplay experience would be any different if ragdolls were entirely absent. You cant even dismember corpses in D3, how weak is that? They just magically burn up instantly. weak ^100

Interactable objects were highly limited. How much more physics do I need? HAVOK. I guess Im spoiled by that. To understand, fire up Painkiller and use the stake-gun to nail enemies to the ceiling or a wall. Or, find the catacomb corridor where a pile of refuse and explosives stand between you and 10 nasty enemies, watch as debris, enemies, parts of enemies all respond realistically to the explosion (and dont fade in under a second). That is physics Im talking about.
Its not about any specific examples, Merlin.. its about the feeling. PK manages to feel real and interactive thanks to physics implementation and D3 doesnt.
 
uh, the corpses burn away because they are consumed by the fires of hell, and if they remained the performance hit would be too great. if you want ragdolls kill the zombies, they don't go up in a puff of smoke, and dismemberment, the models gib, you can shoot the brain out, that isn't good enough? Your complaints are game, not engine related.
 
g_dragentity is fun to play around with if you want to see ragdolls, throwing bodys around isnt an integral part of the game though.
 
Merlin45 said:
normal mapping is not a form of bumpmapping, though they are somewhat similar in concept, the execution of the two is very different. (doom3 uses bump, normal, and spectacular maps) also bump mapping isn't a lighting technique, it is a pixel coordinate distortion techniquie
Click to expand...

"Spectacular maps" hahahahahaha
That's one of the funniest post i've ever seen... lol
They are "spectacular" to my eyes hehe
 
Merlin45 said:
uh, the corpses burn away because they are consumed by the fires of hell, and if they remained the performance hit would be too great. if you want ragdolls kill the zombies, they don't go up in a puff of smoke, and dismemberment, the models gib, you can shoot the brain out, that isn't good enough? Your complaints are game, not engine related.
Click to expand...

Engine topic is game related in my opinion. Just as car engines are related in racing.
I can't imagine Max Payne without the Havok engine. It wouldn't be fun without the Havok.

It's like Sate said it's all about feel~~~
 
skym0903 said:
"Spectacular maps" hahahahahaha
That's one of the funniest post i've ever seen... lol
They are "spectacular" to my eyes hehe
Click to expand...
someone already pointed this error out, apparently my edit was lost in cyberspace, consider it fixed
 
It is hard to compare these engine. I think a FC vs Source would be better. D3 has far better lighting than either of these engines however D3 does not do reflective water, a feature that is used a ton in FC and probably HL2 because that is a really impressive feature of DX9. All in all, I don't think Source is really that advanced, it is just written using the current crop of DX.
 
doom3, in its current state, doesn't do water at all. there is no water code in the engine.
 
Oh yeah, and I am very impressed with what I have seen from the Unreal 3.0. It just may share the high points of all these engines and thus be "the best" when it comes out.
 
Merlin45 said:
doom3, in its current state, doesn't do water at all. there is no water code in the engine.
Click to expand...

Thats wrong on so many levels, yes there is water code, make a material file with nonsolid and water instructions. And water would be in the game vm not the engine.

As for "farcry water" it can be done in doom3, the game has vertex/pixel shaders. So you could have all the cool waves and probably a skybox blend that mimics a reflection. I wouldnt say true reflections (like a mirror blend) because afaik that would be a heck of a calculation to do without a static surface.
 
Lord of Shadows said:
Thats wrong on so many levels, yes there is water code, make a material file with nonsolid and water instructions. And water would be in the game vm not the engine.

As for "farcry water" it can be done in doom3, the game has vertex/pixel shaders. So you could have all the cool waves and probably a skybox blend that mimics a reflection. I wouldnt say true reflections (like a mirror blend) because afaik that would be a heck of a calculation to do without a static surface.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I seem to recall an interview with someone at id (Might of been Tim Willits) in which when asked what Doom3 would do with water, he responded that there was no water stuff in the engine becuase it wasn't needed in Doom3, I'll try to find the interview.
 
skym0903 said:
"Spectacular maps" hahahahahaha
That's one of the funniest post i've ever seen... lol
They are "spectacular" to my eyes hehe
Click to expand...

Oh wait... I wasn't trying to make fun of you...
I just thought it was funny cuz you seem to know a lot about this stuff...
And you said you don't know what you were thinking when you wrote it
A good laugh never hurts!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top