![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Which game renderer is most advanced?
- Thread starter Intel17
- Start date
cuemasterfl
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2001
- Messages
- 4,181
Edit: I mean source.
Metallica_Band
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 3,437
Source?!?!? You gotta be kidding me...I get better FPS and higher quality on D3's engine than on Source...
I get objects that end up "merging" into other objects a bit sometimes and I don't notice the bump mapping if any on a lot of the textures...some textures look HL1-ish just like a bunch of the sounds that were reused from HL1...HL2's sounds and textures disappointed me...there's even texture overlapping which is unacceptable when it comes to big games like this...other ppl's mods are understandable but for a game like HL2...nope...not good...and I even spotted some textures that went right thru the floor and you could see a piece of it from the ceiling below...
Enuff about HL2...anyways I'd say Doom 3, Unreal 2, and then Havoc
I get objects that end up "merging" into other objects a bit sometimes and I don't notice the bump mapping if any on a lot of the textures...some textures look HL1-ish just like a bunch of the sounds that were reused from HL1...HL2's sounds and textures disappointed me...there's even texture overlapping which is unacceptable when it comes to big games like this...other ppl's mods are understandable but for a game like HL2...nope...not good...and I even spotted some textures that went right thru the floor and you could see a piece of it from the ceiling below...
Enuff about HL2...anyways I'd say Doom 3, Unreal 2, and then Havoc
ThisMonsterLives
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2003
- Messages
- 1,284
D3, we've only scratched the surface of what it can do.
]|[ Mar']['in ]|[
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2002
- Messages
- 4,663
ThisMonsterLives said:
what he said ^^
Metallica_Band
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 3,437
I can hit 30-70fps in D3 with medium settings and a couple settings set one step higher but I can only get 15-65 fps with HL2 with default settings and some settings set a tad lower...I have a Radeon 9700 Pro...looks like it's starting to show its age since games like FarCry, Doom 3, Half Life 2, etc. have been released...I plan on upgrading either toward the end of next year or sometime 2006 OR the 2nd generation of 512MB vid cards...
Metallica_Band
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 3,437
ANYWAYS the question was which engine is the most advanced...Doom 3 is cause we can already see what the Source engin can do with maxed out settings on HL2 with the #1 vid cards but the kind of graphics that D3's engine can produce isn't even showable on todays vid cards...they are just too weak at the highest of high settings...D3's engine will be around for a LOOONG time I think...
Metallica_Band said:
the same can be said for source engine, its capabilities are not even close to being shown. . d3 engine isn't the only scalable engine. source engine will go the way of unreal tech, being constantly upgraded as time goes on.
REweskerqchaos0
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2002
- Messages
- 524
I prefer the source engine. D3 has much better lighting effects but in my opinion thats all D3 has over source. And again this is just my opinion but i believe the reason the D3 engine at max settings runs slow on current cards is because of the lack of coding efficency.
REweskerqchaos0 said:
I am amazed that they could get the quality they got on current gen cards. If you know anything about the history or id games you would know that they always produce engines which put current gen hardware onto its knees but which last for years and scale well.
REweskerqchaos0
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2002
- Messages
- 524
Im interested too see what they can do with the D3 engine. But comparing the only game with source (i dont consider CS:S a game yet) and the only game with the D3 engine. Source just looks better to me in motion, and D3 takes better screenshots.
However the lighting in HL2 at med settings is almost non existant. D3 accomplishes a lot more at med settings.doh-nut said:
Either way, the D3 engine seems to be more advanced than the Source engine. Source has better physics because it licenses Havok and it has pixel shaders for water which looks just great but D3 comes out on top. The game just didn't utilize it that well. Example, it is too dark to see anything of beauty.
retardedchicken
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 3,081
gogo doom3 engine, now give us gameplay with it in your expansion pack, ID! 
This thread is laughable at best. Too many of you are confusing the the power of the graphic artists sitting behind a desk at the respective companies with the power of the engine.
So, how does the Doom 3 engine handle large outdoor areas? Anyone? Anyone?
So, how does the Doom 3 engine handle large outdoor areas? Anyone? Anyone?
REweskerqchaos0
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2002
- Messages
- 524
-freon- said:
Oh enlighten us great computer graphics lord. Your mentally weak underlings desperatly need you're damn near useless information that will benefit 99% of us in no way whatsoever other than being able to impress online super geekz.
edit* this is me misinterpreting the previous post and speaking in defenseEdit* sorry man i thought you were being antagonistic with the "anyone? anyone?" thing. My appologies.
REweskerqchaos0 said:Oh enlighten us great computer graphics lord. Your mentally weak underlings desperatly need you're damn near useless information that will benefit 99% of us in no way whatsoever other than being able to impress online super geekz.
Uhhh yeah..
So, about that Doom 3 game engine? How does it handle large outdoor areas?
Edit: LOL, thats cool. Ferris Bueller moment.
dariob said:
That is the old way of thinking that isn´t true anymore. Also ID have always leap frogged with the Unreal engines. Up to Quake 1 they where the undisputed nr 1. Now we have Far Cry and Source which are at least as good as the Doom 3 engine. All these three are very versatile as well. As COD have little in common with Quake 3 Arena the same will happen with the Doom 3, Crytek and Source engines. We will see Source based games having awsome real time shadows. We will have Doom 3 engines that have high quality textures, We will see Crytek games with good character modelling.
Just because there were not large outdoor areas in D3 doesn't prove that the engine is incapible of handling them. It doesn't prove it can either. But my money is on it being able to. JC wants to license the engine and he will only have a small audience if he made it the way a lot of people seem to believe.
And is Crytek even licensing their engine? Everyone talks about it being one of the best but does that really matter if no other games is based on it? We talk about D3 and Source being good AND SIGNIFICANT because we are sure to see other games made on their platform.
Noodle Boy
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 432
Well since the question in the original post was which game RENDERER is most advanced, I'd have to say the Unreal Engine 3. Even though games based on the engine wont be around for at least a couple of years or so, the engine has already been licensed, therefore, I assume that the engine is ready for use in games.
For the question of which renderer TODAY is the best, it's hard to say, as each engine has its own pluses. Doom 3 and dynamic lighting/shadows, Half-Life 2 and physics, Far Cry with long draw distances. I wouldn't say one engine would be better than another, because IMO each engine was aiming for a particular feature (this is debatable) at the time of creation. I think the best engine of the 3 should be the one with the greatest flexibility...can you manipulate the engine the way you want it to/ can you add features to the engine for your specific game.
For the question of which renderer TODAY is the best, it's hard to say, as each engine has its own pluses. Doom 3 and dynamic lighting/shadows, Half-Life 2 and physics, Far Cry with long draw distances. I wouldn't say one engine would be better than another, because IMO each engine was aiming for a particular feature (this is debatable) at the time of creation. I think the best engine of the 3 should be the one with the greatest flexibility...can you manipulate the engine the way you want it to/ can you add features to the engine for your specific game.
Yes Crytek is licensing it. I don´t remember but I have heard of one major game using it´s game engine. May be Ghost Recon 2 but that can also be on the Doom 3 engine...
I don´t expect as many game developers licensing it as the well known Doom 3 (because of John Carmacks previous efforts) and Unreal 3 engines.
I don´t expect as many game developers licensing it as the well known Doom 3 (because of John Carmacks previous efforts) and Unreal 3 engines.
If it was Doom3 vs Unreal3. My vote goes to Unreal3. But since it's not here yet, Doom3 it is Sorry guys, but after seeing Doom3, Source just looks flat.
@Staples
There's a pic of a Doom3 vehicle mod. The map was really freakin big. Even if it's empty, it does prove that it can support it. Just add some low quality buildings and trees and you'll have a decently populated town.
It'll help if the engine also supported scaling (I honestly haven't seen it done yet), swapping the models for low quality ones at distance instead of having the same insanely detailed model at any range. Anybody tried summoning monsters in test_cube.map? You get the same frame rate at 5 meters, and at 5,000 meters
CryEngine would be a good upgrade for BF1942/Planetside type games. Shooting mortars at insanely long range and following the trajectory with your binoculars to see where it lands, then ducking into a foxhole for cover is cool. Only thing they have to prove is the netcode.
Sorry guys, but after seeing Doom3, Source just looks flat.@Staples
There's a pic of a Doom3 vehicle mod. The map was really freakin big. Even if it's empty, it does prove that it can support it. Just add some low quality buildings and trees and you'll have a decently populated town.
It'll help if the engine also supported scaling (I honestly haven't seen it done yet), swapping the models for low quality ones at distance instead of having the same insanely detailed model at any range. Anybody tried summoning monsters in test_cube.map? You get the same frame rate at 5 meters, and at 5,000 meters
CryEngine would be a good upgrade for BF1942/Planetside type games. Shooting mortars at insanely long range and following the trajectory with your binoculars to see where it lands, then ducking into a foxhole for cover is cool. Only thing they have to prove is the netcode.
I preferr Source in Half Life 2 over Doom 3 really. Also Doom 3:s shadow is nothing revolutionary. It´s done via Dx7 features. Unreal 3 engine will do it via dx 9 shaders instead.
That Doom 3:s shadows require a lot of power is a drawback of that engine not a plus. And Thief made it better than Doom 3 and that is an Unreal based game so real time shadows is absolutely nothing unique to Doom 3 engines.
Also when we are at it Crytek is obviously working hard with their Crytek engine. Odd thing though Far Cry is nVidia sponsored ATI is making tech demos out off it?
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=452106891&m=8271065342
That Doom 3:s shadows require a lot of power is a drawback of that engine not a plus. And Thief made it better than Doom 3 and that is an Unreal based game so real time shadows is absolutely nothing unique to Doom 3 engines.
Also when we are at it Crytek is obviously working hard with their Crytek engine. Odd thing though Far Cry is nVidia sponsored ATI is making tech demos out off it?
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=452106891&m=8271065342
DemonDiablo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,767
to all you people saying that the hl2 water was the best ever all I got to say is that the Halo 2 water = complete pwnage!!! (just kidding)
On a serious note the options should have been Doom3, Source, and Unreal 3. As one guy mentioned before the FarCry engine (as I hear since i've never played the game) is a great engine...but it can be as good as it wants to be but if nobody makes any games that use its engine then its kinda useless to talk about?
The new age dx engine games are going to be made from scratch or made with Source or Unreal engines. However if somebody knows about some good games that have been announced to use the FarCry engine then by all means enlighten us!
On a serious note the options should have been Doom3, Source, and Unreal 3. As one guy mentioned before the FarCry engine (as I hear since i've never played the game) is a great engine...but it can be as good as it wants to be but if nobody makes any games that use its engine then its kinda useless to talk about?
The new age dx engine games are going to be made from scratch or made with Source or Unreal engines. However if somebody knows about some good games that have been announced to use the FarCry engine then by all means enlighten us!
Metallica_Band
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 3,437
I don't go around looking for errors...they were all in plain view...I see shadows coming from under doors and thru walls and I can see models legs and arms and stuff go thru walls...there's A LOT of the exact same annoyances that's seen in HL1 that have been repeated in HL2...they did nothing to correct them...and don't even get me started on HL2's grass...I swear it reminded me of Doom 1 ages...FPS said:
inotocracy
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 5,625
Metallica_Band said:
I have to agree, I notice a LOT of graphical errors when it comes to shadows in HL2. It appears to me that they concentrated on physics and completely ignored shadows, they feel like shadows in Q2 when you set gl_shadows to 2:
