davepermen will u eat hhumble pie if its found out that doom3 doesnt use ONLY stencil shadows?

true u and i could each prolly write a demo that looks very similar to doom3 but the leap from demo->finished game is huge and something u cant appreciate until youve done it

http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/gotterdammerung.html

At the end of the day JC is a very intelligent man and his work is definitely at the forefront of computer gaming tech. So, when he demonstrates his work people pay attention...

however if you want to find out how he does he stuff then all you need to do is read his .plan or the articles on the nvidia dev site and you''ll understand completely =)

Anyway...

-jonnii

quote:

---

Original post by zedzeek
davepermen will u eat hhumble pie if its found out that doom3 doesnt use ONLY stencil shadows?

true u and i could each prolly write a demo that looks very similar to doom3 but the leap from demo->finished game is huge and something u cant appreciate until youve done it

http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/gotterdammerung.html

---

if he does not use shadow-volumes only for the SHADOWINGterm of the lighting-equation, he is a liar. i dont think he is one.

"take a look around" - limp bizkit
www.google.com

I don''t know, but I think they use something like this for the models.

okay. i''ve watched now the official and even the inofficial videos.

he uses: simple perpixellighting in the way ron frazier has done it (but optimized for each gpu so much faster (less passes)), if you want to know what passes, sorry, i don''t tell you, but how the lighting work is easy, as it is always the same

he uses stencil shadows and thats all. he as well has projected textures for some projective effects, but the real shadows (shadows created by lightsources that hit geometry) are shadowvolumes with the stencil-technology HE created (called carmacks reverse..))

he uses simple lowres (well, about 5000 triangles or so, very.. lowres) meshes without any lod or something going on. they are bumpmapped and thats it. they GENERATE the meshes as highres meshes with about 5000000 faces, and then have a TOOL that calculates them down, something like polypump from crytec.

they have quite nice physics implemented (wich is new for jc-games), the blood is sweet, and the geometric detail of the scene explains why they don''t use bsp''s at all. they would work like crap in this geometry. (and the monsters can deform some parts of it even).

it will be cool. 320x240 at 15 fps on my p3 500 with gf2mx i guess.. how fun

"take a look around" - limp bizkit
www.google.com

carmack produces new game, whole world upgrades :D

He''s now apprently recomending the new ATI card over teh GF4, this makes things intresting, maybe ATI have started to sort the drivers out... I watch with intrest.

No, he still states that ATI must provide better support for their drivers but the potential for the radeon 8500 is better than gf4 because it can handle more textures. The only reason ATI has gotten better at their drivers is because he keeps calling them telling them there is a problem with a certain feature that he is implementing and ATI better fix it much like your statement, Carmack produces new game, whole world upgrades. Although I do admit they have gotten a better but not up to Nvidia''s support yet.

oops... i thought he is talking about ATI Radeon 10000 ...
ya know he tests these stuff before its released ( as far as i know )

never mind...

The Railgun MasterDaHeR

>>he uses stencil shadows and thats all. he as well has projected textures for some projective effects, but the real shadows (shadows created by lightsources that hit geometry) are shadowvolumes with the stencil-technology HE created (called carmacks reverse..))<<

i think thats as close as humble pie as we''re likely to see
just pulling your leg dave

http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/gotterdammerung.html

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
No, he still states that ATI must provide better support for their drivers but the potential for the radeon 8500 is better than gf4 because it can handle more textures. The only reason ATI has gotten better at their drivers is because he keeps calling them telling them there is a problem with a certain feature that he is implementing and ATI better fix it much like your statement, Carmack produces new game, whole world upgrades. Although I do admit they have gotten a better but not up to Nvidia''s support yet.

---

http://gaming.blueyonder.co.uk/news/item.jsp?content_id=1000906

the important bit from the above

quote:

---

“ATI’s next generation hardware has an ideal feature set for the Doom III engine,” said John Carmack, a man who needs no introduction, “and at the moment is the fastest platform to run the game on.”

---

THATS what I was talking about