Back in 2000 or 2001 when i first saw a video of carmack showing off the doom3 engine , i was just awe stricken.
Had they released the game back then, i guess it would have been an instant, amazing hit and everyone would have been praising carmack.

But i feel they got a little late in the release of the game, which allowed all the other guys to catch up.

What do u think?
Posted on 2004-12-19 22:31:46 by clippy
Big problem with doom3 is that by the time it was released, vertex/pixel shader 2.0 hardware was common... and Carmack's code was mainly written for 1.x hardware, not really taking advantage of 2.0, and doing too much work on the CPU.

HL2 might not have as fancy lighting/shadowing, but well... doom3 needs 640x480 and medium detail to run smoothly on my box, whil HL2 has max detail, 4xFSAA, 8xAF, and 1024x768 and ran smoothly all way through.

I'm glad Carmack is starting to lose his "guru" status, hopefully more people will also start realizing that DX > GL.
Posted on 2004-12-20 02:50:45 by f0dder
On a non technical note Doom 3 is very boring. Eventually you just get fed up of killing stuff and the plot was so slow to unravel that most of the time I felt like I was was walking around with no sense of purpose or a goal.
Posted on 2004-12-20 10:51:51 by Eóin
Big problem with doom3 is that by the time it was released, vertex/pixel shader 2.0 hardware was common... and Carmack's code was mainly written for 1.x hardware, not really taking advantage of 2.0, and doing too much work on the CPU.

HL2 might not have as fancy lighting/shadowing, but well... doom3 needs 640x480 and medium detail to run smoothly on my box, whil HL2 has max detail, 4xFSAA, 8xAF, and 1024x768 and ran smoothly all way through.

I'm glad Carmack is starting to lose his "guru" status, hopefully more people will also start realizing that DX > GL.


If your system is the one stated in the other thread "how much ram in ur pc", I dont even wanna try Doom3 on my machine.
Posted on 2004-12-20 14:53:50 by x86asm
Well , i dont know much about graphics programming but i guess doom3 is the only engine out their to use Bump Mapping effects to produce those ultra realistic effects. All the others just increase the poly count.

Does it in any way make doom 3 unique and better?

As i mentioned earlier i am a novice in graphics programming so i would appreciate someone commenting on this,

I mean why would Carmack try a different approach if it was actually slower than the one already being used?
Posted on 2004-12-27 11:32:27 by clippy
Hey x86, you can try, even you can play it on a vodoo :) with 12Mb :)

http://www.3dfxzone.it/enboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1462

The point is how much settings you will like to activate, dont be afraid :).
Posted on 2004-12-28 14:03:44 by rea
The point is that playing doom3 like that is pointless...
Posted on 2004-12-28 14:20:16 by f0dder
Yes I supose ;), but hey can be done!, and you can get 60 fps (at less the screen shoot show that), the less was 12 fps in a really hard escene (explosions and suchs), but the general game playing was about 30-40 fps, pheraphs you have used a lot of effects aliasing passing the power of your CPU ;) or pheraphs other problem related to the game, dont know. The point is to tune a graphic card for get cool graphics and nice flow of the game :). But yes, you should move some things and that is not fun :).

I will see in the near future what I can do with my CPU, but being going out off space elsewhere...., I will do my try and see how I can play it :).
Posted on 2004-12-28 14:54:43 by rea
any qnswers to my question??? :?
Posted on 2004-12-28 17:16:18 by clippy
Dont know, but aparently watching some things, doom3 can win in the aspect of dynamic lighting
http://www.flipcode.com/cgi-bin/fcmsg.cgi?thread_show=10946
http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=172296
more than farcry, more than hl2 :).

But I should play more games for get you a real point of view and know better graphics.

Also I guess you can search those forums or raise your question there? pheraphs more answers????

At the end, you will find like always that a things have strong and weaks points :).
Posted on 2004-12-28 18:50:03 by rea
Hey x86, you can try, even you can play it on a vodoo :) with 12Mb :)

http://www.3dfxzone.it/enboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1462

The point is how much settings you will like to activate, dont be afraid :).

holy moly, well I'm shocked! On a Voodoo2!??! I'll take a look at the thread maybe I do stand a chance.
Posted on 2004-12-31 18:23:15 by x86asm
I agree with f0dder there though, its pointless playing it unless you have the visual effects working fully. Without them the game is worse than previous FPS's. Go back and play Wolfenstien or Catacombs 3D, the plot/gameplay hasn't imporved one bit.
Posted on 2004-12-31 21:36:12 by Eóin