Doom 3 Engine Questions

[BenSkywalker]

So what? Unreal Tournament 2003's particles were influenced by physics, as were Unreal 2's.

Neither of them are comparable to DooM3, they use some basic physics interaction and that's about it.

Pretty much every game based on U Engine 2 has had particle physics.

Fire a rocket through smoke and it just kind of floats on through in UT2K3 or U2, no interaction.

There are a few environmental physical objects in Doom 3, such as crates, or boxes on shelves, but that's nothing compared to the destructable walls and scenery of Half-Life 2.

Sounds like someone saw the years old beta build and is assuming the game hasn't had some more work done D3's physics engine is sounding like the most advanced to date in any game.

Hell, John Carmack even came out and said he wasn't planning on putting ragdoll physics in the game at all, but some other member of Id's programming team (I forget the guy's name) wrote it in, and since it was already there, they might as well use it.

Carmack didn't want to add the physics calculations of having glass accurately shatter, well beyond the simplistic rag doll physics. If you fire a shotgun with buckshot in to a window the engine calculates out distance, angle, velocity and compares it to the surface it is hitting- surface strength/thickness etc and breaks the glass down appropriately based on those calculations. There are somewhere around 20 seperate physics calculations done from the time you pull the trigger until your bullet hits anything in D3, glass is just an extremely complex surface to hit in terms of the physics engine.

Can you imagine cylinder collision in a game in this day and age?

FarCry, Unreal2, UT2K3 and UT2K4 all use bounding boxes for collision detection in terms of targetting(Quake1 style), DooM3 doesn't. From what we have seen on HL2 they were also planning on doing the same, but that was prior to more information being made available on DooM3.

Thank goodness for whoever on Id's team went over John's head.

He was out voted, noone in id can go 'over' JC's head particularly in terms of coding.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: MemberSince97
Unreal engine 3 games will be much more Realistic ... And will be in D3D so dont you frett little one...

in late 2006....

 

[imported_obsidian]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
So what? Unreal Tournament 2003's particles were influenced by physics, as were Unreal 2's. Pretty much every game based on U Engine 2 has had particle physics. That feature debuted two years ago. It's not advanced or special.

If you want to go back to the roots, trespasser beat them ALL to it 6 years ago when it was released.

There are a few environmental physical objects in Doom 3, such as crates, or boxes on shelves, but that's nothing compared to the destructable walls and scenery of Half-Life 2.

The only real physical breakthrough in Doom 3 is that the sound engine is tied in with the physics engine to provide stunningly accurate audio. As for physics interaction though, Half Life 2 is far ahead of Doom 3. You can interact with MUCH more of the environment in HL2 than Doom 3.

Disagree if you want, but it just means you're wrong



Hell, John Carmack even came out and said he wasn't planning on putting ragdoll physics in the game at all, but some other member of Id's programming team (I forget the guy's name) wrote it in, and since it was already there, they might as well use it.

Can you imagine cylinder collision in a game in this day and age? Ridiculous. Thank goodness for whoever on Id's team went over John's head.

You really don't know all that much about the engine do you. The previous breakdown of your post pointed pretty much all of it out. Even the couple reviews that have come out so far for Doom3 have said pretty much everything is interactable except where it would ruin gameplay. Not to mention most of what we've seen of HL2 has been shown to be scripted events.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: ikickpigeons
6) Whats the technical difference between OpenGL and Directx?

Feature set. Direct3D supports more features than OpenGL, and tends to get updated more often.

That's not even remotely true. If you want to compare "feature set", OpenGL can actually do *more* things than DirectX can. For example, the F-buffer feature on the 9800PRO cards is not supported by DX9, but can be easily used in OpenGL. Anything possible under DirectX can be done under OpenGL; I don't understand why so many people seem to think that DirectX is somehow more capable.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: MemberSince97
MemberSince97
Senior Member

Posts: 241
Joined: 06/20/2003

How are you a member since '97 if you only joined in 2003?

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
[That's not even remotely true. If you want to compare "feature set", OpenGL can actually do *more* things than DirectX can.

Think again.


Direct3D 8 vs OGL 1.2, it's painfully obvious who has the feature set.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Neither of them are comparable to DooM3, they use some basic physics interaction and that's about it.

That has nothing to do with the fact that they have particle physics. Please stay on topic.

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Fire a rocket through smoke and it just kind of floats on through in UT2K3 or U2, no interaction.

Aside from spinning, twirling, and otherwise blowing the smoke around, you'd be right. Exactly how else can you interact with smoke?

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Sounds like someone saw the years old beta build and is assuming the game hasn't had some more work done D3's physics engine is sounding like the most advanced to date in any game.

I'm sure the engine is capable of plenty of things. But Doom 3 isn't constructed to take advantage of it. You're not blowing catwalks down and beams off the ceiling, etc, like you are in HL2. Get over it already. Yes, the technology is nice, but it's a different kind of game and it's not designed around physics based gameplay like HL2 is.

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Carmack didn't want to add the physics calculations of having glass accurately shatter, well beyond the simplistic rag doll physics. If you fire a shotgun with buckshot in to a window the engine calculates out distance, angle, velocity and compares it to the surface it is hitting- surface strength/thickness etc and breaks the glass down appropriately based on those calculations. There are somewhere around 20 seperate physics calculations done from the time you pull the trigger until your bullet hits anything in D3, glass is just an extremely complex surface to hit in terms of the physics engine.

I'm sure that was part of it, but in the beginning he had wanted nothing to do with a ragdoll system period. He considered it a "gimmick".

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
FarCry, Unreal2, UT2K3 and UT2K4 all use bounding boxes for collision detection in terms of targetting(Quake1 style), DooM3 doesn't. From what we have seen on HL2 they were also planning on doing the same, but that was prior to more information being made available on DooM3.

No duh. They're two year old technology, excepting Far Cry, which is slightly more modern. Regardless, i wasn't talking about targeting, so this is pretty irrelevant.

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
He was out voted, noone in id can go 'over' JC's head particularly in terms of coding.

Over his head, behind his back, whatever you want to call it. Point being it was done without his approval (which, if it became a trend, would drastically improve Id's games).

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: SickBeast
[That's not even remotely true. If you want to compare "feature set", OpenGL can actually do *more* things than DirectX can.

Think again.


Direct3D 8 vs OGL 1.2, it's painfully obvious who has the feature set.

That's not a fair comparison because of this:

Only the OpenGL 1.2 core is considered in this document, not extensions.

 

[Acanthus]

not to mention it has nothing to do with OGL 1.5 vs DX9 anyway.

 

[BenSkywalker]

That has nothing to do with the fact that they have particle physics. Please stay on topic.

A basic scripted particle system in the graphics engine isn't quite comparable to what's in DooM3.

Aside from spinning, twirling, and otherwise blowing the smoke around, you'd be right. Exactly how else can you interact with smoke?

Volumetric displacement based on environmental varriables, physics based calculations that are represented visually, not a graphics element that gives the illusion of interaction.

I'm sure the engine is capable of plenty of things. But Doom 3 isn't constructed to take advantage of it. You're not blowing catwalks down and beams off the ceiling, etc, like you are in HL2.

I'd hope that DooM3 is far beyond the scripted sequences we have seen from HL2 for certain. Everything I have seen to date certainly indicates it is far beyond the few gimmicks we have seen from Gabe and co.

Get over it already.

Sorry, I'd have to suffer some sort of serious brain damage to be able to take scripted sequences and some basic visual effects as an example of a physics engine- severe retardation of some level I assume would be required.

Yes, the technology is nice, but it's a different kind of game and it's not designed around physics based gameplay like HL2 is.

HL2 isn't remotely in the league of having physics based gameplay, it's a shooter. As far as shooters go, nothing we have seen on Source indicates that it is close to being in the same league as D3 in terms of physics.

I'm sure that was part of it, but in the beginning he had wanted nothing to do with a ragdoll system period. He considered it a "gimmick".

'Ragdoll' physics *are* gimmicky. Having a proper skeletal system with IK is not. There is a difference.

No duh. They're two year old technology, excepting Far Cry, which is slightly more modern. Regardless, i wasn't talking about targeting, so this is pretty irrelevant.

Most of what you are talking about is graphics engine related or scripted sequences, you haven't really talked much about physics at all which the targetting system I mentioned does deal with.

Over his head, behind his back, whatever you want to call it.

It isn't what I want to call it, it is the dictionary definition of what happened. He was out voted on the matter.

Point being it was done without his approval (which, if it became a trend, would drastically improve Id's games).

Carmack is a programmer. He is not a director. He is not a producer. He is not an artist. He is not a musician. He is a programmer. If you think id's engines would be better off without Carmack dictating the majority of the engine then there is no point discussing anything with you any longer.

 

[Acanthus]

Dont they both license the Havok ragdoll physics engine....

In which case, they would have the same physics....

 

[Regs]

1) Is it just me or do the character models look a little like plastic?

They're 3D models in still life 2D pics. Same can be said for Far Cry AI before the game came out.

5) Will Doom have special physics like Half-Life 2?

Yes. Heat haze, lighting effects, shadow effects, realistic explosions, atmospheric interaction, ect ect

 

[imported_obsidian]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
not to mention it has nothing to do with OGL 1.5 vs DX9 anyway.

And I also doubt that takes into consideration OpenGL extensions.

 

[jim1976]

HL2 will not be just a common shooter. It will be the best fps made ever as HL1 did when it came out.
Well after making this fanatic statement I have to say that I think that HL2 will eventually have better physics than D3. It's mostly an outdoor game and requires a better physics engine than D3 which is a claustrophobic enviroment.Just by watching those walls collapsing in the E3movie you know what I mean.
I'll make no comment regarding interaction and gameplay terms.
But let's wait and see what D3 has to offer. It will definately have better graphics though from what we have seen.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Nvidia might have something to do with this directx vs opengl decision.

GG you have just made an assinine statement. Carmack has used OpenGL for a while. I think quake 1 was GLIDE. OpenGL can be run on linux and macintosh. If they decide to port the game to one or the other the API will not hold them back.

I know you have Nvidia and their marketing strategy is rude but seriously he was using OpenGL long before the leak that made him so pissed off at ATi.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: MemberSince97
Unreal engine 3 games will be much more Realistic ... And will be in D3D so dont you frett little one...

Why compare to an engine that is coming 2006?

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: PowderBB3D
Please stop fighting.

To address your questions:


5) Doom 3's physics should be pretty good although I haven't heard as much about them. At the moment, HL2 seems to be the game for realistic physics and multiplayer while Doom 3 seems to be the game for visual appeal and single player. This of course is open to interpretation and may change seeing as neither game has hit shelves yet.

HL2 just uses Havok 2 for physics. AFAIK the physics in D3 are id's

Carmack said they had to scrap glass being sucked out through a vacuum using their physics because it would own a 5ghz processor. If you read the latest interviews they are always asked why there is a 4 player limit on multiplayer and TH responds that because of the physics, dynamic lighting, and interactable world - it takes too much bandwidth to allow many more players and still stay synched. To me this is saying "the physics are up to par"

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: g3pro

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: ikickpigeons
5) Will Doom have special physics like Half-Life 2?

Some physics are involved, but they are mostly ragdoll for characters and objects. There is none of the interactivity, destructability, or cooperative ability that we've seen demonstrated in HL2. There are physics in Doom 3, but they aren't as advanced as HL2's.

Ummm, yeeaaahhh, I'm going to have to disagree with you there.




Doom 3's physics are actually much more advanced. Particles in the world are all influenced by physics (including smoke). The world is extremely interactive. Some things are not interactive, just like in HL2, or it would destroy the gameplay and level design.

Oh I see you have already said this - quite well actually!

 

[BFG10K]

should know right?

Yes but that has nothing to do with it.

since you know there have been a million threads regarding this current issue

But apparently he doesn't.

And, it is easier to start a new thread than to wade through 35,646 of them just to find the answer to a question you might have.

Of course it is and that's why the forum has so much spam and duplicate threads. Another duplicate thread means a genuine thread somewhere else is being pushed down the page.

If this were a more monitored forum then this thread would have been locked with the instruction to take it into one of the other existing threads.

And what would happen if everyone just googled for everything?

And what would happen if every time somebody had a question that differed slightly from another existing thread they started a new thread?

Count the number of Doom III threads in the first two pages and there's your answer.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

should know right?

Yes but that has nothing to do with it.

since you know there have been a million threads regarding this current issue

But apparently he doesn't.

And, it is easier to start a new thread than to wade through 35,646 of them just to find the answer to a question you might have.

Of course it is and that's why the forum has so much spam and duplicate threads. Another duplicate thread means a genuine thread somewhere else is being pushed down the page.

If this were a more monitored forum then this thread would have been locked with the instruction to take it into one of the other existing threads.

And what would happen if everyone just googled for everything?

And what would happen if every time somebody had a question that differed slightly from another existing thread they started a new thread?

Count the number of Doom III threads in the first two pages and there's your answer.

Unless the mods do anything about this, I suggest you live with it because you can thread crap about it till your fingers fall off and it wont change a darn thing. Let it go. It does no good to complain about something when there is no one listening, like the mods for instance.

 

[ikickpigeons]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

should know right?

Yes but that has nothing to do with it.

since you know there have been a million threads regarding this current issue

But apparently he doesn't.

And, it is easier to start a new thread than to wade through 35,646 of them just to find the answer to a question you might have.

Of course it is and that's why the forum has so much spam and duplicate threads. Another duplicate thread means a genuine thread somewhere else is being pushed down the page.

If this were a more monitored forum then this thread would have been locked with the instruction to take it into one of the other existing threads.

And what would happen if everyone just googled for everything?

And what would happen if every time somebody had a question that differed slightly from another existing thread they started a new thread?

Count the number of Doom III threads in the first two pages and there's your answer.

do you always have to be an asshole to everyone?
why wont you accept that these questions that i asked arent being answered in other thrads?

 

[BFG10K]

It does no good to complain about something when there is no one listening, like the mods for instance.

Unfortunately it's quite true that the mods don't appear to care.

why wont you accept that these questions that i asked arent being answered in other thrads?

Then ask them.

 

[BFG10K]

Getting back on topic...

1) Is it just me or do the character models look a little like plastic?

They look fine to me.

2) Is this because of it being in OpenGL instead of Directx 9?

If they were plastic then that would have nothing to do with it.

3) Why did Carmack code the engine in OpenGL?

He likes cross platform APIs to make his games more portable.

4) Does Doom have high poly models?

No, Doom III has relatively low polygon count models. The details come from per-pixel lighting & shadowing along with extensive usage of bump mapping.

5) Will Doom have special physics like Half-Life 2?

Doom III will have full ragdoll physics like many other games already have. ID have probably added some more advanced calculations too.

6) Whats the technical difference between OpenGL and Directx?

OpenGL is a cross-platform API controlled by a number of parties wihile Direct3D is controlled by Microsoft and only runs on Windows. Both APIs have identical functionality but OpenGL often uses vendor specific extensions to expose functionality not yet defined in the core OpenGL.