DooM3 Graphics Engine

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Drayvn
I have to admit, that D3 doesnt use physics extensively, it uses it for bodies and thats it, all the other objects within the game dont use physics whatsoever, the only few games that i have used physics properly and extensively to good use is Deus Ex 2, and from what i can see, HL2 also, as supposedly ablsolutely everything in the game has a phyics model...

lol, Deus Ex 2, were walking into a 55gallon drum makes it fly across the map the same as a cardboard box. now thats some physics for ya!

 

[BFG10K]

possibly this answers the question of whether the physics engine in D3 "scales" with the hardware that it is run on?

Nope, it just appears Ben is placing D3 up on a pedestal it doesn't deserve. He also appears to be seeing things in the game that nobody else can.

If you're still unsure then fire up some reviews and they'll agree with the general trend. That game is great but it's not outstanding.

 

[BFG10K]

lol, Deus Ex 2, were walking into a 55gallon drum makes it fly across the map the same as a cardboard box. now thats some physics for ya!

It's true, some of DE2's effects are a bit overdone but the point is that most objects do react to you. In Doom III most things don't even move, almost like they're glued to the spot they're sitting on.

In DE2 crates topple/roll, boxes tumble, bodies go limp, etc.

 

[Cat]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

lol, Deus Ex 2, were walking into a 55gallon drum makes it fly across the map the same as a cardboard box. now thats some physics for ya!

It's true, some of DE2's effects are a bit overdone but the point is that most objects do react to you. In Doom III most things don't even move, almost like they're glued to the spot they're sitting on.

In DE2 crates topple/roll, boxes tumble, bodies go limp, etc.

In Doom 3, boxes tumble and bodies go limp.

All the latest games try to make you feel that you're not staring at a computer screen. This how many of people seem to be defining realism. I think what distances Doom 3 from the other engines is that it doesn't exaggerate to achieve this.

a. Bodies go limp and fall on objects/each other all the time. Demons disintegrate, but if you manage to do just enough damage to humans and zombies, they slump and keel over realistically. Far Cry's ragdoll physics, however, often breaks whatever numeric integration they're using. Bodies won't quite enter the sleep state, and will basically stay in limbo, sometimes making an annoying machine-gun like sound as they generate a collision every frame.

Painkiller makes you happy because lots of things are controlled by physics, but the game tries so hard to make you aware of these physics, it's 'painfull.' Hey, there goes a zombie with a stake through its head, flying a good 20 feet away! Thanks for letting me know that you have a physics engine. It's a blast, but it's not more technologically advanced.

Sure, most of objects aren't tagged for physics in Doom, but subtle is the keyword here. Do you really want ammo, health and armor being blown into a pit where you can't ever get it? Sure, you might find it more FUN to have bodies and guns flying everywhere, but that doesn't make the Doom's physics engine inferior to Havok or any other third-party library.

b. D3's sound has been discussed elsewhere.

c. The renderer: not every surface has ridiculous specularity, or looks hopelessly plastic. The flashlight works well for me; the slimy moving textures' specularity interacts with the flashlight as expected. Those of you expecting real-time radiosity have obviously never done any work in the computer graphics field.

 

[BFG10K]

In Doom 3, boxes tumble and bodies go limp.

Rarely if at all. Also most boxes appear to be glued to the floor and pushing a movable small box into another movable small box appears to glue both boxes together. Also when boxes roll/bounce they appear to be held up by a string from the roof.

I think what distances Doom 3 from the other engines is that it doesn't exaggerate to achieve this.

I interpret it as physics that are sorely lacking.

Demons disintegrate,

I wouldn't call that disintegration at all since all they're really doing is just vanishing. Having a body blow up and have its parts fly around the place, fully affected by physics - that's disintegration. In many cases Doom III can't even manage effects that Quake could do.

Painkiller makes you happy because lots of things are controlled by physics,

Painkiller makes me happy because it currently has the most advanced and realistic physics implementation available and D3 can't hold a candle to it.

Sure, most of objects aren't tagged for physics in Doom, but subtle is the keyword here.

"Yeah, the physics suck but that's because it's trying to be subtle". Sorry but simply doesn't fly. Compared to a lot of titles Doom III's physics are inferior and sorely lacking.

Those of you expecting real-time radiosity have obviously never done any work in the computer graphics field.

I'm expecting a flashlight to actually do something like...I dunno...light & shine the area, especially in a game that is boasting its lighting capabilities. Far Cry definitely has it beat in that department and DE2 is very good with its shadows (I'd have to go back check whether its better or not). Also Painkiller has far shaper textures and far better physics.

 

[parkbench]

1st impressions of Far Cry a few months back:

Nice water, trees and sprite based grass. Trees sway, cool. The stiffest human bad guys ever, horrendous "turn me off" voice acting. Great physics (boxes, shelves,barrels) but crappy vehicle handling. Awesome AI, nice graphics. Movie atmosphere, cartoony look. Nice try though.

Above average FPS.

 

[Cat]

Referring to ragdolls: When you say "rarely if at all": This means it hardly ever happens, and maybe it never happens. This is completely untrue.

I see nothing wrong with the box physics in Doom 3, they bounce and roll just fine. I haven't seen any evidence of the glue behaviour.

There's no true disintegration; I just mentioned it because it points out why you might have not seen the ragdoll effects, as they occur far longer on the humans, not demons. The humans also gib, but it's so quick that I don't know if the gibs are physics objects. The demons are in ragdoll mode for less than a second. Shoot stuff with the rocket launcher if you want Painkiller level physics. The Cacodemons look particularly interesting when in ragdoll mode, rolling almost like a deflated beach ball.

You've finally stopped saying that there are no ragdoll physics, after repeatedly claiming there were none, but with no retraction.

Please tell me why you think Doom 3's physics engine is horrible, without your previous claims, because I don't see any of them. Painkiller does more interesting things (most weapons have much more kick, and the stake / grapple is obviously not in Doom 3.) I'd like to hear some technical gripes, not gameplay ones. If we can't get beyond this, then there's really no point in continuing, as it all becomes very subjective.

I just fired up Far Cry to check the flashlight, it's no better than Doom's. It's FAR brighter, and has a much much wider area of effect, but that's it. Shine your flashlight in Doom 3 very close to a surface, and you'll see specular effects.

To recap:

All I basically see you complaining about are gameplay, rather than technical differences. The ragdoll effects exist, despite your claims, but the enemies don't explode into tiny pieces like you want them to. They appear to burn up or shatter, but not physically. The boxes move as I would expect. Swinging lights move normally when shot. Enemies do ragdoll normally. What is technically wrong?

Yes, I've said the ragdoll effects exist about a million times. PLEASE replay sections of the game and look closely.

 

[Cat]

Also, ripped from doom3world.org

http://www.doom3world.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=3181

while playing in the console type: bind h "toggle g_dragentity"
now go find a monster or a box or ANYTHING that moves, then press h, then put the objects over your crosshair and press and hold the "Fire" key (left mouse button) press h agian to return to normal mode. you can make objects float by picking them up, then pressing h.

If this doesn't convince you, I don't know what will. You can 'staple' limbs if you want to, using the bindragdoll command. This is just like staking a zombie in Painkiller.

 

[Cat]

Load Doom 3.

map testmap/test_box.map

Walk around, and type 'spawn env_ragdoll_imp' in a few places.
Type 'give all'
Start firing rockets.

Use the bindragdoll command to 'stake' the ragdolls to a wall, space, or each other. Keep firing.

 

[BFG10K]

When you say "rarely if at all": This means it hardly ever happens, and maybe it never happens. This is completely untrue.

From my experience (I'm probably3/4 of the way through) it is quite true. Getting live monsters to fly and bounce around like ragdoll based games is basically impossible. On rare occasions I've managed to cause an explosion that moved dead bodies but even that movement couldn't match something like UT2003 when a body starts bouncing off walls and bending limbs.

There's no true disintegration; I just mentioned it because it points out why you might have not seen the ragdoll effects,

The body hits the floor (which is when you'd expect a ragdoll physic) and then proceeds to vanish. The act of vanishing is not preventing any ragdoll effect because the body is already stationary when it happens.

You've finally stopped saying that there are no ragdoll physics, after repeatedly claiming there were none, but with no retraction.

I've done no such thing and there will be no retraction, unless of course I see something resembling ragdoll physics before I finish the game.

Please tell me why you think Doom 3's physics engine is horrible,

Because, to put it simply, it doesn't match ragdoll based games that we've been seeing for the last two years. Either that or the effects have been foolishly hidden to the point of practical non-existance for gameplay purposes.

I'd like to hear some technical gripes, not gameplay ones.

I don't have access to Carmack's physics code. Do you?

Shine your flashlight in Doom 3 very close to a surface, and you'll see specular effects.

In most cases you don't and the only time you do is when the surface is already specular. This isn't the case with Far Cry as many surfaces become reflective simply by shining the light on them.

PLEASE replay sections of the game and look closely.

I have been and will continue to do so.

If this doesn't convince you, I don't know what will.

I'm sorry but how exactly is carrying a floating box meant to impress me? We've have floating boxes since 2000's Deus Ex for heaven's sake.

 

[Cat]

Did you know that the 'scripted' sequences, when bodies are thrown across the room, are done using the ragdoll system? Did you know that using the rocket launcher produces the exaggerated ragdoll effects you want?
Make g_gravity 100 and you'll be able to see this more clearly.

You're ignoring the everpresent ragdoll effects if you don't see them. Kill ANY zombie with the pistol; it falls _realistically_, draping over surfaces. In fact, unlike many other ragdoll games, forces are applied to an animated creature before it's dead. Shoot a hand, and it reacts accordingly. There's no md5anim for this. Just because they aren't flying and bouncing with the small weapons doesn't mean the effect isn't there.

In Far Cry, enemies do not react to positional damage. Their animations stay the same, and are not physically influenced.

Loading a zombie and shooting him in the testmap_box level has at least the same level of realism as any other game with 'physics' that I've played.

BTW, have you used the g_grabEntity command?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Thanks Cat The way you break thing down makes it easy for us non-coder types to follow :beer: You are elite, title or not....

 

[Cat]

Thanks, DAPUNISHER. I feel very strongly that the physics engine in this game is not subpar, and certainly not worse than any other game's engine. It may be underutilized, but I feel it has very strong technical merit. It just feels right, without needing over-the-top effects.

I may just make a video with FRAPS or avigame showing each point.

 

[BenSkywalker]

gururu-

i downloaded the painkiller demo before I bought it. i didn't like it. maybe you should have done that!

I think I'll enjoy the game, it has a goth SeriousSam feel going to it, old school and retro, but so far I like what I've played.

BFG-

Which areas?

Any interior area.

AFAIK D3 is using shadow maps too and doesn't even use soft shadows like many other games already do.

D3 is using a zfail lighting system that creates the shadows, soft shadows with the level of accuracy D3's lighting engine has is not going to be viable for a very long time.

Now turn on the flashlight in D3 and look for reflections/shine across the whole areas.

In my version of D3 I'm mainly in dark and dreary factory settings, they don't tend to have polished chrome diamond plated floors that reflect light like a mirror and neither does D3(although FC does).

Far Cry has reflections from static lights and shining the flashlight on them makes then dynamically shiny - pipes, walls, floors - everything.

It lights them to overbright/unrealistic levels, D3's engine is significantly more realistic in that aspect.

And that means what exactly?

It looks like something I'd expect to see on the PS2. I've seen quite a bit better on the GameCube.

And since you're bent out of shape about the alpha textures (which don't take effect until a very long range anyway) then turn up the render plane and they'll all be 3D objects that can be manipulated by geometry instancing.

Try and get any of the ferns in FC to move. You want impressive foliage talk about KOTOR- FC's really isn't even mediocre, it's flat out bad.

Does D3 support geometry instancing? Does D3 support SM3? Does D3 have as many render paths as Far Cry?

Geometry instancing I'm not sure, D3 has supported shaders that exceed SM2.0 spec for years and in terms of render paths it has NV10, NV20, R100, R200, ARB2 and the varrying quality settings for each of those.

I think not, yet you still claim it's more advanced than Far Cry. Interesting.

Does FC support proper IK? Does FC support a unified lighting model? Can FC handle layered overlapping shadows? I think not, yet you still claim it's more advanced then D3.

Far Cry is quite playable at 1024x768 on my rig though it does drop a bit indoors. D3 is frequently a slideshow at that setting and I need to run it at 800x600. Also it doesn't look as good as Far Cry.

What drivers are you running? Also, have you gone in to the console and custom disabled features to drop the quality to below that of the Low settings in D3?

I sincerely doubt it. Look at the game on DX7 hardware and check for differences. Now do the same for Far Cry.

OK- R7000 failed to run at all, Kyro2 failed to run at all, Voodoo5 failed to run at all. Try the NV1x core and the game will run- missing heat waves, getting blending artifacts throughout the shaders that display too.

Exactly - nothing happens there because there's no lighting. No lighting or reflections to begin with and none when you shine the flashlight on tiled floors and walls that should do something.

Serious question- do tiles serve as mirrors in your hemisphere? They don't here, they aren't even close.

What are you talking about? The lighting is all done by shaders which is plainly visible since changing the shader path you use changes the lights. Also AFAIK all of the moving vegetation and water effects are done by shaders too.

Shine your flashlight on the ground outside, where are the shaders? Shine your flashlight on a tree, where are the shaders? The shaders that you see are on the pipes/floors etc.

I don't know what you think you're seeing but you'd be the only one out there who does.

That's clearly not the case now.

Every single review I've read has complained about the lack of physics in the game. Basically bodies keel over generically (if even that; sometimes they just collapse) and then disappear.

Reviewers overwhelmingly don't understand crap about game engines and we both know that. As far as the bodies just keeling over, that depends on what you kill and how they die.

Actually they do not such thing apart from producing a cartoonish wall of grey smoke

Cartoonish....

I've seen zero evidence of this except in rare cases when something does happen to move a little. That's certainly not even remotely ragdoll and has already been done for the last five years or so.

You are looking for realism of the Looney Toon variety. I shoot someone in Painkiller they go flying 50' like they got hit by a Mac truck doing 100MPH. I shoot someone in D3 and they have the proper amount of jerk- proper IK vs a really cheap LooneyToon style implementation of the Havoc engine.

I go and crush something in the center using the little grinder thing in Painkiller and it falls apart in a very specific manner, I do it from the bottom corner and it falls apart the exact same way. A cheap fixed function model that breaks apart one way and one way only.

That's been done since 1999's SOF. That's your idea of cutting edge?

SOF used a splatter and put in place a new texture, nothing like what D3 does.

Shoot someone in Painkiller with a stake gun and look at its effect - knockback, body wound and they'll often get impaled to the wall or to another enemy.

Looney Toon style.

Tell me, where does D3 do anything remotely similar?

It certainly doesn't, of course it isn't trying to wow six year olds either

Why? I'm not sure what tangent you're approaching this from but it's a fact (verified by an ATi rep) that the R420 can operate in 32x0 (or 24x0) mode while performing MSAA.

And my 9800 has an FBuffer to I suppose you are going to tell me, and the Rage Maxx is getting Win2K drivers like it said on the box, right? Ignoring the fact that you are quoting a company rep though, if the parts is functioning as a 32x0 while performing 4x MSAA it can't handle 32 stencil ops per clock as it needs the extra functionality for Z check. The only way it could output 32 stencil ops per clock while running 4x MSAA is if it was a 128x0 part.

I really have no idea what you're seing but fire up any review of the game and you'll see that they agree with me on the graphics, physics and performance aspects.

Doom 3's Graphics are insane, definantly best to date.

But the execution of the visuals here is absolutely unmatched, and it truly needs to be seen in action to be fully appreciated.

While DOOM 3's graphics are astounding enough on their own, what's even more impressive is how well the game appears to scale to various systems.I've now run the game on three separate PC's on a variety of video cards (as have a few other editors in our office), and it seems to run well at every turn. Obviously, you'd hope any game would run at a crisp 60 FPS on a 3.0 GHz machine with 1GB RAM and a GeForce 6800, but we've been running just as fine on mid-level systems, like 2.5 GHz machines with older Ti4600 cards. Even if you're forced to run the game at 640x480, the game still looks extremely impressive, so if your PC can play Far Cry or Unreal Tournament 2004 or Battlefield Vietnam, odds are your system can handle DOOM 3.

Those are from gamers, not guys that never play anything other then benchmarks of course

Yep, rose coloured glasess. Definitely. If you can't see the extensive physics in Painkiller but you put the non-existant physics in D3 on a pedestal then that's the only explanation I can come up with.

Physics engines should at least remotely try and match the physical world IMO, else they are just cheap gimmicks. Painkiller has a cheap gimmick, D3 has a physics engine.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and I suspect nobody else does either.

They do at Dreamcatcher- it's a common problem with the game. Took me about eight attempts to get the game to install(on multiple different drives) without corruption taking place and even after that the game would refuse to run(known issues, the retarded monkeys that coded it failed to use a security system that was compatible with a lengthy list of optical drives). The only 'legit' way to get the game to run if it won't work on your system(besides being utterly incompatible with a lengthy list of drives, it will install but won't run on a lot of others) is to download the patch to bring you from version 1.0 to 1.3(~90MB) and then the patch from 1.3 to 1.3.1(~5MB). All told a giant 'go to he!l we got your money' from the developers of the game. This is supposed to be to avoid having the game cracked, which took me five minutes versus the ten hours it would have taken me to make the game playable the legit way.

Sometimes when developers are really, really stupid they use anti-piracy techniques that encourage the popularizing of piracy techniques. This was a very popular topic over at their forums, so much so that they have the workaround stickied on their tech support forum along with it being the top reference in their DB and also the top hit over at PCF.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Cat
Thanks, DAPUNISHER. I feel very strongly that the physics engine in this game is not subpar, and certainly not worse than any other game's engine. It may be underutilized, but I feel it has very strong technical merit. It just feels right, without needing over-the-top effects.

I may just make a video with FRAPS or avigame showing each point.

That would be great, thanks for any clips. I'm trying to pick it up used as we speak so I will be able to judge for myself soon.

 

[Cat]

Okay, I recorded a some videos.
(Live ragdoll means physically applied forces to enemies that are alive)

The first three show Doom 3's live ragdolls, ragdoll throwing, and ragdolls with a rocket launcher.

The second set shows Far Cry's lack of live ragdolls. Sometimes, as in this case, they don't even have a pain animation blended in.

The third set shows Doom 3's flashlight, and then Far Cry's broken indoor/outdoor flashlight, as the two areas are rendered differently.

They're being Binked now, and will take some time to upload.

 

[Cat]

These are executable BINK files. The same kind Blizzard uses. More are being uploaded.

Doom 3's live ragdoll

Doom 3 throwing of dead ragdolls.

Far Cry's non-unified lighting breaks the flashlight.

Far Cry's flashlight in action. Decide for yourself if it's more realistic than Doom 3's.

Doom 3's rocket launcher produces more noticeable ragdoll effects.

Far Cry's lack of live ragdoll physics.

Doom 3's flashlight. Note that specular effects occur correctly, when the view vector is nearly parallel to the reflected vector.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Cat
These are executable BINK files. The same kind Blizzard uses. More are being uploaded.

Doom 3's live ragdoll

Nice download speed :beer: LOL@the legs sticking up in the air. I do like the way it pushes them around just alittle instead of that hollywood cable pull shiat. I just picked it up for $38 shipped in fs/ft so I will have an opinion soon.

 

[parkbench]

Very impressive!!

And much better than Far Cry's FIZZICKS.

Btw, anybody else miss the sounds and cut scenes from the Doom3 Alpha?

 

[parkbench]

Now we can all dream about combining the best of Far Cry and the best of Doom3..... drool

 

[parkbench]

LET ME INTERJECT FOR A MINUTE HERE:

Each engine has their strengths and the best programmers put features in to support their game, not just put in whiz-bang features.

Example: Wolfenstein and Doom were 3d hacks back in the day. The engines were fast, convincing and full of "flaws".

Wolfenstein had no ceiling/floor textures, nothing except 90 degree walls, only 1 height to the walls, and no lighting effects at all.

Doom was not true 3d, used BSP algorithms and sprites instead of polygons, and had different light levels for each "sector." You couldn't jump or even fly over an enemy if you ran off a cliff above it. Each enemy had a direct attack approach and no AI to speak of.

I dare anybody to say they weren't "perfect" games at what they were trying to accomplish at the time given past hardware.

Now we come to 2004 and we have 2 games to speak of: Far Cry and Doom3. Both games play up all sorts of whizbang effects to make their respective games as unique as possible. But each engine is tailored to the goal of the game:

Far Cry worked overtime on Level of Detail effects, mass amounts of polygons and foliage onscreen, AI, and just about everything you can put into a DirectX9 game with a 2ghz processor and 512+MB of RAM in 2004. A unified lighting model in Far Cry would not even run on today's machines because let's face it, if every leaf and blade of grass had to display a shadow, our computers would take a dump on the floor. So they played up beautiful colors, AI, and many many whizbang graphic effects that I'll let you guys discuss. The goal of the game and engine was to display islands, trees, oceans, sunrise/set, and lots of cool and varied gameplay. Everything in the engine of Far Cry is pushing today's hardware to its limits and besides a lame story presentation and hawaiian t-shirt, the game is mind-blowing.

With Doom3, John Carmack had a vision in what he wanted to accomplish. His goals were horror, horror, horror. To push the old school style to its fullest and make it as scary as possible on today's hardware. How did he accomplish this? Per-pixel shooting accuracy so shooting to the left of someone's head doesn't hit, and shooting someone in the hand flinches the arm back and gores up the hand. This plays into horror. So does a unified lighting model. A unified lighting architecture allows all those shadows to exist, and the baddies and presentation play right into a horror universe on Mars. This is also the reason for having the flashlight separate from the gun. My best guess is that Doom3 has the capability for amazing AI but since these are hellspawn, that wasn't their goal, it would have been time wasted to them. The former humans seem to display the most AI and I'll frequently notice them sidestepping and hiding. Not to extent I'd like but thats the way it goes. John also added an amazing and very useful Flash-like interface to the computers and PDA, something sorely needed aside from generic bitmaps appearing on top of screens within games. All the features in Doom3 contribute to its cohesiveness as a horror game and cleanliness to the engine. Anybody who has played it knows that Doom3 is amazing at what it does. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that the only thing that pulls you out of Doom3 is the fact that the imps really should climb along walls and ceilings more, and all the enemies should run back into the shadows and attack from there once their health gets really low. And once back in the shadows they should scream or whisper from different locations to scare you even further. A few more scripted sequences and minor adjustments to the AI (that's already in place) and id could really have blown everybody away but I'm sure after 4 years of designing and playtesting they felt it was time to put a cork in it.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Does it seem silly to anyone else that someone would use no trees or foliage as a strike against D3 when it is set amidst the desolation of Mars?

 

[Cat]

parkbench, no one is denying Far Cry's outdoor rendering is beautiful. I'm just saying that its physics engine is not more advanced than Doom's, and its moving shelves and weapons don't make up for the lack of live ragdoll effects or more-than-rare physics errors. ( Note: Some of Doom's weapons move when shot, such as the chainsaw ) In fact, Doom's physics engine is better than Far Cry's in terms of stability and realism, in my opinion. Especially when the Hellknight throws ragdolls

 

[DAPUNISHER]

You need to fix the last 2 Cat, they have the HTTPS I took 'em out for viewing but it'll make it easier on lazy

 

[Cat]

Whoops, thanks.