DOOM III - first pics (for a year)
22 May 2002, 09:54 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't think these will run on my Voodoo1 card.
Hi-res (amazing) shots here:
http://www.gamestar.de/aktuell/ggale...&name=Doom%203
[Edited by DazV - 5/22/2002 10:11:23 PM]
23 May 2002, 12:03 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pete - can't see where you're coming from with the 'cell' bit. cannot imagine carmack would do away with his texturing passes for flat cell shading.
Besides, why combine textured background with cell shaded foreground ?
Check out the hi-res shots I included the link for.
Besides, why combine textured background with cell shaded foreground ?
Check out the hi-res shots I included the link for.
Resident Evil style Trending Topics
23 May 2002, 08:23 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 3,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hard to explain what i mean daz, but in the bottom pic and the background of the one above, it looks like some sort of cartoon/comic drawing, which reminds me of games like jsrf and other cell based titles.
23 May 2002, 09:00 AM
#11
even more pictures
http://www.dailyrush.dk/stories/7601/
and a movie showing it in action from E3:
http://www.doom2.org/files/doom3/doom_3_bts_big.zip Note: 92megs!!
[Edited by ChristianR - 5/23/2002 9:00:56 AM]
http://www.dailyrush.dk/stories/7601/
and a movie showing it in action from E3:
http://www.doom2.org/files/doom3/doom_3_bts_big.zip Note: 92megs!!
[Edited by ChristianR - 5/23/2002 9:00:56 AM]
23 May 2002, 10:19 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Markus, didn't carmack say, the GF3 will be minimum spec for the game ?
This looks like a generational leap to me. And knowing Carmack's stuff, it'll whip along at 60fps too.
Can't wait to see proper per pixel ligting - remember those strobing rooms in Doom2 ? They'll be sooooo eeie in Doom3!
This looks like a generational leap to me. And knowing Carmack's stuff, it'll whip along at 60fps too.
Can't wait to see proper per pixel ligting - remember those strobing rooms in Doom2 ? They'll be sooooo eeie in Doom3!
23 May 2002, 05:12 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of Carmack's stuff is targetted at the whatever hardware is expected to be above average at the time of game release so whatever we're running in Dec should do the job! (eg. nice fast CPU to feed geometry to the GF3, etc)
It'll be nice to see a lot of the new hardware features of the GF3 (eg. pixel shaders and lighting) which haven't really been properly implemented in current games yet.
Taken from a very recent Carmack interview:
GameSpy: The world of video cards seems to change on a daily basis. What do you think of the current crop of cards on the market, and where do you see things heading? Are there any new cards that inetrest you? Where would you like to see things go?
Carmack: There are interesting things to be said about the upcoming cards, but NDAs will force me to just discuss the available cards.
In order from best to worst for Doom:
I still think that overall, the GeForce 4 Ti is the best card you can buy. It has high speed and excellent driver quality.
Based on the feature set, the Radeon 8500 should be a faster card for Doom than the GF4, because it can do the seven texture accesses that I need in a single pass, while it takes two or three passes (depending on details) on the GF4. However, in practice, the GF4 consistently runs faster due to a highly efficient implementation. For programmers, the 8500 has a much nicer fragment path than the GF4, with more general features and increased precision, but the driver quality is still quite a ways from Nvidia's, so I would be a little hesitant to use it as a primary research platform.
The GF4-MX is a very fast card for existing games, but it is less well suited to Doom, due to the lower texture unit count and the lack of vertex shaders.
On a slow CPU with all features enabled, the GF3 will be faster than the GF4-MX, because it offloads some work. On systems with CPU power to burn, the GF4 may still be faster.
The 128 bit DDR GF2 systems will be faster than the Radeon-7500 systems, again due to low level implementation details overshadowing the extra texture unit.
The slowest cards will be the 64 bit and SDR ram GF and Radeon cards, which will really not be fast enough to play the game properly unless you run at 320x240 or so.
[Edited by DazV - 5/23/2002 6:36:31 PM]
It'll be nice to see a lot of the new hardware features of the GF3 (eg. pixel shaders and lighting) which haven't really been properly implemented in current games yet.
Taken from a very recent Carmack interview:
GameSpy: The world of video cards seems to change on a daily basis. What do you think of the current crop of cards on the market, and where do you see things heading? Are there any new cards that inetrest you? Where would you like to see things go?
Carmack: There are interesting things to be said about the upcoming cards, but NDAs will force me to just discuss the available cards.
In order from best to worst for Doom:
I still think that overall, the GeForce 4 Ti is the best card you can buy. It has high speed and excellent driver quality.
Based on the feature set, the Radeon 8500 should be a faster card for Doom than the GF4, because it can do the seven texture accesses that I need in a single pass, while it takes two or three passes (depending on details) on the GF4. However, in practice, the GF4 consistently runs faster due to a highly efficient implementation. For programmers, the 8500 has a much nicer fragment path than the GF4, with more general features and increased precision, but the driver quality is still quite a ways from Nvidia's, so I would be a little hesitant to use it as a primary research platform.
The GF4-MX is a very fast card for existing games, but it is less well suited to Doom, due to the lower texture unit count and the lack of vertex shaders.
On a slow CPU with all features enabled, the GF3 will be faster than the GF4-MX, because it offloads some work. On systems with CPU power to burn, the GF4 may still be faster.
The 128 bit DDR GF2 systems will be faster than the Radeon-7500 systems, again due to low level implementation details overshadowing the extra texture unit.
The slowest cards will be the 64 bit and SDR ram GF and Radeon cards, which will really not be fast enough to play the game properly unless you run at 320x240 or so.
[Edited by DazV - 5/23/2002 6:36:31 PM]
24 May 2002, 10:41 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not had high spec PC for a while so I'm a little out of touch..
What is the full name and spec for this GF3 card?
and how much RAM do you think is necessary for this type of game these days?
thanks
db
What is the full name and spec for this GF3 card?
and how much RAM do you think is necessary for this type of game these days?
thanks
db
24 May 2002, 12:40 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
db, it won't be out til Winter, so have a guess at what an above average system would be by then...
eg.
CPU = Athlon 2GHz
RAM = 256 or 512MB
VIDEO = GeForce 3 Ti500
eg.
CPU = Athlon 2GHz
RAM = 256 or 512MB
VIDEO = GeForce 3 Ti500
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
BlueBlobZA
Member's Gallery
30
25 July 2016 09:14 AM
jobegold@hotmail.co.uk
ScoobyNet General
43
24 September 2015 02:16 PM
Mister:E
In Car Entertainment For Sale
0
21 September 2015 06:29 PM