Last I heard, with all the options turned on you are looking at 640x480 resolution on a geforce3. Minimum spec was to be any geforce level card though you will have to run with lower detail.
Of course there is so much time left in the games development that all speculation is probably a waste of time (although a very interesting one)
Doom3 technology
Last I heard, with all the options turned on you are looking at 640x480 resolution on a geforce3 at 30 fps. Minimum spec was to be any geforce level card though you will have to run with lower detail.
Of course there is so much time left in the games development that all speculation is probably a waste of time (although a very interesting one)
Of course there is so much time left in the games development that all speculation is probably a waste of time (although a very interesting one)
I read this somewhere for Quake3 (I imagine Doom3 will be along similar line - and a bit more)
Quake III uses 10 passes:
(passes 1 - 4: accumulate bump map)
pass 5: diffuse lighting
pass 6: base texture (with specular component)
(pass 7: specular lighting)
(pass 8: emissive lighting)
(pass 9: volumetric/atmospheric effects)
(pass 10: screen flashes)
Only on the fastest machines can up to 10 passes be done to render a single frame. If the graphics accelerator cannot maintain a reasonable framerate, various passes (those in parantheses) can be eleminated.
hence 30fps on a gf3 might also be 30fps on a gf2 - just with a little less detail...
Quake III uses 10 passes:
(passes 1 - 4: accumulate bump map)
pass 5: diffuse lighting
pass 6: base texture (with specular component)
(pass 7: specular lighting)
(pass 8: emissive lighting)
(pass 9: volumetric/atmospheric effects)
(pass 10: screen flashes)
Only on the fastest machines can up to 10 passes be done to render a single frame. If the graphics accelerator cannot maintain a reasonable framerate, various passes (those in parantheses) can be eleminated.
hence 30fps on a gf3 might also be 30fps on a gf2 - just with a little less detail...
The realtime shadow stuff was cool, but I just don''t like these shadowy-can''t-see-anything games. *sigh*
Carmack is such a master of his trade. Anyway, I still look in awe at those screenshots all these months later and get scared that even at that low of a resolution, you can usually see the polygon divisions based on texture distortion and stuff in the screenshots for modern games. The geometry in DOOM looks uncannily real!
I can''t wait for more info on this supersequel...
I can''t wait for more info on this supersequel...
Carmack is amazing, every time i hear how he approached a problem and the solution he ended up with after a few iterations, it never ceases to amaze me.
quote:Original post by Kylotan
Cos we don''t all have fast net connections, perhaps?
Just download it like I did. I can''t remember where I d/led it from, but just search for it! (and I am on 56k)
I have to say - wow! With each of his engines so far, Carmack has surpassed all others, (although Unreal had a better engine than Qauke II and was released only a tiny amount of time after it). It''s not surprising that the dynasty of Quake engines have sold a lot of licenses, and I expect the Doom III engine will be the same. It''s good to see Carmack can still push back those boundries.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
