ProjectsWhat's NewDownloadsCommunitySupportCompany
Forum Index » S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl Forum » Engine
Xray or Source

« Previous 10 events | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next 10 events »| All Messages
Posted by/on
Question/AnswerMake Newest Up Sort by Descending
  15:44:16  10 April 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Gandalf_psykos
(Novice)
 
On forum: 02/26/2005
Messages: 16

---QUOTATION---
source is feeble and insignifigant to x-ray or even the doom3 engine. it was id who developed gravity array technoligy (like the hl2 grav gun) first. used in doom3 maps to move bodies and other scary things. just wasnt formated into a gun. but was used in the engine quite often, was an easy solution to things floating or being thrown by a script. source engine wasnt bad, impressive in a few areas like physics, but most of the time the physics are overdone and drawn out. doom3 had little physics in the actual game but the engine they used is quite capable of physics in real time. this is just what iv gathered from playing both, to freakin much .
---END QUOTATION---




correct for i have played a mod to doom 3 were you are able to have a sort of a physic gun and with that you can lift bodies, barrels and other junk that is around, and its physic is just as good as in HL2. and since i have a high-end computer: 3,6 Ghz intel processor, 1024 mb ram, 6800 GT it also looks better than in HL2, so according to my own opinion i think doom 3 is a much better game if you measure its graphic and physic technics, its just bad for low-end computers (sorry).
  10:27:00  11 April 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Fux0r666
resident smart-ass
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 06/04/2003
Messages: 1927

---QUOTATION---

thats why im glad there is a new engine (x ray ofcourse) there would be much controversy if one was chosen over the other. source just wasnt as powerful as the doom3 engine. the d3 engine diddnt run as good because id diddnt optimize it and its openGL, not dx9 like source. dx9 has a reputation for fast rendering, as openGL looks better.
---END QUOTATION---



This is exactly the opposite of what my experience has been in games since 1998. In every game I've the choice of a renderer, opengl has been much faster than d3d.
  23:28:05  11 April 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Siege
Resident Puck-Stopper
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 07/18/2004
Messages: 797

---QUOTATION---

thats why im glad there is a new engine (x ray ofcourse) there would be much controversy if one was chosen over the other. source just wasnt as powerful as the doom3 engine. the d3 engine diddnt run as good because id diddnt optimize it and its openGL, not dx9 like source. dx9 has a reputation for fast rendering, as openGL looks better.

This is exactly the opposite of what my experience has been in games since 1998. In every game I've the choice of a renderer, opengl has been much faster than d3d.
---END QUOTATION---



Especially in Pacific Fighters.
  19:15:24  16 April 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Crucifier
(Novice)
 
On forum: 01/04/2004
Messages: 28

---QUOTATION---
source is feeble and insignifigant to x-ray or even the doom3 engine. it was id who developed gravity array technoligy (like the hl2 grav gun) first. used in doom3 maps to move bodies and other scary things. just wasnt formated into a gun. but was used in the engine quite often, was an easy solution to things floating or being thrown by a script. source engine wasnt bad, impressive in a few areas like physics, but most of the time the physics are overdone and drawn out. doom3 had little physics in the actual game but the engine they used is quite capable of physics in real time. this is just what iv gathered from playing both, to freakin much .


correct for i have played a mod to doom 3 were you are able to have a sort of a physic gun and with that you can lift bodies, barrels and other junk that is around, and its physic is just as good as in HL2. and since i have a high-end computer: 3,6 Ghz intel processor, 1024 mb ram, 6800 GT it also looks better than in HL2, so according to my own opinion i think doom 3 is a much better game if you measure its graphic and physic technics, its just bad for low-end computers (sorry).
---END QUOTATION---


are you retarded? I was disappointed in both doom 3 and hl2, but i have to say, hl2 physics are FAR better. ALL of doom 3's objects are EXTREMELY stiff and do not act realistically in any way.. at least in hl2 they act semi realistically.. I can't wait for stalker though, it will beat teh hell out of them both.
  19:50:45  16 April 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Sgt.Ciof
lketishcovic <-WTF does that mean?
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 04/08/2005
Messages: 787

---QUOTATION---
source is feeble and insignifigant to x-ray or even the doom3 engine. it was id who developed gravity array technoligy (like the hl2 grav gun) first. used in doom3 maps to move bodies and other scary things. just wasnt formated into a gun. but was used in the engine quite often, was an easy solution to things floating or being thrown by a script. source engine wasnt bad, impressive in a few areas like physics, but most of the time the physics are overdone and drawn out. doom3 had little physics in the actual game but the engine they used is quite capable of physics in real time. this is just what iv gathered from playing both, to freakin much .


correct for i have played a mod to doom 3 were you are able to have a sort of a physic gun and with that you can lift bodies, barrels and other junk that is around, and its physic is just as good as in HL2. and since i have a high-end computer: 3,6 Ghz intel processor, 1024 mb ram, 6800 GT it also looks better than in HL2, so according to my own opinion i think doom 3 is a much better game if you measure its graphic and physic technics, its just bad for low-end computers (sorry).
are you retarded? I was disappointed in both doom 3 and hl2, but i have to say, hl2 physics are FAR better. ALL of doom 3's objects are EXTREMELY stiff and do not act realistically in any way.. at least in hl2 they act semi realistically.. I can't wait for stalker though, it will beat teh hell out of them both.
---END QUOTATION---



The reason for Doom 3's physics being so "stiff" is because it wasn't really eseential to the game, so they didn't bother implementin it too much. Believe the Doom 3 engine blows Source away in all asspects except at which runs better. Aource has an auto tune down feature and etc. Doom don't. But without some companies pushing for better hardware, we will be stuck with what we already have.
  14:36:32  18 April 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Don Reba
Bishop and Councilor of War
(Moderator)

 

 
On forum: 12/04/2002
Messages: 11553

---QUOTATION---
But without some companies pushing for better hardware, we will be stuck with what we already have.
---END QUOTATION---

Which might be a good thing.
  01:20:23  15 July 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Argoon
(Novice)
 
On forum: 07/14/2005
Messages: 6

---QUOTATION---
thats why im glad there is a new engine (x ray ofcourse) there would be much controversy if one was chosen over the other. source just wasnt as powerful as the doom3 engine. the d3 engine diddnt run as good because id diddnt optimize it and its openGL, not dx9 like source. dx9 has a reputation for fast rendering, as openGL looks better. explains perfectly why d3 looked better, and source played better. this is all asuming both are being run on a mid range computer. lets make up a fake computer up shall we:

intel P4 2.6
ATI 9000 256
512 ram pc2700
233 fsb mobo
400 watt psu

now lets say on doom3 we get around 30 fps at 800x600 medium, on source we would get probally 60 with medium settings and 1024x768.
3 reasons we get better fps in source. textures in source arent as detailed, dx9 renders better than openGL, ATI cards were 6-7 fps faster in source (although in other dx9 games nvidia did better or as good) if we turned antanalising on with doom3 our computer would artafact or we would die really fast from not being able to aim, source woulda taked 2aa with that system and np. the ONLY think i liked about source was its rendering capibilities and its color pattlete. doom3 was bleak at times, but the reality was we were on mars. lets look at those trees and water on mars, o wait, there arent any. the doom3 engine is capable of allot, if optimized and givin a better setting for a game, and not a barrenred planet.
---END QUOTATION---



That is not entirely true, the Doom3 engine is indid optimized because it can be played in a geforce3 Ti in 1024x768 with all on and have a stable 30 fps, but that is because it is a nvidia card they are better in all OpenGL games, the same i canĀ“t say about the Source engine because to see all the candy you need to have a dx9 card, and more powerfull the better.
And textures in Source are in indid more detailed Because they are 512x512 and the doom3 ones are 256x256 and are only color maps, the detail and the shadows in the doom3 textures are made by the Normal map and the specular map, if you torn them of you will see that doom3 will be like the quake1 game. But the size of the textures is not an engine limitation but a game optimization to make the old cards be able to play it.
  16:27:11  15 July 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Sgt.Ciof
lketishcovic <-WTF does that mean?
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 04/08/2005
Messages: 787
Quake Wars

Probably most of you guys have heard of Enemy Teritory: QUake Wars. Have you seen the in-game footage. It looks amazing. It runs on the Doom 3 engine. Go to Filefront and dl it. Get the trailor not the E3 one. Once you see this theres no doubt you'll say Source looks better than this.

Note: The game is running a modified Doom 3 engine.
  07:49:29  4 August 2006
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Someth|ng W|cked
(Novice)
 
On forum: 08/04/2006
Messages: 1
The main attractions to the source engine for me are the fact that it's sdk is so user friendly and the engine is fairly capable if you know what you are doing but the main thing that draws people to use the Source engine (and the hl1 engine for that matter) is the comunity, HL1 mods are still very much alive and kicking and new HL2 mods that are unreleased already have massive comunities, most people shy away from new engines because the engine has not proven itself for longevity, sure the technology might be lightyears beond that is available on source but what is the point of taking the time to develop a game for free that either noone plays because of lack of exposure or dies out quickly because of dwindling comunity interest of the base engine's franchise

Now i believe that stalker will be very successful if it's gameplay mechanics are as good as it's graphics but starting development on an unproven franchise's engine is a huge gamble

I am currently looking forward to the technology provided by the Crysis engine and the Unreal 3 engine but knowing how quickly that the original Farcry and UT comunities died out i am hesitant to begin production on my upcommingm od centered around the Arab-Israeli conflict, if i had to choose from shere engine horsepower alone i would most likely go with the Crysis engine because it is DX10 supportive and as far as i know the U3 engine is only DX9 although i am very familure with Epic's previous SDKs and the last crytek SDK left much to be desired

Bottom line is that is all about exposure, even if you make the most amazing game ever and the visuals are top notch it is just a waste of time if noone plays it or it is forgotten

So my advice is to wait at least a few months until the engine has proven it's longevity then begin development
  10:59:16  23 January 2007
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Goz
(Novice)
 
On forum: 01/23/2007
Messages: 3

---QUOTATION---
thats why im glad there is a new engine (x ray ofcourse) there would be much controversy if one was chosen over the other. source just wasnt as powerful as the doom3 engine. the d3 engine diddnt run as good because id diddnt optimize it and its openGL, not dx9 like source. dx9 has a reputation for fast rendering, as openGL looks better. explains perfectly why d3 looked better, and source played better.
---END QUOTATION---



With all due respect .. you don't have a clue. Both games use shaders. Shaders are the same on both DX9 and GL. OK so the syntax is slightly different but what is written above is complete rubbish as the syntax makes no difference. Source uses an engine that rpecalculates a lot of if its work. This allows more geometry to be put through but gives the scene static lighting. The geometry in Doom 3 is EXTREMELY low poly but through the use of fully dynamic lighting and shadowing, a clever light combination technique and bump mapping using that lighting technique it looks good. But because Doom 3 does things more "properly" it runs slower.

As best i can tell X-Ray engine is using a deferred rendering system (thats a guess based on what i have read) and, as such, is completely different to Doom 3 and Source.

Each have their own advantages. If Source plays better its because the people making the game (and not the engine) at Valve are better than those at id ... quite frankly ... no shock there
 
Each word should be at least 3 characters long.
Search:    
Search conditions:    - spaces as AND    - spaces as OR   
 
Forum Index » S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl Forum » Engine
 

All short dates are in Month-Day-Year format.


 

Copyright © 1995-2017 GSC Game World. All rights reserved.
This site is best viewed in Internet Explorer 4.xx and up and Javascript enabled. Webmaster.
Opera Software products are not supported.
If any problem concerning the site functioning under Opera Software appears apply
to Opera Software technical support service.