hey you know whats really gonna be great...

[Wobbo]

DOOM FORTRESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dynamic destruction and lighting
realistic environments
increased polygon count (i think)


Its gonna be great

[Ichor]

I was thinking the same thing Team Fortress was the main reason why I played Quake, and if they make one just as good for Doom 3...
I just hope that if someone does make it, they don't botch it up.

[Wobbo]

the ability to actually BUILD machines
The ability to actually DESTROY stuff realistically

The pyro and engineer classes will be full

the only prolem is the amount of players on screen at once will be too much for most computers

[Lord FlatHead]

Xian said:

the only prolem is the amount of players on screen at once will be too much for most computers

Then I'm sure the makers of the Fortress mod will keep the players fairly low-poly to fix that problem.

[Wobbo]

considering how low poly some of the characters are already, i dunno if thats a good idea. doom is the first engine that could actually load a realistic medic or soldier, they shouldnt put it to waste

[Ichor]

I just hope that if someone did make it, they keep the rocket jumping in it.

[Lord FlatHead]

Xian said:

considering how low poly some of the characters are already

I'm really sorry but I just don't understand what you're talking about. Look at any first-person shooter on the market today and tell me it has significantly more polygons than Doom III.

[Wobbo]

the human characters i mean, look at the close ups in any of the screenshots, the unreal games will have more polys. Like i said, itd be a waste. what they could do is REQUIRE a geforce 4 level or above - that would work

doom 3's being designed for geforce one level at the lowest

[Linguica]

Uh what? You think those characters look low-poly? Are you retarded?

[gatewatcher]

Xian said:

what they could do is REQUIRE a geforce 4 level or above - that would work

yes, and that will be carmacks next engine. he's already talked about what he'll be able to pull off with gf4 minimum tech. but that's not what doom is, so we just hafta wait...

[EVIL]

ehh.. Unreal 2 has the same or evn less amount of polygons in their models.. and I have seen some whireframe pictures.. they are all well spent for more details and moothness.. just like the doom3 models

and it would be a better thing if they made it for a geforce 4 because the geforce 3 is an oldie when doom releases.. if doom would release in a couple of months .. it would be okey.. but doom wil be released summer 2003 and by that time the NV35 rules the world.. ehh.. okey *confused of own words..* yeah .. *runs away*

[Lord FlatHead]

Let me get into Xian's whole stupid "low-poly" thing again. The difference between Doom III and Unreal II is, Doom III has bumpmapping on the characters. The whole point of bumpmaps is to create the illusion of geometric detail where there really isn't any. And as you know, bumpmaps don't look particularly special in still shots - but when they're animated (like in the gameplay vid) they really add to the scene.

[Wobbo]

uh, thats my point, notice how they DID NOT use barely any bumpmapping in those close up screen shots

[Shaviro]

multiplayer? bah. DOOM III is all about singleplayer. That is what I REALLY look forward to.

[fraggle]

Linguica said:

Uh what? You think those characters look low-poly? Are you retarded?

Actually in one of the id interviews (I forget which) they said the enemies have a fairly low poly count, enabling them to fit lots of monsters on screen at once. Its counteracted by the fact that they have bump mapping, so you dont really notice as much.

[Lord FlatHead]

Xian said:

uh, thats my point, notice how they DID NOT use barely any bumpmapping in those close up screen shots

You don't "use" bumpmapping. It's just there, on all surfaces in the game (with the exception of monitors and other flat surfaces).

And don't use double negations again or I'll call the grammar police.

[nxn]

Well what I think he meant by 'low polly' is that their polly number is low compared to next generation games such as Unreal 2. But obviously they do not need a higher pollygon number because they have bump mapping which makes them look drasticly better (And why Doom3 looks better than U2, IMHO anyway). Only problem with that is the 'outline' of the character still looks like the low polly model because the bump mapping doesn't change the surface's shape like it tries to fool you into thinking it does.

I alweys had a question about this though, might as well ask it here. Does the engine use the high polly model to draw the 'casted' shadow onto other objects or does it use the exact same lower polly model that's used in the game to do it?

EDIT: and I just read through the rest of the post which said basicly what I said, but anyway, the question is still there.

[EVIL]

U2 uses the same amount of polygons as doom3 models (3000/6000)

[nxn]

HAMMER-STROKE said:

U2 uses the same amount of polygons as doom3 models (3000/6000)

Hmm, I alweys though they were some where in the 10,000 place. In that case Unreal 2 really isn't anything special,

[Lord FlatHead]

orion said:

I alweys had a question about this though, might as well ask it here. Does the engine use the high polly model to draw the 'casted' shadow onto other objects or does it use the exact same lower polly model that's used in the game to do it?

It uses the lower-poly model for the stencil shadows, which is why some people have been bitching about the "ugly angular shadows" in Doom III.

[nxn]

Lord FlatHead said:

It uses the lower-poly model for the stencil shadows, which is why some people have been bitching about the "ugly angular shadows" in Doom III.

Ahh, allright, thanks for the answer, it's been on my mind for a good couple months.