<!--QuoteBegin-Travis Dane+Jan 18 2005, 05:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Travis Dane @ Jan 18 2005, 05:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Then I beg you please don't use the Source physics system for pointless things. I'm still agrivated by the CS:S ragdoll effects, which cut my FPS in half, and don't contribute ANYTHING AT ALL to the gameplay. But then again... using an engine like HL for a mod like NS tought you to use processing power with wisdom. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, one could sensibly argue that what distinguishes the current generation of engines <i>are</i> the physics, and I'd go as far as to claim that NS is one of the first FPS-related multiplayer games to be truly able to integrate these new options in a meanigful way, so I'd expect physics to play a very significant part in any possible port. Thus, you would likely get quite a bigger performance hit from us. That said, I agree that one should be very careful to put all 'eye candy' physics content on the client side and make it optional.
Honestly, I think the DooM3 engine would own for co_. Ns_ however, I doubt it. So I don't think there is any chance with the Doom3, it doesn't do well in multiplayer, but I love it in singleplayer.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cereal KillR+Jan 18 2005, 07:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cereal KillR @ Jan 18 2005, 07:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My computer is far from top notch, but it's supposed to be above average. I have a 2500+, 512 ram (all at an FSB of 400), and a 9800pro. I could up my memory, but the fact that most people have 512 ram makes you think you don't need 1 GB of ram to run a game, because most won't do that. If you, like me, had a drop of 50% in FPS from DoD to NS then you'd expect a slight drop in a new engine, even if it's not cut in half because they're not going to the engine's limits.
There are tons of reasons why Doom3 lags more, one of them being the drivers (at least at Doom3's release), one others being possibly that I'm a retard, and also because the Doom3 requirements are quite higher than Source. This goes for nearly ALL the benchmarks I have seen. I want, like the vast majority, to be ABLE to play the game, and enjoy it. Sorry if I don't have the money to buy any Athlon 64, it was already painful enough for me to buy a freakin XP2500+. I'm sure the vast majority of players who don't have bottomless wallets feel the same way.
Again, I don't doubt that the team can do miracles on any engine like they did for NS 1, but for me I'd prefer having a very nice looking environment and models, with above average lighting, than a very nice looking lighting with above average models. Then again, it is too early to say without having a better idea of the game, but if there's no favor for one or the other, I'd lean towards Source. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Your RAM isn't posing a problem, your CPU might, but it's the videocard that's being the limiting factor here. 9800Pro isn't really top-notch, while you're trying to run a game which features the most recent of what computer-graphics have to offer. On top of that, ATi's infamous OpenGL support isn't helping either. Your PC runs it maybe slightly slower than it should, but just slightly.
However, people have a tedency to keep forgetting NS:S (Or NS:D3 in this debate) isn't getting released tommorow. I'd guestimate it would take the development team at least a year before anything playable gets released. In a year, hardware development will have taken another step, I doubt it the size of the recent development (GF5->6, 9800->X800) but it will still be substantial. When this occurs prices of previous generations usually drop.
To sum this up, by the time an NS:D3 will ever be released, hardware prices will have dropped to acceptable ranges to play Doom3 decently.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd love for one of you guys to explain why source is better?? That engine looked dated the day it was released. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That year delay didn't help any. And what exactly does a dated engine look like? I have yet to see an engine on crutches.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> People experencing performance problems are on crappy hardware try playing D3 on a 6800gt its the smoothest nicest looking engine around.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> $500 card. Considering my PC right now cost less than $300..no thanks. But I will say this, Ultra-high was made for 512MB vid cards which don't exist yet.
Source: Reliable netcode ...Physcics?
D3: Crappy netcode (AFAIK) Better optimization (got better FPS and quality on D3 lowest settings then HL2 lowest settings)
<!--QuoteBegin-kabab+Jan 18 2005, 05:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kabab @ Jan 18 2005, 05:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> People experencing performance problems are on crappy hardware try playing D3 on a 6800gt its the smoothest nicest looking engine around. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So a 2500$ custom-built laptop that can handle <u>every other game just fine</u> is 'crappy hardware'? Riiiiiiiiight....
I have a new 5K laptop at work and its slower then my 1.5 year old workstation.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Laptop that can run HL2 with the settings I said before = gaming machine.
TBH it sounds like you wasted 5K on you laptop. What hardware does it have?
HL2 is outdated technology so that doesn't count <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Its a top of the line IBM R50p its pretty fast but just doesn't have the bandwidth the workstation does when it comes to moving data.
<!--QuoteBegin-kabab+Jan 18 2005, 08:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kabab @ Jan 18 2005, 08:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> HL2 is outdated technology so that doesn't count <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Its a top of the line IBM R50p its pretty fast but just doesn't have the bandwidth the workstation does when it comes to moving data. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Alright... try far cry or UT2K4. They both work great on my laptop and D3 still ran poorly.
And the R50 is NOT a 5k laptop. IBM's price is <a href='http://www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=-840&storeId=1&langId=-1&dualCurrId=73&categoryId=2302836' target='_blank'>1300$</a> and you get what you pay for. The GPU is incredibly outdated, the best model has a quarter of the RAM my rig has, and a way slower processor.
I hope to god that: a) You didn't give me the right name of the laptop or b) You didn't pay 5k for it.
Perhaps i live outside the US <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> and perhaps the laptop was spec'd up <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Oh i didn't pay for it work did <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The fact is Doom3 is not optimised for the cards Farcry etc are its works best on 6800gt technology and onwards you can see this cleary in benchmarks.
So you're saying that the NS team should make a game on an engine designed only for people with one type/line of GPU? One GPU line that only 5% (at best) of the PC gaming population has? Without the massive appeal and marketing and name that backed up D3?
Does the term economic suicide mean anything to you?
no guys check this engine absoloutly AMAZING graphics definately the engine to use. <a href='http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/887791/Lizard.JPG' target='_blank'>http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/887791/Lizard.JPG</a> <a href='http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/887791/Dungeon.JPG' target='_blank'>http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/887791/Dungeon.JPG</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-kabab+Jan 18 2005, 09:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kabab @ Jan 18 2005, 09:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So in 2 years time when the game comes out if it comes out people will still be using 9800pro's ? which are already 2 years old. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah. Not everyone has the money to upgrade their PCs every year.
<!--QuoteBegin-Therites+Jan 18 2005, 09:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Therites @ Jan 18 2005, 09:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> no guys check this engine absoloutly AMAZING graphics definately the engine to use. <a href='http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/887791/Lizard.JPG' target='_blank'>http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/887791/Lizard.JPG</a> <a href='http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/887791/Dungeon.JPG' target='_blank'>http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/887791/Dungeon.JPG</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oblivion wont be out for awhile and it looks just as good as U3, which will be more widly used and supported.
5k for a laptop that can't play HL2? lol, check out <a href='http://www.powernotebooks.com' target='_blank'>PowerNotebooks.com</a> sometime (their the #1 rated company on <a href='http://www.resellerratings.com' target='_blank'>Reseller Ratings</a> as well), you could have paid ~1/4th that much and got something that can play D3 and HL2.
EDIT: Anavrin - Elder Scrools <b>is</b> set in the first person. It's much more sensical to make an FPS in an ES engine than on Homeworld's engine. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I have a 6800GT and its 350$ It runs D3 with amazing spead. I even got the Parallax mapping plugin that makes the levels look oustanding (It applys parallax mapping to all textures). Im hoping they realese something similar HL2. MY geforce handled hl2 just fine. d3 has a 32 player mod, so im sure NS can do the same thing. While at the same time I pretty sure NS can also enable Parallax mapping for all thier textures as well, which would realy make everything look awsome. You can also enable self shadowing and such with D3, and play with the bumpmaps of d3s textures and such. Which would make it a little similar to that of U3.
while HL2 you can throw a can into a garbage can, stack boxes, and have floating barrals and such. I guess thats pretty cool. But it does have more player base and a huge hype right now. and more people are building thier computers mainly to run hl2 sourse engine games.
I honestly dont care which engine it goes on, I think eather d3 or Sourse can accomplish the same goals.
<!--QuoteBegin-Traken+Jan 19 2005, 03:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Traken @ Jan 19 2005, 03:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Source: Reliable netcode<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Bwahahahaha, I take it you never played CS:Source then eh? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
They'll probably improve it over time, but it's outright **** at the moment.
<!--QuoteBegin-Travis Dane+Jan 18 2005, 10:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Travis Dane @ Jan 18 2005, 10:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To sum this up, by the time an NS:D3 will ever be released, hardware prices will have dropped to acceptable ranges to play Doom3 decently. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Knowing that I had a GeForce2 at NS's release, and was also back then in the average computer-wise, my point still stands. I shouldn't need to buy new hardware at acceptable price ranges while my computer can run an excellent engine with my current hardware. Not everyone spends their fortune on computer hardware, especially considering I'm turning 18 and will have much more important stuff to attend to. While my computer isn't top-notch, it's far from low end. A 2500+ at 400 FSB counts as a 3200+. 512 RAM is average. And the 9800pro is the norm in gpu's nowadays.
<!--QuoteBegin-Travis Dane+Jan 19 2005, 02:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Travis Dane @ Jan 19 2005, 02:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Traken+Jan 19 2005, 03:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Traken @ Jan 19 2005, 03:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Source: Reliable netcode<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Bwahahahaha, I take it you never played CS:Source then eh? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
They'll probably improve it over time, but it's outright **** at the moment. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> hl2s netcode is awsome so I don't know what you're complaining about. Doom3's supports what? something like 4 players online? I play in servers with 30+ people fine on a $50 video card (geforce fx 5200) so all is good for hl2 on decent settings, but playing doom3 on the same settings in single player absolutely rapes my card. Just thinking about using this card in multiplayer on doom3 hurts.
One shouldnt have to pay more than $100 to play a game (card/game).
I can host a 20 Player Dedicated CSS Server on my computer (Cable Internet), with no lag, and play on the same PC. Very good netcode, but other than that, the physics use the <a href='http://www.havok.com/' target='_blank'>Havok 2 Physics Engine</a>, which kicks ****. The graphics aren't as good <b>as they can be</b> because CSS and HL2(DM) don't use the full potential of the engine... They're using low poly models and weapons <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cereal KillR+Jan 19 2005, 08:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cereal KillR @ Jan 19 2005, 08:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Knowing that I had a GeForce2 at NS's release, and was also back then in the average computer-wise, my point still stands. I shouldn't need to buy new hardware at acceptable price ranges while my computer can run an excellent engine with my current hardware. Not everyone spends their fortune on computer hardware, especially considering I'm turning 18 and will have much more important stuff to attend to. While my computer isn't top-notch, it's far from low end. A 2500+ at 400 FSB counts as a 3200+. 512 RAM is average. And the 9800pro is the norm in gpu's nowadays.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But Doom3 runs on your system doesn't it? Taking your observations as an average 50FPS, that's just fine then. As for the HL engine back in the old days, the HL engine was outdated the day it was released. Quake3 quickly followed after it, obviously demolishing the HL engine graphics wise.
You run Doom3 fine, just not at it's maximum settings, which is perfectly normal these days as developers need to think of the long run and predict how hardware is going to look like in years to come.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->hl2s netcode is awsome so I don't know what you're complaining about. Doom3's supports what? something like 4 players online? I play in servers with 30+ people fine on a $50 video card (geforce fx 5200) so all is good for hl2 on decent settings, but playing doom3 on the same settings in single player absolutely rapes my card. Just thinking about using this card in multiplayer on doom3 hurts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you have anything to support your point? How about POSTING it then? I can't begin to give you URL's of the countless ranting threads complaining about how retarded CS:S registration and rates are. Just for the record: A cheap netcode (designed for friggin 28kers), does NOT make it a good netcode.
What? You're picking another engine's (!possibly!) poor netcode to make HL2's look good? Bad effort.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I play in servers with 30+ people fine on a $50 video card (geforce fx 5200) so all is good for hl2 on decent settings, but playing doom3 on the same settings in single player absolutely rapes my card. Just thinking about using this card in multiplayer on doom3 hurts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The FX5200 is worthless cheap-**** piece of junk. The fact that it can actually run HL2, doesn't prove anything but that the engine is hopelessly out of date. Certainly NOT something that would encourage me to spend years of development time on.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can host a 20 Player Dedicated CSS Server on my computer (Cable Internet), with no lag, and play on the same PC.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just for the record: A cheap netcode (designed for friggin 28kers), does NOT make it a good netcode.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Anavrin+Jan 18 2005, 10:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Anavrin @ Jan 18 2005, 10:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Are you suggesting they make a FPS on Oblivion's engine?
Have you any idea how nonsensical that is? You might as well use Homeworld's engine to create NS then. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> you DO know oblivion is a FPS right? or at least plays like a FPS. i agree it might not be the best controls or what ever but graphics look better than U3 tbh. unless maybe i saw a better screen from U3. anyway no matter what PLEASE DO NOT USE Doom3 engine i can play half life 2 with 4X AA full shadows full textures full lighting full everything basicaly (cept AF and Res whihci leave at 1042X768 becuase AA gets rid of edges anyway) and with al that i get 60-72 fps average. D3 i needed to plat at 800x600 with no AA no shadows med textures and lighting and no AF and i still got 20-30 FPS it just sucks compared to HL2
<!--QuoteBegin-Therites+Jan 19 2005, 09:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Therites @ Jan 19 2005, 09:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->anyway no matter what PLEASE DO NOT USE Doom3 engine i can play half life 2 with 4X AA full shadows full textures full lighting full everything basicaly (cept AF and Res whihci leave at 1042X768 becuase AA gets rid of edges anyway) and with al that i get 60-72 fps average. D3 i needed to plat at 800x600 with no AA no shadows med textures and lighting and no AF and i still got 20-30 FPS it just sucks compared to HL2<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe if I reduce my post to:
HL2 just looks ****.
They'll understand frames per second is NOT everything.
I find HL² looking much better than Doom3. Maybe that's because I didn't see anything when playing through it, or it might be (like I said before) that it looks much too plasticish/glossy. Apart from the lighting, Doom3 isn't that nice.
Also, even if I CAN run Doom3, it isn't with the same framerate and beauty as in HL². I can't get constant 50 FPS in 800x600 with low detail, and even so I have some drops from time to time. It looks worse (from personal opinion at least) than HL², at a higher resolution, at higher quality settings, and at higher framerates.
So if I reduce my post to:
Not everyone is as rich as you and willing to pay for a top-notch PC
You'll understand that gaming is NOT all about pumping best resolution at the best framerates with the best hardware.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cereal KillR+Jan 19 2005, 09:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cereal KillR @ Jan 19 2005, 09:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You'll understand that gaming is NOT all about pumping best resolution at the best framerates with the best hardware.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Gaming isn't, engines are.
Comments
Well, one could sensibly argue that what distinguishes the current generation of engines <i>are</i> the physics, and I'd go as far as to claim that NS is one of the first FPS-related multiplayer games to be truly able to integrate these new options in a meanigful way, so I'd expect physics to play a very significant part in any possible port. Thus, you would likely get quite a bigger performance hit from us. That said, I agree that one should be very careful to put all 'eye candy' physics content on the client side and make it optional.
So I don't think there is any chance with the Doom3, it doesn't do well in multiplayer, but I love it in singleplayer.
There are tons of reasons why Doom3 lags more, one of them being the drivers (at least at Doom3's release), one others being possibly that I'm a retard, and also because the Doom3 requirements are quite higher than Source. This goes for nearly ALL the benchmarks I have seen.
I want, like the vast majority, to be ABLE to play the game, and enjoy it. Sorry if I don't have the money to buy any Athlon 64, it was already painful enough for me to buy a freakin XP2500+. I'm sure the vast majority of players who don't have bottomless wallets feel the same way.
Again, I don't doubt that the team can do miracles on any engine like they did for NS 1, but for me I'd prefer having a very nice looking environment and models, with above average lighting, than a very nice looking lighting with above average models. Then again, it is too early to say without having a better idea of the game, but if there's no favor for one or the other, I'd lean towards Source. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your RAM isn't posing a problem, your CPU might, but it's the videocard that's being the limiting factor here. 9800Pro isn't really top-notch, while you're trying to run a game which features the most recent of what computer-graphics have to offer. On top of that, ATi's infamous OpenGL support isn't helping either. Your PC runs it maybe slightly slower than it should, but just slightly.
However, people have a tedency to keep forgetting NS:S (Or NS:D3 in this debate) isn't getting released tommorow. I'd guestimate it would take the development team at least a year before anything playable gets released. In a year, hardware development will have taken another step, I doubt it the size of the recent development (GF5->6, 9800->X800) but it will still be substantial. When this occurs prices of previous generations usually drop.
To sum this up, by the time an NS:D3 will ever be released, hardware prices will have dropped to acceptable ranges to play Doom3 decently.
People experencing performance problems are on crappy hardware try playing D3 on a 6800gt its the smoothest nicest looking engine around.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That year delay didn't help any. And what exactly does a dated engine look like? I have yet to see an engine on crutches.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
People experencing performance problems are on crappy hardware try playing D3 on a 6800gt its the smoothest nicest looking engine around.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> $500 card. Considering my PC right now cost less than $300..no thanks. But I will say this, Ultra-high was made for 512MB vid cards which don't exist yet.
Source:
Reliable netcode
...Physcics?
D3:
Crappy netcode (AFAIK)
Better optimization (got better FPS and quality on D3 lowest settings then HL2 lowest settings)
So a 2500$ custom-built laptop that can handle <u>every other game just fine</u> is 'crappy hardware'? Riiiiiiiiight....
I have a new 5K laptop at work and its slower then my 1.5 year old workstation..
I have a new 5K laptop at work and its slower then my 1.5 year old workstation.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Laptop that can run HL2 with the settings I said before = gaming machine.
TBH it sounds like you wasted 5K on you laptop. What hardware does it have?
Its a top of the line IBM R50p its pretty fast but just doesn't have the bandwidth the workstation does when it comes to moving data.
Its a top of the line IBM R50p its pretty fast but just doesn't have the bandwidth the workstation does when it comes to moving data. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alright... try far cry or UT2K4. They both work great on my laptop and D3 still ran poorly.
And the R50 is NOT a 5k laptop. IBM's price is <a href='http://www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=-840&storeId=1&langId=-1&dualCurrId=73&categoryId=2302836' target='_blank'>1300$</a> and you get what you pay for. The GPU is incredibly outdated, the best model has a quarter of the RAM my rig has, and a way slower processor.
I hope to god that:
a) You didn't give me the right name of the laptop or
b) You didn't pay 5k for it.
The fact is Doom3 is not optimised for the cards Farcry etc are its works best on 6800gt technology and onwards you can see this cleary in benchmarks.
Does the term economic suicide mean anything to you?
Its not like the game is going to come out tomorrow.
<a href='http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/887791/Lizard.JPG' target='_blank'>http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/887791/Lizard.JPG</a>
<a href='http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/887791/Dungeon.JPG' target='_blank'>http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/887791/Dungeon.JPG</a>
Yeah. Not everyone has the money to upgrade their PCs every year.
Have you any idea how nonsensical that is? You might as well use Homeworld's engine to create NS then.
<a href='http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/887791/Lizard.JPG' target='_blank'>http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/887791/Lizard.JPG</a>
<a href='http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/887791/Dungeon.JPG' target='_blank'>http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/887791/Dungeon.JPG</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oblivion wont be out for awhile and it looks just as good as U3, which will be more widly used and supported.
5k for a laptop that can't play HL2? lol, check out <a href='http://www.powernotebooks.com' target='_blank'>PowerNotebooks.com</a> sometime (their the #1 rated company on <a href='http://www.resellerratings.com' target='_blank'>Reseller Ratings</a> as well), you could have paid ~1/4th that much and got something that can play D3 and HL2.
EDIT: Anavrin - Elder Scrools <b>is</b> set in the first person. It's much more sensical to make an FPS in an ES engine than on Homeworld's engine.
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Anyway its not for playing games on...
d3 has a 32 player mod, so im sure NS can do the same thing. While at the same time I pretty sure NS can also enable Parallax mapping for all thier textures as well, which would realy make everything look awsome. You can also enable self shadowing and such with D3, and play with the bumpmaps of d3s textures and such. Which would make it a little similar to that of U3.
while HL2 you can throw a can into a garbage can, stack boxes, and have floating barrals and such. I guess thats pretty cool. But it does have more player base and a huge hype right now. and more people are building thier computers mainly to run hl2 sourse engine games.
I honestly dont care which engine it goes on, I think eather d3 or Sourse can accomplish the same goals.
Reliable netcode<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bwahahahaha, I take it you never played CS:Source then eh? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
They'll probably improve it over time, but it's outright **** at the moment.
Knowing that I had a GeForce2 at NS's release, and was also back then in the average computer-wise, my point still stands. I shouldn't need to buy new hardware at acceptable price ranges while my computer can run an excellent engine with my current hardware. Not everyone spends their fortune on computer hardware, especially considering I'm turning 18 and will have much more important stuff to attend to.
While my computer isn't top-notch, it's far from low end. A 2500+ at 400 FSB counts as a 3200+. 512 RAM is average. And the 9800pro is the norm in gpu's nowadays.
Reliable netcode<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bwahahahaha, I take it you never played CS:Source then eh? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
They'll probably improve it over time, but it's outright **** at the moment. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
hl2s netcode is awsome so I don't know what you're complaining about. Doom3's supports what? something like 4 players online? I play in servers with 30+ people fine on a $50 video card (geforce fx 5200) so all is good for hl2 on decent settings, but playing doom3 on the same settings in single player absolutely rapes my card. Just thinking about using this card in multiplayer on doom3 hurts.
One shouldnt have to pay more than $100 to play a game (card/game).
While my computer isn't top-notch, it's far from low end. A 2500+ at 400 FSB counts as a 3200+. 512 RAM is average. And the 9800pro is the norm in gpu's nowadays.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But Doom3 runs on your system doesn't it? Taking your observations as an average 50FPS, that's just fine then. As for the HL engine back in the old days, the HL engine was outdated the day it was released. Quake3 quickly followed after it, obviously demolishing the HL engine graphics wise.
You run Doom3 fine, just not at it's maximum settings, which is perfectly normal these days as developers need to think of the long run and predict how hardware is going to look like in years to come.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->hl2s netcode is awsome so I don't know what you're complaining about. Doom3's supports what? something like 4 players online? I play in servers with 30+ people fine on a $50 video card (geforce fx 5200) so all is good for hl2 on decent settings, but playing doom3 on the same settings in single player absolutely rapes my card. Just thinking about using this card in multiplayer on doom3 hurts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you have anything to support your point? How about POSTING it then? I can't begin to give you URL's of the countless ranting threads complaining about how retarded CS:S registration and rates are. Just for the record: A cheap netcode (designed for friggin 28kers), does NOT make it a good netcode.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Doom3's supports what? something like 4 players online?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? You're picking another engine's (!possibly!) poor netcode to make HL2's look good? Bad effort.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I play in servers with 30+ people fine on a $50 video card (geforce fx 5200) so all is good for hl2 on decent settings, but playing doom3 on the same settings in single player absolutely rapes my card. Just thinking about using this card in multiplayer on doom3 hurts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The FX5200 is worthless cheap-**** piece of junk. The fact that it can actually run HL2, doesn't prove anything but that the engine is hopelessly out of date. Certainly NOT something that would encourage me to spend years of development time on.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can host a 20 Player Dedicated CSS Server on my computer (Cable Internet), with no lag, and play on the same PC.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just for the record: A cheap netcode (designed for friggin 28kers), does NOT make it a good netcode.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have you any idea how nonsensical that is? You might as well use Homeworld's engine to create NS then. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you DO know oblivion is a FPS right? or at least plays like a FPS. i agree it might not be the best controls or what ever but graphics look better than U3 tbh. unless maybe i saw a better screen from U3.
anyway no matter what PLEASE DO NOT USE Doom3 engine i can play half life 2 with 4X AA full shadows full textures full lighting full everything basicaly (cept AF and Res whihci leave at 1042X768 becuase AA gets rid of edges anyway) and with al that i get 60-72 fps average. D3 i needed to plat at 800x600 with no AA no shadows med textures and lighting and no AF and i still got 20-30 FPS it just sucks compared to HL2
Maybe if I reduce my post to:
HL2 just looks ****.
They'll understand frames per second is NOT everything.
Also, even if I CAN run Doom3, it isn't with the same framerate and beauty as in HL². I can't get constant 50 FPS in 800x600 with low detail, and even so I have some drops from time to time. It looks worse (from personal opinion at least) than HL², at a higher resolution, at higher quality settings, and at higher framerates.
So if I reduce my post to:
Not everyone is as rich as you and willing to pay for a top-notch PC
You'll understand that gaming is NOT all about pumping best resolution at the best framerates with the best hardware.
Gaming isn't, engines are.