backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 47 comment(s) - last by overzealot.. on Mar 20 at 1:41 PM

John Carmack critical of NVIDIA's AGEIA pickup

Even before the days when the 3D accelerator video card was commonplace in the gaming rig, John Carmack’s contribution to the PC gaming space was considerable. Ever since Wolfenstein  3D and DOOM, id Software’s technologies focussed on delivering a three-dimensional experience to the player.

With Quake, Carmack’s engine work moved into true-3D space, and eventually opened to hardware acceleration. Carmack hasn’t let up in his continuing work in 3D engine development, with id Tech 5, which will power id Software’s upcoming Rage title.

All major 3D game engines, including those powered by Carmack, rely on traditional rasterization rendering techniques. Recently, the concept of ray tracing – a method of rendering a three-dimensional scene, usually used for stills – surfaced as a possibly viable alternative draw technique.

Leading this charge for ray tracing is Daniel Pohl, who presented a Quake engine with ray tracing rather than rasterization technologies. Instead of using a 3D accelerator card from AMD/ATI or NVIDIA, Pohl relied on the computational power from the general purpose Intel CPU (or a farm of them).

Seeing as how Pohl’s work promotes the application of the general processor, Intel snatched up the German graduate to further research 3D rendering technologies.

When it comes to current and next-generation 3D rendering, particularly for games, there are few that have the experience and influence of John Carmack (and Epic Games’ Tim Sweeney too). PC Perspective picked Carmack’s brain for his opinion on ray tracing technology, but the id Software lead programmer is still convinced that rasterization is today’s best solution.

“I’m not really bullish on [ray tracing] taking over for primary rendering tasks which is essentially what Intel is pushing,” said Carmack. “There are large advantages to rasterization from a performance standpoint and many of the things that they argue as far as using efficient culling technologies to be able to avoid referencing a lot of geometry, those are really bogus arguments because you could do similar things with occlusion queries and conditional renders with rasterization. Head to head rasterization is just a vastly more efficient use of whatever transistors you have available.”

Carmack doesn’t completely discount ray tracing, as he talks about technique that might be applicable for future technologies: “It involves ray tracing into a sparse voxel octree which is essentially a geometric evolution of the mega-texture technologies that we’re doing today for uniquely texturing entire worlds. ...rasterization architecture does really start falling apart when your typical triangle size is less than one pixel.”

In fact, Carmack hopes that his described “ray tracing in the sparse voxel octree” method will be a part of id Software’s next engine after id Tech 5, as he thinks he “can show a real win.”

Moving away from the wealth of graphics discussion, Carmack has interesting comments regarding AGEIA, particularly NVIDIA’s acquisition of the physics technology: “That was one of those things where it was a stupid plan from the start and I really hope NVIDIA didn’t pay too much because I found the whole thing disingenuous. ... The whole thing about setting up a company and essentially lying to consumers, that this is a good idea, in order to cash out and be bought out by a big company, I saw the whole thing as pretty distasteful. It’s obvious, and we knew when AGEIA was starting, that a few generations down the road we would have these general purpose compute resources on the GPU.”

While physics accelerators were little more than gimmicks, such dedicated functions could one day be implemented into the GPU’s workload, said Carmack. “...As people choose to either change their architecture to allow a frame of latency in the reports of collision detection in physics or we get much finer grain parallelization where you don’t have this really long latency and you can kind of force an immediate mode call to GPU operations, then we start using that just the way we do SSE instructions or something in our current code base.”

Now PC gamers will just have to wait to see if Carmack will tailor his next-generation engine ideas to AMD/ATI and NVIDIA hardware or if the hardware makers will have to design around id Tech 6.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The Engine's fine, it's the rest that let Id down
By yxalitis on 3/17/2008 11:45:06 PM , Rating: 2
id Software has always made great engines, but then shipped less then stellar titles using those engines.
In almost every case, better games were made with the engines by other companies...
Hexen/Heretic on the Doom engine
Heck, the Final Doom levels designed by the Casali brothers were some of the most interesting Doom levels ever made, featuring innovative use of the monsters and assets not exploited by id themselves
Quake was a dull, brown-dominated game, which couldn't make up its mind as to whether it was sci-fi or fantasy
Let's not forget Half Life...built on the quake engine.

Prey was a better game then Doom, and also made better use of the engine.

So, in short, Carmack creates amazing, versatile, and impressive game Engines, the rest of id ship mediocre content that dominated the sales charts because of the engine behind it




By EODetroit on 3/18/2008 9:44:55 AM , Rating: 3
True... but so what? If they only made the engine, and not the game to go with it... no one would know to buy the engine and the other games wouldn't exist. Now everyone would buy the latest id software just on reputation, but back in the day they may not have.


What He Said.
By 91TTZ on 3/18/2008 6:06:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It involves ray tracing into a sparse voxel octree which is essentially a geometric evolution of the mega-texture technologies that we’re doing today for uniquely texturing entire worlds.


Damn straight.




Carmack
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Carmack
By noirsoft on 3/17/2008 9:10:40 AM , Rating: 5
Fair criticisms, but his comments on ray tracing vs rasterization are 100% spot-on.


RE: Carmack
By inperfectdarkness on 3/17/2008 9:24:22 AM , Rating: 2
i'd agree. i would think that someone like cliffy b. would be more capable of providing a pertinant viewpoint.

until we come to such time as where a fully-rendered, fully filtered, fully AA'd, 30" widescreen display can easily render FPS' at 4MP + resolutions (without heavily taxing the hardware); your average enthusiast pc will not even have the additional resources to use "brute-force" rendering.

maybe in another 5 years or so....


RE: Carmack
By Ringold on 3/17/2008 11:35:16 AM , Rating: 2
Right. And besides rendering at least 30 frames a second on at least 1600x1200 screens, the CPU has to have enough performance left over for increasingly complex AI's and other game mechanics. Plus, of course, a spare core left over to handle the background tasks (antivirus, etc) is always nice.

I didn't care much for Doom3 either, but we're not even close to real time ray tracing I don't believe.


RE: Carmack
By FITCamaro on 3/18/2008 1:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
Well if you believe the most diehard Cell fans we are.


RE: Carmack
By gramboh on 3/17/2008 11:44:04 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't cliffyb a level designer? Carmack designs rendering engines, he is the exact right person to ask this type of question.


RE: Carmack
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/17/2008 12:27:08 PM , Rating: 4
Engines like Source and Unreal have been beating Carmack's engines senseless for the past several years. I would think Epic or Valve would be better places to answer this question.


RE: Carmack
By Cullinaire on 3/17/2008 12:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure you meant to say Tim Sweeney, not CliffyB.


RE: Carmack
By Cullinaire on 3/17/2008 12:48:47 PM , Rating: 2
*He meant to say.


RE: Carmack
By noirsoft on 3/17/2008 1:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
Cliffy is a lead designer, not just a level designer, but I still wouldn't trust his fashion advice, let alone his advice on technical details of engine programming.


RE: Carmack
By ajfink on 3/17/2008 11:47:56 PM , Rating: 3
Source isn't in the saying playing field. It's more geared to general playability than truly impressive graphics.


RE: Carmack
By homerdog on 3/18/2008 3:30:55 AM , Rating: 2
Tell that to Alyx.


RE: Carmack
By FITCamaro on 3/18/2008 1:31:00 PM , Rating: 4
I don't know about you, but at the time, Half Life 2 was one of the most realistic games I'd ever seen.


RE: Carmack
By B3an on 3/17/2008 9:31:23 AM , Rating: 5
You almost say this as if Carmack sits at a desk and completely makes these games himself without any other help. I dont think Carmack has lost his touch so much, his engines are very efficient, he doesn't have anything to do with making the textures and that. Doom3 engine was the best at the time, it might not have looked as realistic as some others (Source) but that doesn't mean it's not better.
Quake 4 and ET:QW were not even made by ID Software (They were by Raven Software, and Splash Damage). The people that make use of his engines are the ones lacking a bit of imagination and talent, not Carmack.

And i completely agree with Carmack on Ray Tracing. It's nothing more than a good way for Intel to show off the power of their processors. Like he says, for games, it's extremely inefficient.


RE: Carmack
By freeagle on 3/19/2008 12:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And i completely agree with Carmack on Ray Tracing. It's nothing more than a good way for Intel to show off the power of their processors. Like he says, for games, it's extremely inefficient.


I disagree.

Ray-tracing needs a bit of time to evolve and solve some technical issues (how to effectively store geometry that changes every frame - e.g. animations, particles). And it only seems inefficient. It's because there is no specialized and ray-tracing optimized hardware for it as there is for rasterization. It seem slow on today CPU-s, but so is rasterization. Try any of the 3DMarkXX CPU tests and you'll see that the rendering is very inefficient as well.

The good thing about ray-tracing is, that the performance of the rendering is not heavily affected by the complexity of geometry as with traditional raster rendering. Shadows and lighting are also rendered naturally. That means, you don't at all need "helper-textures" like normal maps, light maps. You also don't have to generate shadow maps. This all saves the memory needed for these textures. It also removes the unnecessary computations and simplifies shaders.

All in all I think that if we had today ray-tracing optimized GPUs with the same level of computational power as today raster HW, the two techniques would be very competitive performance wise. Ray-tracing would graphically crush raster, though.

Freeagle


RE: Carmack
By wien on 3/17/2008 11:48:05 AM , Rating: 5
Blind OpenGL support eh? I seem to remember several interviews in which Carmack stated D3D9 is a fine API and that it is in fact his main development API at the moment? His support for OpenGL was mostly rooted in the fact that it made sense for him and his cross-platform engines. Why develop two separate renderers if you can get away with just the one?

The ones exercising blind support in this industry are developers using D3D simply because it's the API Microsoft endorses. For a long time there was nothing about D3D that OpenGL couldn't do just as well or better. Only in the last few years has that changed (though OpenGL 3 may put them back on track if Khronos ever get off their asses and finish the damn spec).


RE: Carmack
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/17/2008 12:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
Last I checked Quake3, and Doom3 engines all used OpenGL exclusively. Not sure about the new Tech6(AFAIK) uses OpenGL or DirectX.


RE: Carmack
By wien on 3/17/2008 2:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't make any statement to the contrary. All Id engines from GLQuake to Doom3 have been using OpenGL since that is what made sense for the OSes they were targeting on the PC.

Tech 6 is mainly targeting consoles, which is why Carmack has been using D3D recently (Xbox 360). Last I heard he was still debating whether to use D3D or stay with OpenGL on the Windows side. Either way I see no evidence of him being "blindly" in favor of OpenGL.


RE: Carmack
By wien on 3/17/2008 2:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tech 6 is mainly targeting consoles
Sorry, I meant Tech 5, the upcoming Rage.


RE: Carmack
By noirsoft on 3/17/2008 1:20:19 PM , Rating: 2
DirectX has always had better support for fast software rendering and consumer-level hardware support, especially in the early (DX3) eras. OpenGL was certainly easier to get a triangle rendered on screen, but DX8 (and moreso DX9) changed that.

Remember, GL (the precursor to OpenGL) was developed in order to do non-realtime high-quality rendering on expensive SGI machines, and so was very poorly optimized for games. DirectX provided a better solution for PC gamers for a long time.

Even Quake was not using OpenGL in its initial PC release, but had a custom software renderer. I believe Quake 2 was the first ID game to ship with a GL-based renderer.


RE: Carmack
By wien on 3/17/2008 2:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
Quake 2 also had a software renderer in much the same way Quake 1 did (in addition to a Glide and PowerVR renderer). You had to have one at that time since not everyone had a graphics accelerator. The Quake 3 engine was the first Id engine to go exclusively OpenGL.

As for the origin of OpenGL, I don't really see how that's relevant. It's just an API. There's nothing about OpenGL that makes is inherently "higher quality" and therefore slower than D3D.

Either way, very little of the legacy API is actually used in modern applications. Functionality similar to what you find in D3D9 (OpenGL 2.1) has been exposed through extensions, so the difference between the two isn't really that big.

The only big problem with all the legacy crud in OpenGL is that it makes writing drivers a pain in the backside, which is why OpenGL 3 is a total redesign of the API tailor made for modern GPUs.


RE: Carmack
By noirsoft on 3/17/2008 4:39:35 PM , Rating: 3
OpenGL had a lot of mandates about what features needed to be present in order to do any hardware acceleration, as well as other implementation requirements that were a poor fit for real-time game purposes.

Not to mention that, even with hardware acceleration, OpenGL's display lists were far less efficient (caching, locality, etc) than DirectX vertex buffers. Yes, atightly optimized implementation could have done it, but since gaming wasn't the point of OpenGL, no implementation ever bothered. Even on high-end SGI machines (circa 1996) a single texture-mapped quad could drop you to below 10 fps whereas even early DirectX was able to handle a scene full of t-mapped polygons, even if the mapping wasn't perfectly perspective correct (which was a requirement of OpenGL rendering, hence one aspect of the slower rendering)

OpenGL (and DirectX) are both a lot more than "just an API" -- they dictate important details of how an implementation should work, the data passed to a graphics processor, and what features need to be present to be certified for that API.

These days the difference is small, yes. But not back in the Quake / Quake2 days.

DirectX started out with realtime as a driving goal, and added features as the hardware got better. OpenGL started out with a quality bar, and got faster as the hardware got better.


RE: Carmack
By wien on 3/17/2008 7:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
Um, OpenGL has vertex buffers too. Has had for a long time. Since version 1.5 in fact, which was released October 30 2003, and through vendor extensions before that. It has also had vertex arrays since version 1.1, which are about the same thing only client side. No-one interested in performance has used immediate mode and display-lists for geometry for a looong time.

Look, we can rant and rave over the merits of these APIs till the cows come home, but the point is that OpenGL has never been a bad choice for gaming. Especially if you're targeting platforms other than Windows. It's performance on 1990's SGI machines is completely irrelevant.

On equal hardware the performance difference between the two was and continues to be minimal, and as such suggesting that Carmack is a blind OpenGL fanboy for sticking with it just misses the mark completely.


RE: Carmack
By noirsoft on 3/18/2008 3:41:24 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Um, OpenGL has vertex buffers too. Has had for a long time. Since version 1.5 in fact, which was released October 30 2003


2003 is not a long time. That is very recent. And does it not strike you as odd that when OpenGL was finally adding vertex Bufffers, DirectX was on version 9.0b, and was moving to advanced programmable shader support? That's OpenGL struggling to catch up and stay relevant.

quote:
The ones exercising blind support in this industry are developers using D3D simply because it's the API Microsoft endorses. For a long time there was nothing about D3D that OpenGL couldn't do just as well or better. Only in the last few years has that changed (though OpenGL 3 may put them back on track if Khronos ever get off their asses and finish the damn spec).


That's you, and that is the crux of what I have been responding to. The performance of OpenGL in the mid 90s is exactly the point. That's why DirectX was invented, because OpenGL had NO applicability to games. It's only since 2003 (your date) that OpenGL has had any competitiveness to DirectX for gaming purposes, because they were getting creamed in the areas of hardware support, and DirectX was surpassing OpenGL on the quality curve as well.

There is no blind support of DirectX as you claim. There is support for DX because for real-time applications, it has been a superior choice. Please get off your "Everything Microsoft does must be inferior" trip and look at the facts.


RE: Carmack
By wien on 3/18/2008 3:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please get off your "Everything Microsoft does must be inferior" trip and look at the facts.
And with that, I'm done.


RE: Carmack
By BenSkywalker on 3/18/2008 10:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
First off I wanted to state that my comments relate to D3D. Some people group that together with DirectX for some reason, while you really should never refer to DirectX when you explicitly mean D3D. DirectX 10 as an example is a large leap forward for D3D and an obnoxiously large step back for the sound portion of DirectX(in terms of real world usability).

quote:
That's OpenGL struggling to catch up and stay relevant.


What were you to do if D3D didn't support something natively that you wanted to do? In OpenGL this was always possible to work around(custom extensions were the norm), how exactly would you have gone about it in say, D3D6, 7 or 8 for that matter? What was it, D3D10 before they got around to fixing the horrific D3D performance with small batch geometric data? OpenGL didn't need to struggle to catch up- it's baseline requirements were not the be all of what it could entail. This is one of the main reasons Carmack utilized OpenGL for so many years.

quote:
The performance of OpenGL in the mid 90s is exactly the point. That's why DirectX was invented, because OpenGL had NO applicability to games.


In the mid 90s D3D was so utterly pathetic in every aspect Glide was a necessity. D3D couldn't render things quickly, or with decent quality. At the very least with OpenGL or Glide you could chose one or the other. Any D3D prior to 6 was laughable, D3D6 was the first version to be competitive enough to get us beyond the sad crap that was Glide.

quote:
There is support for DX because for real-time applications, it has been a superior choice.


Since when? Maybe D3D9. Doom3 hit during the D3D8 timeframe, and in it's timeframe there was nothing out that could come remotely close to its' visuals combined with the level of performance it offered. Now if a small portion of your implications are true, Carmack must be a god to do what he did on a regular basis with such a vastly inferior API. I am a happy Vista user, own a 360, use IE as my main browser and am very pleased with the direction MS is going with D3D, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be obscenely revisionist in where it came from.


RE: Carmack
By noirsoft on 3/19/2008 2:13:38 AM , Rating: 2
Have you used the OpenGL extension mechanism? I have, and unless you are lucky enough to find that someone else has written the glue layer for you, it is an abomination.

And DirectX has frequent enough updates that in recent times, you always found that DX officially supported a feature long before the equivalent OpenGL extnesions became standardized and stable enough for anything beyond one-card demo or research work.

quote:
Since when? Maybe D3D9. Doom3 hit during the D3D8 timeframe, and in it's timeframe there was nothing out that could come remotely close to its' visuals combined with the level of performance it offered.


You example of Doom3 is irrelevant, as that is a recent enough game so that it's in the time period when OpenGL and DX are roughly equivalent in terms of features. But, since you already put your foot in your mouth...

Doom3 came out on August 3, 2004 (see Wiki) -- The very next day, MS released DirectX 9.0c, enabling Shader model 3. DirectX 9 had already been out for over a year and a half, so you are already completely wrong.

/tangent

In my performance / quality arguments, I'm referring to pre DX6, when you couldn't get an OpenGL game running smoothly on consumer cards, and you could with DX games. Yes, the OpenGL games looked better, but you needed a $1000 card to get an acceptable framerate, whereas a $200 DX card could get you a playable game.

My point has always been from the beginning about why DirectX came to be dominant in games, and not about the relative merits of the two APIs today. I prefer DX, and that's an opinion (and in the research community, a minority one) -- I am arguing against the assumption that DX only became popular because Microsoft strong-armed people into supporting it. The truth is that it filled a gap in gaming-level quality and performance that OpenGL could not match for several years.

And since you brought up GLide, it was certainly fast, but since it ran on only a small fraction of cards, people supported DX over it because DX ran on more cards, even if the performance and quality were a bit lesser.


RE: Carmack
By BenSkywalker on 3/19/2008 11:28:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And DirectX has frequent enough updates that in recent times, you always found that DX officially supported a feature long before the equivalent OpenGL extnesions became standardized and stable enough for anything beyond one-card demo or research work.


In recent times I would agree with you. As far as working with the extension mechanism, no, I haven't had the luxury of trying to work out a new extension from scratch, Carmack doesn't seem to have an issue with it and in the relevant timeframe that is the issue. Sure, NOW D3D is an extremely solid API- during the era we are talking about it was seriously lacking a laundry list of features that OpenGL could be modified to support if you had the ability.

quote:
Doom3 came out on August 3, 2004 (see Wiki) -- The very next day, MS released DirectX 9.0c, enabling Shader model 3. DirectX 9 had already been out for over a year and a half, so you are already completely wrong.


My apologies, I was under the impression we were talking about development. Fragment shaders had yet to be nailed down along with no finalized spec as to how D3D was going to handle overbright pixels during D3's development- the D3D8 timeframe. These were both very real issues that Carmack openly discussed at length during D3's development.

quote:
In my performance / quality arguments, I'm referring to pre DX6, when you couldn't get an OpenGL game running smoothly on consumer cards, and you could with DX games.


What pre D3D6 games would you be talking about that could run with GLQuake from a performance/quality standpoint? I must have missed them, the only game from that era that could outshine Quake that I can think off of the top of my head is Unreal- and that wasn't quite the same time frame(not to mention, it only ran well in Glide). Now it has been a while, so I may be forgetting something, but I can't recall it.

quote:
My point has always been from the beginning about why DirectX came to be dominant in games, and not about the relative merits of the two APIs today.


It became dominant when it became good. Sure, for titles where visual quality and performance tied to it were of little concern then it made little sense to use anything else given the amount of support MS openly offers developers utilizing DX(OpenGl has nothing remotely comparable)- in terms of visualy demanding games of the mid to early late 90s era they almost exclusively used Glide or OpenGL(and by OpenGL I narrowly mean those games built on Carmack's engines).

quote:
And since you brought up GLide, it was certainly fast, but since it ran on only a small fraction of cards, people supported DX over it because DX ran on more cards, even if the performance and quality were a bit lesser.


The irnoy of that statement is the only boards that could run D3D code at anything resembling decent speeds are those that supported Glide. It wasn't until the Riva hit that we had any alternative for real gaming to 3Dfx.


RE: Carmack
By dare2savefreedom on 3/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Carmack
By sweetsauce on 3/17/2008 3:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
So you're bragging that opengl is kicking ass on mac, linux, and ps3? Those are all non-gaming devices. Bazing.


RE: Carmack
By noirsoft on 3/17/2008 4:41:24 PM , Rating: 5
Not to mention the fact that Sony recommends not using OpenGL and instead using their proprietary API for PS3 games (for performance reasons, go figure!)

The only reason that OpenGL appears to be "kicking ass" on Mac/Linux platforms is that it's the ONLY CHOICE for those platforms.


RE: Carmack
By mahax on 3/18/2008 12:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. And why is it the only choice for those platforms? Because it's a closed api. You have to pay to use it, and if you're a competitor, you'll never use it. And _thats_ why OpenGL is better. It's for everyone and runs on nearly any platform. That's why Carmack supports it.

And why does OpenGL seem to follow DirectX in features? Because M$ dictates what features will be in DirectX, and GPU manufacturers have no choice but put that stuff in their GPU's. No manufacturer would innovate OGL with it's small user base, and that's cos we're all in Bill's leash. What Bill says, others do. Cos where-ever you look, there's windows. It is called monopoly as it complitely twarfs competition in the 3D API market. Heck, even 3D modelling software are supporting DX these days.

And for the same reason, OpenGL moves slowly cos there's alot of byrochrasy. A group of parties try to steer the API together and we all know it's going to take alot of meetings and votes etc. to get anywhere. Where M$ has a design team sit down, they all agree on most part and go to implement their "new features".

/rant off


RE: Carmack
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/18/2008 1:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
Well, nobody ever said "open, fair, and democratic" was ever efficient. Usually efficiency was attributed to dictatorship. That way there was someone to make the decision and force it through.


RE: Carmack
By FITCamaro on 3/18/2008 1:27:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Heck, even 3D modelling software are supporting DX these days.


And thats a bad thing why?


RE: Carmack
By noirsoft on 3/18/2008 2:36:11 PM , Rating: 2
You have every right to say that OpenGL is "better" for political reasons. I feel that DirectX is "better" because it has pushed innovation in the graphics hardware and software market, allowing for a higher-quality, faster, and cheaper end-user experience. GL & OpenGL used to be the main innovator, but they dropped the ball on the transition to real-time applications. Someone had to step into the gap.

As a graphics software developer, I also prefer DirectX because it, moreso than OpenGL, enables me to do my work efficiently and the API is better suited to modern programming practices. XNA is probably the easiest way for beginners to get into graphics programming, and is a superbly designed API. Lastly, PIX is just awesome.


RE: Carmack
By FITCamaro on 3/18/2008 1:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
OpenGL 3 isn't even out yet.


RE: Carmack
By scrapsma54 on 3/17/2008 6:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
Kenobi, you are right despite how critical you sound. Doom 3 however, was almost the best looking game for Xbox until Far cry Instincts came around. Despite that, the shadowing in all of ID's engines seem so flat and at times make me feel like I am in a static place when in out open areas. Textures are not as organic, as what DX9c gave out.
Also I must point out that Carmack (hate to discredit the Guy) but must not have ever heard of normal mapping. Small details are easily taken care of with high resolution textures.
Rasterization might be here for a while.


RE: Carmack
By wien on 3/17/2008 7:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
Are you kidding me? The Doom3 engine was one of the first engines to do real time bump mapping, which was the precursor to normal maps. Also, blaming the look of the textures on the choice of API is just silly. That's down to art-direction and artist skill. The API doesn't enter into it.


RE: Carmack
By scrapsma54 on 3/19/2008 9:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sure it was a precursor to real time bumpmapping, however Doom 3 is of no concern, because the technology was fit for such a game. I am talking about Quake 4 and prey (somewhat, the visuals arent that bad). What is persistent in every Id engine title is the fact that their games lack such subtle details like facial hair, particle effects, decent physics, and soft shadows. Its the atmosphere, the engine is just horrible for outdoor environments. current gen titles have made such wide use of Per-pixel lighting which surpasses anything so simple that opengl can offer. Programming In opengl is of concern because it is way too hard to provide anything so complex. Yes, opengl's performance is a big benefit, but in an age of high definition content more detail is required and raytracing wont cut it with the Ogl api if programming capabilities are limited. Sure a game is not based soley on graphics. I like prey, but big open environments Feel so static and the shadows are only one shade of color.


RE: Carmack
By lexluthermiester on 3/17/2008 7:50:01 PM , Rating: 2
Doom 3 and games based on it's engine, such as Quake 4 and Prey, are some of the most beautiful games[on good hardware] that I've ever seen. FarCry looked good but has a seriously high hardware requirement for the nice options to be used with acceptable frame rates. Crysis looks good only on an extreme high end machine, but for us normal folks who have better things to spend money on than a $4000 PC, OpenGL based games can do more with less, which is why ID[Carmack] has chosen the API in the past. DirectX 10 has great potential, yet is inefficient like DX9 was until 9b/9c. Coupled with the fact that it is a Vista[itself an inefficient piece of software] only API, I would sway towards OpenGL also.

Normal mapping is a great function IF you can be assured there is enough video ram[512MB] for the high res textures. Otherwise the textures have to be stored in system ram which slows down game performance. Most cards, even now, are still only being sold with 256MB. I myself am using a 8800GTS 320MB[though I'm pondering the 9800GTX 1GB]. Most PC's out there still have only 128MB of video ram. And thus his choice to use other rendering methods.


RE: Carmack
By sweetsauce on 3/18/2008 10:59:28 AM , Rating: 2
Im no expert, but i remember reading that directx 10 is a huge improvement and the only thing holding it back was legacy support for xp systems using directx 9. Once game engines are built for directx 10 exclusively we'll see the true benefits of it.


RE: Carmack
By kattanna on 3/18/2008 10:10:35 AM , Rating: 2
thats because carmack has been focused these past years on making games for phones


RE: Carmack
By gochichi on 3/20/2008 2:42:43 AM , Rating: 1
Carmack is awesome. When you have it all, it's OK to be ethical within your line of work... it's the next logical step.

Microsoft's Gates runs (or certainly has) an unethical business and then tries to do some ethical (or what looks like ethical) stuff after the fact. I mean do the starving people really need computers or do they need food and potable water and basic education???

OpenGL is a collective standard, it's what PS3 uses and it's a counterpoint to yet another Microsoft proprietary standard. What if you want to release your game on Linux, on Mac OS X. What if you believe in open hacking?

It is disturbing to me that anyone would fault the man for advancing OpenGL when OpenGL started it all and has been so good to him.

The aesthetic of Doom 3/ Quake 4 is different than other games... I think it looks great, the texture choices are just choices and don't describe anything inherent about OpenGL per say. They aren't my favorite games but I'm thrilled to own them b/c they are interesting engineering feats.

It is an outrage to say "Carmack is rapidly falling out of the software limelight." Nothing could be further from the truth, I don't even think it's even possible actually. At the time of Doom3 he stated that NVIDIA was his platform of choice at the time and they were and still are on top.

Blind support? He forms the skeleton of OpenGL these days... his not supporting would be about the same as outright slaughtering it. Rage will be incredibly newsworthy, I guarantee you that... like Half Life 3, or Starcraft 2. Beyond huge.

Starcraft 2 will "blindly" be released on the Mac OS X platform at the same time. "As with all of Blizzard's recent releases, StarCraft II will ship on both PC and Mac simultaneously." Because it's the right thing... and this means it doesn't hinge on DirectX. Maybe there's this huge background cashflow going on, and Apple is bribing them to support their platform. Or maybe a bunch of the good-old boys at Blizzard are just Apple fanatics, and they understand that they could essentially sink the platform by withdrawing their support. It's true, Blizzard has a small work force, they are all very well off, a lot of them love Macs, and they seem to feel like they can afford to abide by the highest standards. When you are the very best you don't sink to a low level just to cut a few corners. Why is this surprising?

When you're independent and talented and run a good company you don't run to Microsoft and beg them to implement what you want available in your next engine, you use OpenGL and use its open-source code and modify the living daylights out of it until it fits your needs.

Carmack and ID are about as obsolete as Blizzard. Pshhh. Pshhh.

Steve Jobs won't use Vista on his computers on principle... these are historic figures. C'mon man, seriously. Just ridiculous... OpenGL can do what DirectX can ... it's just code. Mac OS X is more than competitive, OpenGL is more than competitive. Why follow when you can lead?

Carmack is my boy, always will be. Kudos for releasing open-source engines for a new generation of people to learn to make games. He is a Rockefeller amidst a jungle of unethical dweebs.


RE: Carmack
By overzealot on 3/20/2008 1:41:58 PM , Rating: 1
Carmack is about cross-platform compatibility.
When there is not a significant difference between DX and OpenGL (performance and functionality), wouldn't you choose the bigger userbase?
Linux and Mac are small markets, but they are markets nonetheless. And they are traditionally well looked after by ID.
Quake 4 was Raven's work, and ETQW was Splash Damage's baby.
I don't actually mind the engine in either game, although I think SD would have been better off compromising on the number of entities and increasing the frequency of calculations. 30 calc's feels a bit jumpy.
Oh, and I hang around plenty of Wolf:ET players, their biggest gripe about newer games (QW esp.) usually revolves around how it doesn't play like Wolf:ET.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments















botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki