Print 83 comment(s) - last by eman 7613.. on Jun 19 at 8:46 PM

id Software's id Tech 5 engine could make games prettier than ever

John Carmack, the genius behind the 3D game engines from id Software, once considered stepping away from games programming to focus on space-related endeavors. Thankfully for the games industry, Carmack appears to be still deeply rooted in games technology, as he demonstrated the next-generation 3D engine during Steve Job's address at Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference 2007.

Called “id Tech 5,” the new engine shies away from the cramped indoor engines of id Games of yesterday. Quake Wars will take the DOOM3 engine outdoors, but id Tech 5 will make it completely nature savvy.

“What we've got here is the entire world with unique textures, 20GB of textures covering this track,” said Carmack. “They can go in and look at the world and, say, change the color of the mountaintop, or carve their name into the rock. They can change as much as they want on surfaces with no impact on the game.”

The engine technology is aimed at the Mac, PC, PS3 and Xbox 360. If Carmack is able to pull off what he claims, we could soon be looking at an entirely new generation of in-game artistry. With game development costs higher than ever with the rising capabilities of consoles and video cards, id Tech 5 may help simplify the art and texture process.

Click here to see a video of John Carmack’s presentation.

Comments     Threshold

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

Thats great! but no lower prices..
By TimberJon on 6/12/2007 3:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
If he gets it just right and they all buy it en-masse, excellent! But while it might make game creation a little easier and maybe faster, they won't lower the prices of games. It would be nice, but I think theyre already up there and will just shrug and say "more for us!" as well as all the middlemen.

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By TxJeepers on 6/12/2007 4:09:13 PM , Rating: 5
It's so old seeing people complain about prices. Sure $50 is $50 and not chump change for a lot of us, but give me a break. I'm more of a MP kind of gamer, but even when I buy something for its SP, I get MANY hours of entertainment for that price. Any serious online gamer racks up 10's, if not 100's of hours playing their favorite title. I'm well 200 hours just in BF2142. At 200 hours I was $.25 per hour of entertainment. How is that expensive?

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By FITCamaro on 6/12/2007 4:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
I don't mind paying $50 for a game. The issue is that 360 and PS3 games are $60, not $50 for the majority.

And what really bugs me is that a game thats released simultaneously on the 360 and PC will cost more on the 360 than on the PC. Now that I have a 360, that upsets me because I want to use it, but why pay more for the same game?

One instance of this is the upcoming game Overlord. I plan to get it but the 360 version is $60 and the PC version is $40. I'd like to get it for the 360, but do I want to pay a 50% premium over the PC version just to play it on my 360? Especially when I have a PC capable of playing the game at higher resolutions than my TV(720p) offers with the same (or more depending if the game offers it) details.

The only thing I get on the 360 is being able to lay on the couch and play vs. sitting at my desk. Of course I could get a really long VGA cable, hook that to my TV, somehow hook up my Audigy to my receiver (anyone know how to do this with the standard computer speaker jacks?), get a wireless receiver from my Xbox 360 controller and play on the TV that way using the 2nd DVI port on my graphics card and set it to the proper resolution.

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By RGC on 6/12/2007 4:53:14 PM , Rating: 5
why pay more for the same game?

Royalties to Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo.

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By arazok on 6/12/2007 6:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
And what really bugs me is that a game thats released simultaneously on the 360 and PC will cost more on the 360 than on the PC.

Does it also bother you that you paid less for the console then it costs to make?

I'm happy to pay that extra $10. It lets be afford a console that would otherwise be over $1000 retail.

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By FITCamaro on 6/12/2007 7:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
It lets be afford a console that would otherwise be over $1000 retail.

Heh. Not even the PS3 at launch cost $1000 in materials to make. It was estimated around $825. The 360 was far less and soon, Microsoft will be breaking even on the sale of 360 console hardware.

Losses have always been a part of console sales. The games still didn't cost more than the PC version.

And to the guy above saying its because of licensing fees:

1) Then why do games from Microsoft studios also cost as much? They don't have to pay fees to themselves, and

2) Licensing fees per copy don't amount to $10-20 which is what the difference is between a lot of 360/PS3 games and their PC counterparts.

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By Houdani on 6/12/2007 7:18:46 PM , Rating: 4
The $1000 statement wasn't referring to the build cost. Rather, it was referring to what the MSRP may have been under a more traditional business model.

By arazok on 6/12/2007 7:52:36 PM , Rating: 3
Thank you...

By KernD on 6/12/2007 8:01:35 PM , Rating: 3
I work in the industry and can buy the games from our company at cost and the console games cost 10$ more, so it's exactly what the royalty is.

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By Martimus on 6/12/2007 7:14:40 PM , Rating: 1
anyone know how to do this with the standard computer speaker jacks?

Just buy a standard single stereo output split to two input jacks for the receiver. I have had this setup for almost 10 years, and after losing the cable quite a few time (when I have moved) I know it is easy to find that cable at Radio Shack, or even Best Buy. Use Monster cables if you worry about the sound quality. I use a standard cable because I lose the cable too often, but after being in the EMI field for a while I can't tell you how good a well shielded cable helps your signal quality, especially for analog signals like sound.

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By PrinceGaz on 6/13/2007 5:50:12 AM , Rating: 5
Use Monster cables if you worry about the sound quality.

I hope you're not being serious. Monster cables are over-priced over-packaged junk.

By therealnickdanger on 6/13/2007 8:20:10 AM , Rating: 4
It's called "Monster" for a reason, as in "monster bullsh*t", "monster snake-oil", and "monster hole in your wallet".

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By Martimus on 6/14/2007 10:26:54 AM , Rating: 1
I am not joking. Monster cables are way overpriced, but they are not junk. They are actually very well shielded, and make a difference for analog, or heavily multiplexed signals. Things like Component Video, or even S-Video don't make much of a difference, because the signals are seperated and won't be as susceptable to noise. AV cables, on the other hand, are heavily susceptable to noise, so buying a well shielded cable makes a big difference in the signal quality.

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By Spivonious on 6/15/2007 9:24:33 AM , Rating: 2
The only time I've seen a cable make an audible difference was on my dad's $10000 tube amp setup where they threw in $1000 cables for his new speakers.

Conclusion: $1000 cables sound better than $5 ones. $50 cables sound the same as $5 ones. Especially ones that you get at a home electronics store, as they are so marked up it's not even funny.

By Martimus on 6/16/2007 4:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
$50 cables do make a difference over $5 cables. However, in sound because the signal is a differential it isn't as noticable (because whatever noise is present on one side of the signal will likely be present in a similar manner on the other side of the signal). For video, it is a huge difference because the signal is heavily multiplexed, so the signals run together when noise is present. It isn't as important for S-Video or Component cables, because the signals are seperated, but on standard AV cable, shielding makes a large difference. Monster Cables are WAY overpriced, but they aren't crap, and they aren't the same as regular cables. Depending on the environment, they may be worth it.

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By RMTimeKill on 6/14/2007 4:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
If you don't like Monster cables, then what do you use? The ones out of the box? Overpriced, yes, you can get them for almost s 50% discount if you work at your major electronics stores w/ emp. discounts and they still are making a 5% profit... do they make a difference from the reference cables that come in the box or the $10 set a wally world? oh hell yea they do... Its like running 87 octane in your favorite muscle car vs running 102 octane with NOS in the same car, you WILL see/hear a performance difference...

By Uarmm on 6/14/2007 6:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
laffo, the monster cable crew is out in force today. Here's a tip, your 150 dollar cable;
is in no way superior to this 7 dollar cable;

In fact, the 7 dollar cable is probably even better than the monster cable because it has ferrite cores to reduce signal noise.

By RubberJohnny on 6/14/2007 10:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
do they make a difference from the reference cables that come in the box or the $10 set a wally world? oh hell yea they do...

You are joking right?

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By GlassHouse69 on 6/12/2007 8:17:34 PM , Rating: 1
60 dollars is a ripoff.

it just is. 50 for the first two months of a game I can see, then 40 for rest of year is reasonable.

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By colonelclaw on 6/15/2007 8:25:40 AM , Rating: 2
you lot should count yourselves lucky. here in uk games for ps3 and x360 are 45 pounds each - thats roughly 90 dollars


By GlassHouse69 on 6/15/2007 10:27:36 AM , Rating: 2
good gosh. that's terrible/not worth it.

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By ElFenix on 6/12/2007 9:29:15 PM , Rating: 3
the top quality super nintendo games were ~75 in 1993-4. final fantasy 3, anyone?

By nerdye on 6/12/2007 11:30:46 PM , Rating: 2
Good point my friend, I payed 75$ plus the day the mortal kombat 2 came out, it was worth it, me and my best friend played it for weeks straight, and even now, my friends that have it on the throwback consoles now, thats what we play after a few drinks. Games are expensive, and yes consoles make you pay a royalty, do I wanna spend more money on a game, no, but if you don't build your pc gaming rig yourself, get used to it. Now anyone up for a little street fighter turbo on snes?

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By KristopherKubicki on 6/13/2007 7:12:57 AM , Rating: 3
final fantasy 6 , anyone?

Fixed that for you :)

By Martimus on 6/14/2007 10:35:53 AM , Rating: 2
I actually like that Nintendo only brought out those three Final Fantasies in the US. The other three games weren't very good. I can only say that I wish I never bought FF8 or FFX-2, because those weren't very good either. FF3 (or 6 I guess) was the last one that I really enjoyed, but FF7 was pretty fun at times too. I really don't like how the drama has gotten so obscure and stupid on the most recent FF games, so I stopped playing them. I have gone back and played the japanese version of FF2 and FF5 (Maybe it was FF4, I can't remember which one didn't make it to the US as FF2) on an emulator, and I have to say they weren't very good. I am glad that I didn't get a chance to play them in the US, because it would have given me the bad taste of the franchise that I have now.

By stryfe on 6/13/2007 12:25:07 AM , Rating: 2
somehow hook up my Audigy to my receiver (anyone know how to do this with the standard computer speaker jacks?)

All you need is a cable that goes from an 1/8" jack to two RCA plugs. You can get them for a few bucks at any local electronics store.

For example:

By Proteusza on 6/14/2007 6:08:39 AM , Rating: 2
why pay more for the same game?

Because all consoles except the Wii are sold at a loss, so the companies need to get their money back from you.

By lumbergeek on 6/14/2007 8:13:19 PM , Rating: 2
since it appears you can't figure out how to hook your PC to a receiver, I suggest you join the CouchPotato forum rather than one about technology....

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By gramboh on 6/12/2007 4:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
I must have thousands of hours of CS/DOD/Source/Quake3 etc. The value for what I paid is extremely high.

By imaheadcase on 6/12/2007 11:25:54 PM , Rating: 4
It is getting harder and harder to find a game that justifies the price though.

Only a handful of games out that really was worth $50-60 in the last 5 years.

By MonkeyPaw on 6/12/2007 5:05:22 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, and if you don't mind waiting, you can buy the same game for $30 or less. That's one of the beauties of game software--it gets cheaper for the cheapskates (or the patient). Not only that, but by the time the game hits $30, the hardware required to run it will be mid-range--more savings for you! Expecting a game to be cool, new, AND cheap is like expecting to have your cake and eat it too. I found 2 solutions to this problem, either be rich or be patient. A third choice might be to live beyond your means, but most people do that already. ;)

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By Slappi on 6/12/2007 5:31:08 PM , Rating: 4
I remember I had to have Pac-Man for the Atari 2600 back in 1981 or so. It just came out and I begged my Dad for it. Guess what it cost? $50. LOL!

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By GlassHouse69 on 6/12/2007 8:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
thats insane. 50 for that game?

i remember the pricier games were like 30 at max. 50? hm maybe in 1981 vs like 1983ish.

50 in 1981 was like 120 dollars about from my viewpoint. a lot for a game!

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By vitul on 6/12/2007 8:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
games have always been 50. thats the funny thing atari, nes, genesis, psx, ps2, until now. there is no just reason for the 10 doller increase other then companys getting greedy.

By mcturkey on 6/12/2007 9:06:29 PM , Rating: 1
You mean besides the cost of game production having skyrocketed? $50 in 1981 is the same as $117 in today's money adjusted for inflation.

Of course there's no reason for game prices to go up! How horrible of the game companies! Not.

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By Hare on 6/12/2007 11:42:27 PM , Rating: 3
games have always been 50. thats the funny thing atari, nes, genesis, psx, ps2, until now. there is no just reason for the 10 doller increase other then companys getting greedy.

Ever heard of inflation? If games have cost 50$ for 20 years that means today's games are cheaper then ever before.

50$ was a lot more >20 years ago than it's now!

I personally don't remember games costing that much during the 80'.

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By dflynchimp on 6/13/2007 12:16:24 AM , Rating: 2
take inflation into account and in modern dollars, those old Atari games would probably break the $100 barrier.

Same thing for consoles. People whined about the PS3's price when it came out, but they forget or didn't live in the era where the 1982 Atari 400 cost $350, which would be $750 in today's dollars.

By pakigang on 6/14/2007 2:28:46 AM , Rating: 3
You are forgetting one important factor, MARKET SIZE

By hrah20 on 6/12/2007 11:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
I remember buying the snes version of street fighter II for 85 bucks when it first came out, and also remember they where hiding the games under the counter, you had to ask for it.

By mars777 on 6/13/2007 1:58:51 AM , Rating: 2
I'm from Croatia. Here we get paid about 500$ per month.
And on games there is no refound if it sucks (like if you buy a car that declare more than it runs).
Many games declare more than what they provide.

By chsh1ca on 6/13/2007 7:57:16 AM , Rating: 3
Another way to look at it is in terms of hours of work. That'll give you an estimate of worth.

I'm in Ontario, Canada, so, these numbers won't apply everywhere, but most games I've bought recently are in the $60 area -- about 3 1/2 hours work for me, though I realise some are not that lucky. Our minimum wage is about $8/hr, so a $60 game is worth about a full day's work at minimum wage. Does it give that back to you in entertainment? If it does, then it's worth it.

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By Zandros on 6/12/2007 4:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing wrong with that, it should give more money to research and development, as well as lining shareholder's pockets.

By AndreasM on 6/12/2007 4:23:56 PM , Rating: 3
You almost make publishing sound like a respectable business. :)

RE: Thats great! but no lower prices..
By walk2k on 6/12/2007 4:52:27 PM , Rating: 3
Why would a new ID engine make game creation cheaper? Or easier, even? In my experience each new engine just makes the process lengthier and more costly because it's much more complex, has many many more features, and the players expect more out of it.

By michael2k on 6/12/2007 6:18:18 PM , Rating: 2
It would only make game creation cheaper if ID's intent during development was to make game creation easier or faster.

I don't know why that was mentioned in the blurb; was Carmack quoted as saying that?

By FITCamaro on 6/12/2007 7:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
It can make it easier because they can include tools that streamline the development of graphics, terrain, etc.

By thebrown13 on 6/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: DirectX?
By noirsoft on 6/12/2007 3:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
Almost certainly OpenGL, given id's history and its presence on a Mac.

RE: DirectX?
By noirsoft on 6/12/2007 4:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
Need to correct myself: The Xbox360 is DirectX only. Mac is OpenGL only (afaik) PS3 is OpenGL-like or a new proprietary API. PC is just about anything.

My guess is OpenGL for the PC, but maybe it will support DirectX as well.

RE: DirectX?
By bdot on 6/12/2007 4:26:30 PM , Rating: 2
If you watch the other video in the link, there is an interview with an id guy where they ask about dx10, to which he replies that they aren't using it since its Vista only and they can do the same thing in more passes with dx9. Reading between the lines would indicate that they use dx... not definitive but not ruled out.

RE: DirectX?
By imaheadcase on 6/12/2007 11:29:49 PM , Rating: 1
which he replies that they aren't using it since its Vista only and they can do the same thing in more passes with dx9.

They are going to use it, that was a old interview. They would be stupid not to use it since new PCs are shipping with Vista. They are not going to alienate 100million people (more when they release engine). The interview was predates vista release.

RE: DirectX?
By THEiNTERNETS on 6/14/2007 6:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
That makes no sense. You would alienate more people by using Dx10 than not using it. Many computers are still XP Dx9 only... OpenGL on the other hand works with everything, mac, PC, Linux, Vista, XP, flyingspaghettimonster, whatever!

Why would they go with something so proprietary for a single operating system? That's what alienates 100s of millions of people. And I can garuntee you none of that footage was DX10 as it was all demoing on a mac. That was the power of Open GL+Carmack.

Also, what's with all the Carmack haters? I enjoyed Doom 3. It was not as sophisticated as Half-Life 2 but it was exactly what I expected: a next-gen experience of the thrills I got playing the original. If you look at source and the D3 engine side by side, from a visual perspective I find D3 much more impressive, particularly because it looked like the screenshots even on my GeForce 3!

Anyone who can do that with an FPS knows how to code, regardless of what you think of that company's artists/writers.

RE: DirectX?
By Xerstead on 6/18/2007 3:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
They would be stupid not to use it since new PCs are shipping with Vista.

Vista will still run DX9 games so using DX9 will not alienate anyone on the PC. Using DX10 will prevent the majority of people who are still running XP from playing it. Support for DX10 would be a usefull feature but I would hesitate to regard it as a requirement.
It will be a while before we see any games using this make an appearance, but my point still stands.

RE: DirectX?
By wallijonn on 6/18/2007 7:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
Seeing as you came up with a totally unrealistic number of alienating 100,000,000 Vista users, I'll say, "as opposed to alienating 1 billion people who do not have Vista?"

Your best defense would be to say that since this is a new engine it is meant to be played on the newest and fastest hardware. Well, the newest and fastest hardware will necessitate "everybody" selling off their old DX9c rigs. Some of us aren't going to bother upgrading. And neither will be the people who play DX9c games on-line, since Vista will not presently allow them to play DX9 games. So if there are 1 billion people playing WoW, and it's DX9, then chances are that the next WoW will be DX9 because there is already an installed base.

Quick, How many Halo 2 copies have been sold?

RE: DirectX?
By AndreasM on 6/12/2007 4:31:06 PM , Rating: 2
Directx on Windows/Xbox360 of course, OGL in Mac/PS3/Linux(?). Though it doesn't matter much, the important code is shaders and should be easy to port between OGL and DX (AFAIK, haven't used OGL much myself).

RE: DirectX?
By heffeque on 6/12/2007 8:25:32 PM , Rating: 1
I still remember the old days when games had 3 engines for the same game: DirectX, OpenGL and Glide.

I wonder why Half Life 2's facial expressions are still 1000 times better than any power-hungry game made by Carmack. Just keep remembering how sh¡tty Doom3 was compared to HL2. I was like... "What's with those square heads and those extremely fake mouth movements when speaking?" I think that Carmack's engines are really overrated in so many ways...

RE: DirectX?
By Assimilator87 on 6/12/2007 11:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone who thinks Carmack will switch to DirectX is on crack. Why would he switch when he's been a vehement supporter of open source software for the longest time? With the soon to be released update to OpenGL 2 and OpenGL 3 on the horizon, there's absolutely no reason for Carmack to switch.

Link to OGL 3 info @ The Inquirer:

I have no idea how game engines work, but I don't see how the Doom 3 engine could be responsible for bad looking player models? Isn't it up to the game developer to make higher poly models and use better shaders and not just a limitation of the engine? If you think Doom 3 looks like crap then I don't even know how to describe Half-life 2. The textures are all low res with terrible bump mapping, the models look low poly, and the clipping shadows are just amateur. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but just because an engine is newer, does that automatically mean developing is far more complex just because there are more features available? I think the extra features would make it easier to make even a really basic looking games? Think about it. Would Half-life be easier to develope on the old Goldsource engine or the new Source engine?

RE: DirectX?
By heffeque on 6/13/2007 5:49:28 AM , Rating: 2
Who ever said anything about Carmack switching to DirectX? Are you on crack?

You don't see how the Doom 3 engine is responsible for bad looking player models and low poly count? Ok, I'll tell you: Doom 3's engine eats up an enormous amount of resources while not performing better graphics than HL2's engine, so basically you have to turn down the poly count to make it run on normal PCs. If an engine works better than another engine in low config PCs then you can crank up the poly count to make it look even better :-) It's not that complicated ;-)

And yes, most of the times a better engine means that it will be easier to develop with. Most of the advantages of DirectX 10 over DirectX 9 are not speed or new effects: the main advantage is that it's A LOT easier to develop games with Dx10 than Dx9 because the tools are a lot easier to use :-) If the tools are easier to use it means that programmers can spend more time doing good stuff than fixing broken stuff. Money can be spent on art instead of on hours of coding stuff that'll make the game work.

You have to walk away to see the forest ;-)

RE: DirectX?
By Assimilator87 on 6/13/2007 12:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
Quake Wars seems to be doing great things with the Doom 3 engine. I don't think the engine is that bad. Prey was absolutely gorgeous and it ran flawlessly on my Athlon XP @ 2.2Ghz and 128MB 6800.

RE: DirectX?
By heffeque on 6/13/2007 7:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
Try running Prey with an ATi 9600 non-pro. Then try playing Dark Messiah of Might and Magic with that same video card. Hardware requirements are definitely different. Not everyone has a 6800 in their computer ;-)

RE: DirectX?
By thebrown13 on 6/15/2007 12:24:17 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, Carmack probably won't switch to DX 10. And he'll go even further down the tubes because of it.

Learn to use the best tools available, and learn to support the maker of the best tools available.

RE: DirectX?
By eman 7613 on 6/19/2007 8:42:13 PM , Rating: 1
Your joking right? There is a reason why this guy is one of the best know players in realtime 3d graphics, and it isn't because he is spewing trash out of his mouth.

Learn to use the best tools available, and learn to support the maker of the best tools available.

Ehhem, your an idiot, he is currently MAKING one of the tools, that's what a 3d engine is. dx10 dose not make any game magically run pritier, or magically make things easier to do. It is a tool. If M$ provides a incredible sdk, and amazing support, then it may become the better tool for development. Since no one currently has a machine that can run dx10 (only a few cards out an no one seems to be able to get them working) dx10 is currently the worst tool, as 0 people can use the final product.

If Carmack delivers, and can produce everything that dx10 can do, and then goes and makes it easier to use, then Carmack now has the best tools available.

God, complete and total ignorance of the most basic subject really pushes my buttons. Go read a book and learn something for once.

I got my hopes up.
By kuyaglen on 6/12/2007 4:23:10 PM , Rating: 1
The Doom3 engine was done long before UE3 or the new Cry Engine. The demo to me was meh because it still looked "plasticy" like most of Doom3. The shadows were hard the dirt kicked up from the vehicles didn't look any different then what we've scene before. Hopefully the netcode is more robust. But with Unreal3, Crysis, Dirt, COD4 I'm not gonna be hurtin any for next gen games.

RE: I got my hopes up.
By saratoga on 6/12/2007 4:26:28 PM , Rating: 4
I have to agree. Crytek definitely launched first, and even after all this time, I tend to think they had the better looking engine (and certainly the better performing one).

I hope ID can do a little better this time around.

RE: I got my hopes up.
By Treckin on 6/12/2007 4:43:52 PM , Rating: 1
Your missing the point. It was not to show off new astehetic fourish - It was to display a stable engine in which all surfaces are rendered in 'game texture', meaning that whatever the distance, all objects receive the same resolution textures. That is why the said "this is about 20GB of texture files.
I would say that this engine will require some AF from hell to look great.

RE: I got my hopes up.
By saratoga on 6/12/2007 4:59:00 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, I misread that original post as comparing Doom3 to the original crytek engine.

RE: I got my hopes up.
By ncage on 6/12/2007 9:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot Duke Nukem FOREVER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I know its not an engine but sorry i had to throw that one out ;). I think i will be dead before it ever comes out LOL.

RE: I got my hopes up.
By xsilver on 6/16/2007 8:59:08 AM , Rating: 3
ncage wakes up in the morning to find a knife in his chest and a geek crying in the corner upon hearing that duke forever STILL isnt out! /joking

How nice.....
By kilkennycat on 6/12/2007 8:18:16 PM , Rating: 4
... more pretty graphics. Yawn.. Fancy graphics a complete game-engine does not make.

Where is the cutting-edge single-player AI, dear ole' JC promised us at the Game Developer's Conference aeons ago (3 years ago iirc)? Must have gone up in the smoke of his spaceships. No sign of it in Doom3, Quake 4 or any other Id game-engines. True open-area single-player 3d-gaming without deliberately-introduced "corridors" ( walls, cliffs etc) or invisible barriers DEMANDS first-class NON-SCRIPTED AI. Crytek and Epic have been channeling a huge amount of their recent gaming development intellectual horsepower into solving the AI problems in open-area go-anywhere gaming. And Bethesda no doubt will make further advances in this AI area on their upcoming Fallout3 title.

Give John C. and Id credit where credit is due... slick marketing of their game-engines. Not that there were many actual takers for the Doom3 engine.

I await Crysis and UT2007 (or whatever it is now called) for a true measure of the current state-of-the-art in computer game-engines, aware of multiprocessors and likely to have very decent physics-realism and single-player AI. As for perfectly-acceptable and immersive outdoor realism, try STALKER, GRAW 1 and 2 and even the very ageing Source (HL2) engine. Id has a whole lot of catching up to do in the world of 3D gaming, including hiring some decent story-writer and 3D level-designers ( cf: STALKER). The action gaming world has moved on from the mindless bang-bang-another-monster-is-dead, at least on the PC. Besides a first-class game-engine, a decent action story-line, innovative scenarios, creatively-conceived enemies, and a variety of tactics (including stealth) are now all part of the action-mix required to draw the 3d-action player in and guarantee reasonable sales.

RE: How nice.....
By Darth Meathead on 6/13/2007 3:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
Carmack would better off sticking to developing games for phones - I for one was bitterly disappointed with Doom 3

RE: How nice.....
By eman 7613 on 6/19/2007 8:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
the 3d graphics engines don't handle AI.... never has, not supposed to... thats why its 3D, not 0D

Raytracing anyone?
By DingieM on 6/13/2007 3:29:26 AM , Rating: 2
What about realtime raytracing?
With the current advances in parallelism for raytracing it is now much more doable to x-core hardware accelerators.
Basically with rayracing you get collision detection way "cheaper" than current implementations.

Also i'm worried with the super large textures, what happens with procedurally generated textures?

I wish the hardware and software industrie would go that way, that is progression.

Reading this article Carmack gives me the impression that he only tries to catch-up with the excellent UR3+ engine which is envolving continuesly.

RE: Raytracing anyone?
By PaxtonFettel on 6/13/2007 3:48:31 AM , Rating: 2
I think ther was a DT article about realtime raytracing a little while back. Basically it's still a few years off. Also, I do remember seeing a tech-demo, I think it was for Spore, in which procedural generation was mentioned almost every sentence, so that at least is not far off.

RE: Raytracing anyone?
By noirsoft on 6/13/2007 4:57:21 AM , Rating: 3
I don't see any reason why colliision would be cheaper with raytracing than with rendering. There was an article in a popular magazine recently (I forget which one) that made a bunch of grandiose predictions/comments about raytracing, nearly all of which were incorrect. Did you perhaps read that article?

The real difference between the two techniques is how the objects are turned into pixels. It has nothing to do with collision.

With (z-buffer) rendering it is roughly:
for each object/triangle, find its on-screen coordinates (pixel x, pixel y, depth) -- run shader on that pixel to get color, if its depth is closer than current value in depth buffer, write that pixel to color buffer and depth buffer.

for raytracing:
for each pixel on screen, shoot ray out and find closest object intersection. run shader for that point on surface.

Z-buffer Rendering has a lot more ways to leverage parallelism than raytracing, as well as more ability to optimize speed by (for example) sorting by shader so that you aren't constantly swapping out to a new shader on every object change, or depth sorting so you can early out (i.e. check Z-value before running shader and don't run shader if current object is farther away)

Raytracing has entirely different assumptions about how the scene is set up, and current graphics hardware is almost useless for accelerating raytracing. Without a major shift in how GPUs are made, z-buffer rendering will always be faster than raytracing.

Your comments about procedural stuff I won't comment on, since that is my research area and I am a bit biased towards it.

By TxJeepers on 6/12/2007 4:02:07 PM , Rating: 3
And again when it comes out Crytek, Source and others will have better engines. D3 was and is weak compared to the other engines of this day and age. I can only hope that this time around, they get it right.

RE: So
By Treckin on 6/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: So
By retrospooty on 6/12/2007 6:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno about that. I played games on all 3, and others and found the D3 engine (nevermind the game, it was boring) to be the best overall. There are positive aspects of each, but Carmack engines always just... play better.

Beauty in the eye of the beholder
By AndreasM on 6/12/2007 4:22:42 PM , Rating: 2
Even if this new engine is supposed to make things prettier, the guy in the picture is pretty ugly. :)

Big textures and shiny gfx are starting to get old, I wonder if this engine has any good AI, or even good physics? Doom 3 was pretty disappointing in that regard, as the physics and AI in it sucked. While these are features that engine licensees could create themselves, most would rather have them already included.

so that's what Carmack's been up to!
By yacoub on 6/12/2007 4:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
If only they could get the current game out the door before we start hearing how the engine it uses has been blown away.

This is great!
By Snowy on 6/13/2007 10:26:51 AM , Rating: 2
I think this is really a big step in the software industry. For the first time, we're now able to make everything unique. The ground, the walls, cars, almost every different object. I really think this is a really good thing that John has done. Now, some might say that it doesn't look as good as Unreal Tournament 3, but I think how everything is unique certainly makes up for that.

Game prices
By Setsunayaki on 6/16/2007 3:38:14 AM , Rating: 2
I consider 50 - 60 dollars to be high price for a game. This is what one pays for when one buys a game:

~Cover Art
~Instruction Manual
~Trailers (if any come with a game)
~The actual game itself
~The cost of the DVD Media for the game
~Ads that come with some games
~Game serial key
~Game packaging

The following is the reality of the situation. This is what we get:

~A game with bugs which require patching left and right.
~Sometimes an incomplete game that looks empty that actually REQUIRES an expansion to fix.
~Games that are technologically advanced to the point we would need to buy new processors and graphic cards to see everything and hear all where in some cases not even next generation technology gives you everything you can see and enjoy (Oblivion is an example of this)
~In consoles we end up paying $50 for games that have been on PC for 2 - 5 years or longer where the PC version price has dropped...Examples are everywhere....
~We buy games that have protections on them to the point we are FORCED to download cracks in order to actually play the game WITHOUT THE CD/DVD in the drive to prevent our DVD/CD from being scratched by our drives and when we actually do COPY our DVDs as we have a right to maintain one COPY for backup purposes of any media we buy....we are forced into using emulation and burning DVD/CDs in certain ways to get them to work. Our performance drops when running from the CD/DVD drive and the industry assumes that everyone is a pirate and the people who are NOT pirates are always hurt.
~Finally in the games that we do buy, in order to play them online, we have to pay for fast internet connections and fees. Some games in consoles force you to pay multiple fees...Example are Phantasy Star Universe gamers on Xbox360 that pay the money to buy Xbox live subscription and then pay the monthly fee to play the game online to sega.

When we speak of games, we only need the manual and the actual game itself....If Im going to be charged a lot, how about a deal? I'll pay $50 for a thoroughly tested and near-bug free game...

The last time I ever got a GOOD deal on any game was when I bought Unreal Tournament 2004. That game was $40 UPON RELEASE, came with a LOGITECH headset along with a game with many gametypes and options to allow many PCs to run it with playable framerates.

Another Decent Deal I got was on GUILD WARS....It was $40 when I bought it, but then to play PvP and be even.....I was forced into buying EXPANSIONS and then PvP got ruined by players who bought all the UNLOCKED SKILLS from arenanet, destroying PvP.

What I do now is wait one to two generations when a game is released (unless I really want it) where computer technology is cheaper and upgrades are less expensive. By then bugs have been fixed and its fun to play. Also modifications exist to keep me busy. Finally....The prices drop on the game I can buy a game that is patched and has a community and some long term reviews...In other words, I get more for less.

By Zensen on 6/16/2007 11:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
i dont play games and get ripped off by game companies who seem to just rehash old ideas and its everest of high gaming requirements leading onto pc prices that can overwhelm most people. im not talking about the more money than brains people here :)

then you got consoles and that extra charge - has it always been like that? i dont remember that during the snes days but i do realise i couldn't buy games freely being a young'n. but consoles in those days weren't selling as a loss as far as i know.

justifying how many hours it works to be in regards to price doesn't necessarily mean you are getting a bargain. yer still getting it up the rear end no matter which light you look at it :) Then again i think some australians would prefer to pay that 50 dollars US than the rip off prices here.

If this 3d engine makes it easier and more accessible for devs then im all for it esp with the wait times for people anticipating future games. You get old very quickly waiting for the next best greatest thing :)

By spacebar on 6/13/07, Rating: -1
"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki