Slashdot Mirror
Doom 3 vs. Source: Comparing Engines
Tom V. writes "DevMaster.net has an article that outlines some of the technical differences between Half-life 2's Source and Doom 3 engines from various game development aspects such as graphics, A.I., physics, networking, etc. According to the author, the winner is the Source engine based on its 'completeness' as a game development package. However, in terms of graphics, the clear winner is Doom 3."
I really hate when people complain about the darkness in Doom 3. You do not deserve to play this game if you do not know there are two settings called gamma and brightness that can be adjusted on your monitor or in the Nvidia/ATI control panel.
The thing that gets me is that Counter-Strike wasn't developed by Valve.
Those who want to see how well Doom 3 can pull off Half-Life 2 style environments should check out the Doom 3 Can Do It Too project. I don't think they have a site but their forum is on http://doom3world.org. Anyway, if you just want to see results here's their latest video: http://www.pcgamemods.com/9875/ (still a work in progress, obviously)
>>This should probably read "pre-computed radiance transfer." It's pre-baked radiosity, cooked as a variant on spherical harmonic lightmap encoding.
Whereas Doom3 has no radiosity at all. No line of site to the light source, no light. Pitch black. Levels were very carefully designed to make this flaw less obvious.
>>In other words: no real-time lighting, just PRT, faked dynamic lights (which EVERY other game does) and projective shadows.
Whoa there trigger. There is real-time lighting. It just isn't universal and unified like Doom3.
>>There is also no real HDR (high dynamic range) rendering in Source, just the same clever faking everyone else has.
The HDR rendering isn't enabled in HL2. It's seen only in an engine demo movie. Far Cry is the only game I'm aware of that has HDR currently.
>>The big point that is NOT mentioned in the article is performance. Anyone who has played a lot of HL2 and CS:S can tell you that Source is just sloppy, on any hardware configuration. It is prone to periodic chugging, studders, fps drops from particle effects and physics lag online, etc.
I've played a fair amount. It runs just fine for me. Everyone I've talked to with stutter/chugging problems has had their settings TOO HIGH for their equipment. They think they don't, but the fact that it stutters (where mine doesn't) says otherwise.
>>Valve apparently can not compete in the brainpower department.
Credibility? Gone.
It's understandable to have a personal preference, but try not to let it upset you so much when someone disagrees.
For those that are interested, you can find the project here:
The D3CDIT Project
The latest Test-Build Video can be found here:
Latest Video
And finally, for those that wish to try it out for themselves, the latest build can be found here:
Latest Build
John Carmack admitted that the Doom 3 was so dark because the game couldn't handle light on the engine level. There is, apparently, some pixel bleed-through and seaming of textures when light-entities are placed more generously. He said, on his blog I think, that he essentially made a game to suit the engine, but that the engine would develop with each new game release
Unfortunately, I do not have a link on-hand.