Slashdot Mirror
Carmack's QuakeCon Keynote Detailed
TheRaindog writes "In addition to announcing the Quake III source code's impending release, John Carmack's QuakeCon 2005 keynote also covered the programmer's thoughts on Microsoft and Sony's next-gen consoles, physics acceleration in games, and what he'd like to see from new graphics hardware."
http://www.filerush.com/download.php?target=QuakeC onCarmackKeynote.zip
The actual keynote speech
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
I was a bit taken aback by Carmack's opposition to procedural textures. No, they can't do everything but they can be real timesavers when you need to add some overall realistic looking details. Things like dirt, "roughness" and stains can be done effectively using Brownian noise and the like, and you've got the infinite resolution, low-memory features of procedurally generated data. It's efficient and looks good, especially when I used it to create realistic terrain.
Of course procedural textures can never replace hand-painted detail, but layering on some infinite-resolution noise-detail onto a finite sized bitmap texture really brings materials to life.
Lets talk about Jon Carmack. Jon is the legendary programmer of such classic PC games as Wolfenstein, Doom, Duke nukem 3d, Quake 1, 2, and 3, unreal, and the upcoming doom3. Jon has single handedly created the genre known as the first-person-shooter. He has also popularized the OpenGL 3d format over Microsoft's competing Direct3d format, as well as caused public interest in 3d cards when he first released accelerated quake for the s3 virge chipset. Jon carmack has redefined gaming on PC's.
Now stop for a moment and think, What would have happened if Albert Einstein had worked creating amazing pinball games instead of creating the theory of relativity? Humanity would suffer! Jon carmack is unfortunately doing JUST THIS, using his gifts at computer coding to create games instead of furthering the knowledge of humanity. Carmack could have been working for NASA or the US military, but instead he simply sits around coding violent computer games.
Is this a waste of a special and rare talent? Sadly, the answer is yes.
Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Not only is Jon carmack not contributing to society, he is causing it's downfall. What was the main reason for the mass murder of dozens of people in columbine? Doom. It's always the same story: Troubled youth plays doom or quake, he arms himself to the teeth, he kills his classmates. This has happened hundreds of times in the US alone. Carmack is not only wasting his talents and intelligence; he is single-handedly causing the deaths of many young men and women. How does he sleep at night?
Carmack is a classic example of a very talented and intelligent human being that is bent on total world destruction. Incredibly, he has made millions of dollars getting people hooked on psychotic games where they compete on the internet to see who can dismember the most people. I believe there is something morally wrong when millions of people have computerized murder fantasies, and we have Jon Carmack to thank. Carmack has used his superior intellect to create mayhem in society. Many people play games such as quake so much that their minds are permanently warped. A cousin of mine has been in therapy for 6 months after he lost a 'death match' and became catatonic.
It is unfortunate that most people do not realize how much this man has damaged all the things we have worked hard for in America. Jon has wasted his intelligence, caused the deaths of innocent children, and warped this country forever. To top it off, he got rich in the process and is revered by millions of computer users worldwide. Perhaps one day the US government will see the light and confine Jon Carmack somewhere with no computers so he can no longer use his intelligence to wreak havoc on society.
Although Mr.Carmack says physics in game engines isn't easily scalable for level of detail, there is ongoing research about this producing good results. I remember a video from last years SIGGRAPH that had hundreds of plastic chairs falling from the sky, and bouncing realistically. The important part was it employed a level-of-detail hierarchy for interacting parts (i.e. an object doesn't have much physical detail if you don't touch it), but it will be some time before we can see such techniques in real time games.
Carmack doesn't deisgn games, he makes engines. Doom and Quake are tech demos for whatever his latest engine is. If you buy an id game expecting it to be anything else, you're doomed to disappointment. Even Id doesn't claim its anything else.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
I found his views on dual core processers fascinating. Until now I had always believed they could give major boosts in performance in games as soon as the developers made their games multi-threaded. Maybe I should put off buying that dual-core cpu for a bit longer.
His love for graphics is nice, but pity he lack s physics programming skills :)
That's why Jan Paul van Waveren takes care of it, in Doom 3 etc. Physics Middleware will be of big importance for next-gen consoles, and it will rock the world :)
http://www.continuousphysics.com/Bullet/phpBB2/ind ex.php
Carmack was less pleased with the PowerPC processors for the new consoles, questioning the choice of an in-order CPU architecture. He estimated the console CPUs' performance at about 50% that of a modern x86 processor
0 -2.ars
:)
Finally, proof that Apple is over priced, under powered hardware.
Why does Carmack hate Apple so much?
Read up on the flavor of PPC that is in the XBOX 360...
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/xbox36
It's far different from the G4 and G5 that Apple currently uses.
BTW, if Apple loved PPC so much, why did they announce the switch to Pentium M ?
> ...as soon as the developers made their games multi-threaded
:)
This is considerably more difficult than one would think. Games typically have to perform tasks in a particular order, for example (extremely simplified): get inputs, move player, move AI players, move other objects, check for collisions, update parameters, display the next frame, loop.
Quite where we add this 2nd thread is difficult. Everything must happen in the same order in order for things like collision detection to function correctly. If we start a second thread to, say, calculate AI decisions and move the AI characters according to those decisions, we have to wait for that thread to complete before we can display the next frame. So it ends up that there are no advantages to utilising that second thread.
Now, I'm sure there are game developers on here who know how to utilise threads in games in a successful way. It'd be cool if one of them could inform the rest of us what the heck we're supposed to be doing with them
"You heard the man, Tubbs.. get undressed."
Good news, Carmack is a programer not a game designer.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Ok, I'll feed you little troll....
Carmack came out against the current crop of PowerPC CPU's to be used in the X360 and PS3 that are very different from the CPU's that Apple have been using in their PowerPC based computers. The PPC's in the consoles do not support out of order execution and a raft of other features. IBM have designed simpler cores that are being packaged on multi-core chips that can be run quicker and in parallel.
Carmack has plenty to bash Apple for in regard to their OpenGL implementation I'm sure - just browse the Apple developers OpenGL mailing list sometime.
It's worth pointing out that he doesn't design games because he's a renderer/technology programmer. Id (id? iD?) Software will have designers responsible for designing the gameplay and so on.
JC isn't really responsible for the shortcomings of the games *as games*, except in as much as the ability of the engines he makes for them limits & influences gameplay decisions by those designers...
Game dev and music blog
Personally I think you are a moron, because if you paid £1000 to get 30fps in 800x600, you obviously went to PC world.
"Ladies and Gentlemen,
Yes, things related to the drawing and basic movement of the character need to be done in sync in the main thread. However, the higher level reasoning of the AI can be done completely in a seperate thread.
Think of how multiplayer is done today. Low level stuff, including how the acutal character movements are done, are handled by the main rendering thread. But all the high-level decisions (where the player goes, does he shoot or duck, etc.) are done by seperate threads (the player's brains). It's not really any different with AI NPCs.
And obviously the open source physics engines: ODE (ode.org) Bullet and free (but not open source) Newton (http://www.physicsengine.com/) Tokamak http://www.tokamak.com/ and others.
- Add to unprocessed que
- Grep for coded expressions
- add symbol to character action queue
Thread 2: Charactor Thread- read action queue
- publish action
- recieve reaction
- update state
Thread 3-100: AI Threads- Read viewable universe state
- Process against goals
- publish action
- recieve reaction
- update state
Please don't read this too literally, it only a slashdot post, but this is meta-outline of how I'd start thinking about the game universe in a multi cpu system. Of course it would run like shit on a single CPU (all those context switches (ugh)), but it would really utilize a multicore system.Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
Carmack was commenting on hardware vendors believing that more cores, more cpus, more hardware is good. But for the DEVELOPMENT OF A GAME in a GOOD AND REASONABLE TIME using a SIMPLE, ELEGANT, AND FAST METHODOLOGY, adding more cores and more cpus and more accelerators intruduces more places where bugs and glitches can occur, and thats only after you figure out a nice design, which will take longer to do and therefore cost more to make. It complicates things which shouldn't need to be. Not all companies want to introduce 3rd party code into their games for various reasons and you should not assume that everyone wants to.
Quite where we add this 2nd thread is difficult. Everything must happen in the same order in order for things like collision detection to function correctly.
Not neccesarily. One big problem with games is that the typical order (beginscene/render/endscene/present) is implemented with a busy-wait loop in the present part. This is the part where all data has been sent to the graphics card and the driver waits in a loop until it gets a 'scene completed' message from the card. This is why games always run at 100% CPU.
Games that don't use threading well (only threading for network/input/sound) put stuff in the loop you describe. Draw a scene, the driver waits for an 'OK', then you update the player, update the AI characters, do collision, calculate all new positions and start drawing. Because the drawing takes eg. 10 ms per frame for 100 FPS developers limit the AI/collision part to run in something like 1 ms or else the frame rate starts dropping. So the real AT would be limited to say 10% of the CPU time.
For example the 'move AI' part could be a bunch of threads, calculating new positions based on direction, collision etc.
Right now games like DOOM3 typically only display a few NPC's at the same time because of the timing problem. If the move AI thread can just keep running on the second CPU while the first CPU waits within the driver a game could support a few 100 enemies on-screen.
Strategy games with complicated pathfinding with hundreds of units on-screen like Warcraft 3 or Age of Mythology would profit enormously, if programmed for multithreading.
I perfectly understand what you say. And I discussed with Carmack over email a few month ago, exactly about this topic. It doesn't mean I agree. First of all, graphics is already heavily parallel, but in this case it is handled purely inside the hardware. For physics, this can be too, but he argues about the fallback path. Not only consoles are choosing multi-core. Even Intel and Apple are going the multi-core direction, for a good reason I think. I think it just frighens more game developers to jump on the next-gen multi-code machines. Instead of moaning, its better to just prove him wrong. Half Life 2 had some good physics, I think that is the way to go.
same here - Firefox 1.0.6 runnning on 2.6.12-gentoo-r4 crashes as soon as I click the link.
Carmack's other wish-list item was that some attention be paid to the problems with handling small batches of data on today's GPUs. He said the graphics companies' typical answers to these problems, large batches and instancing, don't make for great games.
John Carmack's past pleas for graphics hardware changes have led to a number of developments, including the incorporation of floating-point color formats into DirectX 9-class graphics chips. We'll have to watch and see how the graphics companies address these two problems over the next couple of years.
These are topics that the whole graphics industry acknowledges. While he is wise to focus on these as core issues, I'm not sure if I would say that the industry responded to his plea when these things get addressed.
One other thing that I'm a little confused by is why game developers always seem to think multithreading games is going to be nearly impossible to take advantage of in the near term. I admit it won't be a piece of cake and there will be evil bugs, but I don't see it as this big mystery. It will be more work, but it seems with some thought it can be handled fairly nicely on first generation games of next gen consoles. If I were to tackle the problem I would not break up the rendering into separate threads since this is just going to be trouble, but I would reduce rendering to truely only do the rendering which some developers seem to get confused. I would make one or more physics threads, one or more AI threads, a sound thread, a rendering thread, a resource managment thread, and perhaps a culling thread which assisted the VPU with geometry occlusion if the CPU is ahead of the VPU. I'd also put in a semaphore queue mechanism so some of these could get a frame or two ahead without syncing.
That said I'm not a game developer so perhaps I'm just missing something. If that's the case please enlighten me.
Motion blur can be added quite easily now with todays graphics cards, before they were seen as too costly in terms for what they gave, which was just a bit of eye candy.
Project offset have really nice motion blur in. There is a techdemo video of it in action too.
Dude, have you played ANY iD game since Quake 1? They're all tech demos for new engines, that's all they ever have been. Carmack has admitted on serveral occassions that he thinks story and such don't belong in games, that they're a waste of time and effort. iD does NOT make games, they make the next level of graphics engines.
You spent over a thousand pounds for a system that would only run the game at 800x600? What did you do, crank AA and AF to max and set the detail level to "Ultra"? I played on Ultra with AA and AF set to a middle setting and I got a solid 25-30FPS on a machine that was a year old. Either you got ripped off by a retailer, or you don't know jack shit about what parts to buy.
Your problem is you have your OWN head so far up your ass you aren't able to read/hear what Carmack himself is saying. If you did, you'd know they're about the engines and they let OTHER companies take the engines to make good games. Quake 4 is being done by Raven. Raven did amazing things with the Quake 3 engine in the Jedi Knight games, they're going to be the ones to take the new engine and turn it into an actual game.
Thanks for trolling.
Although Mr.Carmack says physics in game engines isn't easily scalable for level of detail, there is ongoing research about this producing good results. I remember a video from last years SIGGRAPH that had hundreds of plastic chairs falling from the sky, and bouncing realistically. The important part was it employed a level-of-detail hierarchy for interacting parts (i.e. an object doesn't have much physical detail if you don't touch it), but it will be some time before we can see such techniques in real time games.
I think you're misunderstanding his point. When he talks about level-of-detail, this has more to do with game design than with algorithms. What he's claiming is that detailed physics has much more of an effect on actual gameplay than detailed rending does, and that it's harder to write a game which graceful downgrades the player's physical interaction with the world. But a graceful downgrading is necessary for people who don't have a fancy physics-accelerating card.
For example, you can take an older game and change its appearance by giving it higher resolution textures, more detailed meshes for the AI models etc., without having to redesign the actual gameplay. (e.g., the SHTUP and Rebirth mods for System Shock 2).
These steps are independent of each other and independent of the rest of the game. They can simply be dropped in, or not. The point is that if it's that straightforward to take a game forward in technology, it's even easier to go in reverse. So the player can choose low texture detail, etc., and the game may look worse, but it will still play the same.
The game physics on the other hand has historically been more closely connected to the way the player interacts with the world.. so it has a big effect on level design. If Half-Life 2 had a 'simple physics' option that would somehow revert the game physics to something equivalent to the physics in the original Half-Life (ignoring aside the difficulty in implementing such an option) then some areas would have to be substantially redesigned so that they would remain playable for people using the simple physics.
This is of course what he means by peripheral elements "such as flowing water" being accelerated. But I have two criticisms of this.
1) Yes, physics acceleration may affect mainly peripheral elements of the game. But in some ways, the same could be said about improved textures, filtering, etc. If it's done well, it can significantly improve the overall experience. If it's done poorly, the player will hardly notice.
2) As long as it's an upgrade of the basic design, it will probably be okay to let it affect critical elements as well. E.g.: due to the engine upgrade in the port of Half-Life to the Source engine, movable crates and such have a more realistic response than in the original implementation. It's not a big improvement, since the levels were really designed with that in mind. But it doesn't hurt.
For me, the real question is whether improved physics would really make a game more enjoyable. I think this depends more on graphics than on anything else. As objects are made to look more realistic, it becomes more satisfying for them to have real-seeming interactions.
If graphics get much better, accelerated physics will be important. But if for some reason graphics tend to stabilize (due to the end of Moore's Law, long load times caused by slow disk access, or whatever), then the usefulness of improving game physics is more questionable.
It's already available since at least yesterday. QuakeIII source
Uh, where?
You do realise that "Game Source" means the game rules / mod source and not the Quake III engine source? Is there a Quake III download marked "Quake III Source (GPL)" yet like the other two?
256 MB RAM is definitely not enough for games with demand for such extreme graphics and realism (did he say physics?)!
I doubt that the next generation games will look like movies; except for some graphic demos like the Unreal Engine 3.
Here's an old quote from Tim Sweeney:
"Off-the-shelf 32-bit Windows can only tractably access 2GB of user RAM per process. UT2003, which shipped in 2002, installed more than 2GB of data for the game, though at that time it was never all loaded into memory at once. It doesn't exactly take a leap of faith to see scenarios in 2005-2006 where a single game level or visible scene will require >2GB RAM at full detail."
http://www.beyond3d.com/interviews/sweeneyue3/
So let's wait and see how XBOX 360 and PS3 will fare...
If only there was some way for you to be able to decide not to buy Carmack's games.
But I guess that's just impossible.
Is this the KDE project's competitor to Microsoft OneNote or something?
The role of the writer is not to say what we can all say, but what we are unable to say. -Anais Nin
dunno. doom was one excellent game and quake was fun online.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Thread 3-100: AI Threads
1. Read viewable universe state
I think that would introduce all of the issues multiplayer games have with network lag right into the game engine. If the AI characters aren't all working from the same data set (because it's changing while they're "thinking,") you're bound to have some pretty weird and difficult-to-debug timing issues. Even simple single-threaded code has a lot of wacky and unpredictable timing behavior on a PC, compared to actual real-time systems or purpose-built gaming consoles. This would make those timing issues much, much worse.
Carmack is a very smart guy. He addressed this sort of issue publicly in his finger journals (back before anyone said "blog") when he was trying to develop a version of Quake III that took advantage of multiple processors. Certain things in a game loop just have to be synchronized, and that causes bottlenecks that multiple processors can't help with.
If it were possible to write explicitly parallel code for dual-core CPUs, that could be a very different story. But it would also negate the advantage dual-core is supposed to provide, so the heck with it.
Pssst...nobody has dev kits for the nintendo revolution yet so it will be pretty hard to comment on how good/bad it is.
Jon is the legendary programmer of such classic PC games as Wolfenstein, Doom, Duke nukem 3d,
Ken Silverman created the Build engine for Duke Nukem 3D, not Carmack. In fact, Carmack has never worked for 3D Realms.
Just a minor detail, everything else I can't speak about.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Yes but can you image coding that in C? It would be a freakin' nightmare. I think that's John's real problem with threads and multi-core systems. It's probably why he's also down on ps3... for that you basically have to write small independent modules that work well in parallel; it's kinda the origami mindset... a Japanese developer might develop a beautiful, self-contained, self-directed NCP for ps3 whereas John's western mindset would make a page of AI code that gets everything sorta-ok.
What's needed for next-gen game programming is something like Java, where threads and game logic is ridiculously simple, but with the ability to micro-manage time slices and data formats. AFAIK a language like that doesn't exist yet. What's clear to me though is that if we start getting 4+ cpu machines game programming will be done in something besides C and C++, whatever that may be.
Oh good. So Carmack ISN'T the one obsessed with satanism. It's someone else at Id. For a longest time, I figured he sold his soul to be the great coder that he is.
"In Ultra quality, we load each texture; diffuse, specular, normal map at full resolution with no compression. In a typical DOOM 3 level, this can hover around a whopping 500MB of texture data. This will run on current hardware but obviously we cannot fit 500MB of texture data onto a 256MB card and the amount of texture data referenced in a give scene per frame ( 60 times a second ) can easily be 50MB+. This can cause some choppiness as a lot of memory bandwidth is being consumed. It does however look fantastic and it is certainly playable on high end systems but due to the hitching that can occur we chose to require a 512MB Video card before setting this automatically.
High quality uses compression ( DXT1,3,5 ) for specular and diffuse and no compression for normal maps. This looks very very close to Ultra quality but the compression does cause some loss."
The other option to keep some armchair graphics guru's obliviously quiet was to just never offer this ultra option, instead just compressing some lighting effects and no one would notice. BUT, because id does put a graphics setting in the options that people can see and it's called, "ultra" they are convinced they are missing something and spew their expert opions on how unreasonable id is.
In response id and companies like them can market themselves better. First, simply don't tell you about the compression of certin aspects of the graphics engine and give you an option that's called Super Ultra Mega Fantastic Quality. The lesson here is don't give more options but give less. Market your target audience with feel good language so they percieve a higher level of satisfaction instead of a percieved underachievement of some graphical utopia they can never quantify anyway.
Me? I'll take more options and disclosure rather than a marketing feel good approach.