A Very Detailed Dissection of a Frame From DOOM (adriancourreges.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Very Detailed Dissection of a Frame From DOOM (adriancourreges.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday September 11, 2016 @01:34PM from the weaponizing-demons-for-a-brighter-tomorrow dept.

DOOM 2016 "cleverly re-uses old data computed in the previous frames...1331 draw calls, 132 textures and 50 render targets," according to a new article which takes a very detailed look at the process of rendering one 16-millisecond frame. An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: The game released earlier this year uses the Vulkan API to push graphics quality and performance at new levels. The article sheds light on rendering techniques, mega-textures, reflection computation... all the aspects of a modern game engine.
Some of the information came from "The Devil is in the Details," a July presentation at the SIGGRAPH 2016 conferences on graphics by Tiago Sousa, id's lead renderer programmer, and senior engine programmer Jean Geffroy. (And there's also more resources at the end of the article, including a July interview with five id programmers by Digital Foundry.) "Historically id Software is known for open-sourcing their engines after a few years, which often leads to nice remakes and breakdowns," the article notes. "Whether this will stand true with id Tech 6 remains to be seen but we don't necessarily need the source code to appreciate the nice graphics techniques implemented in the engine."

113 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

No Carmack? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 13:41 · Score: -1

Is he too old to program now?
1. Re: No Carmack? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 13:42 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Carmack is at Oculus now...
2. Re:No Carmack? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 13:44 · Score: 0
  
  Carmack is a Facebook employee now.
  Lol!!!!
3. Re:No Carmack? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 13:48 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Too busy serving VR ads for FaceFuck these days. He's joined Jewbag Fuckerberg's borg collective.
4. Re:No Carmack? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 14:38 · Score: -1
  
  Better than an alt-right fag like you.
5. Re:No Carmack? by antdude · 2016-09-11 15:02 · Score: 2
  
  Nope. He pursued in other projects. Not everyone does the same thing forever.
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
6. Re: No Carmack? by Pseudonym · 2016-09-11 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  Which means probably no more GPL releases.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
7. Re:No Carmack? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 17:01 · Score: 0
  
  Better than an alt-right fag like you.
  You people keep trying to make that a buzzword, but the alternative to "alt-right" is RINO (the corrupt fuckers you all complain about.)
8. Re: No Carmack? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 18:00 · Score: -1
  
  He never was any good at it to begin with, considering what other game devs had accomplished back then.
9. Re: No Carmack? by Lisandro · 2016-09-11 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  He never was any good at it to begin with, considering what other game devs had accomplished back then.
  Who? Specific examples, please.
10. Re: No Carmack? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 22:16 · Score: 0
  
  Just look at what LGS guys did back then. Ultima Underworld had dynamic lighting, physics and real 3D POV, but it wasn't an ego shooter, so not many seem to have noticed.
11. Re: No Carmack? by Lisandro · 2016-09-11 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  UU was indeed impressive... until Doom was released, which happened less than a year later.
  To this day I can't believe there's people trying to downplay Carmack's contribution to 3D development and gaming in general.
12. Re: No Carmack? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 22:51 · Score: 0
  
  Downplaying? No, I'm just pointing out that most of the fame comes from the gameplay, which is quite simplistic, but apparently effective, not outstanding engine tech. What Mahk et al. did on Thief, for example, *was* outstanding in both ways.
13. Re: No Carmack? by hairyfeet · 2016-09-12 00:05 · Score: 0
  
  And what good did they do? Is the world really gonna miss another 30 bad Quake III Arena CTF/DM knock offs?
  To me the ID Tech engines being GPLed was a perfect example of how the "blessed trinity" of GPL, selling support, selling hardware, or eBegging, simply do not work for the vast majority of software and thus under GPL they simply would not exist. These engines have been GPLed for years....so where is the GPLed game on the level of Bioshock? Hell can you show me one even up to the level of Far Cry which was released in 2003?
  They don't exist because of the simple fact that the blessed trinity does not work for the majority of software and therefor wouldn't exist because the trinity wouldn't allow them to be funded. this is why you have no GPLed programs that can compete on features and UI with the version of Photoshop from a decade ago, or a Quicken/Quickbooks replacement that can even do a twentieth of what they can, why your camera software and screen capture software is so primitive and buggy, its because these and literally thousands of other pieces of software one can take for granted on proprietary systems simply cannot exist under GPL because of the trinity model simply not working out of the server and embedded space.
  So you can give up on getting anything the quality of a triple A title, despite the game engines being handed over for free, and Linux desktops will always be far behind the curve compared to Apple and MSFT, the blessed trinity simply will not allow the funding of these to occur so all you get is a billion cheap Q III knock offs because all they have to do is reskin it and make some maps...its sad but as long as the majority of software cannot be written under GPL and still allow the devs to pay their bills? Its simply never gonna get any better.
  This is why I've argued for years that "the source is free, distribution is not" should be the de facto model for software, but its been made abundantly clear that the community doesn't care how poor a quality or lack of variety they get in software as long as they don't have to pay for it, but what has it gotten you? MSFT puts out 3 stinkers in a row and you gain not a single point and the quality of software isn't any better or any closer to feature parity than it was a decade ago. And it will stay this way as long as the GPL insures that the majority of software simply cannot be written while keeping the devs from starving.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
14. Re: No Carmack? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  Correction: the model does not work for developers who want to keep their source closed (which most commercial ones do).
  There are a number of GPL success stories like Blender, which is a very powerful product, widely used, and still in active development.
15. Re:No Carmack? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  Well you guys objected when we called you nazi scum, so we had to think up a new name...
16. Re: No Carmack? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  Who the hell has seriously thought AAA video games could come out of open source volunteers and the only barrier was the engine? Sounds like arguing with idiots or a strawman. The difficult part with producing modern large games has for a long time been the art resources. The games that cost millions of dollars to produce spend most of that money on an army of artists and a very small number of engine programmers. Similarly some solid open source engines have popped up on their own from hobby programmers, as the engine, while somewhat difficult, is not the resource intensive part of a game. Open source engines are useful for simpler, free games that don't need a lot of art and where the engine would otherwise be the main barrier, and for helping small game businesses start up that can afford a couple artists but not multiple programmers.
17. Re: No Carmack? by 110010001000 · 2016-09-12 01:53 · Score: 2
  
  This is true for some software, but not all. Not all types of software are equal. Games take a lot of money and people to produce. It is unlikely that "free" software will succeed in that area. However for IMPORTANT software, the GPL works because there is some funding available. There is one saving grace here: digital computers are not going to improve at the same rate they have in the past. The AAA titles you play now will be very similar to the ones you play 10 years from now, simply because processor speed isn't increasing at a high rate.
18. Re: No Carmack? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  However for IMPORTANT software
  Is there software more important than games? I can't imagine what it could be.
19. Re: No Carmack? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  I'm a Linux sysadmin, and I don't think that trinity you described really even works for server software. The software I deal with might be open, free, and good enough for their intended purpose, but they all have problems - and no pressure from competition or sales to improve. In my opinion, "smart people" in IT prop up free software more than they should. Nobody should just settle on "well Apache's good enough". Apache is Apache, and it can stay that way, but I want more competition and who's going to compete with free, decent software?
20. Re: No Carmack? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 02:56 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody should just settle on "well Apache's good enough". Apache is Apache, and it can stay that way, but I want more competition and who's going to compete with free, decent software?
  Yeah, but Apache was based on NCSA HTTP server, which was limited to non-commercial use unless you purchased a commercial license from U of Illinois.
  Apache is a good example of open source improving on a commercial product.
21. Re: No Carmack? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 04:01 · Score: 0
  
  Mahk is that you? Shut the fuck up already.
22. Re:No Carmack? by aristotle-dude · 2016-09-12 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well you guys objected when we called you nazi scum, so we had to think up a new name...
  National SOCIALIST WORKER PARTY is right wing now? All regimes with NAZI tactics and behaviours so far in the past have been socialist. Are you confusing fascists (Italian) with the NAZI? The latter grew out of the union movement and first met in gay bars. Hitler was being given female hormones by his doctor.
  
  --
  Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
23. Re: No Carmack? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  Cry me a river, Romero!
24. Re: No Carmack? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 08:22 · Score: 0
  It seems that you assume that the only value of these releases would be the creation of new games with them.
  I see two valuable things to come out of this, regardless of them not being used for any significant new games:
  The engine of these games is being forward-ported to new platforms that id never targeted, allowing the content to be enjoyed on a wider variety of software platforms than before. This is likely to continue for as long as suitable target platforms exist.
  Many people have enjoyed learning how these engines worked, and I would be surprised if some of these people have not gone on to enter the games industry themselves having studied and experimented with these older engines. New development always stands on the shoulders of what came before it, whether it be in terms of actual code (not in this case) or in terms of ideas and techniques that become the foundation of the next step in innovation.
25. Re: No Carmack? by Pseudonym · 2016-09-12 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  The hardest and most expensive part of making a AAA-level game isn't the engine, it's the art assets and (to a slightly lesser extent) the gameplay code.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
And Grand Theft Auto V and Supreme Commander... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 13:57 · Score: 5, Informative

The same site also posted detailed looks at Grand Theft Auto V, Supreme Commander, and Deux Ex: Human Revolution earlier this year.
1. Re:And Grand Theft Auto V and Supreme Commander... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 13:58 · Score: -1
  
  And just 5 minutes ago you finished sucking a dick behind a Starbucks.
2. Re:And Grand Theft Auto V and Supreme Commander... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 14:15 · Score: -1
  
  The question begs asking then, why do you like watching people suck dick?
Wow. by basecastula+ · 2016-09-11 14:23 · Score: 2

Very detailed indeed. Definitely over my head.
1. Re:Wow. by donaldm · 2016-09-11 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  Very detailed indeed. Definitely over my head.
  Reading the article for the first time it was definitely over my head but I have played the PS4 Doom demo. Normally I dislike FPS games and especially multiplayer ones, but with Doom I actually found the story mode (What story? Just kill daemons) great fun to play.
  
  --
  There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
2. Re:Wow. by aliquis · 2016-09-11 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  Reading the article for the first time it was definitely over my head but I have played the PS4 Doom demo. Normally I dislike FPS games and especially multiplayer ones, but with Doom I actually found the story mode (What story? Just kill daemons) great fun to play.
  Shadow warrior next?
  (Support Rise of the triad too ;D)
A day late and a dollar short by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 15:03 · Score: -1

Slashdot, for gaming news I already read on HardOCP yesterday.
Not really groundbraking by gTsiros · 2016-09-11 15:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

This kind of tricks were more popular in the older days when you couldn't even wipe a screenful of data in one frame-time, much less render a frame in a straightforward matter
Today most coders rely on hadware speed to get away with things
Go code a realtime 60fps game on a 4 MHz cpu with a 15-cycle byte read from memory, you'll have to figure out the weirdest shit
compiled sprites, software pipelining, incremental rendering...

--
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
1. Re:Not really groundbraking by Lunix+Nutcase · 2016-09-11 16:05 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Cool story, gramps. Need someone to come over and reattach the onions to your belt?
2. Re: Not really groundbraking by gTsiros · 2016-09-11 16:12 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I have a small shell script that does it for me
  now get off my subnet
  (i'm 36...)
  (and i missed an 'e')
  
  --
  Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
3. Re:Not really groundbraking by UnknownSoldier · 2016-09-11 18:21 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  > compiled sprites,
  You used to hang out on rec.games.programmer in the 90's as well ? :-)
  90% of the /. readers probably don't even have a clue what that is. :-/
  Ah, the days of self-modifying code to get high performance ...
4. Re:Not really groundbraking by UnknownSoldier · 2016-09-11 18:35 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You'll probably enjoy this ... it shows how SQ3 rendered a frame piece by piece
  Space Quest III art timelapse
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
5. Re:Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 18:35 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Cool story, gramps.
  Far cooler than anything you have had to say. Ever.
  
  Need someone to come over and reattach the onions to your belt?
  Need someone to come over and teach you how to shut the fuck up when the grownups are talking?
  Your manners are sorely lacking, you little twit.
  Yes, I am being rude on purpose. It's the only language little shitstains like you understand.
6. Re:Not really groundbraking by blocked_lol · 2016-09-11 18:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I can't tell if you're complimenting the Doom 2016 programmers or trying to say this stuff is easy compared to Back In The Day.
  I *can* tell you that this stuff is not easy *at all*, and the fact that the game gets such good performance across such a wide range of hardware, while still maintaining a high level of visual fidelity on lower end machines, is impressive in its own right.
  That they put in the effort to write a Vulkan renderer is itself proof that they're trying to squeeze as much performance out as possible, and not just lazily relying on the hardware to make up for slow/lazy/incompetent programming.
7. Re:Not really groundbraking by Sowelu · 2016-09-11 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  That's a huge mindtrip. Why on earth did they store it like that I wonder? I would have assumed that RLE was been more efficient in space and render speed! I could see that being a format that the artists used for work in progress, but why use that in the final version? I'm incredibly curious now.
8. Re: Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  It's the only language they've heard, so that's what they learn and repeat. It's a positive feedback loop, and you're one half of it. You're also the one best equipped to break it, as you are the more mature one (hopefully).
9. Re: Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  Guess: vectors take up even less space, and can be scaled at no extra cost.
10. Re:Not really groundbraking by UnknownSoldier · 2016-09-11 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  > Why on earth did they store it like that I wonder?
  It was optimized for space.
  Remember Sierra started back on the Apple ][ where disk space was limited: 140 KB. When they switched to the IMB PC/jr storing a full 320x200 = 64,000 pixels is a _minimum_ of 8K compared to few hundred bytes to store the same scene.
  > I would have assumed that RLE was been more efficient in space and render speed!
  While RLE is extremely fast to decode it is still bloated compared to a poly-lines and/or polygon fill.
11. Re:Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 19:54 · Score: 0
  
  4Mhz? That's 4x faster than the C64 that managed to do all you mentioned with ease.
  Maybe you're just shit at coding.
12. Re:Not really groundbraking by Lisandro · 2016-09-11 21:45 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I *can* tell you that this stuff is not easy *at all*, and the fact that the game gets such good performance across such a wide range of hardware, while still maintaining a high level of visual fidelity on lower end machines, is impressive in its own right.
  This. The most impressive thing about Doom 2016 its not the way it looks (honestly, there're plenty of AAA games with comparable, if not better, graphics) but that it runs silk smooth on relatively underpowered hardware. You can consistently get 60 fps at 1440p on low-tier GPUs.
13. Re:Not really groundbraking by gTsiros · 2016-09-11 22:11 · Score: 2
  
  the mos 6510 in the c64 can do read-modify-write in 6 cycles and it is somewhat pipelined.
  the saturn doesn't have such an addressing mode.
  you would have to read a byte (15 cycles), load a byte constant in another register (5 cycles) and write the result (14 cycles)
  so while the c64 is clocked lower, it can do it in 6 microseconds, the saturn needs 7.25 Î¼s
  plus, the MOS 6510 has lots *lots* more addressing modes than the saturn. There is no pre-post increment, no offsets, etc
  You don't know what you are talking about. Go away.
  
  --
  Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
14. Re:Not really groundbraking by gTsiros · 2016-09-11 22:13 · Score: 2
  
  i even forgot to modify the value, which assuming is an arithmetic ALU op, would take 5 cycles, so the correct total duration is 8.5 Î¼s, not 7.5 Î¼s
  
  --
  Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
15. Re:Not really groundbraking by TheRaven64 · 2016-09-11 22:14 · Score: 2
  
  ARM's Mali GPU also does a trick in hardware that's similar to one of the things listed here. It stores a hash of every square region in the frame buffer and only writes back the new value to RAM if it's changed. The power cost of communicating with the DRAM is far more than the cost of computing the hash, so if you get a modest hit rate then you end up saving a noticeable amount of power.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
16. Re:Not really groundbraking by stealth_finger · 2016-09-11 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  Whoah, chill out.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
17. Re:Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 00:23 · Score: 0
  
  There was still a need to finish a game by the deadline back in the 80s and 90s, and game developers were way less experienced back then.
  Same games have some smart solutions in some cases but you can't assume that there is a single game where everything is perfect or even that every game have some code that is worth looking at.
  Now, I recall games with a similar engine for the C64 so it could just be that they figured that they didn't have to port the graphics when targeting multiple platforms.
18. Re:Not really groundbraking by Nemyst · 2016-09-12 00:50 · Score: 2
  
  Eh. Old games had to work around poor performance and lack of hardware acceleration, but their graphical fidelity goal was also laughably low. As long as pixels were on the screen in what roughly looked like something, it was good to go. Today's games could never work without graphics acceleration, but that isn't to say they're easy or simple to do. It's fine if you don't grasp the algorithmic complexity of things such as texture atlasing or tiled rendering, but don't imply that they're easy stuff compared to the old 2D stuff.
19. Re:Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 00:55 · Score: 0
  
  OK dipshit, let's pretend OP wasn't showing his age and trying to sound smart by downplaying state of the art technology as nothing more than a hack like have been used for decades. I'm sure he would have been able to do the same thing by himself with modern rendering technology. After all, it's just like hacking together a spritemap on NES, you stupid children!
20. Re:Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 01:05 · Score: 0
  
  So bullshit. I used to do the kind of code you are talking about, and, yes, it was hard. But looking at what goes in a single frame of Doom4 is equally groundbreaking, because you need to be real smart to do all of this in 16ms. Look at the DOF stuff, for instance, or the SSAO.
21. Re:Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 01:11 · Score: 0
  
  Size. A full screen was 192*40, which is 7680 bytes uncompressed. You *could* RLE it, but you would not have gained as much as vectorizing.
  There was a programm called Graphic Magician (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Magician) that everyone used to create those vector graphics. Also, you could see the screen buidling up, and it was a cool effect.
22. Re:Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  Well said.
23. Re:Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  or rec.humor.funny - tooo many hour wasted reading, reading, reading - how I miss you rn.
  )-;
24. Re:Not really groundbraking by jellomizer · 2016-09-12 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Back in the original Doom you would need a 386 with at least 25mhz 4 megs of Ram and a VGA display. It usually took a while to render a full screen display. So there were many tricks with pallet color changing, pattern overlaying, and using a set of pre rendered material.
  Sierra adventure games which were at its heyday during this time. Which offered a lot more detailed graphics, at the expense of waiting for every screen to load. So the excitement was getting to a new screen, each one rendered in high quality and spend hours on that screen to see what secretes it may hold, or hints. But these systems were so slow that either you needed to do a lot of extra tricks to make the game play fast while getting rid of detail. Or you leave the detail and you alter the game so you take as much advantage of that limitation.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
25. Re:Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  Err, what are you on about? We never cleared a frame, it serves no purpose. We copied in the screen data over the top and there were plenty of cycles to do so. Alternatively, where video RAM starting addresses could be moved, we created a second buffer and pointed the video chip to it with zero copy.
26. Re:Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  Jesus, that escalated.
  I thought the gramps crack was funny as shit.
  Speaking as a hasbeen 3D game engine programmer I was amazingly impressed with the article. We've come a long way in the 20 odd years since I first starting writing 16bit assembly VGA mode X 3D routines. 320x200 in glorious 8bit color!
  I'd seriously like to know what machine gramps was programming a 60fps game on a 4 MHz cpu. What screen res was that gramps? Are we talking IBM XT? Enquiring minds need to know.
27. Re:Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  Oops...mode x is 320x240. It's been a while.
28. Re:Not really groundbraking by ultranova · 2016-09-12 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  You'll probably enjoy this ... it shows how SQ3 rendered a frame piece by piece
  
  Interesting... I wonder if this means SQ3's graphics are, theoretically at least, resolution-free? They seem to be some kind of vector graphics, after all.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
29. Re:Not really groundbraking by phorm · 2016-09-12 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if that's a deliberate slowdown or just a really old PC. I seem to remember seeing screen paints like that sometimes on really slow hardware (not quite that slow, but you could see the paint-in happen).
30. Re:Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  Compiled sprites. That brings back memories.
31. Re:Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 03:47 · Score: 0
  
  honestly, there're plenty of AAA games with comparable, if not better, graphics
  Really? Name a few. DOOM 2016 has really delivered on presenting a unified aesthetic.
32. Re:Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  Battlefield 1.
33. Re:Not really groundbraking by Lisandro · 2016-09-12 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  Deus Ex: Mankind divided.
34. Re:Not really groundbraking by UnknownSoldier · 2016-09-12 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  > I wonder if this means SQ3's graphics are, theoretically at least, resolution-free?
  Yes, for the most part. It would be trivial to "normalize" the coordinates and then up-sample without general loss of precision.
  As long as the final resolution isn't too large (*) the errors wouldn't be (too) noticeable.
  (*) I'm not sure at what resolution the precision errors would start becoming noticeable. I would surmise that a scale factor of < 200 would be OK.
35. Re:Not really groundbraking by drsquare · 2016-09-12 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Doom has pretty high system requirements though, even though it doesn't look like anything special. If we're being honest, Carmack's technowizardry was only really relevant in the early 90s when people wanted to play FPS games on computers bought for DOS spreadsheets. The 3D accelerator made idtech largely obsolete, only remembered by inherited code in the likes of Source and Call of Duty. And they became obsolete as game developers the second Half-Life came out. Romero was right, it was about design not the engine.
36. Re:Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  DOOM was hardly satisfactory on a 386SX. As for WOLF3D it still used integer division in the renderer if I recall correctly, notwithstanding its being a raycaster, which is unexpected.
37. Re: Not really groundbraking by Sowelu · 2016-09-12 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  After looking I was surprised that yes, they are smaller! Fascinating! Even, I presume, if you allow extra "colors" for stippling. But I have to disagree on the scaling thing. All the SCI games I've seen that were upscaled with third party tools look kinda... not good. Mainly when artists scribble with lines that produce good effects in the native resolution, but look like crayons scrawls if you scale them up to be rounded and smooth.
  Oh well. I guess some games probably look better than others (yes Space Quest, no Quest for Glory) and it's all a matter of taste anyway.
38. Re:Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't show that, at all. It shows the elements the Vector graphics consist of.
39. Re: Not really groundbraking by Billly+Gates · 2016-09-12 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Go read comments from angry 1080 founders edition users who can only get 30 fps at 4k? They blame the game for being poorly written
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
40. Re:Not really groundbraking by ScottMitting · 2016-09-12 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  I couldn't remember my old account so I connected my facebook just to be able to say: YES YES YES omg did the word "compiled sprites" bring me back to newsgroups and dreams directed by Michael Abrash and such :)
41. Re:Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't do that on real hardware, even a 4.77mhz 8088; only really early AGI games draw the screen visibly, starting with later versions of AGI and all SCI games the screen drawing is hidden. I'm guessing it uses one of the unofficial SCI engines out there to draw visibly.
42. Re: Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 09:42 · Score: 0
  
  It takes smarts, but not id's smarts. All that stuff is handled by the graphics hardware now, so it's really the GPU engineers with the smarts.
43. Re:Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 13:33 · Score: 0
  
  thats homage to senior carmack
44. Re:Not really groundbraking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 14:29 · Score: 0
  
  > DOOM was hardly satisfactory on a 386SX
  Can you think of anything that ran satisfactorily on an SX? :)
So much effort... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 16:50 · Score: 0

...for such an ugly game.
The lighting sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 17:08 · Score: 0

You can put as many advanced techniques as you want but if the lighting is not physically based and hence as unrealistic as it is in Doom 2016, you're severely hamstringing yourself in terms of creating realism and immersion.
1. Re:The lighting sucks by epyT-R · 2016-09-11 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck with that..
2. Re:The lighting sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 19:22 · Score: 0
  
  Just scan the illuminated objects with a 3-D scanner. Dynamic lighting? Use a reciprocal of the standard Meagher octree rasterizer. You can obtain non-point source lighting more convincing than Doom 3's.
3. Re:The lighting sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 21:50 · Score: 0
  
  Already been done.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RThURXuIRAU#t=21m50s
4. Re:The lighting sucks by epyT-R · 2016-09-12 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  doom3's lighting was a pain.. It was nearly impossible to get decent looking lighting that didn't also kill performance...unless you were going for a dark scene. In many ways, the static lightmaps of the previous engines gave more realistic lighting and shadow, especially with later versions of the q3map compiler..
5. Re:The lighting sucks by epyT-R · 2016-09-12 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Looks good, but the geometry's fairly simple in that scene and there's only one or two light sources. Also, does that engine use a complete model like the OP I replied to suggested is needed?
6. Re:The lighting sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 19:03 · Score: 0
  
  You have plenty of examples of more detailed scenes in the video and that engine does use a model that takes a global approach to solving the rendering equation, yes.
I'm loving the Vulkan patch by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 17:13 · Score: 1

I've been Playing Doom at 1440p with maxed out settings on a three year old graphics card and consistently getting over 100 frames per second. I was lucky to keep it running a solid 60 FPS at those settings before the Vulkan patch. Seems like upgrading to 4K gaming will be happening sooner than I thought it would so long as more studios are able to replicate the success of Doom rendering via Vulkan.
1. Re:I'm loving the Vulkan patch by Purity+Of+Essence · 2016-09-11 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  I amazed at its 4K performance on a bottom-tier GTX 970. It runs incredibly well.
  No Man's Sky, on the other hand — yikes.
  
  --
  +0 Meh
2. Re: I'm loving the Vulkan patch by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 20:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What is bottom-tier about a high-end gtx 970 ?
3. Re:I'm loving the Vulkan patch by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 21:13 · Score: 0
  
  Not a chance. Games are made for consoles. Expect shit ports for a while.
4. Re:I'm loving the Vulkan patch by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 22:50 · Score: -1
  
  Consoles are the only reason you even get this many big-budget AAA games on PC, so have a little respect. If it wasn't for consoles you'd get nothing but Mobas, MMOs and indies.
5. Re: I'm loving the Vulkan patch by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps he meant that it has the stock cooler on it and isn't overclocked?
6. Re:I'm loving the Vulkan patch by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  If consoles didn't exist, then the PC market base wouldn't be any larger? Try again.
7. Re:I'm loving the Vulkan patch by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 01:57 · Score: 0
  
  NMS looks like it was made in Unity 3D. Even if the game wasn't so poor, it still looks and feels like an early PC game with a larger palette.
8. Re: I'm loving the Vulkan patch by Purity+Of+Essence · 2016-09-12 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  All this is true plus it is just about the minimum card capable of supporting 4K resolutions via HDMI 2.0.
  
  --
  +0 Meh
Zombies by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 18:58 · Score: 1

Moribund artificially sustained tech, big fat evil hardware and software money lusting forces. How long until men recognize the utter superiority of the octree based work of Donald J. Meagher: http://goo.gl/sdjXVG
Bruce R. Dell's voxel rasterizer is a rediscovery of Meagher's late '70s early '80s discoveries. He had the idea of combining division hungry perspective projection with division free orthographic projection when the difference is negligible enough (e.g., not representable on a certain pixel grid): https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014043735A1
Boundary representation should have died 25 years ago. But you love making NVIDIA, bad researchers, Carmack and such rich.
The same holds for VR goggles, they are a perpetual failure that can only make you sick, dumb, debased and worthy of death when looked at. Dell's Holoverse is way better.
1. Re:Zombies by Purity+Of+Essence · 2016-09-12 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm struggling to find any practical applications or demonstrations of this miracle tech. The Googles do nothing. Help me out.
  
  --
  +0 Meh
2. Re:Zombies by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 23:37 · Score: 0
  
  http://octree.com/
  http://freeud.bbforum.co/topic10.html
  Whatever boundary rep. can do, Meagher does. The converse isn't true.
3. Re:Zombies by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  http://octree.com
  http://freeud.bbforum.co/topic10.html
Still too dark by loonycyborg · 2016-09-11 22:13 · Score: 0

So dark you can see jack shit. You can even compare it with old 1992 Doom because they included parts of its levels in easter eggs. They're so bright that you can actually see where you're going. And among 1992 games original Doom was pretty dark. If things will keep going like that then soon we'll have to be satisfied with game presenting us a black screen and calling it a day. Rendering black screen can be implemented to be blazing fast too!
1. Re:Still too dark by Buchenskjoll · 2016-09-11 22:32 · Score: 1
  
  .. presenting us a black screen and calling it a day.
  I see what you did there. Nice!
  
  --
  -- Make America hate again!
2. Re:Still too dark by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 23:05 · Score: 0
  
  Did you played at least the demo or saw proper gameplay videos ? There are quite well illuminated indoors and outdoors environments,which are nicely detailed. If anything I saw too much red/beige (Mars outdoors, flames, molten things, stones, blood) instead black. And it does run nicely even in a not so new laptop at 30-40 fps. What is stupid is that you have to deal with console-like checkpoints instead proper saves, which breaks a bit the feeling of old-school FPS.
3. Re:Still too dark by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  soon we'll have to be satisfied with game presenting us a black screen and calling it a day. Rendering black screen can be implemented to be blazing fast too!
  Clearly you never played Doom 3.
4. Re:Still too dark by loonycyborg · 2016-09-12 02:48 · Score: 0
  
  I experienced this new Doom only via a let's play. I don't play games that don't have a proper save system anymore.
5. Re:Still too dark by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  Youtube has a thing for making dark gaming videos darker
Marvelous details by SpaghettiPattern · 2016-09-12 00:25 · Score: 1

Edge of technology. Marvelous details. And all in vivid shades of dark brown. Yay!

--

I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
1. Re:Marvelous details by aliquis · 2016-09-12 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  And all in vivid shades of dark brown
  Zune.
2. Re: Marvelous details by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  "I have never played this game and don't know what I'm talking about," is a much quicker way to get your point across.
3. Re:Marvelous details by epyT-R · 2016-09-12 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  It's a game about a marine killing demons from hell...on mars... What the hell did you expect? bright pinks and blues?
4. Re:Marvelous details by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  In classic Doom, soul spheres are bright blue, and one of the demons is bright pink. ;)
No Denuvo malware step? by sethstorm · 2016-09-12 05:13 · Score: 1

It wouldn't be complete without including the time and resources taken by Denuvo malware.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Depth by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 07:25 · Score: 0

http://depthy.me/#/ip/Dtd020i
Agreed, 110%... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 09:17 · Score: 0

See subject: This site's become LOADED w/ these little asswipe troll types - they need a GOOD fucking punch in the head: Pack of "emo-nintendo" milksops that obviously have had their heads kicked in before in the "real world" but online? They're little smartasses & "ne'er-do-wells" that think they're clever is all (when they're tremendous wastes of life & their own parents time & monies).
* You're absolutely correct & do NOT let any of these little fucks tell you differently!
APK
P.S.=> I've had my share of these little fucks feeding me shit but my FAVORITE thing to do to them? Show me YOU can do BETTER (hasn't happened to this very day) - & in this case, some of the criticism directed Mr. Carmack's way (the only person I ever spoke to here using a registered account in fact)? Unbelievable - he's done more w/ his career in the art & science of computing than anyone here has that I am aware of (well, maybe Steve Wozniak, also a member here can say the same also)... apk