Prey

Anything gaming related that is not red and gooey goes in here.

Moderator: General Discussion Moderators

leileilol

o^_^o

Posts: 548
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:33 pm

Post by leileilol »

picky
User avatar
Slink

Not to be a dick, but...

Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 04:42 am
Location: Niagara County, NY

Post by Slink »

Harry wrote:What is needed is a dynamic light source that produces dynamic shadows wrt to fl and orientation, in real time. Doom-3 would have been way better had they actually implemented a realistic flashlight. Think of the potential?
Think of the processing load. Doom 3 already ran like balls as it was. They should make an upgrade patch.
-Slink
leileilol

o^_^o

Posts: 548
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:33 pm

Post by leileilol »

Slink wrote:
Harry wrote:What is needed is a dynamic light source that produces dynamic shadows wrt to fl and orientation, in real time. Doom-3 would have been way better had they actually implemented a realistic flashlight. Think of the potential?
Think of the processing load. Doom 3 already ran like balls as it was. They should make an upgrade patch.
-Slink
or you should get off that fx card, rather

doom3 ran fine for me even on thy olde 950 thundebird.
User avatar
scar3crow
kvlt-anaatmanah
Posts: 386
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 06:22 pm
Contact:

Post by scar3crow »

gf4ti4200 64meg, Doom3 was quite playable on Low and on most levels on Medium.

But according to LordHavoc, ti4200 is a pretty damn good purchase all in all as apparently Nvidia then spent some time with their head up their asses and made slower cards than that all in all for a period.
User avatar
Gila
Ye Olde Bloodite
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Russia

Post by Gila »

ok, the demo is long time out, the game will be released soon, no talk about it here? wtf i say!!

i've played the full version and i must say so far this is the best overall doom3 engine game today. the game itself is very very very very very good. it's really great.

beat it in almost 7 hours.
Harry
Cultist
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 05:45 pm

Post by Harry »

How many of you noticed that Enissi (Grandfather) and Lo Wang are the same guy? :twisted:
Damien_Azreal
Satan's Spawn
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 01:45 am
Location: Independence, KS. USA

Post by Damien_Azreal »

Well, I have played all the way through PREY and absolutely loved it. An awesome FPS, the best one I've ever played.

I'm about halfway through it again, the detail, feel,, just everything just seems to perfect and balanced. I'll post some screens later.

I strongly suggest this to every FPS gamer out there.
User avatar
Slink

Not to be a dick, but...

Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 04:42 am
Location: Niagara County, NY

Post by Slink »

CheapAlert wrote:or you should get off that fx card, rather

doom3 ran fine for me even on thy olde 950 thundebird.
Or you can consider what you are saying before you say it. How many RT lights with RT shadows do you thing your system could have handled SMOOTHLY? I am well aware of the limitations of my graphics card, but when Doom3 was released, the only ones who could truly enjoy it were those who upgraded prior to the release of the game. Do you remember all the hype? Anyway, I think that the new GF7 series of nVidia should be able to handle a realtime flashlight, and THUS an optional upgrade should be released by id, (that obviously would incorporate a realtime flashlight). Honestly, I haven't really played much Doom3 at all, so I can't say that I actually care yet, it was just a rhetorical suggestion. Note that GF8 series is soon to be released.
scar3crow wrote:gf4ti4200 64meg, Doom3 was quite playable on Low and on most levels on Medium.

But according to LordHavoc, ti4200 is a pretty damn good purchase all in all as apparently Nvidia then spent some time with their head up their asses and made slower cards than that all in all for a period.
That statement is somewhat accurate though vague; lacking detail. It is true that nVidia made cards that would actually produce lower framerates than their predecessors, but this is due to a lack of processing power for the more advanced effects (or something along those lines.) The FX series had Shader Model 2 support (I believe the first to include DX9 support) involving far different architecture from the prior cards. You don't see reflective water or gloss or bumpmapping on the GF3 or 4 afaik. It was new turf for nVidia, and they toughed it out. Unfortunately, I have the lower end FX5200, (overclocked by me as it is). The higher end models were obviously better, but probably not by much. After the release of the FX series, nVidia was soon to meet good competition from ATI. nVidia's next line of cards, the GF6 series, showed a vast improvement of knowledge and profession in that tech locale (DX9). That was said rather $hittily, sorry.
-Slink
leileilol

o^_^o

Posts: 548
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:33 pm

Post by leileilol »

Slink wrote:
CheapAlert wrote:or you should get off that fx card, rather

doom3 ran fine for me even on thy olde 950 thundebird.
Or you can consider what you are saying before you say it. How many RT lights with RT shadows do you thing your system could have handled SMOOTHLY? I am well aware of the limitations of my graphics card, but when Doom3 was released, the only ones who could truly enjoy it were those who upgraded prior to the release of the game. Do you remember all the hype? Anyway, I think that the new GF7 series of nVidia should be able to handle a realtime flashlight, and THUS an optional upgrade should be released by id, (that obviously would incorporate a realtime flashlight). Honestly, I haven't really played much Doom3 at all, so I can't say that I actually care yet, it was just a rhetorical suggestion. Note that GF8 series is soon to be released.
-Slink
When Doom3 was released and I played it, my rig was mostly year-2000 hardware (Tbird 950, Geforce2 GTS 64mb) and the game looked and ran fine with everything on and at a very playable FPS.
User avatar
Slink

Not to be a dick, but...

Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 04:42 am
Location: Niagara County, NY

Post by Slink »

Hmm, that makes me wonder how Doom3 would look on a GF2... :lol: It looked GOOD on the FX, but it ran like crap.

And btw, I am not sure HOW that engine would run dynamic RT light sources, especially in multiplayer. It would be cool if someone made a mod or patch or something.
-Slink
Harry
Cultist
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 05:45 pm

Post by Harry »

Using a P4 2 Ghz, 512 MB RAM and an XFX GEF5700LE 256 MB card, Doom-3 was barely playable in 800x600 with no anti-aliasing and RoE was even less playable.
leileilol

o^_^o

Posts: 548
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:33 pm

Post by leileilol »

Harry wrote:Using a P4 2 Ghz, 512 MB RAM and an XFX GEF5700LE 256 MB card, Doom-3 was barely playable in 800x600 with no anti-aliasing and RoE was even less playable.
and there you have it. the fx series suck.

oh, and here's a shot of d3 on a gf2. Doesn't look or run bad...
Image
Harry
Cultist
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 05:45 pm

Post by Harry »

Hows is it that a 256 meg card plus a chipset that is 3 generations ahead, gives only slightly better performance than GF2? Does it suck that bad? Incidentally, the card I threw out to make space was a Creative GF2 32MB GTS.
User avatar
mouth
Acolyte
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 08:33 am
Contact:

Post by mouth »

the ammount of gfx card ram doesn't mean much. it's the speed that matters. you don't really need more than 128 and you won't see any difference either.
leileilol

o^_^o

Posts: 548
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:33 pm

Post by leileilol »

it's not the mhz of the gpu on the fx card either. It's how shoddy its own instructions were implemented.

Sure, you may think the fx5200 is superior to the gf2 gts on paper with side-by-side spec comparisons, but in reality it just doesn't cut it at all.
Post Reply