Quote:
Originally posted by BL1NK
Doom3 Will be an OpenGL game :) Will it use openGL 2.0 thunderbird? hehe
accroding to my research, some review sites say it may use that, but youll need to download new drivers for support of OGL 2.0
Quote:
Originally posted by BL1NK
Doom3 Will be an OpenGL game :) Will it use openGL 2.0 thunderbird? hehe
accroding to my research, some review sites say it may use that, but youll need to download new drivers for support of OGL 2.0
I thought you said it was a DX8 or 9 game! The man uses openGl my friend for his latest game engines....:)Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
accroding to my research, some review sites say it may use that, but youll need to download new drivers for support of OGL 2.0
Doom 3 is an openGL game.Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
accroding to my research, some review sites say it may use that, but youll need to download new drivers for support of OGL 2.0
If the radeon 9800 doesnt run doom 3 good I think I will go to a garage sale and buy a commadore 64k and say THE HELL WITH PC'S.I think this video hardware thing has gotten way out of hand now.
I hope carmack isnt that dumb. even ut2003 runs great in 1600x1200 on a ti4200, teh radeon9700 pro is twice the power
It's better that tech is pushing the way it is. Tbird, your right, I think the game will run well. Carmack is no idiot he knows how to code very well and he knows how to optimize code well.Quote:
Originally posted by 2630Goon
If the radeon 9800 doesnt run doom 3 good I think I will go to a garage sale and buy a commadore 64k and say THE HELL WITH PC'S.I think this video hardware thing has gotten way out of hand now.
errrr....I'm not too sure about that. I'll try it today and post a screenshot of my fps.Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
I hope carmack isnt that dumb. even ut2003 runs great in 1600x1200 on a ti4200, teh radeon9700 pro is twice the power
Quote:
Originally posted by Alientank
It's better that tech is pushing the way it is. Tbird, your right, I think the game will run well. Carmack is no idiot he knows how to code very well and he knows how to optimize code well.
T-Bird and right? Those words are oxymorons usually. CONGRATS T-BIRD FOR GETTING YOUR FIRST REAL POST!!!! Celebration time!!! But as for saying it's twice the power....errr...
How are we supposed to know? It could be 10fps or 100fps. Its not out yet and performance can not really be judged by an Alpha release. I do think it will be worse than Unreal2 though (not 2003). BTW I pretty much stay in the 30's in Unreal2 with the occasional drop into the upper 20's or rise into the lower 40's. I run at 1600x1200 with the computer in the sig at 2.4GHz. However really I am CPU limited. There is a certain thing I can do with turrets in that game that does nothing to visuals but it drops my framerate below 10fps. Ut2003 stays mainly in the 50's with occasional drops to 40's and 30's. In either case NO AA but 16xAF.Quote:
Originally posted by Alientank
I've decided to go with the Radeon 9800 pro 128 meg over the 256 meg because mainly of the price difference. I don't think I need a card any faster to run bf1942, ut2k3, doom 3, or mohaa at the fullest detail, high resolution. The 256 meg card is just going to be a few hundred or so more for not much difference or atleast not enough to justify the price jump. That being said, do you think it'll be alright for Doom 3 1280x1024 max detail with some AA and AF? Rest of future system specs are in sig.
Eric
Quote:
Tbird... what DX version is Doom III based on?
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Man those two sentences made me laugh hard! ... nice move lostlilchild :pQuote:
doom3 will use both directX 8 and 9, but directx8 cards will run doom3 just fine
BTW IMO i think that doom3 would run from Geforce3 onwards just fine.. of course we'll fine that out once they release the damn game
So asking questions like these before the game is released, is just crap.
Considing that the Alpha demoed on a P2.4 -9700Pro at 45FPS at 800x600 medium detail, no AA, I think Doom3's requirements will be huge. I can't see code optimization giving more than 50% more performance, so I expect sub 60's at 1024x768, no AA, medium detail on a 3Ghz machine. Buying hardware now for a game that won't see the light of day until next Fall is a dicey move. The 128meg 9800Pro should be enough power for Doom3, but for HL2? It's anyone's guess.
Must...fight...urge...to...insult...stupid...comments...Quote:
Originally posted by rhettro
Considing that the Alpha demoed on a P2.4 -9700Pro at 45FPS at 800x600 medium detail, no AA, I think Doom3's requirements will be huge. I can't see code optimization giving more than 50% more performance, so I expect sub 60's at 1024x768, no AA, medium detail on a 3Ghz machine. Buying hardware now for a game that won't see the light of day until next Fall is a dicey move. The 128meg 9800Pro should be enough power for Doom3, but for HL2? It's anyone's guess.
1) The demonstration at E3 was not the alpha that was leaked.
2) It was on a 2.2 ghz system with a PROTOTYPE 9700 pro.
3) You have no facts to prove the fps level at E3 or if there was AA or not. Don't tell me "Carmack said it" because he didn't, I know all the info on D3 so far, I'm a Doom freak, and there was no mentioning about it at all.
4) The alpha is so unoptimized, I mean hell, the menu's don't even work. The demonstration at E3, they did. Different version of the game at a different stage.
5) The game will more then likely not have requirements much bigger then that of UT2K3. I doubt it will take a 9800 pro and 3 ghz machine to run the game at medium detail, at a low res, with no AA. Carmack stated at Macworld in 2001 it would be targeted at running low res, on a Geforce 3, though there was no mention of the processor. Since it was around that time, we can assume a 1+ ghz P3. Expect a high amd or intel solution with a good amount of ram and a good video card to be able to run it smoothly no problem.
6) You know nothing about the release dates at all. Saying it's coming out in the fall with no backup of facts is stupid. The only thing we have been told is it will be a 2003 release. That's all John said in his .plan updates.
7) Speculation is that HL2's engine is a heavily reworked Quake 3 engine. It makes sense, after all the immense success they had with the modified Quake 2 engine for Half life. I doubt it will have higher requirements then Doom 3 will.
8) Again, the alpha that got out is so unoptimized it isn't even funny. I'd tell you what's wrong with it but you wouldn't understand all the technical talk most likely. In simple words, the alpha is a joke of a product and I wouldn't even relate it to Doom 3, it's from so early in the stages of developement when they were primarily just trying to get commands and textures working correctly, as well as testing out the floating point, lighting and shadowing, and bump mapping, masking away of lights, etc.
if the final doom3 is as intenstive as ut2003 or unreal2 then ill be running 1600x1200, max details :D
Sorry your computer would keel over and die. Only way you will be running it at that res at the highest detail levels is with a good processor, a lot of ram, and a 9700 pro or higher.Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
if the final doom3 is as intenstive as ut2003 or unreal2 then ill be running 1600x1200, max details :D
No, it probably won't be able to run anywhere near those settings at highest quality...if history is any indication it'll take cards to come later to run this engine like butter at the highest settings, because the engine is meant to be forward thinking as it will likely be the basis for games for the next 4-5 years and would be outdated too quickly without "pushing the envelope". High end cards weren't running quake 3 at high res(for the time)at the highest settings when it came out either...or quake 2, or quake.Quote:
Originally posted by Alientank
So can anyone answer my question?