what the hell is a pixel shader?
Printable View
what the hell is a pixel shader?
Does anyone have any idea what the requirements/recommended system specs will be to run HL2??
special effect. IE the watter in the screens is a good example. its suppost to help things look life likeQuote:
Originally posted by Kamakazie
what the hell is a pixel shader?
This is a pretty BASIC explanation with some nice screenies: http://www.geocities.com/arne9184/ar...el_shaders.htmQuote:
Originally posted by Kamakazie
what the hell is a pixel shader?
For a more advanced explanation, you can try the Big Boys ;)
man i have been lookin around for more screenies, i am def upgrading now as doom3 does not mean rats a$$ to me :D this is my type!!!!
Man the first game I played on the PC was Doom, ya can't disrespect the Doomage baby! Anyways, I still think Doom 3 looks better, but thats because I prefer it's darker style.Quote:
Originally posted by toastbim
man i have been lookin around for more screenies, i am def upgrading now as doom3 does not mean rats a$$ to me :D this is my type!!!!
WHO THE FCUK CARES, IF HALF-LIFE 2 and DOOM 3 come out in the same year.
God is most definately answering my prayers!:D
minimum - PIII 700 with TNT 2 (you probably don't want to be playing like this though ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff
Does anyone have any idea what the requirements/recommended system specs will be to run HL2??
reccomended - 2ghz with a 64mb directX9 graphics card.
DX8 graphics card. They recommend a GF4.Quote:
Originally posted by ensign
minimum - PIII 700 with TNT 2 (you probably don't want to be playing like this though ;)
reccomended - 2ghz with a 64mb directX9 graphics card.
Something tells me that this game and my PIII 700 won't be a happy couple...Quote:
Originally posted by ensign
minimum - PIII 700 with TNT 2 (you probably don't want to be playing like this though ;)
reccomended - 2ghz with a 64mb directX9 graphics card.
If you read PCGAMER you know that HL2 has all that Doom3 has to offer :)Quote:
Originally posted by BuggyLoop
Well even buffer screengrabs wont put half life 2 above doom3 technically, what half life 2 has going for it are the high res textures (much more than doom3), the kickass valve modellers and artists, but when it comes to dynamic lighting and shadows, polybump, per-pixel lighting, bump mapped surfaces, it doesnt approach doom3 (heck, it doesnt do any of the above so..)
I prefer half life 2 visuals over doom3 though, but thats for an art reason.
I dont think you guys with 2000+ mhz cpus, 512MB onboard memory and 9700 or better video cards even have to worry one bit about half life 2.
Cant wait to see it in motion at E3 :D
Also, what sets HL2 aside from Doom3 is that the engine is scalable and the game can be played with a TNT.
Are you sure it has everything Doom 3 has? I don't think it does, it doesn't have all the technology advances doom 3 has though it is impressive.
Yes, on a purely visual opinion, not on a technical oneQuote:
If you read PCGAMER you know that HL2 has all that Doom3 has to offer
Art style of game A might be more pleasing to someone than game B, even if game A doesnt achieve half of what game B achieve in sheer graphic complexity.
Dont confuse the two.
I mean they even said that half life 2 could be mistaken for a DVD movie.. *cough* They were obviously shitting their pants by half life nostalgia and it blinded their judgement a tiny bit.
Agreed. While the game looks good, some things like lighting and textures need to be changedQuote:
Originally posted by BuggyLoop
Yes, on a purely visual opinion, not on a technical one
Art style of game A might be more pleasing to someone than game B, even if game A doesnt achieve half of what game B achieve in sheer graphic complexity.
Dont confuse the two.
I mean they even said that half life 2 could be mistaken for a DVD movie.. *cough* They were obviously shitting their pants by half life nostalgia and it blinded their judgement a tiny bit.
Half life 2 actually *****slap doom 3 in textures (heck, some doom3 textures seem right out of quake3..) Half life 2 also seems more heavy on geometry than doom3. Doom 3 makes up for these 2 flaws by polybumps (lower polygon character looking very detailed), bump mapping nearly everywhere (adds "fake" geometry to the scenery) and of course, the dynamic per pixel lighting and stencil shadows.
Its a different approach to graphics, one is pushing standard and very known features to their limits (half life2) while the other is pretty average when it comes to the basic visual features (texture/geometry) but push new graphic methods available from modern cards, making the visuals more dynamic, characters casting their own shadow depending on the light sources, same for the environment itself, etc.
STALKER seems to be touching both though, insanely high geometry, nearly photorealistic textures, dynamic lighting, soft shadows, stencil shadows, etc. That one is gonna be PC hungry.. good thing its for a 2004 release.
Hope the 9800 pro can handle them both
I thought the only really impressive thing Doom3 has is the realtime lighting?
And HL2 developers spent 4 years on developing that also, so I would say it's on par with Doom 3.
Also, HL2 uses tons of bump mapping.
I don't knoow... after reading PC GAMER, I found lots of similarities. :confused:
*sigh* Think about that for a minute. Four years ago, what kinda of video card technology was avaliable?:oQuote:
Originally posted by Terry
And HL2 developers spent 4 years on developing that also, so I would say it's on par with Doom 3.
Heh, how long ago did you think Carmack started writing Doom 3? :)
They don't write the engine expecting it to be used during that time.
IMO, HL2's graphics are much more realistic and can scare the crap out of me.
let's just wait and see when both are released instead of just looking at screenshots that are probably antialiased and maybe have some retouching...
Doom 3's sole purpose other than to be a benchmark for the new engine is to scare the crap out fo ya. You havent played the leak have you...Quote:
Originally posted by Terry
Heh, how long ago did you think Carmack started writing Doom 3? :)
They don't write the engine expecting it to be used during that time.
IMO, HL2's graphics are much more realistic and can scare the crap out of me.
I wantched the leak, id hardly say it was scary.
Wantched? lolQuote:
Originally posted by Mancora
I wantched the leak, id hardly say it was scary.
And if you ment watched, i saw that video too. That was nothing compared to playing the leak (which i have) the leak is 20x more scary then watching that video.
no, i watched someone play it.
edit, yes i know a game is more imersive if your actually playing it, but still a fair share of the atmosphere should rub off on you.
i am not that excited, to me its just a game, i dont pray for things like that :) ah well maybe i am too old now :DQuote:
Originally posted by Idiot356
Man the first game I played on the PC was Doom, ya can't disrespect the Doomage baby! Anyways, I still think Doom 3 looks better, but thats because I prefer it's darker style.
WHO THE FCUK CARES, IF HALF-LIFE 2 and DOOM 3 come out in the same year.
God is most definately answering my prayers!:D
Well its the one standing out the most, the most easy to spot, but there's other neat stuffs that makes doom3 complex, they're the first that will exploit polybump characters afterall.Quote:
Originally posted by Terry
I thought the only really impressive thing Doom3 has is the realtime lighting?
I guess 3DRealm developing DNF for 7 years will blow away everyone then :eek:Quote:
And HL2 developers spent 4 years on developing that also, so I would say it's on par with Doom 3.
Maybe (even if i have a hard time seeing it..) but it wont be as obvious as doom3, for the sole reason that bump mapping is solely a lighting trick, and with static lighting, you might aswell create a an high res texture with the illusion of the bump on the 2d plane, you'll likely never be able to tell the difference. The height of a bump map is only detectable when a light source moves, your flashlight for example, your eyes will then see the shades on that bump change as the light moves around the texture with the bump map applied, which will create, in your brain, the impression of a true 3d surface. (Remember halo's indoor levels, without the flashlight you couldnt see the bump maps much at all, because the environement lighting was static, turn your flashlight on (dynamic and per pixel) and turn around the floor and you'll see tons of bump maps all around you. But thats with dynamic lighting.Quote:
Also, HL2 uses tons of bump mapping.
Well like i've said maybe some of the source gfx engine features they've talked about in the article werent in the demo they showed to PC gamer back then, cause there's some differences between what they say and what we see.. like the 10x10 insanely stretched lightmap we see in one of the scan, creating a Lego looking circle around the character as he fire his gun, these kind of things are hard to explain even for a placeholder lightmap.. So i guess a newer build at E3 will get rid of these weird things. Or its a simple matter that the screens they showed were on scaled back settings due to unoptimized code.Quote:
I don't knoow... after reading PC GAMER, I found lots of similarities. :confused:
Too many possibilities. So we can only speculate on what they've shown, and of course, all these speculations could get blown away as valve show newer builds of their engine, so its not like what we see in these scans is 100% fact of what the final product will be like.
I agree (except the scaring part}, but again, its an artistic decision. And anyway, it would be hard for pretty much anyone to see doom3's graphics as realistic, unless they live in some weird world where everything is shiny, even skin.Quote:
IMO, HL2's graphics are much more realistic and can scare the crap out of me
Thats what i like about Half life2, see the commandos in the shot i posted? Do their clothes look like REAL tissue or does it look like latex? Its these little details that in the long run make or break at game's visuals. In half life 2, what needs to be shiny is shiny and what doesnt need to be shiny isnt, like the soldier in the prison have shiny helms, their coats though dont. Unlike doom 3 where due to excessive bump mapping (polybump models remember), everything looks like it was greased, everything.. IMO that kills the art style a bit.
Another bit from what i've read in the interview is tiny particles of dust in the air as you enter dusty rooms, see, thats something that they can pull off due that their engine isnt cranking every damn "new" dx8 features, particles are old technics, its nothing new, it doesnt require that high tech hardware, but pulling it off to make it look right is purely genius for atmosphere and will likely set a new standard since its never truely been used for anything else than rain and snow. Once again, art over brute force.
Yet, with what i said above, you would think that half life 2 would push hardware harder for trying to look more realistic.. while its the other way around, the greasy demons are more complex on the hardware.. Its simply a differnet art style direction they took and imo, doom3's art is sorta like a german's fetish for S&M..