Doom III leak

I just got the pre-alpha E3 Doom III leak. All I have to say is "HOLY-POO-I'M-GONNA-GO-PRE-ORDER-IT-NOW!!!" That said, what do you guys think of this all? I read some other boards that John Carmack (the man himself) said that he knows it was ATI and that their business arrangement is going to suffer for it. I think this leak will actually help the sales for Doom III.

http://ludo.netonline.no/~imho/doom3.html

//napKIN

What he is probably worried about is reviews cropping up in the media on what is an unfinished product. An unfavourable review or two does have the potential to influence the less knowledgable members of the gaming community. And judging by some of my recent online experiences that seems to be a whole lot of potential customers.

Heh, you do realize that it was leaked MONTHS ago . You're a little late. I played it on a 2.4 Ghz with a GeForce 4 Ti (128 meg) with a gig of ram, and the framerate was awful (talking 1 or 2 frames per second sometimes). Nothing really impressive, but I guess that's to be expected from an alpha. I never really liked id games much anyways, just the engines. They need more plot in their Doom series.

>They need more plot in their Doom series.

If you ever bothered to read the documentation that came with the original Doom and Doom II, you would know that there is actually a pretty developed plot.

Originally posted by DavidP
If you ever bothered to read the documentation that came with the original Doom and Doom II, you would know that there is actually a pretty developed plot.

There is a big difference between writing a backstory in documentation and actually integrating the story with the game.

Originally posted by Polymorphic OOP
I never really liked id games much anyways, just the engines. They need more plot in their Doom series.

I'm in love with ID's games,but you're right about the plot's,
its mostly the graphics that matter in the doom and quake series.

[edit]

By the way, i did play Doom3 Alpha as well but never really fell as
low as 2 fps, but you must admit with those gfx,im happy it even
booted

The reason hes worried is exactly what poly said, low performance because its an alpha. When i played it on my xp 2000+/voodoo 5 (no clocking) i was only hitting 15-20 fps max and averaging around 10-12. Thats seriously low for my card, but as far as gameplay and what not i'm hit, i'm going to pre-order at software etc soon.

Originally posted by Travis Dane
By the way, i did play Doom3 Alpha as well but never really fell as
low as 2 fps, but you must admit with those gfx,im happy it even
booted

Yeah, for the most part it was 15 to 20 (at 800x600 res I think it was), which is really way too slow, but it did, in fact, jump many times to about 2 frames per second.

Yeah that was released a LOOOOONG time ago, I've already downloaded and played it. They cheated by showing a prescripted demo at E3 making it seem like it could actually run fast, but it can't. I'm wondering how they are even going to be able to pull off stenciled shadows using shadow volumes in that game at interactive frame rates...I mean I'm sure carmack will pull it off, but I read a thing he sent to mark kilgard (nvidia software engineer) about how he plans on actually getting it to work. There are so many steps involved with creating shadow volumes. Then doing the tests to determine if a pixel is inside or outside a shadow volume, and then doing a second inverse test (otherwise when the camera is inside the shadow volume it won't work) and then turning off the depth and color buffers and then drawing the outline of the object where the rays from the light source intersect with the objects in the world. I haven't even attempted doing shadows (no sir ee!) but I have done simple reflections with the stencil buffer and even that was a total pain in the ass to get to run at a reasonable speed.

ok ill stfu now

carmack on shadow volumes

carmack is a genious imo, and easily the best programmer alive. I respect him a great deal for both what he has done and what he'll continue to do, and if anyone can make it work, he will.

when he said u can noclip fly without the whatever, was he referring to like in halflife when you noclip through the roof and everything gets messed up?

when he said u can noclip fly without the whatever, was he referring to like in halflife when you noclip through the roof and everything gets messed up?

No, half life doesn't use stenciled shadow volumes. The reason it does that has to do with how the bsp format is used, you have to basically be inside the world in order for calculations to take place, it doesn't know how to handle things outside the world, hence the reason why when you create worls with the hammer (worldcraft) editor you can't have 'leaks' (holes) to the outside of the world, it has to be sealed. Poly would be able to answer that question more elegantly.

if it doens't know how to handle it then how come u can get out of it, i know that sounds dumb but....ugg i confused myself.

if it doens't know how to handle it then how come u can get out of it, i know that sounds dumb but....ugg i confused myself.

Again I don't know the specifics of what's actually going on in the engine when things 'get all screwy' when you fly outside of the world or inside brushes. It probably has to do with the direction all of the polygons are facing so whenever you go inside a brush or outside of the world you are essentially on the 'wrong side' of things and calculations cannot be done properly (i.e lighting and shading but there is also something wrong with the way it does the rendering, it gets blurry like it isn't swapping the buffers).

Yeah...PooP!

that would make a bit more sense.