Thanks GFX for the corrections.
And yes, easy is relative...

Quote:

---

you know that the 3dgs performance with a whole level normal mapped is quite low? at the moment doom 3 is faster!

---

If you're referring to my pre beta technical demo (posted in Showcase I and User COntributions), the slow speed was from a separate mistake that I made. I used very large textures, which were then combined with both specular maps and normal maps of the same size. Not to mention that I overkilled it, making all textures normal mapped. This just drains the video memory.

With proper optimization, you won't notice too much of a difference in framerate between our normal mapping and Doom3's. (Although ours still isn't quite as perfected as Doom's)

yes but the fps is already low with really >small< test levels, and doom has really big levels, so i guess thats a thing that conitec has to work on, because why do you have normal mapping for l. geometry if you can only use it in one room

Fixing the texture size will likely double the FPS (if not more) for most users in the test level. The other issue is in the shader code itself. Doom 3's shaders are well written and highly optimized, however the one in the example level is not so much so.

There are other issues that can be fixed from within the engine itself (an initial rendering pass without textures to remove faces that will not be visible - and thus reduce the overall calculations needed once a shader is applied), but those are really pretty minor when compared to the shader itself and the textures being used.

well like i already said , with 3DGS you can produce great things ,
it ony depends on your artist talent and good coding,
look at metroid 2 on gamecube , no bump mapping , simple textures , but very great,
with 3DGS this studio would use tricks to bypass limitations and
they could bring metroid2 to 3DGS like in gamecube version and same quality,
with bump mapping for characetrs creatures and some parts of the level.

And 3DGS is the most fast and easy of use of all 3D engines in the same
order of price for us , and you can quicly produce something playable like a prototype or a real game than any other 3D engine.
For example an Arkanoid game or simple FPS could be done in one hour of programming/testing in C-script ; after that it will take more time to bring it to a good level with better design, 3D models ,textures, etc..

actualy, everything done in any engine is a 'trick'.

It's not a matter of the process, its only a matter of the result that counts.

Personaly i think the gs engine is way more sexy then doom3.

I think fun and a good level architecture is the most important thing for a game. This is much more important than 5 fps more.

lets not delude ourself people... any comparison of the Doom3 engine and A6 is purely incidental... or should i say, coincidental...

but there is hope and progress on the A6 end... as far as the graphics are concerned, take a look at this


and visit the Universal Shader Thread thread...

so, i guess in the hands of a talented developer or two... i think that A6 can be used to make a game that can come verrrry close...


--Mike