Such rendering would be nice :D

scorpeus

Actually it's a little off-topic, but if somebody could create models and textures like these here and put them into motion in real gameplay it would awesome:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... ulJCYES5Do

Vermil

Sure as a drawing it looks nice, but in a 3d world...

NiuHaka

Thanks for that link. It was fun to watch.

I'm doing something almost like what you are asking. My project is not nearly as loyal to the source material as that guys is but its something. I'm somewhat of a Micheal Bay (Shudder) type modder in the Doom community which means that many loyalists just hate my stuff. Some even take it as an insult. You can go here http://www.doomascension.com/features/3dmodels to see if you are interested but the site has not been updated in a long time. I've taken the project under the radar to prevent interest from burning out because this project has taken, and will continue to take, a long time to complete.

It might not seem like it but 3D is MUCH more involved than doing a still image. Not only would someone be doing what you saw that guy doing for all textures but also he'd be modeling, doing UV maps, texturing, rigging, animating and writing definitions. My guess is that what you are wanting will never happen. It's too bad really, I wish there were more 3D modeling projects happening for Doom, Heretic and Hexen. I would seriously love to see another project happening at the same time as my own that was more loyal.

You should check out this project http://www.doomworld.com/vb/wads-mods/60299-reinchards-wip-textures-and-sprites-demo-available/ by Reinchard666 of the doomworld community. It isn't 3d but it is a HD update to all of the in game assets and it is extremely loyal to the source material.

gary

Vermil wrote:

Sure as a drawing it looks nice, but in a 3d world...

Yeah, it is 2013 and our computers should be able to handle it. I'm sure if Doomsday played its cards rights and with sufficient optimization, this could be a future outcome and you could also have the bodies everywhere and still run it smoothly, especially by the time Doosmday is on par with such detail, if it ever does reach this level. It will have to occur sometime after the new render code 2.0 or whatever is integrated, no doubt. If Doomsday was so nice looking, it would be very interesting and the replay value would skyrocket. I hope this occurs one day. Lots of progress continually occurs on the code front, so that is a step in the right direction.

If you set it to 1080p on youtube and fullscreen, it looks better than a typical drawing. With games like Crysis 3 and more realistic games running about, Doomsday can achieve at least this detail, given enough time and work. Why is that so far fetched? Also consider that if it is made to use existing 2013 high-end hardware to its full potential, or maybe even average-end 2013 hardware, it shouldn't be a problem and maybe even run smoothly of the code is optimized to take full advantage of the hardware. By the time this came out, hardware would be even better, making it a non-issue.

NiuHaka wrote:

It might not seem like it but 3D is MUCH more involved than doing a still image. Not only would someone be doing what you saw that guy doing for all textures but also he'd be modeling, doing UV maps, texturing, rigging, animating and writing definitions. My guess is that what you are wanting will never happen. It's too bad really, I wish there were more 3D modeling projects happening for Doom, Heretic and Hexen.

I'm guessing that after the team improves the code much more and after the new render code is integrated and optimized, they will then turn their attention to doing more model and texture work. I hope so

Vermil

My comment wasn't anything to do with performance; I'm not convinced that particular art style would work outside a static image.

Yes, Doomsday 2 will gain the ability to support all sorts of new visual effects once the new modern renderer is done.

scorpeus

This Doom Ascension project looks really nice but still models lack the details, shader effects and so on and so on. But nice to see somebody takes an effort to do anything new. I think such graphics as showed in the movie would also look nice in motion not only in the picture. Just look at gfx in modern games such as Crysis or Far Cry. It's a picturelike graphics and its creators just did what you (Vermil) think is not convincing.

NiuHaka

scorpeus wrote:

This Doom Ascension project looks really nice but still models lack the details, shader effects and so on and so on.

Well, if you are talking about normal maps and ambient occlusion then I'm afraid you aren't going to see a source port support such features any time this decade... if ever. Normal maps, which is what you see in almost every current gen game out there, would add a completely new layer of complexity to the creation process.

gary

NiuHaka wrote:

Well, if you are talking about normal maps and ambient occlusion then I'm afraid you aren't going to see a source port support such features any time this decade... if ever.

Wrong.

NiuHaka

gary wrote:

NiuHaka wrote:

Well, if you are talking about normal maps and ambient occlusion then I'm afraid you aren't going to see a source port support such features any time this decade... if ever.

Wrong.

Well, that wasn't very informative. I'm interested in knowing more. Not that i'd go through the trouble of creating decent normal maps for hobby purposes but if something uses something more than rudimentary ambient occlusion i'd be very interested in that.

gary

Did you know that Doomsday is making a new renderer 2.0 and has plans to include support for normal maps?

scorpeus

Isn't it like you have wad file with map written in it i mean a grid for walls, floors etc. and engine like doomsday is only giving new textures and gfx effects? Because if improving the graphic details draws with it rebuilding every wad file then it's pointless to do so. But if doomsday engine is only a kind of renderer i don't see huge difficulties in applying it to other than basic wad files. And ambient occlussion was applied in the very first versions of doomsday i guess. So it's not that complicated i think.

NiuHaka

gary wrote:

Did you know that Doomsday is making a new renderer 2.0 and has plans to include support for normal maps?

Nope. I wasn't aware that it was conclusive. Even so, supporting it and someone actually doing it are two different things. I create normal maps as part of my career and i wouldn't touch them for a hobby project.

scorpeus wrote:

Isn't it like you have wad file with map written in it i mean a grid for walls, floors etc. and engine like doomsday is only giving new textures and gfx effects? Because if improving the graphic details draws with it rebuilding every wad file then it's pointless to do so. But if doomsday engine is only a kind of renderer i don't see huge difficulties in applying it to other than basic wad files. And ambient occlussion was applied in the very first versions of doomsday i guess. So it's not that complicated i think.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you meant so I'm not sure I can help. The ambient occlusion in the current versions of Doomsday are not quite what i'm talking about. My point was that I don't have control over the "shader effects" on my end. That is completely controlled by Doomsday. As of right now, my mod is utilizing just about everything that Doomsday has got to offer. I'm not saying you should like it though. I completely understand when people don't like the way my mod looks. That's just the way things are. Some people hate it, a lot of people don't think it will happen, most people don't care, some people are interested and then there are a few people who are excited.

gary

NiuHaka wrote:

Nope. I wasn't aware that it was conclusive. Even so, supporting it and someone actually doing it are two different things. I create normal maps as part of my career and i wouldn't touch them for a hobby project.

There are no doubt plenty of people around here who would take time to do it once the code is in place to support it. I think most people are also waiting for the model format to be changed to the next version md3 (the current format (was it md2) is out of date) so they can make the models in that format. I remember someone saying it is best to wait until the engine supports md3 before upgrading the models. I'm sure people like Tea Monster would take the time to do it and I'm sure wall textures would be easier than models.

I already anticipated a response like the one you made about people not taking the time to do it (last night when I was thinking how I would respond). Also keep in mind that it is logical to assume that once the code has been updated to a certain point, the community may focus most of its attention on upgrading models and textures and other assets. Thsn skyjake and Dani may devert much more of their attention on upgrading assets.

As for people taking their time to upgrade models and other stuff, I welcome you to see how much work a forum community did so far in upgrading this 1999 game (a game I play) into something that is approaching modern game detail: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index. ... msg1671716

and http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index. ... ic=83587.0

Recently they have been adding deferred lighting and shadows. They have had normal maps for a few years now. Scroll down the page and see all the pretty screenshots.

NiuHaka

I admire you're faith in this idea. I have plenty of experience with normal maps and finishing projects and I, and anyone else in the field who works with normal maps, can tell you that creating normal maps from photoshop plugins for things like ships and wall textures that are metal and stone are MUCH easier than creating decent normal maps from fleshy high poly models which is exactly what something like the Demon in the video would require. I can create a normal map from photoshop for a metal, stone, wood or leather surface within minutes. I do it quite frequently and to be honest I hate it but it gets the job done. Creating normal maps for something like that Demon would be a different matter entirely. Only the highest paying clients pay for normal maps like that because it takes a lot of time when compared to other video game assets. There have been an extremely high number of canceled Doom modding projects and an extremely low number of finished Doom modding projects and adding normal maps to an already large task list would only add to the canceled list.

Besides, I think you got a bit sidetracked. My posts were in response to my project vs what it would take to create a mod that looks like the subject of this thread.

gary wrote:

I think most people are also waiting for the model format to be changed to the next version md3 (the current format (was it md2) is out of date) so they can make the models in that format. I remember someone saying it is best to wait until the engine supports md3 before upgrading the models.

I find this to be an interesting belief. The md2 limitations are not all that limiting when you think about the number of monsters that can be on screen at one time. I've done quite a bit of testing and in the current version of Doomsday having 20 models with 2k polygons on screen at once can really bog down some low to mid grade computers. Increasing the monster count to 50 can just kill gameplay. 2k polygons is very low mind you. md2 has a limit of 4k polygons and the only noticeable limitation change to md3 is the increase in polygon limit which doubles it. So waiting to model for md3 seems strange to me because when talking about limitations you would only be increasing polygons which decreases performance. The main reason for md2 hate is that awful vertex movement data loss which causes verts to wobble. Md3 does not do this. In my opinion the wobbling is hardly noticeable during real gameplay. Right now my mod uses md2 because the format limitations are higher than my personal projects limitations for performance reasons. BUT my raw assets are ready for md3 conversion the moment it is available only because of the wobbling verts. My point is that there is no reason to wait for md3 when having monsters with over 4k-8k polygons would make your mod unplayable to quite a few Doom players.

gary

I don't design graphics or know nearly as much about it as you do, but common sense tells me that when the code gets optimized, performance won't be as much of an issue as it currently is. It is only a matter of time when looking at how fast the code is progressing. Then you can have better graphics, more monsters on one screen, higher polycount, etc, and still have a decent performance. I'm sure if you have a modern computer combined with an optimized highly detailed Doomsday that had the ingame detail on par with the picture that this topic is about, it would run smoothly. If modern high-end computers can run Crysis smoothly at full settings, then surely they would be able to handle this. It isn't so much a hardware problem but the engine's problem. It doesn't use multi-core processors or modern graphics cards to their full potential, and I have a Phenom II 965 black edition quad core (4 x 3.4GHz) processor (2MB L2 + 6MB L3) with a Radeon HD 6870 card (GDDR5 + 1GB VRAM + 1050MHz memory clock speed + 900MHz core clock + PCIe 2.0), Win 7 64, and 4GB DDR3 1333MHz system RAM, which is good (not the best, but one of the best back in 2009/2010, I believe). I built the system at the end of 2009 when I got Win 7 and upgraded the card at the end of 2010. I also have an 800w power supply and a 500MB SATA 2 hard drive (I will get a PCIe or 2.0 SSD someday when the prices go down). I'm sure I could run Doomsday smoothly if it was as realistic ingame as that picture 'if' the code could use my hardware to its full potential.

It seems that people blame the hardware too much instead of blaming the lack of optimized software. You can upgrade your hardware until you are blue in the face and it won't make a difference if the software is not optimized to take greater advantage of the hardware's abilities. I think the issue with Doomsday is not most people's PCs, but just the fact that is isn't optimized enough yet. The Freespace 2 source code project (the forum I linked you to) has the same current issues with performance when they added deferred lighting and shadows to a few newer beta builds and they will have to optimize some things in time likely before they include it into the master, and it is nowhere near as detailed as Crysis, but Crysis might run smoother since it is made for newer hardware. I never played Crysis, but I'm confident my hardware could handle at least Crysis 1 fairly smoothly at high settings, even though my video card is not the best by today's standards, but was one of the best back in 2010 when I got it. Someday I may get a 7970 when the prices go down and if I feel it is needed.