Question on Darkplaces vs. ioquake3

[xplinux557]

Also, the physics are a bit less realistic that iq3.

I wonder though if this is because of engine limitations or game design preferences?

Do you mean player physics? Then that's game design preference, as you can easily change to VQ3 physics for example by using the following console command:

Code: Select all

exec physicsQ3.cfg


I have to say that I myself prefer VQ3/CPM/Nexrun physics over the Nexuiz ones, and hope there will be more servers that run these physics sets (or at least give the players an option to vcall them)

In ioquake3-based games, most of the objects' and players' movements are more realistic than in Nexuiz (generalization). In Nexuiz, whenever I shoot another player from the back, sometimes the player falls backward and not forward, and sometimes when I shoot from the front, the fragged player falls forward and not backward! This NEVER happens in ioquake3.

When I frag a person in midair in Nexuiz, the player's gun falls straight down and lands on the floor. In nearly all iq3-based games, when a player is fragged in midair, the player's gun falls at an angle and slides a little along the floor before coming to rest. Also, the motion of the player being hit by a gunshot and falling is more accurate in ioquake3 (my opinion). In OpenArena (using ioquake3), when a player is on a long stairway and jumps down several stairs, the player staggers a bit down a stair or two as it lands, just like a real human being regaining his/her balance (very pretty effect). The gibs in the iq3 gore effects appear to bounce a bit more than the Nexuiz gibs (iq3's blood is a bit disappointing, though). I think that some of the players' knees just buckle and fall over when killed in close contact (gauntlet or shotgun) and knocked over violently when somebody shoots them from far away (railgun or rocket launcher), but I'm not sure yet. This may or may not be true, seeing as I need to do some more observations when fragging in OA.

The only physics in DP that is more accurate than iq3 is the Darkplaces' shell impacts (shells ejected out the side of a gun and bouncing on the floor).

PS: I have confirmed everything that I've said in the last few posts here because I am constantly opening up Nexuiz and OpenArena to check my accuracy of what I wrote.

PPS: Does iq3 have ragdoll physics? (I'm just curious)

[FruitieX]

Also, the physics are a bit less realistic that iq3.

I wonder though if this is because of engine limitations or game design preferences?

Do you mean player physics? Then that's game design preference, as you can easily change to VQ3 physics for example by using the following console command:

Code: Select all

exec physicsQ3.cfg


I have to say that I myself prefer VQ3/CPM/Nexrun physics over the Nexuiz ones, and hope there will be more servers that run these physics sets (or at least give the players an option to vcall them)

In ioquake3-based games, most of the objects' and players' movements are more realistic than in Nexuiz (generalization). In Nexuiz, whenever I shoot another player from the back, sometimes the player falls backward and not forward, and sometimes when I shoot from the front, the fragged player falls forward and not backward! This NEVER happens in ioquake3.

When I frag a person in midair in Nexuiz, the player's gun falls straight down and lands on the floor. In nearly all iq3-based games, when a player is fragged in midair, the player's gun falls at an angle and slides a little along the floor before coming to rest. Also, the motion of the player being hit by a gunshot and falling is more accurate in ioquake3 (my opinion). In OpenArena (using ioquake3), when a player is on a long stairway and jumps down several stairs, the player staggers a bit down a stair or two as it lands, just like a real human being regaining his/her balance (very pretty effect). The gibs in the iq3 gore effects appear to bounce a bit more than the Nexuiz gibs (iq3's blood is a bit disappointing, though). I think that some of the players' knees just buckle and fall over when killed in close contact (gauntlet or shotgun) and knocked over violently when somebody shoots them from far away (railgun or rocket launcher), but I'm not sure yet. This may or may not be true, seeing as I need to do some more observations when fragging in OA.

The only physics in DP that is more accurate than iq3 is the Darkplaces' shell impacts (shells ejected out the side of a gun and bouncing on the floor).

PS: I have confirmed everything that I've said in the last few posts here because I am constantly opening up Nexuiz and OpenArena to check my accuracy of what I wrote.

PPS: Does iq3 have ragdoll physics? (I'm just curious)

I don't think it has. Also, we have a lack of animators, so there's no way to get a good animation where the player falls on his knees for example. And yeah, I'd like it if the dropped items/weapons fly away if the player was killed by some huge blast

[Mizu Kitsune]

what about darkplaces vs goldsrc? just a question, and i have goldsrc.

[SeanHeron]

Interesting info on the graphics speed (though I would guess this might have to do with model level of details, and Level R-speeds or such as well).
I would think that most of the Physics stuff you're referring to is not engine necitated though - probably just a question of stuff being implemented in the game or not.

Could I ask you guys to make less heavy use of the Quote feature? perhaps quoting just the new stuff the guy before you wrote? Or even !shock! not quoting if you're simply referring to the post immediately above you ? It get's difficult to follow/read the way you've been doing it.

Mizu, on your question - how free/open source is goldsrc? Not at all I think, so I don't really see the interest in the question...

[whitewolf]

Now that id has been bought by Zenimax (Bethesda), I am crossing my fingers for a source release but wouldnt bet on it anymore. Plus it will be 2010 at the earliest, since it will have to wait until Rage ships (Carmacks own words).

I dont think Darkplaces is quite on par with id Tech 4 yet. Its certainly getting there, and it may have surpassed tech 4 by the time id open sources their engine. Id tech 4 is wholly geared towards realtime lighting, and although slower than a lightmap solution, it tends to look better. Doom 3 allows you to project shadow masks onto every surface simply by setting a .jpg key in the editor, whilst still having the light be wholly dynamic. This allows for things like a swinging ceiling light that projects a "fake" soft shadow cast by the grating onto the floor, as well as real stencil shadows if you stand under it.

Darkplaces realtime shadows seem to be very slow.

I have yet to see a Nexuiz map made wholly with blender. Another poster told me it was possible, but the lightmap resolution went down the drain if a single triangle was too big. Being able to model and texture an entire map in Blender has its advantages.

Doom 3 has ragdoll and prop physics. You can specify elasticity, weight, friction etc. for props. Not that thats really necessary in a deathmatch fps.

One thing Darkplaces does have is true hdr, whereas Doom 3 only has bloom.

[Mizu Kitsune]

Mizu, on your question - how free/open source is goldsrc? Not at all I think, so I don't really see the interest in the question...

Ask Valve/Steam as they no longer support goldsrc but still sell the games powered by it, ie its first game HL and up until HL2/CSS.

[LordHavoc]

Now that id has been bought by Zenimax (Bethesda), I am crossing my fingers for a source release but wouldnt bet on it anymore. Plus it will be 2010 at the earliest, since it will have to wait until Rage ships (Carmacks own words).

I was at his keynote and got the impression he would like to, so it comes down to approval - I can't participate in speculation as I am an id contractor.

I dont think Darkplaces is quite on par with id Tech 4 yet. Its certainly getting there, and it may have surpassed tech 4 by the time id open sources their engine. Id tech 4 is wholly geared towards realtime lighting, and although slower than a lightmap solution, it tends to look better. Doom 3 allows you to project shadow masks onto every surface simply by setting a .jpg key in the editor, whilst still having the light be wholly dynamic. This allows for things like a swinging ceiling light that projects a "fake" soft shadow cast by the grating onto the floor, as well as real stencil shadows if you stand under it.

You can do such projection tricks with cubemap filters on lights in DarkPlaces too, it's actually more powerful.

I'm not sure it's fair to compare DarkPlaces and idtech4 on features, they are geared toward different things and have substantially different team size (one or two active programmers vs a dozen).

Darkplaces realtime shadows seem to be very slow.

Actually the lighting is slower than the shadows, but both hurt severely, they have an extremely variable impact on framerate (the game runs very well all the time if you have realtime lighting turned off).

I have yet to see a Nexuiz map made wholly with blender. Another poster told me it was possible, but the lightmap resolution went down the drain if a single triangle was too big. Being able to model and texture an entire map in Blender has its advantages.

Well subdividing a mesh isn't any big trouble in Blender, so I'm not sure what to make of this.

However all lightmap problems are in q3map2, I wish there was someone willing to upgrade/maintain that.

Doom 3 has ragdoll and prop physics. You can specify elasticity, weight, friction etc. for props. Not that thats really necessary in a deathmatch fps.

Indeed, not necessary, partly because (unlike HalfLife2) the continual rocket-fire typical of a Nexuiz game would ensure the props are continually bouncing around the rooms and getting in the way.

As for Doom3, it's worth noting that the entire physics engine is in the released (moddable) gamecode SDK, it is not part of the engine, although the collision routine it relies on is.

One thing Darkplaces does have is true hdr, whereas Doom 3 only has bloom.

I'm not sure it makes sense to compare hdr and bloom features as a deciding point on an engine choice

[whitewolf]

I do have much respect for what you've done with Darkplaces, even if it doesn't come accross that way

You can do such projection tricks with cubemap filters on lights in DarkPlaces too, it's actually more powerful.

This is very interesting. Do you mean for lightmapping? Could you maybe post a screenshot?

Also, I asked a question on this board before but didn't get an answer. Lordhavoc of all people would know the answer: is artist control over the hardness value of the specularity possible? Or is it a global variable hard coded into the engine?

I think the poster I was referring too meant that if one triangle was to big or stretched in relation to all the other then the lightmap would be messed up. I remember from modding jedi Academy that q3map2 doesn't play nicely when using models for architecture.

But yeah, keep up the good work LordHavoc

[LordHavoc]

You can do such projection tricks with cubemap filters on lights in DarkPlaces too, it's actually more powerful.

This is very interesting. Do you mean for lightmapping? Could you maybe post a screenshot?

No it's for realtime lights.

http://icculus.org/twilight/darkplaces/ ... estmap.jpg

That texture is vertical stripes on the sides and top and bottom (it's a cube, like a skybox), there is only one light doing that, and there is no geometry to cast those fake shadows.

You can also apply any skybox to an rtlight as a cubemap to make a projector of scenery - it looks quite funny

The simplest example is that you can render a view inside a lantern model in a modeling app, and then apply that as a cubemap to the light and it does discolored lighting and shadows of the bars of the lantern and top and bottom, and such.

I don't have a better screenshot handy, but it is a way to texture lighting.

Also, I asked a question on this board before but didn't get an answer. Lordhavoc of all people would know the answer: is artist control over the hardness value of the specularity possible? Or is it a global variable hard coded into the engine?

It's the cvar r_shadow_glossexponent in the console, however this applies to all textures, per-material could be added, per-pixel could be added (using alpha channel of gloss texture as an index into another texture for the gloss gradiant - but this would cause banding on ATI I fear).

I think the poster I was referring too meant that if one triangle was to big or stretched in relation to all the other then the lightmap would be messed up. I remember from modding jedi Academy that q3map2 doesn't play nicely when using models for architecture.

Someone needs to make it play nice.