User information for Neil Martin

Real Name
Neil Martin
Concealed by request - Send Mail
Tall dark, handsome. Compulsive lair.
Day Job - Programmer( c,c++,OpenGL, 4gl).
Night - SOF2 online.
None given.


Signed On
November 7, 2002
Total Posts
156 (Novice)
User ID
Search For:
Sort Results:
Limit Results:
156 Comments. 8 pages. Viewing page 8.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ] Older
Re: Eh?'s already out in Britain
Oct 20, 2003, 16:08
Re: Eh?'s already out in Britain Oct 20, 2003, 16:08
Oct 20, 2003, 16:08
I 2nd that - I've seen it in the local supermarket for a least two weekends.

Valve should sue M$
Oct 9, 2003, 18:00
Valve should sue M$ Oct 9, 2003, 18:00
Oct 9, 2003, 18:00

I can see it now - "Value files law suit against Microsoft for Outlook security hole(s)".

Sort of serves them right in a way - If they'd used OpenGL instead of DirectX then they could have developed on Linux, then released HL2 for Windoze, Linux & Mac OSX at the same time AND not had all those M$ based hacking tools installed across their network.

Still Windoze has it's uses, gives hackers something easy to aim at and keeps M$ from writing crap programs for decent OS's.

My Sympathies
Sep 18, 2003, 17:33
My Sympathies Sep 18, 2003, 17:33
Sep 18, 2003, 17:33
I lost my mum to that breast cancer, she was only 47 and me 21.
I hope she pulls through.

Re: But Why DX?
Jul 26, 2003, 10:20
Re: But Why DX? Jul 26, 2003, 10:20
Jul 26, 2003, 10:20

>> you are so right, john carmack cant be wrong, APART FROM THE FACT HES A STUPID VIRGIN NERD

Em, are you feeling okay, head hurt still after the lobotomy?

I think JC's wife looks pretty hot, I'd hate to think he was still a virgin

Re: Hmmm
Jul 25, 2003, 13:31
Re: Hmmm Jul 25, 2003, 13:31
Jul 25, 2003, 13:31
>> Let us also not forget that Source will have several months of exposure before we even see DOOM 3 hit shelves. Lot's of people are hungry to write mods, and Source tools will be in front of them way ahead of the DOOM 3 tools.

With the map editor build into the engine I know people that are aleady creating new maps for Doom3 using the leaked alpha build.

It also includes tools to create light and bump maps from lightware models.

D3 alpha also include a pretty simple and effective camera system. I've already created a simple map and added a camera to fly around the map on load up.

Re: Hmmm
Jul 24, 2003, 13:15
Re: Hmmm Jul 24, 2003, 13:15
Jul 24, 2003, 13:15
>> Then again, most modders may be burried deep into the Source engine, which will likely be 100 times more mod-friendly.

Em, why? The source engine looks like it's got some good physics stuff in there and the water effect and glass distortion look very nice, but apart from that I haven't seem any shots or movies of it rendering anything the Q3 engine couldn't render. Animated face look good but them so do the hand animated faces in the Doom3 movies.
BTW do those years of writing facial expressions routines also mean the body movements are animated at the same time or do animators need to do those by hand still?

The next big leap in graphics is true real time lighting and D3 is the only engine demoing it at the moment( not seen any movies from Thief III yet ).

4 players in multiplays is a limit because of current hardware, due mainly to the number of complex shadows needing to be rendered. Think 5 light sources, 4 players, thats 20 complex shadows of diffent depths, angles and shades, with possible overlapping, not to mention all the other objects in the room that may be casting shadows, then you get the spectual maps & bump maps for every single texture visible ( including player skins ).
Then you have mussle flash and tracers from gun fire.

Maybe, just maybe, this time next year some of us ( those with the money ) will have the hardware required to handle 16-32 players.

Of course you could just disable all the real time lighting and go back to lightmaps, but then it would be no better then UnReal, Source, Q3 engine games.

Re: Already played it
Jul 23, 2003, 19:15
Re: Already played it Jul 23, 2003, 19:15
Jul 23, 2003, 19:15
If you're really stupid enough to judge a game based on an incomplete 18-20 month old ( by the time D3 is released ) alpha build demo then you don't deserve to commit of forums.

As for Valve sleeping with ATI and id courting Nvidia. That's simple. Nvidia leaked some information on HL2, ATI leaked a whole alpha demo build for D3!

id made the smarter move by using OpenGL. Who cares what features MS has tried to add to DirectX 9 that should have been held off to 9.1 You don't code for features that no hardware supports or is even due to support until 6month to year after your game is released.
By using OpenGL id should be able to port to Linux ( an ever growing market ) and to Apple Mac. Epic for some reason went both ways a produced an engine for OpenGL and DirectX, though why they bothered when the OpenGL seems to run faster on all the systems I've tried it on. Maddox did the same with IL2 and that ran faster on OpenGL too.

What's the point of 3dMark2003?
May 24, 2003, 09:33
What's the point of 3dMark2003? May 24, 2003, 09:33
May 24, 2003, 09:33
Really, what's the point?

You look at the benchmarks for the following:
Q3 Engine ( at least a dozen licenced games and more coming )
Unreal Engine ( Lots of licenced games and more coming )
DooM 3 ( Doom3 , Quake4, unknown title by HumanHead Studies)
3dMark2003 ( none, nothing, petty tech demo )

Compare top Nvidia card with top ATI card.
Nvidia wins in Quake3, Unreal, Doom3
ATI wins in 3dMark2003

Okay now which card do I buy ?

How can those results be fair and true?
None of those game engines are DirectX9, but then only one game test in 3dMArk2003 is actually using any DirectX9.

If the top ATI is better than the top Nvidia card why don't ANY other benchmarks show that?

What's Cheating ?
If there's not code to make these game engines run faster in the drivers from both companies then why the hell not - We all play games using these engines!!
I for one want the best performance and best images I can get.

3dMark2003 claims to be about apples-to-apples comparisons. What's the point?
I Write a DirectX function to spin a cube. It works, it shows me a FPS score. One card runs it faster than another.
Is the faster card going to play quake 3 better and faster then the other card? Would anyone be willing to bet money on which card plays unreal 2 better and faster based on how my spinning cube runs?

Then you have the fact that 3dMark is only DirectX.
Most of the games I play use the quake 3 engine ( opengl ) plus I play IL2 using the OpenGL renderer because it's faster, I play UT2003 using the OpenGL renderer because it's faster.
What should I use to see who has the best OpenGL support on their cards?
Answer: easy, I run Q3 and UT2003 !!

Nvidia is only guilty of wasting time bothering to get a better score with 3dMark2003.
Anyone stupid enough to put their faith in the performance of this program deserves what they get.
This comment was edited on May 24, 10:05.
Re: Hehe
May 15, 2003, 18:09
Re: Hehe May 15, 2003, 18:09
May 15, 2003, 18:09
From what I have read about DOOM 3 you will need to be one hell of a programmer to make a mod for it. Maps will likely be a nightmare to build as well. Hard to tell since we still don't know much about DOOM 3 or the new engine.
The map editor is built into the game ( or the other way around judging by the alpha ).
I created a simple map using the alpha. It's basically the same as the Q3 editor accept the preview view has the full game engine so it renderers all the lights etc. No compile time.
Creating new textures will be the challenge because you also need the bumpmaps and spectual maps etc foreach new texture. I think some artists we create loads of great textures with all the other files needed to render them in the game and other people will build great maps using them.

Re: .
May 15, 2003, 05:09
Re: . May 15, 2003, 05:09
May 15, 2003, 05:09
DOOM3; crappy 3-4 players DM. The netcode may suck.

Even if they lift the netcode straight out of the Q3 engine it'll still be the best netcode around.

Not a chance in Hell that the netcode could suck.

3-4 Players doesn't sound alot but with those shadows all over the place and the ability to shoot out the lights etc.
The atmosphere hunting down other people and being hunted is gonna be completely new and so much more real.

HL2 trailers are good, the physics engine is really being put to a lot of use in the gameplay demo ( still think shooting the barrels(they always blow up ) would be better then trying to figure out what to shoot to make that iron bar swing ). The girl in the teaser trailer as a nice smile but from a distance the model looks very lo-poly ( either that or she needs to work on her curves a bit ).

May 14, 2003, 18:50
Re: May 14, 2003, 18:50
May 14, 2003, 18:50
Please don't mention Xombie, look how the previous thread degenerated.
I'll save Xombie the time and try to put his point across from his previous 100 posts + summary of replies.
Xombie: It's only a pretty graphics engine with no game play - why bother buying it.
95%ofotherpeople: It's the best graphics engine on the planet today and the game using it is going to scare the sh*t out of me - when can I buy it?
Xombie: Why bother upgrading just to play this when there's nothing new - except the lighting system.
95%ofotherpeople: Because it's the best graphics engine on the planet today ( because of the lighting system ), and people are going to using this engine for the next 3 years minimum(Q3A released UK Dec 1999 - Jedi Knight 3-using Q3 engine in Dev).

My 2 pence/cents:
This is best looking game trailer I've ever seen.
It was a game right? not a movie?

I wonder if Pixar and the like are going to start taking an interest in RealTime graphics now, instead of feeding there frames to a render farm of workstations to do all the light calculation on the main CPUs, then come in the next morning to see how it looks.

This comment was edited on May 14, 18:58.
Re: this is pathetic
May 14, 2003, 10:51
Re: this is pathetic May 14, 2003, 10:51
May 14, 2003, 10:51
I know, but FPS makers can certainly do better than that.

Scripting is scripting. It's the alternative to spawning a monster at point x,y,z and waiting for it's AI to 'see/hear' you.
If you can see a great alternative to scripted events and randomly spawning monsters then let us know or better still go away and right the perfect FPS, just a pick an existing engine ( I hear the D3 engine quiet good ) and away you go, easy, sorted.

Being able to move large boxes and barrels etc does affect gameplay because you can hide behind them and build barriers, they will also cast shadows to hide in etc
I remember doing this in an old ZX Spectem game ( ask your parents what that is ). Even the Tomb Raider games did this. It's not rocket science ( and I hear Carmacks good at that too ).

Making a level with all doors leading to rooms and all the draws etc being openable would require a LOT of memory. Why do you think people don't do that now? Already any game for the PC being ported to a console has to be chopped down in size and rooms etc removed or levels split into smaller sections, this is because it all take up too much memory.
Looking at the recent HL2 screenshot of the street, I wonder how many of the those houses have all their rooms mapped out and textured uniquely ( or maybe everyone in that street just as white walls and a Playboy poster in every room ).

In a world of so many FPS coming out, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't go about boasting of all the new features I'd spend hours/weeks etc thinking of, only to have some other game rip them off and release before me.

If D3 has some the features HL2 is said to have then who thought of them first ? ( and can they prove it - would anybody really care ? )

I pity the people ( person? ) working on DNF because by the time they release, every idea in the game will be cliched. The engine must have be written twice aleady else it'll look dated. At least we know what the "Forever" in the title refers to, the development time.

I'm just glad I've beening playing FPS for so many years (mostly online) without becoming bored and jaded on the subject. I keep my expectation within the bounds of what's possible with today technology. As I said I am programmer ( although not games ) I have played around with OpenGL and simple AI routines and have great respect for the coders out there producing these games. ( Unreal2 demo was boring though, the new Star Trek demo was pretty good. IMO)

Re: this is pathetic
May 14, 2003, 09:12
Re: this is pathetic May 14, 2003, 09:12
May 14, 2003, 09:12
"Those are engine features, not exclusive to the game."
I'm sorry but you can't have a game without the engine so your point is a little off.

"The only way environment will be interactive with D3 is with the physics."
Not true. There are number keypads and computer terminals. These are part of the environment and can be interacted with. ( keypad in alpha worked and terminals gave you mouse pointer on the screens ).

-Emergent game design
Emergent mean to come up with. Not implicitly new.

-Fantastic Story.
id hired a professional SciFi writer to add the story to know events. Do you know the whole story or just the premise it's based on ?

-Extensive multiplayer.
id have been there and done that before. They say they are putting all efforts to the single player game.
Besides which the lighting system opens up so many possiblities that it almost can't fail to be fun.

-Long gameplay.
Do you know how long it will take to complete D3 ?
id don't. They haven't finished making it yet.

-Replayability ( lack of scripting ).
It doesn't take much to code the scripts to be different the 2nd/3rd time it's triggered ( yes I am a programmer ).
I not saying D3 will do this and id ain't saying it won't.

-Physics that directly affects gameplay.
Being able to move large boxes and barrels etc does affect gameplay because you can hide behind them and build barriers, they will also cast shadows to hide in etc.

-Innovation in character animation
The monsters in the trailer seem to move very well. That monster crawling down the pipe looks like it's taken from the techdemo for the spiderman film.

-ACTUAL interaction with environment (e.g. all doors lead to room, all drawers openable, every seemingly moveable object is moveable, physics affecting all models, etc.)
This will is possible now, you just need to wait for the machines with 2gig of memory and 4-5ghz of processor power.

"If you keep accepting crap, you will keep getting crap. "
I don't accept crap - that's why I keep repling to you.

This comment was edited on May 14, 09:14.
Re: this is pathetic
May 14, 2003, 05:18
Re: this is pathetic May 14, 2003, 05:18
May 14, 2003, 05:18
Xombie, during your marathon whine you said:
"... tech demo, just like Q3A was for the Q3 engine. And just like Q3, it is more than likely just going to end up getting ultimately tromped in terms of lastability."
"... Q3 the engine didn't make Q3A the game any less of a piece of crap."

Have you actually stopped to look online and see how many people are still playing this "crap" game ( or the mods for it ).
I brought Q3A two days before I brought my first PC, the day Q3A hit the shops.
A couple of days ago I spent a couple of hours play Q3A online ( under linux in fact ) and it still rocks.
This is a fun game, perfectly formed for multiplayer mayhem. UT and now UT2003 still don't feel as right as Q3A.
So in what way as Q3A failed in "terms of lastability"?

As for features of DooM ]|[
Great AI ( been done before )
Great Physics and RagDoll effects ( been done before )
Use of Shadows ( been done before , but not with real shadows only fake lightmaps )
Interactive Environment ( Been done before )
Guns & Ammo ( Been done before )
5.1 Soundsurround ( Not been done before but so what, I don't have 5 speakers )

So lets strip away all of these done to death features and see whats left...
Oh crap, there's nothing left.
Okay lets think so some NEW features...

I'm waiting...

Maybe you should stop playing FPS games as you seem to be bored with all the features you need for a good FPS.
And just to clarify: FPS=First Person Shooter ( running around in first person view shooting nasty things with big guns )

PS I do remember playing the original DooM on a 386 at work when it first came out. I learnt how to setup Novell NetWare so I could play it against the other guys in the office. DooM was fun and new ( yes I player the original freeware Wolfenstien 3D too but DooM was so much better )

Doom2 vs CS 1.6
Jan 15, 2003, 10:46
Doom2 vs CS 1.6 Jan 15, 2003, 10:46
Jan 15, 2003, 10:46
Is it just me or do those screenshots from gamehelper remind of Doom2?

Either way CS is looking way to dated to draw in any new players. I'll stick to SOF2 thanks.


Re: This Leak
Nov 7, 2002, 08:02
Re: This Leak Nov 7, 2002, 08:02
Nov 7, 2002, 08:02
This alpha is so close to Q3 in it's basic design that working out how to do things is not hard at all.
And yes the editor does work.

I don't think ID would ever release to the public anything this alpha. It's dated Jul 2002. So it's already out of date with more recent demos they've done. ID have in the past released Beta versions for testing and have clearly said they are offical betas.
One reason for ATI leaking this demo is it was tuned to run on the ATI R300 chipset at 640x480 at E3, so now ATI users can boast at their nice FPS.
Later ID demos used GF4 Ti4600 and were done at 800x600. This was because the later builds were optimized better.

I don't think it will ruin anyone's enjoyment of the finished game because the maps with the alpha will most likely be completely different by then. I doubt the E3/E3_1 map will be included at all.

156 Comments. 8 pages. Viewing page 8.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ] Older