Jump to content

Talk:id Tech 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MegaTexture Explanation is nonsense

[edit]

Simply put, the explanation of megatexture doesn't explain anything. The main problem d3 has with outdoor scenes is the shadowing system in large areas lit by something like the sun, not textures, and this is solved by blending lighting solutions, not, again, "megatexture." Furthermore, no explanation is given as to how megatexture works. I honestly don't understand it myself, but I would hope that someone would understand it well enough to give an explanation.

"The MegaTexture can also store physical information" ... a bit oversold : just said it contains additional attributes such as ...?
"It is expected that this will result in a considerably more detailed scene than the majority of existing technologies, using tiled textures, allow. " removed <- A little fanboyish / this is not an english sentence

More than that, the part saying that megatextures made ID tech 4 the best engine for outdoor is total rubbish! Quake wars was the first big attempt to implement this technology on a real scale (way before Rage), and the technical critics were really heavy on the results. Most people find advantages for artists (as you can draw directly on the megatextures), but it was not known to be the best outdoor, not at all, far from it actually. The first releases were buggy, suffer performance problems and the "megatextures" was not that sharp compared to other techniques. Rage is a far better implementation of it, but still, megatextures are overrated, spcially in the id tech 4 era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnLionel (talk • contribs) 14:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason those two lines were reinstated. I've taken them out. The second line is particularly poor English. They have no sources, but the fundamental problem is that - as you point out - the section doesn't actually explain how or why megatexturing works. I was under the impression the key aspect was the ability to decompress sections of the megatexture in real time, but the section says nothing about that. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Open standards

[edit]

Maybe we should start a section about the doom 3 engines use of open standards/open source programs. Like the engines use of ogg and opengl and openal. Allowing for easy porting to Operating system and consoles Skeith , 9 October 2006

Probably not a bad idea, would be a good place to mention that the engine supports linux/mac as well, as this is pretty rare among game engines.

Seconded. I find all the 'DirectX' stuff a bit hard to stomach, considering it was an OpenGL engine (not sure how they ported Doom III to XBox, web has little information on this). Also referring to graphics chips by 'DirectX' marketing terms is quite annoying. Could somebody either remove this and put/leave the true chipset names in, or at least add the OpenGL compatibility levels as well (preferably *before* the DirectX ones, on the same line, since OpenGL is a universal standard and DirectX is one company's proprietary system). 124.170.12.25 (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source of Prey 2 info ?

[edit]

What is the source of the claim that Prey 2 will make use of the "further extension technology" ?

Shadows

[edit]

What is the source of the claim that future games built on the Doom 3 engine will feature true soft shadows? It looks like a misunderstanding of this quote, in which Carmack explains that the shadow buffers in his next engine (not the Doom 3 engine) won't display penumbras correctly: "It is worth noting that with shadow buffers the edge blurring that you get isn't a real shadow umbra and penumbra. The soft part of a real world shadow is related to the size of the light emitter, the location of the occluder, and then the location of the surface that it's on."

id Tech 5

[edit]

Why is this section here at all? Shouldn't this be in the 'id Tech 5' article? It also seems to contain a lot of assumptions by the author ('the engine will most likely feature'). It also states that the engine is unnamed, despite the section heading, 'id Tech 5', which is of course, the name of the engine. Zenix.

It's now called id Tech 4 not 5. 5 was the new engine that was reveiled at WWDC '07. This is a rundown of the new naming conventions. Lane5slacker 17:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, but I'm aware of that. As you say, this is 'id Tech 4', but there's a section in the article titled 'id Tech 5', which I'm saying shouldn't be here. Zenix, 30 June 2007

Original Doom 3 Engine

[edit]

What's with the name of this section? It should've just been, 'Doom 3 Engine', and should now be 'id Tech 4'. Just wondering where the 'original' part came from, considering that there's no other version.

Condemned: Criminal origins

[edit]

Doesn't it also use this engine?

No, it uses the latest Lithtech engine 203.97.170.193 19:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heh, i was fooled ;) they do look alike though, but i can't put my finger on it... 212.25.59.2 10:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing

[edit]

I think that the following line: "Like the preceding and widely-used Quake III Engine, the Doom 3 engine has met with a licencing success", should be removed, because unlike the Quake III engine it hasn't been widely used. The only actual game that has licensed the engine is PREY, because the other games mentioned are a property of Id. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vash47 (talk • contribs) 00:34, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I agree : Id Tech 4 is less popular than its ancestor. The DCC-oriented Id Tech 5 might correct the Id Tech 4 flaws.

GPL?

[edit]

So when D3 engine was released under GPL? Where is the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.130.7 (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Doom3shadows2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism?

[edit]

And where is all the info about failure with this engine? Why there is only positive criticism? It was epic fail engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.80.50.93 (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone should happen to find a reliable source describing the engine as a disappointment or a failure, please put it in the article. It certainly didn't seem to do as well in the market as previous engines. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ultra" Mode

[edit]

Doom 3 was infamous at the time of release because the "Ultra" mode to run properly used more VRAM than was available on graphics cards in 2004. The Wiki article claims "Ultra" mode is unusable on <512MB video hardware. This is not true, and 256MB cards do run Ultra Mode at playable levels, albeit the Doom 3 menu does warn about running it on <512MB hardware. --Schvass (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Id Tech 4. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Id Tech 4. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Id Tech 4. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Id_Tech_4&oldid=1260226146"