id Tech Forums

I remember seeing some of the tesseract stuff that you put up on another post and being impressed with the gi, and rendering on the fly. Was looking at that txt file on break and really interesting stuff onwhat they did with pcf to make it work more robustly then vsm. Too bad my break is up. Ill have to read the link they showed me after work. Good post motorsep

Thank you for the clarification as exactly why it is slower. I was off the mark as to why it was slow. As you say for point lights, having to render each side of the cube map would be a big performance hog, but for parralel lights ( I think they are supported ) wouldn't it just have to bind only once? And if that's the case then it should still be ok for very large scenes with sun. Again thanks for your insight motorsep.

That technique is pretty much what I was trying to do I while back in eurocity to try and get the lighting better, but hadtrouble reloading the map, and then my computer died...
Anyways. For d3 poly counts, sure it works, but it would be nice to have the ability to be able to go beyond those polycounts, and not have to worry about stencil shadows exasperating the situation.

And do you think the performance issues could be helped if a tecnique like vsm? Though I know it comes with its ownchallenges

That's a pretty cool showcase there, especially from 2004. Seen some custom etqw maps get pretty big but thinking about it I really doubt there was ever over 200k polys on screen at once. Would the pcf shadowmapping in rbbfg perform better then stencil since u would only need he 1 shadowcasting light? From what I understand a lot of the performance drop seen has to do with the sheer number of lights in most doom levels.

Liked wolf, didn't like rage. Ive been over this but the best part about rage by far was the shooting and movement feel.I actually in a few places enjoeyed it more then wolf because gougpu had more fast/unpredictably moving melee enemies to shoot at encouraging your own running and gunning. Too bad it didn't happen near enough. I do hear the expansion to rage continues on that same path though.

This is more specific to the etqw bots, but aren't the strogg ai with the jetpack able to use that to navigate the map vertically in ways undoable without it?

Just found out, the evil within is using umbra 3 for culling. I was wondering when one of the other studios working under Bethesda, using an idtech engine, was going to make use of thier middleware. I guess I may have also found part of my answer to the whole performance thing. 


And to completly change the subject again, but is lightmapping with megatextures pretty much free resource wise even offline?

Game definatly isn't scary like amnesia was. It doesn't have the slightest clue what tension, subtly or pacing is atm ( not done the demo yet, but so far it threw 2 out of 3 of those straight out he window) apart from that it has many grotesque scenes so just a heads up. Might get fun later on though.

Motorsep, Im sure that a studio who has put the time soley into modifing a fresh, barely touched engine would probably be able to get some performance and visual enhancements just from better, or even just other software developers. What I'm trying to learn is what can we, being end users, define as features that would help give the boost in performance and visuals that the evil within has? Identifing thoze things would be a learning experience for me and possibly someone else who is I retested in these things. If I am correct, it could also apply to many other games on the market and at the very least, it would be I interesting.

Also to you and THF, if it works, it works. Was t that long ago I my main computer had an nvidia 8400gs and I was impressed at how well etqw played considering how it looks.

So motorsep, your moving over to pcf shadow mapping in your version of BFG now? Oops just saw ur earlier posts, sorry

Just for the record, I played the demo on a amd Fx6300 and an r9 280x with no problems. Again, I ask if and exactly how the tighter fov would help performance in an atempt to try and figure out why this game seems to run as good asit does even with the realtimes lights and shadows vs wolf.
I always assumed frustrum culling was tied to the field of view, which would mean that a tighter one would give the cpu a break. Assuming I'm right, with virtual textures, would reducing the fov now reduce the gpus memory usage by a significant amount?

Lol when I asked for computer specs, I was hoping someone had a more budget orientated build so we could get an idea of how efficient this version of idtech is compared to previous examples. Not a bunch of people with liquid nitrogen cooled I7's and gpus running on uranium that max out pretty well everything else anyways

Wow. Didnt expect anyone to get this kind of thing done anytime soon. Let alone this quick after discussing it.

Wow, real hefty vid card for the cpu there, you find this game runs better then wolf then?

Huh, so I seem to have that wrong, ill have to read more about it on the link you posted, thanks motorsep.

Also, if you tried the demo motor, what kind of vid card did you play it on? You said it ran fine. How much do you think the tight fov is helping the performance?

I thought that was only if you were going to do it on the cpu. When I enable the option on my nvidia card, isn't it working on the cpu at that point?