[Resolved in TDM 2.06] Soft shadows

[MirceaKitsune]

I didn't look at the latest Unreal engine. But in my opinion, idTech 4 is a fantastic engine, and even now after so many years its rendering techniques give me everything I want to see. Of course technology will advance, and its current lighting / texturing / modeling systems might be seen as ancient a decade from now... at this day however it's modern enough for me.

 

Also, I have an ATI card, and even run the free Linux video drivers. TDM works perfectly with it, and there are no graphical or performance issues of any sort. idSoftware and AMD are both closer to the world of open-source, and overall I don't think they hate each other at all

[motorsep]

I think it's not hate, it's.....Rage effect (CUDA texture decoder)

 

 

Muahahaha Nah, I like tinker with the engine since I understand it better than anything else (it feels really odd using Blueprint - noodles all over the screen). It's just it can't match or even get close to UE4 / CE3 without serious rendering overhaul. I am not sure why folks get mad when I say that. It's just a bitter truth.

[nbohr1more]

I didn't look at the latest Unreal engine. But in my opinion, idTech 4 is a fantastic engine, and even now after so many years its rendering techniques give me everything I want to see. Of course technology will advance, and its current lighting / texturing / modeling systems might be seen as ancient a decade from now... at this day however it's modern enough for me.

 

Also, I have an ATI card, and even run the free Linux video drivers. TDM works perfectly with it, and there are no graphical or performance issues of any sort. idSoftware and AMD are both closer to the world of open-source, and overall I don't think they hate each other at all

 

 

Oh, you aren't aware of the old grudge then?

 

It seems that ATI was trying to convince Carmack to change his renderer to be more friendly to ATI hardware

and even offered to show him the source code of UE3 (alpha). He didn't really budge and shortly after one of his

E3 demos for Doom 3, his demo was leaked and the leak was traced back to ATI. Since that point he did a couple

of irksome things to make the game a bit of a dog on ATI hardware. He used a cubemap for normalization instead of

math, he implemented Nvidia "turbo shadows", he added a "Cg" backend. He also staged a press conference on HardOCP

demonstrating how much "better" the FX5900 performs compared to the Radeon 9800.

 

Of course, BFG was optimized for the Xbox360 (etc) so it shouldn't (in theory) be worse on ATI hardware.

[MirceaKitsune]

Oh, you aren't aware of the old grudge then?

 

It seems that ATI was trying to convince Carmack to change his renderer to be more friendly to ATI hardware

and even offered to show him the source code of UE3 (alpha). He didn't really budge and shortly after one of his

E3 demos for Doom 3, his demo was leaked and the leak was traced back to ATI. Since that point he did a couple

of irksome things to make the game a bit of a dog on ATI hardware. He used a cubemap for normalization instead of

math, he implemented Nvidia "turbo shadows", he added a "Cg" backend. He also staged a press conference on HardOCP

demonstrating how much "better" the FX5900 performs compared to the Radeon 9800.

 

Of course, BFG was optimized for the Xbox360 (etc) so it shouldn't (in theory) be worse on ATI hardware.

Ah... didn't know about that. Hope all traces of this personal war were removed from the TDM engine, so it can run as fast as possible on ATI cards as well. For me, performance is currently as good as I'd expect it to be, and not a noticeable problem at all... although I do feel that it could still be much faster and even more optimized.

[motorsep]

Of course, BFG was optimized for the Xbox360 (etc) so it shouldn't (in theory) be worse on ATI hardware.

 

 

In theory Fun fact - our engine (haven't tested pure BFG) runs equally bad on AMD HD2600 and AMD HD7850. Supposedly run fine on R9. Runs well on Intel GPUs (as well as it can run on Intel anyway) and runs just fine on Nvidia.

[demagogue]

Working with Dark Radiant is nice,and being able to play with the source in a pinch is nice. I suppose I don't need much better reasons to like building for TDM.

 

Granted, when I want to work in a contemp, scifi or 'open world' genre, I don't really know what to work with. I'll be interested to play with Voxel Farm since I think it'll be the UrEngine for FP adventure games like Minecraft could have been if it looked like Skyrim (which is what Voxel Farm is). It builds the world. The mapper just adds what they need for the story.

[HMart]

Oh, you aren't aware of the old grudge then?

 

It seems that ATI was trying to convince Carmack to change his renderer to be more friendly to ATI hardware

and even offered to show him the source code of UE3 (alpha). He didn't really budge and shortly after one of his

E3 demos for Doom 3, his demo was leaked and the leak was traced back to ATI. Since that point he did a couple

of irksome things to make the game a bit of a dog on ATI hardware. He used a cubemap for normalization instead of

math, he implemented Nvidia "turbo shadows", he added a "Cg" backend. He also staged a press conference on HardOCP

demonstrating how much "better" the FX5900 performs compared to the Radeon 9800.

 

Of course, BFG was optimized for the Xbox360 (etc) so it shouldn't (in theory) be worse on ATI hardware.

Oh didn't knew about ATI trying to convince John, but i sure remember that leak (is now known as Doom 3 alpha) it add some awesome things in it, like the double barrel shotgun, that was reintroduced on Return to Hell expansion, i'm sure it was not fun to id to see almost the full game being leaked to the public and by a so called partner no less. The Rage AMD driver debacle didn't helped either, i'm sure it even augmented the grudge and also doesn't help that John was a OpenGL advocate and ATI now AMD was on the D3D camp, today AMD is still bad at OpenGL support.