TDM v1.03 vs 1.02 screenshot comparison

[Trickster]

So i wasn´t able to tell the difference in graphic appearance after updating to 1.03, so i did take screenshot from the place i did with previous version. Wasn´t able to tell the difference while switching between two image windows, so i put them to one image for comparison. Now the difference become pretty obvious, all the texture detail is boosted, image seems sharper. Just like edited in photoshop :-)

 

http://img264.images...v103vsv102.png/

 

BTW, fps increase is unbelievable. So all those enhancements in 1,03 work well and increase fps at same time.

But, as i stated, difference is subtle until you directly compare two shots. I would like to boost it a bit. Can i edit some variables for HDR like i was used to do with bloom ? Just to increase it a bit...

 

Yeah, and feel free to post your own screens for comparison.

 

EDIT: hey, why can´t i insert image directly ? still says i´m not allowed to use this extension... .png are allowed on this board aren´t they ?

Edited December 27, 2010 by Trickster

[Baddcog]

I actually don't notice any visual difference between those shots, other than the FPS which is awesome. With that boost alot more detail can be placed, thus improving visuals.

 

I know that textures didn't really change (possibly some updates/improvements), but not a wide sweeping texture resolution change or anything, just touch ups.

[rebb]

The visual improvements aren't actually cheaper than in 1.02, if you go by the shader instruction count - but there have been many other game-code fixes that have increased performance.

[STiFU]

If you want to quickly compare the look of TDM 1.02 (with bloom disabled) and 1.03, make the following binding:

bind home "toggle r_postprocess 0 1; toggle tdm_interaction_vfp_type 0 1"

 

If you now press the key home or pos1, you'll toggle between a pretty close approximation of the 1.02 look and the 1.03 look. The effect of the new visuals is mostly amplification of edges and a better contrast.

 

As I already stated in another thread, I will write a small guide about "Advanced TDM Visuals Tweaking" soonish for the wiki (there is more to it than just playing with the r_postprocess_* cvars). I basically just wait for NH to write his basic article about the new visual options, so that I can extend on that.

[Springheel]

Here's an animated gif that shows the effect of the HDR-lite setting. It's subtle, but effective. Note that even the default image in this screen uses the 1.03 updated interaction. If someone wanted to take a comparison animated gif of 1.02 to 1.03 full settings, that would be much more noticeable.

 

Notice how the scene looks rather uniform and flat without post processing. When HDR -Lite is flipped on there is added depth. The post processing definitely helps bring out the edges and hilights of the scene....without washing things out.

 

[rebb]

If you now press the key home or pos1, you'll toggle between the 1.02 look and the 1.03 look.

 

That will toggle between default Doom3 look and 1.03 look, afaik - unless the shipped setup is different to what it was on SVN until shortly before release.

[STiFU]

That will toggle between default Doom3 look and 1.03 look, afaik - unless the shipped setup is different to what it was on SVN until shortly before release.

Yeah, that's correct Rebb, but I thought other than the ambient rendering, there was nothing different about the old interaction vfp. It still poses a pretty close approximation to the old look with bloom disabled either way. You're by far more knowledgeable in this aspect than me though, so what ever you say, it is true!

[rebb]

Yeah, that's correct Rebb, but I thought other than the ambient rendering, there was nothing different about the old interaction vfp. It still poses a pretty close approximation to the old look with bloom disabled either way.

 

There are some visual improvements other than fixed ambient rendering, but not many, by and large due to pretty harsh "performance limits" being in place when it was developed - as opposed to 1.03, plus some instruction-saving changes that aren't actually visible.

[STiFU]

Yeah, it's a shame the restrictions weren't this lose right from the start. But well, every project evolves over time.

[nbohr1more]

This "shader instruction count" discussion reminds me of an interview with the creators of "Serious Sam the Second Encounter"... They were explaining that the added Shader instruction counts for newer Shader Models (SM 3.0 at the time I believe) were not always as important as they were being promoted as. They were explaining that they could create multi-hundred instruction count shaders that ran well on even low-end DX9 parts but also could create shaders with less than 20 instructions that would break the back of any modern GPU (Geforce 6800?). I think someone went on to show that Everquest II had exactly this problem (small shaders that still tax the GPU way too much).

 

The Beyond3d consensus AFAIK seems to be (worst performers):

 

1) Too many texture fetches

2) Too many branches

3) Too many Floating Point blends

4) Too many transcendental unit (complex math heavy)

5) Too many instructions

[rebb]

1) Too many texture fetches

2) Too many branches

3) Too many Floating Point blends

4) Too many transcendental unit (complex math heavy)

5) Too many instructions

 

That looks about right.

Altho branching isn't really possible in standard ARB Programs.

 

It depends on the hardware. Older cards like it better if things are simply done in some texture-lookups instead of more math instructions, while on modern cards its actually the texture-lookups that can be the main bottleneck.

[nbohr1more]

Thanks. I thought I had a couple of ducks in a row.

 

Yeah, that whole texture verses math conflict was part of the reason for the Humus Doom III fix. I get the impression that John Carmack is still pretty shocked about how quickly things transitioned to FP heavy hardware. He seemed to have anticipated having to keep on hacking away at texture units while the IHV's moved to FP units at a glacial pace.

[New Horizon]

Yeah, it's a shame the restrictions weren't this lose right from the start. But well, every project evolves over time.

 

Yes, and to be fair we have been learning as we go along with this stuff. Our primary goal originally was to fix the broken ambient lighting in D3 and try to maintain a performance level close to the original interaction shader. The idea was that we would only need to include Rebb's interaction shader, but that wasn't possible due to our extra overhead AI/ Lightgem/ Etc. I don't think we knew that we could swap interaction shaders early on, so we feared creating a situation where our mod would be more performance intensive than T3. We simply couldn't run that risk. As things developed we were able to switch between two interaction files, and we then had the option of the 'simple' ambient too, but by that point 'performance' was rather firmly engrained in our plan..so it stuck. Huge props to Rebb for his amazing work.

 

When J.C. offered his HDR, nothing really changed in terms of our performance concerns. We were still not interested in sacrificing too much performance for flashy visuals...which is a big part of the reason why we did not end up with a full HDR implementation. There were too many costly fixes required to get everything working, so J.C. proposed a simplified version until D3 went open source. At that time we'll be able to correct the D3 ambient light without costly fixes, reduce some other overhead, and expand the visuals in a more direct way.

[nbohr1more]

I like the new options overall.

 

My only concern is that the new Interaction Shader's edge detect specular seems a little strong in places. The HDR-lite post process softens this new effect so together they look terrific but without the HDR-lite softening it is occasionally slightly too shiny looking.

 

What I would really like to know:

 

Does the new Interaction Shader support Gloss Maps or does it only have the ability to interpolate Glossiness via the Specular strength?

 

If it can only interpolate glossiness, textures with very very subtle specular might be better off with no Specular map unless there is some way to bypass the Glossiness stage in the material definition?

 

 

Edit:

 

Maybe uniform specularity for subtle speculars would suffice (a shame that the extra detail would be lost but the trade-off seems acceptable...)?

Edited December 27, 2010 by nbohr1more

[LEGION]

The following four shots I made tonight in Beleaguered Fence. The new stunning look of bricks and the wood-floor in front of the fire in the second shot, is that 'Edge-detection'?

 

 

edit: On the last two shots: why does not every wall look like the left one?

Edited December 28, 2010 by LEGION

[nbohr1more]

(Had to look at the images on my cellphone to get around workplace filter)

 

I would say that the extra bright highlight on the guard next to the torch would be an example of the edge detect. If I understand the Fresnel effect explanation in the original HDR thread correctly, these effects are primarily at the very edge of geometry but will affect the Normal map in proximity to the edge. Which looks terrific in most cases but I've noticed some wood and stone textures that seem a tiny bit too shiny.

 

It doesn't bother me that much.

 

I am just more curious about the artistic power of having true Gloss Map support. The "plastic" look of Doom 3 speculars has mostly been fixed by the Bloom in the HDR-lite post-process but the ultimate solution is full control over Glossiness and JC Denton mentioned having this type of support in his general HDR solution. I just want to know if it was added or not.

 

 

Edit:

 

Looking at the test.vfp it appears that glossiness and specular are both largely supplanted by the fresnel calculations so a uniform low specular value would likely fix those subtle edge cases (or simply relying on the shader assigned specular that is added in the absence of a spec map)...

Edited December 28, 2010 by nbohr1more

[LEGION]

Another two nice shots from Beleaguered Fence. But I better put them into spoiler-code...

 

 

[STiFU]

There is no glossmap support, apparently.

 

On the last two shots: why does not every wall look like the left one?

It's dependent of two factors: The strength of shading and the specularity. A higher specularity will also lead to a stringer edge aplification. The shading is sort of amplified as well and it is dependent of the distance between surface and lightsource. If the lightsource is very close to the wall, flat parts of the normalmap will appear almost black, but parts facing sideways are visible very strong. The strength of shading is of course also dependent of the strength of the normalmap itself. Does it present very steep angles or are the angles rather small? To get the maximum effect out of materials, one can experiment with different offsets between lightsource and wall, so that the normalmapped result looks good in the end. As long as the actual torch model is non-shadowcasting a small offset is hardly noticeable and it will improve the look quite a bit.

 

However, I do think that texture is not the best example to demonstrate the power of the changes. But that might be due to the fact that I don't like that texture too much anyway. Here is an example image of Knighton Manor that I consider good. The left shot is the default D3 interaction shader and the right shot is with the new enhanced interaction shader, but both with post-processing enabled. Notice how the edges of the crates and the structures of its normalmap are highlighted, as well as the side of the barrel and the crate being lit by the lightsources a lot cooler.

[Sotha]

Beleaguered Fence

 

Good god!

 

I was wondering what you were rambing about in BF thread about beautiful graphics (thanks a lot!) since I deliberately didn't put much effort in that aspect.

 

But those shots.. They look like something entirely different what I created many months ago.

 

God damn! These new interaction&HDR thingies are like magic! They elevate simple graphical presentation to entirely a new level, especially that shot of the crypt entrace made suspect Biker or someone else of FM beauty masters club had secretly touched my mission. It fights in entirely different league than originally.

 

Big respects to the people forging this gift to us! Looks like I have to start playing all the old missions again with full eye candy..

[nbohr1more]

I was quite shocked by AluminumHaste's "The Knighton Manor" shots (at Moddb) when I first saw them. The sad thing is my mail was so slow that I never posted them prior to the v1.03 release as he intended

 

(I think he's still PO'ed at Moddb for the MOTY picks, so I haven't seen any more shots but I would certainly welcome more...)

 

It also seems that missions where neither contrived lighting or grime decal usage show off the effects better. Plainer maps look great!

 

It's kinda like a macroscopic version of the Doom 3 rule of not baking shading into the diffuse for your textures. So, paradoxically, the prettier maps in v1.02 like "The Rift" or "St Albans" might need to be tweaked to remove some of the baked-in shading and faked reflected lighting (or tone it down a little) to look comparatively better in v1.03.

Edited December 28, 2010 by nbohr1more

[Tels]

However, I do think that texture is not the best example to demonstrate the power of the changes. But that might be due to the fact that I don't like that texture too much anyway. Here is an example image of Knighton Manor that I consider good. The left shot is the default D3 interaction shader and the right shot is with the new enhanced interaction shader, but both with post-processing enabled. Notice how the edges of the crates and the structures of its normalmap are highlighted, as well as the side of the barrel and the crate being lit by the lightsources a lot cooler.

 

Holy crap, that's eye-popping! Hadn't yet seen much difference, but that shot makes it clear.

[LEGION]

I was wondering what you were rambing about in BF thread about beautiful graphics (thanks a lot!) since I deliberately didn't put much effort in that aspect.

Oh, so your mission isn´t that great after all? Should I re-vote? (f.e. I loved the rounded ceilings)

You did notice that I asked some questions in my little post in BF-thread?

[nbohr1more]

Okay, I went back to the Biker's original "Oldtown" beta map and tried it in v1.03. The one screen in the basement in the Moddb shot where Biker was concerned about the ground texture looking "wet" (and I noticed extra strong wood specular) looks much better in the older map.

 

 

 

I suspect that is because of two things:

 

1) Some of the textures in the released St Alban's map were custom and therefore didn't have the new material stage definitions

 

2) Bikerdude appears to have followed suit and desaturated his lights in a similar fashion as Melan and therefore even the stove has a white light rather than the appropriate color. The other light source in the scene also is bright white even though the bulb is tinted. I think that the original effect made the scene moody but it needs tweaking now.

 

The takeaway is that this isn't a mod issue. Mappers can avoid these these artifacts and, as Sotha's maps have shown, even less ornate scenes come alive with the new visual options.

 

Edited December 29, 2010 by nbohr1more

[Trickster]

As I already stated in another thread, I will write a small guide about "Advanced TDM Visuals Tweaking" soonish for the wiki

 

Thanks for that Wiki article, STiFU. Just what i was looking for. I did raised values for ambient rim scale and diffuse rim scale by 0.2, now edge detection is much more obvious, i like it that way. I allways loved games that let me to tweak everything.

Thanks to the whole team for their great work, Happy New Year to all taffers !