Doom 3: GX2 Mod Presentation / Comparison

Since you're mod will be completed by November of this year, do be sure to give one of the weapons light-amplification adding more to the fun & experience of the game. So you don't need to switch between weapon & flashlight, make sure the player is able to both have a weapon but also a light-amplification attached to it in this mod.

Well..... on monitors bigger than 19".... 8xAA or > 'might' make a diff, but dude.


4xAA is the easiest to notice, yields near best results (16xAA on my 17" doesn't look much different than 4xAA), and is less taxing.

8x and 16x are for tiny monitors dude...

lol... if you're playing in a rez higher than 1280... you shouldn't need ANY AA, but you already knew that right - judging from your previous comments...

bah...lol!

Half Life
Doom 3
Warcraft 3

.... to get it started

Well... for you to openly admit that you lose TWENTY frames at a time when playing your games: that says a lot.

I don't encounter those issues ever. The ONLY time I encounter any loss of frames is because of the software, not because of my system.... and there's only a couple games that make my system sweat because of their poor programming.

Gears of War is a work of art by any decent PC Gamers' standards.

Please do me a favor and name me 3 games that rocked your world:

?
?
?

Yea thats why I said AT LEAST x8 QAA. I try to play at x16 qAA as much as I can, but good luck on that in Crysis or Jericho lol.
The higher res comes in handy on a big screen. Cause all the letters are way too big on it if you use a lower res and if you do work on it, such as 3ds Max, a high res is very helpfull. And keep in mind its easier to notice jagged lines on a bigger screen, especialy on LCDs. So x8 or x16 isnt that useless though.

Lol Gears of War. I hated that game. Thats based on Unreal 3 engine if I can remeber. I could almost play at those settings with my old 7900GTX.
My idea of a solid frame rate is almost constanly 60. Some places it will drop down to 40 of course, like if the engine loads some stuff. But not during combat. Yes I did play Gears of War or UT3 with that framerate at those settings. I used 1680x1050.
Higher res is usefull if you have a big monitor. If you have a 19'', 1280x1024 if perfectly fine.

Oh yeah, lol... 8xAA is NO different than 4xAA, dumbass.

16x is a diff, but it's hardly evident on my 17" CRT.


4xAA is, has, and will always be a staple fix for lines with aliasing.

I detest widescreens of ANY size.... and to this date: I have noticed no difference in quality when looking at a game in:

1280x1024 w/4xAA & V-Sync

VS.

something higher than 1280x1024 w/4xAA & V-Sync


The screen real estate is simply bigger. Going from 8x6 to 1024x768 is a big diff, and going from 1024x768 to 1280x1024 is a big diff... anything higher than 1280 is no diff... just takes up more screen.

I'd have to see your system running at a solid 30-60 in 1600x1200 w/8xAA before I believed you (when we're talking '06 Gears of War/etc quality and >).

Your idea of a "solid frame rate" moST likely differs from mine a great deal.

I haven't overclocked anything because I'm getting stellar performance at stock speeds.

Btw: before you waste your breath on explaining to me that higher resos are better.....

Lol of course, the longer you wait, the better and cheaper it gets. I didnt waste any money on the GTX though. I bought it in Dezember 07 for 250$. Was even the XT version from XFX, but I over clock it myself anyway.
So yea, your system sure can handle every game in yoru resolution and x4 AA, you see, theres no need for that offline crap to get 30 - 60fps with your system.

That was what I wanted to hear.
1280x1024 with x4 AA.
I prefere at least 1600x1200 and x8 QAA. Try that with the GT and you know why the GTX is still on top.
I like a stable 60fps rate. My eyes cant tell the difference anymore above that.
The 250+ games, I'm too busy working than playing them.
And you say "could have overclocked" why dont you do it now ?
Nothing easier than pushing up a 6600 to 2.8 or 3Ghz. Takes a lot of time but it'll work.

Btw: if you wasted money on the GTS or GTX, that's not my fault nor is it the fault of every other smart customer who patiently waited for the GT to come out.


I was simply smart enough to make the decision in '06 (when I had a 6800) to wait until the right time $13-1500ish is RIPE imo) to build a monster.

I waited until the new year in '08. My calculation was perfect as my patience yielded me a monster that performs.

On top of that - '08 has been the BEST year to buy PC games.

Besides a couple poorly programmed games: my computer has yet to meet it's software "maker" if you will.

When you've got a machine that gives you those stats at a constant 30-60 FPS, and you've got 250+ top notch PC games installed on the same machine - give me a shout.


Until then, my machine is the epitome of quality PC Gaming = best graphics, AA, 1280x1024, and a solid 30-60 framerate - doesn't get any better.

spent $1300ish in Jan of 08

Q6600 is stock at 2.4 (could have overclocked it to 3.4 if I'd wanted to)

Same with my 88GT... could overclock it but why:


I get 1280x1024 w/4xAA, 8-16xAF, V-Sync, and MAX options in DX9, kiddo.

I don't need anymore.

When I buy Intels' new Quad that comes stock at 3.4 - I'll once again S**t ALL over the hungriest of software (Crysis included).

i want DooM 3 MODERRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNN !!!!!

And as far as it goes for your system being certified badass. Since when is a Q6600 CPU and a 250$ GPU badass?
My impression of badass, is a liquid cooled and over clocked Quad, lets say 4Ghz, of course you need to liquid cool your 790i chipset too then. Mayne 4GB or 1800Mhz RAM, lets over clock them too, to 2000Mhz..
Thats more "badass" in my opinion. Your system is average. $1200 max. Period

Nah, thats not what I'm saying. Of coruse you "lose performance" for every program you have installed. Though its not much. You will still be able to play all yoir games maxed out with every possible filter appled without a sigificant drop in your fps. Unless its Norton or some junk.
To have a offline machien for that 0.5% performance loss is rubbish.
I had a 512GTS and a GTX. As soon as I turn on some decent AA the GTS falls behind, and if I over clock the GTX..dont even get me started.

Both the GTS and GTX became useless the minute the GT hit the market.


That's not opinion.... it's fact.

First off, I have an Intel Q6600 - Q stands for Quad.

Secondly, for you to say that anti viral related software doesn't interfere with performance only eludes to your absolute ignorance in this matter.


Out of my 260+ (and growing) collection of PC games '00 & >: I can say I get this performance with all of them.

1280x1024 w/4xAA, 8-16xAF, V-Sync, and MAX settings in DX9.


yes sir... my machine is a certified badass

You compared it to, "IDTech 4", dude.... but now I know what you were saying.

The GT is faster in some cases cause it is higher clocked. Over clock a GTX and you are as fast. However I dont think you add more memory and a higher interface controller to the GT thus the GTX is better.
Its typical for people like you, you didnt even build your system yourself, lol. "A gaming pro built it" Wow yea must be killer now!
Same with anti virus and all that crap, do you even know how malware works ?

Oh yea waste resources? Every dual core can easily handle a anti virus without losing any perofrmance. You dont even need anti virus. You only get malware if you install it yoruself and even then its easy ot get rid of it if you have any knowledge on how the registery works.
I do know Doom 3 is ID Tech 4, thats why I compared ID Tech 4 to ID Tech 3 Saying theres no big difference.

Because of that fact: there was no other game with textures looking that good because of Realtime lighting before Doom 3 came out.


Please... throw out another piece of misinformation for me to correct.

"Doom 3 textures do look like 2001 - 2003"

(bout to rip you to shreds dude, thks for opening yourself for this)

Ha.... well... let's talk about what "textures" could do and look like previous to IDTech 4 surfacing.

Guess what, Toto.... realtime shadows and lighting of that magnitude was NONexistent before Doom 3 came. That means... before Doom 3 came out, there was no such thing as realtime lighting thus creating textures that recieve light in realtime...

What does "being offline have to do with performance" your retarded ass asks....

Well, since I'm not online, guess what Toto... that means I don't have to waste resources running anti-viral related software/etc/etc/etc/etc/etc/etc....


Dumb C**t

ha

Look up some stats on the 88GT vs. the GTX... the GT is faster in a couple cases, and WAY cheaper.


I'm done conversing with you as it's evident to me you haven't a clue what true quality is.

It's also funny to me seeing as you're modding this particular engine yet you don't even know what it's called.

You're comparing Doom 3 to IDTech 4 in your last statement - news flash dumbshit, Doom 3 is powered by IDTech 4... you know... the engine you've been modding....