KingNic

The floor doesn't meet the wall in the lower-left of the screen.

And none of you have mentioned Aliens Vs Predator 2? Without a doubt the scariest game I have ever played. Unlike Doom3 or many other games which are declared 'scary', AVP2 doesn't utilise quick scare tactics. It relies on tension, and builds it perfectly. Every sequence is perfectly timed, and you will fill your pants every 2 minutes.

RD, the lawn isn't damaged in the photo's i've shown you, nor is it damaged in any photo you'll find anywhere. If the plane had smashed into the ground, then there would be a huge rut. There isnt. If it didnt smash into the ground, there's no way it could have hit as low as it did. And there's no impact marks on either side of the hole. The hole is the right size for the plane's body, and there should be two huge horrizontal ruts on either side of the hole where the wings would have hit. Zaphod, I agree with you But I havent seen anyone point out the rut in the lawn of the pentagon, or the impact marks on either side of the building, or anyone provide a non-photoshopped video of the plane hitting.

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/blhelo.jpg http://www.news.navy.mil/management/pho ... 7F-001.jpg http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/10.jpg http://home.t-online.de/home/willy.brunner/11_9.jpg http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77.jpg Find me one photo which shows impact marks from the planes wings, and a damaged lawn.

Have a traffic jam on a road perpendicular to one of the exits, you could have the road running the entire length of the map, effectively solving two of the cutting off problems. Also note, in England it's very rare to have cities laid out in 'blocks'. They're pretty much random. Leeds for example has two main roads running vertically in parallel up the town centre, with a couple of roads connecting the two horizontally. Other than that, it's random roads and streets in between the buildings.

If you're good with created low poly objects, try asking around the Unreal Community. You could create static meshes for the mappers to use, and it will require no experience of UnrealED.

Ummm... So the plane hit the ground first right? How come there's no damage to the lawn, in ANY photo's you care to show? If the wings snapped off, they must have hit SOMETHING first. They must have hit the sides of the building, yet there's no even any broken windows on either side of the hole.

Why should I waste more than half an hour of my time if I haven't enjoyed a single moment of it so far? Well gee, sorry all for having an opinion that's different and not based on hype.

Strange how the plane vanished in a fireball hot enough to vapourise metal, but that wreckage isn't even singed. That's a better paint job than most DIY enthusiasts can do.

As I said, the gameplay point is moot. I'll retract that the gameplay is bad. In my opinion, it is bad. Ok? I stand by the rest of my argument. And yes I have played it. I played it for half an hour at a friends house, and failed to have fun. I then grabbed the demo, and I got through 2 levels before realising that I find 'painting by numbers' to be more fun. Throughout the demo, I started to look closely at the graphics. I find Doom fun, I find Serious Sam fun. They're not deep, but they're just so OTT that they become fun. Doom3 is incredibly simple, and takes itself seriously, that I do not like.

I had my eyes gouged out by a bunch of thugs a few months back, and the fact that I need glasses now is due to my computer. :-? The fact that I punched em back when they gouged my eyes out is because I play violent games. :-? The fact that they got 50 people who live at the other end of the country to testify that we started the fight, is because I have no friends, because I spend too much time on the computer. :-? The fact that I haven't got a ladyfriend, is because I spend too much time on my computer. K so maybe I agree with the last one :roll:

I think Doom3's graphics are bad, and gameplay is worse. It's generally agreed that gameplay is bad, but graphics are a moot point. Let me explain my stance on the graphical front before people start flaming me down: The models are VERY low polygon, and have very few on-screen at any one point. They are meant to have normal mapping, much like UE3, but even standing up close I fail to see any extra detail beyond what the texture offers. Nowadays, 1000 polygons just doesn't cut it. The engine is 3 years behind in terms of model polygon counts. I suspect that the apparent lack of normal mapping is due to... Low texture resolution. On the models and on the world geometry, we have texture resolution that is several years old. I'd say the average texture resolution is 0.25x with world geometry now - that's what HL2 is working with (I think), that's what the current incarnation of the Unreal engine is working with, and that's what the later games on the Quake 3 engine used. Doom3's texture resolution can't be any higher than 0.5x, and I'd say that the outdoor scenes use 1x. Even models have a very low texture resolution - look at the late Quake 3 engine models - they certainly have higher texture resolution. Everything looks plastic. You can't argue with that. Lighting is too sharp. With pre-calculated lighting, you get shadows with good fall-off. The edges aren't horribly sharp and fade from being completely dark, to light. Even with calculated shadows like in UE2.x, you have soft shadows. Every shadow in Doom3 is horribly sharp and looks 6 years old. Why 6 years old? Because the calculated model shadows in Half-Life (that were taken out of the game in a later patch) looked just the same. World detail is very low, compared to other recent games such as Far Cry and UT2004, and low and behold, Half-Life 2. Really, I don't think that today's hardware is ready for completely dynamic lighting. Having dynamic lighting has meant the rest of the game has to be 5 years old. Instead, a careful mix of dynamic lighting and pre-calculated lighting would have resulted in a much higher polygon count and texture resolution, and very little difference in image quality. Imagine if we could place a mixture of dynamic lights and pre-calculated lights in the Half-Life engine, or Unreal Engine, and quite possibly the source engine. Would we make all lights dynamic? No. Because the performance hit is HUGE. Instead, it makes much more sense to use a mixture of dynamic lighting and pre-calculated lighting because the player is not going to be able to notice half of the time. I went through the doom3 demo and there was at least 3 lights in every room which could have been pre-calculated and it wouldnt have made any visual difference. Doom3 could have then doubled the polygon count, and there would be no performance hit. Gaming engines will have to take the step forward to 100% dynamic lighting now, if they dont they'll get flamed down for not having it. For this one small gain, which isn't that significant IMO, we have lost at least 3 years of advancing in the following: Texture Resolution Polygon Counts World Detail It's now going to be another 3 years before we reach photo realism because iD are too lazy to use pre-calculated lighting. UE3 is a much better step forward, and I believe that it uses a mixture of dynamic and pre-calculated lighting.

I'm very new to texturing, but I decided to give it a go. This sucks I know: Origional, c1a4b_w1b: Mine: (bad jpeg compression btw) EDIT: Origional, c1a4_w5: Mine: