CoD:BO - Summary of Engine Enhancements

[woowoo]

http://cdn.callofduty.com/hub/media/330/large.jpg

source: http://callofduty.com/intel/353

At the beginning of each project, the team at Treyarch digs in and goes to work on engine enhancements with a focus on supporting the demands of the new environments and gameplay for our next title. For Black Ops, it was important to the team to have incredible photo-realistic lighting, huge draw distances, explosive destruction and effects, and mind-blowing character details.

We completely re-tooled the lighting system from soup to nuts, integrated texture streaming which makes levels like “Payback” possible, and provided our artists the tools and platform they needed to create stunning characters with detail down to their pores! We also went big overhauling the physics, jungle, water, and fire tech – the list goes on and on. You can see what we’re talking about from our gallery (http://callofduty.com/media/screenshots), but no screenshot even comes close to what you’ll be experiencing November 9th 2010!
14 new screen shots at: http://callofduty.com/media/screenshots

[Soldat Ryan]

Yeah, this game will be the best game ever made !!
Blablabla ......

we want to know if this game will support dedi server and if modtool will be released.

That's all !!!

No real answer yet !!

[woowoo]

Yeah, this game will be the best game ever made !!
Blablabla ......

we want to know if this game will support dedi server and if modtool will be released.

That's all !!!

No real answer yet !!

lol - couldn't agree more. And now that I've looked at all the pics to show the enhancements I note that its all SP.

Zeroy - what does your modders eye see?

[Pendragon]

I do like it when they talk about photo realism then show you cartoon like screen shots.

So many games look better then those screen shots. FEAR, Crysys are a couple I can think of.

Some of us have a different interpretation of "Real" CoD still thinks the Movies are the "real" we are thinking of.

http://www.armaholic.com/datas/users/11657-oa6.jpg

[Preacher]

They can rave all they like but I have only 1 question

will we get Q ports

[Joker{eXtreme}]

No further details of Dedi Servers..........

and no mention of modtools...............

I'll wait

The proof is in the pudding -- as they say. Don't want another set of -NVG3D-

[TRTL]

This is neat and all, but I am more worried about another MW2 debacle.

[Gunslinger63]

As far as the tools go , I guess no news is still good news for now. You would think that they would want all the preorders they could get so maybe there are no tools...... or at the moment anyway. If tools and public servers were announced I think the pc preorders would go through the roof . Surely the zombie faithfuls alone would create millions overnight for them. I think it's time for Treyarch to either crap or get of the pot.

how long do we wait for tools before we count them out completely ?

[Misnomer]

Off topic? Where are the forum police for this thread.:)

Pendragon's picture bothers me. While it is more "realistic" than the COD:BO picture (that looks like a scene from HL2 with better lighting), it has a very large "uncanny valley" effect and I keep staring at the stiff looking guys and the flat, smooth, and clean textures on the vehicle. Plus, several shadows are either wrong or missing. I looks like the stuff on the vehicle has a different light source position than the vehicle itself. I never understood the people that said ArmA 2 graphics were better than Crysis.

In the COD:BO screen I am still disappointed in the ground to wall transition. The ground in COD games always struck me as very very simple and trying to save on polys. When I imagine a map like the MOH Beta's Helmand Valley on a COD engine, it gets very choppy looking in my mind. Lighting may be better on the new engine, but I think it will still feel like Quake 3 with a shiny veneer.

[lacisghost]

Hmm, I would say that purely as a gamer and not even thinking about modding and server admin stuff, nothing there is worth paying attention to with the possible exception of longer draw distances. If the overall playable MP maps are bigger that, as a player, would be a nice thing. Nothing else is of any consequence.

[sgTsTuFz]

Yah im curious woowoo - where did this phrase come from ? It certainly drew me in - not the big picture - but I find no "Summary of Engine Enhancements" - I thot the article might actually list some engine elements. :p

ok - I go here which is linked in this article - http://twitter.com/JD_2020 - and he mentions

14 New Screenshots, plus a blog about engine enhancements in #CODBlackOps: http://bit.ly/9u1teg - Which screens are your fav?

and that link takes you right to the intel blurb....

what a joke.

[Omega*]

I love the modified Quake 3 engine. Nothing else seems to give me the "feel", response, and control of my in-game character quite like it. It just has that polish and precision I'm so used to. Now I really don't know enough about hit registration and netcode on a technical level, but if I miss an enemy with a gun in a CoD game, I almost always think it's because I simply didn't hit my target. I can't say that about a lot of FPS games.

Now there's no doubt the engine is aging and looking a little dated graphics-wise, but frankly the visuals look plenty good to me. I'll take gameplay over graphics every day of the week anyway. I've been having a blast with the Quake 3 engine going back to the MoH series, and it's still not getting old. For me personally, it's the best engine for a FPS from a gameplay perspective. So I'm not worried about the graphics or core gameplay for CoD: BO.

I'm much more concerned about real dedicated servers, server browser, mod capability, patches / support, free maps, etc. Most of which I believe we will not be receiving. Dedicated servers via preferred server providers and a minimal server browser will probably be it. It all comes down to DLC, which Activision wants to charge for and this is the most effective way to do it.

It's really sad to me that this is the reason we can no longer have mod tools. One of my favorite things was playing the hell out of the stock game and then later getting to play some of the community made maps and mods. That and getting continued support in the way of patches and some free maps thrown your way. Clans and competitive gaming were also a nice option too, but damn did that ever get destroyed with MW2.

Sorry, this became one long and drawn-out rant. LOL

[GaSplat]

+1 Omega

Gameplay trumps graphics eye candy!

[Gunslinger63]

Very well said Omega , I'm with GaSplat on this one +1

[zeroy]

Zeroy - what does your modders eye see?

Well first i dont see any list of enhancements - the only thing really worth interest is "Texture Streaming" which means higher res textures (more details) and more draw distance. For the rest we'll have to wait and see, im curious on the lighting enhancements, hoping for real-time Sun light with godrays and stuff perhaps. I would also bet on MW2's animated Foliage/small models in SP at least.

In summary it sounds a lot like the improvement already in MW2... Good since MW2 does actually look very nice.

[DemonSeed]

I love the modified Quake 3 engine. Nothing else seems to give me the "feel", response, and control of my in-game character quite like it. It just has that polish and precision I'm so used to. Now I really don't know enough about hit registration and netcode on a technical level, but if I miss an enemy with a gun in a CoD game, I almost always think it's because I simply didn't hit my target. I can't say that about a lot of FPS games.

Now there's no doubt the engine is aging and looking a little dated graphics-wise, but frankly the visuals look plenty good to me. I'll take gameplay over graphics every day of the week anyway. I've been having a blast with the Quake 3 engine going back to the MoH series, and it's still not getting old. For me personally, it's the best engine for a FPS from a gameplay perspective. So I'm not worried about the graphics or core gameplay for CoD: BO.

I'm much more concerned about real dedicated servers, server browser, mod capability, patches / support, free maps, etc. Most of which I believe we will not be receiving. Dedicated servers via preferred server providers and a minimal server browser will probably be it. It all comes down to DLC, which Activision wants to charge for and this is the most effective way to do it.

It's really sad to me that this is the reason we can no longer have mod tools. One of my favorite things was playing the hell out of the stock game and then later getting to play some of the community made maps and mods. That and getting continued support in the way of patches and some free maps thrown your way. Clans and competitive gaming were also a nice option too, but damn did that ever get destroyed with MW2.

Sorry, this became one long and drawn-out rant. LOL

I say that using the "trusted" GSPs is not the way that Treyarch will go for this, in order to deliver payable DLC. All you need is a "account checking" system. With WaW, there was already such a system in place which was necessary for prestige to work - the Deamon servers running in the background of dedicated servers. All indications so far say that Treyarch will use a similar system for Black Ops and extend the function of the prestige servers to hold details of who has purchased the DLC content and who hasnt, and block connection to the server in some way when running one of the DLC maps if they aren't registered as a "paid" account holder.

That's probably a really clumsy way to describe the process, but I would imagine the "finished" product wont be a million miles away from how it will function vis-a-vis DLC.

As for the remarks about the old Quake 3 engine, just remember Quake 3 didnt have bump and specular mapping. So comparing a 7 or 8 year old engine which didnt have bump and specular mapping with the kind of graphics you get in games like COD4, WaW or Black Ops is really not very valid.

If you were to respond to that by saying it is a "heavily modified" Quake 3 engine, then I suppose that argument could be used about any engine. For example, by this argument, the Source engine is just a "heavily modified" Quake 1 engine with a few bolt-ons like the Havoc physics engine (and indeeed that accusation has been thrown at Valve by Source modders).

[DemonSeed]

No further details of Dedi Servers..........

and no mention of modtools...............

I'll wait

The proof is in the pudding -- as they say. Don't want another set of -NVG3D-

Yeah, there's been mention of mod tools. There is a whole series of articles over at Bash&Slash where Jock Yitch gives his low down on the May "Black Ops First to See" event he took part in at the Treyarch studios along with other PC representatives. I would advise people to go read them as they are very informative.

In particular, article V (http://bashandslash.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=982&Itemid=131) has Treyarch's PCDev (Cesar Stastny) on stage and one of the Peckler brothers (of PlanetCallofDuty fame) asks him if there is going to be mod tools. PCDev gave the firm impression they definately plan on mod tools, its just not been confirmed 100% at the moment because there is the question of making them stand-alone.

The new game engine (its the WaW engine but with added features) requires new developer tools, and these obviously have to be made stand-alone before they can release them. And as this hasnt been done yet, they cant say anything yet as they might cause problems running as stand-alone programs.

This is the only reason they havent confrimed mod tools. It has nothing to do with not confirming them because of some supposed competition that mods might have with payable DLC, or any such nonsense like that - its simply prudent for them not to say anything until they know for 100% sure that the tools run outside of Treyarch's server farm, as stand-alone tools.

So, in summary: yes - they plan on mod tools, its just that they cant confirm it 100% atm because they need to look at making the tools stand-alone.

[DemonSeed]

Footnote:

There is absolutely no evidence that studios dont release mod tools because custom content competes with DLC. No studio has ever held back tools for this reason (and I challenge anyone to name one studio that has held mod tools back for such a reason). It is a rumour started by community scare mongerers with no evidence other than their own fears.

The more sensible members of the modding community should stop listening to these scare mongerers and start using their heads - studios will always try to make mod tools, as they generate a lot of unpaid for advertising for their games. All the evidence shows that mods prolong the life of a PC game by keeping the title in the minds of potential buyes long after the game's development cycle has ended, and no amount of revenue recouped from DLC could ever compete with that.

If we take MW2's DLC as a model (there are only a few PC models to consider as DLC for PC is a new phenomenon), only 4,000 Stimulus packs were sold to the PC community. Thats over against the 5,000,000 packs sold to the XBoX 360 and PS3 fans.

4,000 Stimulus packs @ $15 each = $60,000 - which is peanuts to a publisher like Activison. Even if MW2 hadnt used IWNet, the figures would always be low anyway, as the percentage of PC users of a game make up either 8% or 17% (depending on which source you use for such figures) of total sales. Thats a very small figure (I know, it is disturbing how small a percentage we make up of total players of games, but there it is), and if you then consider not every one of that percentage would buy DLC, the figure is even smaller.

So, the total sales of DLC would not be able to compete with the unpaid for advertising (i.e. revenue saved) that mods have traditionally generated for games over the years. Although there are no hard and fast figures for this, some have estimated this unpaid for advertising (i.e. revenue saved) to be in the millions of dollars (wish I had a live link for this, but the one I had is now dead). Compare that to the paultry revenue generated by DLC from PC players who would actually choose to buy DLC (going on the MW2 model) and you can see it doesnt come anywhere near the same figures that mods can do for a game.

FACT: DLC is not developed for PC gamers. Its primary target group is console gamers as their numbers far out strip PC gamers. If it comes to PC gamers at all, it would not be for the revenue, as that figure has been shown to be too paultry - it would be as an after thought. It would be for the "good will" rather than anything else - to give PC fans the chance to get hold of it as well. So, as the "real" revenue for DLC comes from the console sales, giving PC fans mod tools would not be competition for DLC revenue (i.e. that it might stop PC fans buying DLC when they can have custom content for free) as its the wrong target group.

If we were talking about tools for the 360 being held back for the sake of non-competition for DLC for them, or even for the PS3 (which is more realistic given its mod-friendly technology), I could understand the reasoning. The lose of revenue for those platforms would not be inconsiderable and a genuine lose to the publisher. But not for the pultry figures DLC generates for the PC. Its just too megre. A publisher can afford to do BOTH with the PC community: mod tools AND dlc. It is not an "either or" situation, but a "both at the same time" one.

I understand the fears raised. Modders look at the time and effort expended on putting out a set of tools, and they think "whats in it for the publisher?" When all the publishers seem to think about is money, its hard to see what good mod tools do for them, but the answer is as I argued:

custom content is proven to produce millions in saved revenue from not having to promote a game past its promotion cycle. The custom content gets advertised around websites for free years and years after that promotion cycle has ended. This generates sales. I mean, just look at COD2 - custom content is keeping that title alive in new sales years after the marketing for the game has ceased. Same with vCOD and UO and many many other non-COD titles - its the custom content which keeps the title alive. These new sales far exceeds that of the paultry revenue generated from megre sales of DLC to the PC brigade.

So, where did these fears come from? I think 4 things happened which has lead people to fear DLC for the PC:

1. It was announced prior to the release of MW2 around the web that Bobby Kotick wants to monetize all Activision games to the utmost degree

2. It was announced prior to the release of MW2 that the Call of Duty franchise was part of this process of monetizing

3. MW2 came out with IWNet and with that, for the first time a safe(ish) environment (i.e. Steam) where paid for DLC could be delivered to the PC without huge fears of piracy due to the way IWNet works.

4. Despite the announments that IW were going to deliver tools for MW2, they didnt materialize.

People put 2 and 2 together and came up with 5 - they linked the announcments that Activision wants to monetize the COD franchise with IWNet as a means to safely deliver DLC to the PC community and jumped to the not-illogical conclusion that IWNet was all about DLC, and the demise of mod tools for the game came as no great surprise. Thus the conclusion - custom content competes with DLC and so a studio and publisher would want to avoid mod tools.

Well, here is a surprise - Infinity Ward WERE going to deliver mod tools. They were working on them just before all the gefuffle with the sacking of the 2 studio heads, and the mass exodus that ensued. I know this because I was part of the PC community team (along with a couple of others in the community) that was helping test them. That to me spells the end of the argument that IWNet was all about DLC. Not only was DLC the furthest thing from IW's mind when it was conceived (and the 2 studio heads at that time said as much in the Best Buy PC online Q&A), it also wasnt the reason for no tools - that was down to all the gefuffle at IW with staffing.

So, to summerise - mod tools were planned for MW2 and they would have been with us now if it hadnt been for the sackings and mass exodus, and that despite paid for DLC.

If you were to ask me "is this really scare mongering", I would have to say - yes, it is when you dont take the extraordinary events which have befallen IW over the last couple of months into consideration when looking at the "no tools for MW2" situation. As I said, we would have had BOTH tools and DLC with MW2 if it hadnt been for that. Thus proving that DLC and mods are NOT in competition with each other, they can exist quite happily side by side each other. To ignore these facts and carry on saying that DLC is in competition with custom content is pure scare mongering.

[Mr.Ray]

Since this topic is really wandering around quite a bit I will say that though the enhancements do look nice the proof will be in the pudding. We can say this, wish that, threaten with whatever but unless a studio wishes to listen and at least try to give us what we desire then we are at their mercy. Of course we still have the right to not buy.

We have all been over what had better be there and would had better be made available or we are going to do this and that to them. I'm not going to do that, instead I will listen to what is released, work on some WaW maps and generally enjoy the summer. I wont give myself an ulcer stressing about what is going to be released. Either the tools and dedi servers will be there or they wont. I will buy the game or I wont. Simple.

**Off topic Warning........


Hey there Demonseed. Havent seen you around much lately. I guess that you are or should be getting really excited about your upcoming relocation from the UK to the big LA!!!

Anything new you can tell us about this?

[rudedog]

I find your statement interesting, yet very hard to believe.
Well, here is a surprise - Infinity Ward WERE going to deliver mod tools. They were working on them just before all the gefuffle with the sacking of the 2 studio heads, and the mass exodus that ensued. I know this because I was part of the PC community team (along with a couple of others in the community) that was helping test them. That to me spells the end of the argument that IWNet was all about DLC. Not only was DLC the furthest thing from IW's mind when it was conceived (and the 2 studio heads at that time said as much in the Best Buy PC online Q&A), it also wasnt the reason for no tools - that was down to all the gefuffle at IW with staffing.It may help you understand that because you where part of their community test team but until IW states that publicly it holds no merit (no disrespect to you). I really find it very hard to believe that they where working on mod tools just like they told me they where going to support the community with the same dedicated servers they had last game. (from the XBox Live event I was invited too)

So if what you are saying was/is true, then we can also blame Jason and Vince for another PC debacle by trying to steal a company they don't own from Activision. It seems these two not only destroyed a once great PC dev house (before MW2), as well as any type of PC community support but also the lives of people working at IW who where not part of their click and only employees.

Sorry but I find it very hard to believe they were working on anything for the PC community other then their so called IWnet. Which was their (IW's) idea and no one elses.

[DemonSeed]

I find your statement interesting, yet very hard to believe.
It may help you understand that because you where part of their community test team but until IW states that publicly it holds no merit (no disrespect to you). I really find it very hard to believe that they where working on mod tools just like they told me they where going to support the community with the same dedicated servers they had last game. (from the XBox Live event I was invited too)

So if what you are saying was/is true, then we can also blame Jason and Vince for another PC debacle by trying to steal a company they don't own from Activision. It seems these two not only destroyed a once great PC dev house (before MW2), as well as any type of PC community support but also the lives of people working at IW who where not part of their click and only employees.

Sorry but I find it very hard to believe they were working on anything for the PC community other then their so called IWnet. Which was their (IW's) idea and no one elses.

First thing, I have no interest in correcting what you believe or dont believe. I have found through the years that the annoying thing about evidence is, that there never seems to be enough of it to convince all people, about all things, all of the time.

And if you dont believe me personally and call me a liar, I have no time for that either. My old mum always told me that sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

But I will respond to one comment you made, and bring something to your attention just in case you werent aware of it:

You said you wanted IW to state publicly that they were working on mod tools. Were you aware that IW did publically announce those plans? If not, then here is Fourzertwo's last public and "official" comment about mod tools, which was on Januray 25 2010:

Yes, we currently plan to release some mod tools for Modern Warfare 2 for PC in the future. No eta or date has been set on when you can expect them however. Other than that, there hasn't been much movement on them. If this progresses, I'll let you know.

http://www.infinityward.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=256782#p3790854

But if you do know about it, I expect you will be selective with your belief about that as well, and go on and deny its veracity as well. That's the funny thing about bias - it makes a person's thinking all selective and lop-sided.

Secondly, and the real reason I wanted to comment at all, is this:

So if what you are saying was/is true, then we can also blame Jason and Vince for another PC debacle by trying to steal a company they don't own from Activision. It seems these two not only destroyed a once great PC dev house (before MW2), as well as any type of PC community support but also the lives of people working at IW who where not part of their click and only employees.

If what I am saying? Where does what I have posted in this thread imply, suggest, or infer, one way or another, that West and Zampella were trying to steal IW from under Activisions nose? Please point it out to me, as I really cant see where you got all that from what I said.

[rudedog]

You said you wanted IW to state publicly that they were working on mod tools. Were you aware that IW did publically announce those plans? If not, then here is Fourzertwo's last public and "official" comment about mod tools, which was on Januray 25 2010:



http://www.infinityward.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=256782#p3790854

But if you do know about it, I expect you will be selective with your belief about that as well, and go on and deny its veracity as well. That's the funny thing about bias - it makes a person's thinking all selective and lop-sided.

Secondly, and the real reason I wanted to comment at all, is this:



If what I am saying? Where does what I have posted in this thread imply, suggest, or infer, one way or another, that West and Zampella were trying to steal IW from under Activisions nose? Please point it out to me, as I really cant see where you got all that from what I said.

I stand corrected. I never new 402 stated anything about mod tools. You would think he would have made a bigger deal about that. But lets say we wager a little bet in regards to these limited mod tools being released?

As for Vince and Jason, I never said you said they stole things from Activision. What I said was if it what you said was true, then it was more then likely Vince and Jason's fault they would never be released to the general public because of their firing (in regards to them trying to sell/move/take a company and IP they don't own anymore.)

One last question. Are you under NDA in regards to working on mod tools and if so you should not be talking about personal stuff in public. You could have simply posted a link to your source, which only after rebutting my comments did you post said link.

[DemonSeed]

I stand corrected. I never new 402 stated anything about mod tools. You would think he would have made a bigger deal about that. But lets say we wager a little bet in regards to these limited mod tools being released?

As for Vince and Jason, I never said you said they stole things from Activision. What I said was if it what you said was true, then it was more then likely Vince and Jason's fault they would never be released to the general public because of their firing (in regards to them trying to sell/move/take a company and IP they don't own anymore.)

One last question. Are you under NDA in regards to working on mod tools and if so you should not be talking about personal stuff in public. You could have simply posted a link to your source, which only after rebutting my comments did you post said link.

I doubt that the mod tools will ever be released now as the developers who were working on them have all left IW. All talk about them amongst the test team has ground to a halt now so I guess that's it.

I personally will never leak them, but I cant say if anyone else on the test team would (not that it would do much good - there is no mod environment in MW2 to run them. The only way you could get any mod made with the tools to work in Mw2 is by using either AgentGod's ModLoader, or somehow develop a mod environment for AlterIWNet, both of which would mean running the mod illegally).

As for your clarification about West and Zampella, you can only conclude what you concluded if you suppose that West and Zampella were sacked legitimately. That rather pre-empts the whole court case they are having with Activision, doenst it? Did you know that they have both filed wrongfull dismissal complaints against Activsion? From their perspective, they were wrongfully fired, which means also that from that perspective, its down to Activision and not West and Zampella that we arent getting any mod tools now. As in all things, its all a matter of persepective, isnt it?

And finally, about an NDA while working on the mod tools. No mention was made in our agreement about not talking publically about working on them. The only things we were forbidden to do was distribute the files outside of the test group.

I didnt link to fourzerotwo first of all because people have continued to deny that tools would ever materialize even after he said they planned on them. I thought that if I mentioned they had got as far as an actual mod team testing them out, that it would lend credence to the whole affair. It seems that was a mistake, and one I wont be making again.

[rudedog]

Fair enough about the mod tools.

Sorry to take this off topic....

However Jason and Vince, yes everyone knows about their law suite against Activision.

It will be nice to see how the law suites finalize. I'm siding on Activision's side on this. You don't try and shop around a dev studio and IP you don't own anymore.

It seems that Jason and Vince stole from not just Activision but their customers as well, by ruining a great franchise. It was Jason and Vince's actions that ruined a great studio that Grant built. Greed and realizing they may have sold the company too short and for not enough money is what got them in trouble.

[bacon]

On the MW2 mod tools what would they have benefited the MP with these playlists? Was there a secret DS to be released with them? If not mod tools without a server to run modded content on is useless.

Unless of course this was for creating new SP content. In that case bleh..

Also why would it have taken so long to get working DS? I don't understand how using the xbox code was that much faster. Hell even if it had missing features, and few cvars, that would have had to be patched later to add functionality, it would have been better than this p2p bs. Honestly if the code is running client side acting as a server, how freaking difficult would it have been to make it work in a data center? I don't buy that argument.


Well first i dont see any list of enhancements - the only thing really worth interest is "Texture Streaming" which means higher res textures (more details) and more draw distance. For the rest we'll have to wait and see, im curious on the lighting enhancements, hoping for real-time Sun light with godrays and stuff perhaps. I would also bet on MW2's animated Foliage/small models in SP at least.

In summary it sounds a lot like the improvement already in MW2... Good since MW2 does actually look very nice.

Is the texture steaming gonna do anything for the MP? I could see this making the sandbox much larger in the SP, and know the benefits of it making games look great even on lower spec machines.

[woowoo]

users of my mod

Which mod is yours?

[DemonSeed]

Which mod is yours?

Is that a genuine question? Or are you being sarcastic?

[rudedog]

I am not tally but I do have a job at Respawn Entertainment. I will happily met with you when I move to LA at the end of July, and then you can satisfy yourself that I am not tally.

But after that has been done, do I get an apology for all the grief Ive gotten.

Of course, I would apologies to you face to face (and buy you that drink) and then post it on the front page of my site. See that's how I work. I have no problem saying I was wrong to anyone but my kids.

For those who do not know. I've met Tally in person back during the MW1 community event at IW.

So it's a deal, I'll meet up with Demonseed in LA once he's out there and we can put this to rest. Lets all move on now and I'll update everyone July / Aug.

Thanks.

[woowoo]

Is that a genuine question? Or are you being sarcastic?

Genuine question. I've used a lot of mods but don't know every single one and was trying to place which was yours.

[DemonSeed]

In that case, ok. I have 2 mods - one for WaW and one for COD4.

COD:WaW:

http://www.demon-mod.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=120

COD4:

http://www.demon-mod.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=135

[zeroy]

Is the texture steaming gonna do anything for the MP?

AFAIK its only used in SP.

[TRTL]

I find your statement interesting, yet very hard to believe.


I am not going to waste time typing up a big post, because this pretty much sums it up for me too.

Like other smart people in this community, I will wait and see on any upcoming releases.

No skirt and pom poms for me. We have all seen the smoke and mirrors before.

[rudedog]

OK cleaned up some posts may clean up a bit more when I have some extra time

Demonseed has agreed to meet up with me when he moves to LA to work for Respawn entertainment and we'll know more end of July / Aug on this meet up.

Please keep this back on topic please - last warning. :salute:

[woowoo]

Going back on topic -

AFAIK its only used in SP.

So nothing here that is of interest from a MP standpoint. Too bad.

[bacon]

Just for texture streaming. Hopefully the other enhancements like lighting and fire will apply to the MP.

Would be great to see higher res textures used in the PC version. I would also love to see some physics, after playing BC2 for months I can say I love how destructible environments change the game play of a map.

[zeroy]

Would be great to see higher res textures used in the PC version. I would also love to see some physics, after playing BC2 for months I can say I love how destructible environments change the game play of a map.

I could be wrong but i doubt MP will allow for more destructable than what we've seen in CODWAW. Unless they radically overhauled the engine those destructables stay clientside and therefore minimal. Realtime sunlight would be great - instead of the "fake" godray mapper have to play with currently...High-res texture, i couldnt agree more, give us 1024x or even 2048x :)

[rudedog]

I would also love to see some physics, after playing BC2 for months I can say I love how destructible environments change the game play of a map.

I agree, what BFBC2 has done in regards to the destruction it's hard think about playing without it.

[Misnomer]

I agree, what BFBC2 has done in regards to the destruction it's hard think about playing without it.

You're telling me. I keep shooting RPGs at walls in MOH Beta and getting mad when they don't disappear.

[zeroy]

I agree, what BFBC2 has done in regards to the destruction it's hard think about playing without it.

MOH anyone? ;) -- i agree that destruction ala BC2 on COD would be awesome though!

[Omega*]

I say that using the "trusted" GSPs is not the way that Treyarch will go for this, in order to deliver payable DLC. All you need is a "account checking" system. With WaW, there was already such a system in place which was necessary for prestige to work - the Deamon servers running in the background of dedicated servers. All indications so far say that Treyarch will use a similar system for Black Ops and extend the function of the prestige servers to hold details of who has purchased the DLC content and who hasnt, and block connection to the server in some way when running one of the DLC maps if they aren't registered as a "paid" account holder.

That's probably a really clumsy way to describe the process, but I would imagine the "finished" product wont be a million miles away from how it will function vis-a-vis DLC.

As for the remarks about the old Quake 3 engine, just remember Quake 3 didnt have bump and specular mapping. So comparing a 7 or 8 year old engine which didnt have bump and specular mapping with the kind of graphics you get in games like COD4, WaW or Black Ops is really not very valid.

If you were to respond to that by saying it is a "heavily modified" Quake 3 engine, then I suppose that argument could be used about any engine. For example, by this argument, the Source engine is just a "heavily modified" Quake 1 engine with a few bolt-ons like the Havoc physics engine (and indeeed that accusation has been thrown at Valve by Source modders).

We'll see how it works as release draws near. Nothing would please me more than to have public dedicated servers / files again.

As far as the comments about game engine comparisons go, of course they are refined, diversified, and reconstructed over time and result in different variations with each subsequent game, no one would dispute that. But IW's proprietary engine was still based off id's source code, correct?

My point is, when I play MW2, I still "feel" the same game going back to the original CoD. It might have been revised in so many ways that it has little in common overall with the version they utilized in CoD1, but the gameplay and some appearance features (like world geometry) still seem distinctive to me. I assume they still use some derivative of Radiant?

Besides, gameplay to me is more a work of art than a massive collection of code to be executed. MW2, at its core gameplay and mechanics, feels very much like an old CoD game to me (with the exception of perks, attachments, killstreaks, etc.). The visuals, physics, particle effects, shaders, etc. are obviously way ahead of a game released in 2003.

[DemonSeed]

We'll see how it works as release draws near. Nothing would please me more than to have public dedicated servers / files again.

As far as the comments about game engine comparisons go, of course they are refined, diversified, and reconstructed over time and result in different variations with each subsequent game, no one would dispute that. But IW's proprietary engine was still based off id's source code, correct?

My point is, when I play MW2, I still "feel" the same game going back to the original CoD. It might have been revised in so many ways that it has little in common overall with the version they utilized in CoD1, but the gameplay and some appearance features (like world geometry) still seem distinctive to me. I assume they still use some derivative of Radiant?

Besides, gameplay to me is more a work of art than a massive collection of code to be executed. MW2, at its core gameplay and mechanics, feels very much like an old CoD game to me (with the exception of perks, attachments, killstreaks, etc.). The visuals, physics, particle effects, shaders, etc. are obviously way ahead of a game released in 2003.

But IW's proprietary engine was still based off id's source code, correct?

Well, I dont want to derail this discussion too far, but to briefly respond to that - no, IW's engine is not based on id Software's code base. Not according to Jon Shiring, lead engineer on the COD2/COD4 engine. According to him, the source code for the IW Tech engine is not Quake 3:

The engine IS prietary[sic], it IS in-house, and people here haven't listed any technology in it that is a holdover from Quake 3. All we have are crazy "well this app works with it so it MUST be quake 3!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Call_of_Duty_2/Archive_2#Game_Engine_Debate

The problem with that is, as we all know there is a firm belief in gaming communities that game companies lie (no shit!). So, that belief makes it difficult to just take Shiring/Slothy at his word. Yet, ultimately, no one has ever seen the "official" source code to the IW Tech engine outside of IW, so no one but them could really tell what source code was the starting point.

Now, I say "official" source code, because interestingly enough, a couple of years back, someone decompiled the COD2 executable and got some partial source code back from it. It revealed some interesting stuff:

1. The source code is written in C++ - not C. The Quake 3 engine source code is C based. So, right away, it cant be the Quake 3 engine as the language isnt the same. If you re-write an engine and use a different language, right away it has changed.

2. The overal archetecture of the COD2 source code is dissimilar to that of the Quake 3 source code. Again, this seems to support Shiring's assertion that the IW Tech engine is not based on Quake 3. On the other hand, the released license-free version of the Quake 3 source code is known not to be identical to the one licensees use, and so we dont know what the overal archetecture of the licensed engine looks like. It could look the same as the COD2 one.

3. This is the most interesting - the model archetecture in COD2 isnt the MD3 model format of Quake 3. Quake 3 doesnt use a skeletal animation system - it uses an animation system called Morph Target animation. This was the animation system used in vCOD (which, of course, was Quake 3 based). However, the COD2 model format is skeletal animation based, doesnt have any direct equivalent in any other engine, and appears to be a proprietary one. If there are any comparisons to be made to any other model formats in other game engines, it is closer to Doom 3's MD5 model format than anything else. This has lead some people to suggest that the COD2 engine may have used the Doom 3 source code as a starting point rather than the Quake 3 source. This would certainly explain a lot of things (such as the license note to id Software on the COD2 box and the code language [Doom 3 was written in C++ as well]). Getting all the new COD2 features into the source would be a lot easier to do if the starting point was the Doom 3 source and not Quake 3, as just building a new renderer with bump and specular mapping would be approx 2 or 3 years in development if the starting point was Quake 3. Quake 3 lighting is gouraud shading based, and bump and specular mapping is phong shading based. To make the trasition from gouraud to phong shading is very involved, and you might as well start over from scratch (which is exactly what Carmack did when developing the Doom 3 engine).

Ultimately, having said all that, we really dont know for sure. As pointed out, no one outside of IW has ever seen the actual source code to the IW Tech engine, and we are really left at that point - unless someone can put the 2 source codes side by side - Quake 3 against COD2 - and compare them, we are left wondering. In respond to Wikipedia's chopping and changing the engine reference on the COD2 page, Shiring said this in the discussion site:

Frankly, this is so completely insane my head is going to explode. This site is supposed to operate only on facts, yet this is full of non-technical people who do not have access to the source code arguing about wild conjecture of what is in the source code. I _DO_ have access to the facts and I've posted that it is a proprietary engine. All of the arguments to the contrary are not rooted in any sort of engineering knowledge and don't hold water. WTF is going on? Let me state for the record that CoD2's engine is a proprietary in-house engine. I work for IW. Can this stupid thing please end so I don't have to keep correcting false information on this page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Call_of_Duty_2/Archive_2#Game_Engine_Debate

I do agree with Shiring on one point though - if we are going to call the IW Tech engine a "heavily modified" Quake 3 engine, in all fairness to consistency that should also be extended to other engines as well. So, the Source engine should not be called proprietary, it should also be called a "heavily modified" Quake 1 engine, because the same arguments that are leveled at the IW Tech engine as regards to use of file formats and vars is also true of the Source engine: it uses the BSP file format, and the Hammer Editor is still at heart a Quake editor. In fact, some people who mod for Source have already made the claim:

I agree with the sentiment that Valve is probably the lastgame company pushing a BSP based engine? After 3 years of building a mod I'm starting to believe that Source is just the HL1 engine with abunch of third-party API's plugged in. Certainly they have come up with some very cool stuff but over Goldsrc, Source just doesn't feelvery "next-gen" to me.

http://www.mail-archive.com/hlcoders@list.valvesoftware.com/msg28135.html

To conclude: in answer to the question "is the IW Tech engine based on id Software's code base?", my answer would be - it depends what engine you are talking about. I am convinced its not based on the Quake 3 engine. But I am not convinced it isnt based - at least in part - on the Doom 3 engine. As Jon Shiring will be a colleague of mine at Respawn, I guess I will get the chance to challenge him on that point. It will be interesting to see what he says.

[Omega*]

Very interesting, thanks for the info.

In the grand scheme of things, I guess what matters is the result, what kind of FPS is produced from that engine. Will I enjoy it? Will it "feel" right?

Whatever IW decided to do or call its proprietary engine, as long as they stick with the formula that makes a CoD title play and respond like a CoD game, then they have a winner. Of course, I'm alluding to the basic core of CoD gameplay, not the P2P, matchmaking, playlists, etc. features that I utterly detest. :D

Congrats on the Respawn gig.

[DemonSeed]

Very interesting, thanks for the info.

In the grand scheme of things, I guess what matters is the result, what kind of FPS is produced from that engine. Will I enjoy it? Will it "feel" right?

Whatever IW decided to do or call its proprietary engine, as long as they stick with the formula that makes a CoD title play and respond like a CoD game, then they have a winner. Of course, I'm alluding to the basic core of CoD gameplay, not the P2P, matchmaking, playlists, etc. features that I utterly detest. :D

Congrats on the Respawn gig.

I agree totally. It was the poor avatar movement in BC2 that killed the game for me (on top of the poor hit registration and poor game perspective). If a game doesnt move the avatar as fluidly as a COD avatar I usually end up disliking the game.

Congrats on the Respawn gig.

Thanks! Im looking forward to it immensely.

[zeroy]

On the IW Engine matter i think one would get confused easily:


The menu structure and definitions from COD2/4/5 is still extremely similar to the ones in use in Id Software Quake 2/3
The D3DBSP format from COD2/4/5 is also still structured very much like the BSP Format in use in Id Software Quake 2/3 for the geometry.
IW/Treyarch are still using Radiant to edit the world which is still very similar to GTK Radiant used in early and latter Quake Games. The same applies to the FX Editor using the same techniques and almost same GUI (See HERE (http://www.iddevnet.com/quake4/Using_the_FX_Editor) for Q4)
Animations format use by COD1/2/4/5 are still very similar to those use in Quake 3/4 (Rig + Meshes, Torso/Legs based anims, see HERE (http://www.iddevnet.com/quake4/Animations) for Q4)


The above is just myself finding similarity between ID Software Quake and IW/Treyarch COD tools and format but anyone who knows a little can see the same I'm sure. What this shows is that if since COD2 the "IW Engine" is proprietary then they must mean for other technologies than the ones I just mentioned, this or they have obtained rights to use and modify some of ID Software's main features.... In any case all COD titles to date have the "This product contains software technology licensed from Id Software" which ultimately will always cause confusion.

To go back on the Topic, I do see how the COD Engine - or whatever one wants to call it - has evolved and so far its been for the better without removing what makes COD Gameplay a great game each time!

[DemonSeed]

One would get confused easily:


The menu structure and definitions from COD2/4/5 is still extremely similar to the ones in use in Id Software Quake 2/3
The D3DBSP format from COD2/4/5 is also still structured very much like the BSP Format in use in Id Software Quake 2/3 for the geometry.
IW/Treyarch are still using Radiant to edit the world which is still very similar to GTK Radiant used in early and latter Quake Games. The same applies to the FX Editor using the same techniques and almost same GUI (See HERE (http://www.iddevnet.com/quake4/Using_the_FX_Editor) for Q4)
Animations format use by COD1/2/4/5 are still very similar to those use in Quake 3/4 (Rig + Meshes, Torso/Legs based anims, see HERE (http://www.iddevnet.com/quake4/Animations) for Q4)


The above is just myself finding similarity between ID Software Quake and IW/Treyarch COD tools and format but anyone who knows a little can see the same im sure. What this shows is that if since COD2 the "IW Engine" is proprietary then they must mean for other technologies than the ones i just mentioned, this or they have obtain rights to use and modify some of ID Software main features.... In any case all COD titles to date have the "This product contains software technology licensed from Id Software" which ultimately will always cause confusion.


Yes, I totally agree with you that it is all confusing. And the reason there is such fierce debate about it is because of the similarities between them. However, there are a couple of points I would want to raise with you - if this isnt taking things so off topic that it shouldnt be posted. So, if an admin thinks its derailing things too much I will understand if it gets deleted.


In any case all COD titles to date have the "This product contains software technology licensed from Id Software" which ultimately will always cause confusionThis is the first thing I want to comment on. In my post above, I already noted this. I suggest that the license note may not refer to Quake 3 at all but Doom 3. You have to remember that id Software have not made 1 engine - they have made 5. So the proper question is - what engine is being licensed? I suggest like many others out there that it is the Doom 3 engine that is the starting code base for the IW Tech engine.

The menu structure and definitions from COD2/4/5 is still extremely similar to the ones in use in Id Software Quake 2/3This is where people jump to conclusions - they see something similar and then jump to the conclusion that its derived. But you can copy something without it being derived from it. As a quick random example, just look at the Dyson Vacuum cleaner look-alikes that are produced. They are copies - but they arent derived from the Patent.

Even when you look at the Quake 1, 2, 3, and 4 engines there are loads of things that get copied over into the next engine itteration because the designers liked the original. Its called continuity. So you can argue that the IW developers kept stuff they liked, copied it but didnt derive them from Quake 3 source code. If you wanted to, you could take an engine totally dissimilar to any Quake engine, and code it to have looks and features from a Quake game. But that doesnt mean the source code was ported over directly and used as the base code. You use ingenuity and talent to fashion what you want out of the base code of the not-quake engine you are working with.




The D3DBSP format from COD2/4/5 is also still structured very much like the BSP Format in use in Id Software Quake 2/3 for the geometry.
IW/Treyarch are still using Radiant to edit the world which is still very similar to GTK Radiant used in early and latter Quake Games. The same applies to the FX Editor using the same techniques and almost same GUI (See HERE (http://www.iddevnet.com/quake4/Using_the_FX_Editor) for Q4)

Well, as I also noted in my above post, the same argument can be leveled at the Source engine:

1. The Source engine uses the .BSP file format, and other than the increase in lump numbers, its identical to other .BSP file formats from id Software.

2. The Hammer Editor is a Quake editor. It hasnt changed much since it was first created for the GoldSrc engine for Half Life 1.

Valve insist that the code base for the Source engine isnt Quake 1, yet John Carmack has remarked that there is still lots of early Quake code in it:

http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/johnc/recent%20updates/archive?news_id=290

I said above that in fairness to consistency, if we are going to call the IW Tech engine a "heavily modified" Quake 3 engine, why arent we doing the same with the Source engine, and calling it a "heavily modified" Quake 1 engine? The answer to that would depend on whether or not you believe that similar things indicate derivation. If you believe you cant copy a feature, file format or folder structure, without it being derived from something else, then I guess that would mean there are no such things as new engines. Every one is derived from the first one in the series - so there is no Quake 2 or Quake 3 or Quake 4 engine, they are all simply "heavily modified" Quake 1 engines.

Animations format use by COD1/2/4/5 are still very similar to those use in Quake 3/4 (Rig + Meshes, Torso/Legs based anims, see HERE (http://www.iddevnet.com/quake4/Animations) for Q4)You must have missed what I said about model formats in my post above, so I'll reiterate:

1. You cannot lump Quake 3 and Quake 4 (i.e. Doom 3) together when it comes to animation, as their model formats and animation systems are totally different. The MD3 model format of Quake 3 doesnt use a skeletal animation system - it uses a system of animation called Morph Target animation. However, on the other hand, the MD5 model format of Quake 4/Doom 3 uses a skeletal animation system.

2. vCOD/UO doesnt use a skeletal animation system. It uses the Morph Target system. Both games were built on a heavily modified Return to Castle Wolfenstein engine, but RTCW never introduced the improved MD4 model format into the Quake 3 engine that many other developers introduced into their game builds, because the MD4 format wasnt developed by id Software, but by a community member by the name of Gongo and isnt included in either the free Quake 3 source code or the licensed version. COD2/4, on the other hand, uses a skeletal animation sysem, and whereas the model format used in COD2/4 has no direct equivalent in other engines (its proprietary), if there is anything close to it it would be Doom 3's MD5 skeletal format.

[bullet-worm]

Wow, the old "is this Q3 or not" stuff has come back again?

Honestly, I think it is, and isn't (anymore). Here is the way it has gone:

[As someone who has never gotten into Doom 3 modding, I don't know how similar Doom 3 is overall in engine architecture to Quake3, so for my purposes I will compare to Q3. Either way the end result is the same.]

CoD1: So Quake3-like that the differences were negligible. Cvar list was almost identical, file system identical, networking packets almost identical, server/client interface almost identical, etc...

CoD2: Almost just as Quake3-like as CoD1, just a few more IW custom changes to fit their design needs.

CoD4: Heavily modified lots of parts of the engine especially in the file systems and graphics/texture systems.

CoD6: More heavy modifications, but mostly along the same lines as CoD4, except there has been less PC-ization of the title, which I honestly lay at the foot of the move to paid DLC than running out of time to make the PC title.

Of course, I'm being OVERLY generic with the changes. Other modifications (probably MOST unnoticeable to us) have certainly been occurring along the way too as necessary to do what IW has wanted to do with each title. Networking/backend stuff with the friends list and the whole PC lobby system will attest to that.

I would equate the CoD engine like a heavily modified car. It started as one thing, and over the years parts (sometimes LARGE parts) of that car have been pulled out and changed or even completely replaced with custom parts that work better for what IW wanted to accomplish. Now, essentially a decade and multiple large reworks later, the car is still working but it has a TON of customized parts all over it. There are still lots of original parts and systems still working in it, but in general if you looked at the car from the outside it would be hard to recognize what the car used to be.

The question is, at what point does that heavily retrofitted car STOP being a derivative of the car it originally was? Its a question with an answer that is pure opinion. My opinion is that it was on the brink of passing that stage with CoD4, and way past it with CoD6.

But even after you have that heavily modified car, the people who have seen it make each change along the way still know what the base car was. Will they ever be wrong by calling it a heavily modified "x" car?

I dare say THAT is why we still see the iD Software on the box, because is it really worth getting into a legal fight trying to get the court to decide at what point a heavily modified engine stops being heavily modified and becomes its own creation?

worm

[zeroy]

The question is, at what point does that heavily retrofitted car STOP being a derivative of the car it originally was? Its a question with an answer that is pure opinion.

I believe its actually quantified: 99% of the Code must be different then its not derivative anymore.

[rudedog]

Now that was a very insightful overview from a very well known modder and community member from the old days (sorry Bullet :salute: - we're all getting old)

The real question is when will Activision/IW/Treyarch/fill in dev studio here move to a new "modern" engine? And by moving to a new engine, will the CoD franchise see the same faith as the MOH franchise did when they moved to a completely new engine?

What engine will Vince and Jason of Respawn use for their next game? People sometimes forget or overlook a studio who has used nothing but the same engine for the past X years. It's not as easy as you think to move to a whole new platform.

again thanks Bullet for your very valuable insite :salute: :salute:

[bullet-worm]

wow... didn't know that! Well, then that explains iD Software's name on the box.

Still, a legal definition is not the same as a layman's definition on lots of terms.

worm

[MaydaX]

The real question is when will Activision/IW/Treyarch/fill in dev studio here move to a new "modern" engine? And by moving to a new engine, will the CoD franchise see the same faith as the MOH franchise did when they moved to a completely new engine?

Honestly looking at the new MoH for example newer is not better. Sure it looks better but it doesn't have the same fluid movement that I have come to love in cod and I assume older moh games.

Great gameplay should always be top priority but it seems eye candy is becoming more important. Sure it may look nice but if gameplay suffers input lag, delayed movement, lack of content etc than all the eye candy in the world won't make it fun.

[DemonSeed]

Wow, the old "is this Q3 or not" stuff has come back again?

Honestly, I think it is, and isn't (anymore). Here is the way it has gone:

[As someone who has never gotten into Doom 3 modding, I don't know how similar Doom 3 is overall in engine architecture to Quake3, so for my purposes I will compare to Q3. Either way the end result is the same.]

CoD1: So Quake3-like that the differences were negligible. Cvar list was almost identical, file system identical, networking packets almost identical, server/client interface almost identical, etc...

CoD2: Almost just as Quake3-like as CoD1, just a few more IW custom changes to fit their design needs.

CoD4: Heavily modified lots of parts of the engine especially in the file systems and graphics/texture systems.

CoD6: More heavy modifications, but mostly along the same lines as CoD4, except there has been less PC-ization of the title, which I honestly lay at the foot of the move to paid DLC than running out of time to make the PC title.

Of course, I'm being OVERLY generic with the changes. Other modifications (probably MOST unnoticeable to us) have certainly been occurring along the way too as necessary to do what IW has wanted to do with each title. Networking/backend stuff with the friends list and the whole PC lobby system will attest to that.

I would equate the CoD engine like a heavily modified car. It started as one thing, and over the years parts (sometimes LARGE parts) of that car have been pulled out and changed or even completely replaced with custom parts that work better for what IW wanted to accomplish. Now, essentially a decade and multiple large reworks later, the car is still working but it has a TON of customized parts all over it. There are still lots of original parts and systems still working in it, but in general if you looked at the car from the outside it would be hard to recognize what the car used to be.

The question is, at what point does that heavily retrofitted car STOP being a derivative of the car it originally was? Its a question with an answer that is pure opinion. My opinion is that it was on the brink of passing that stage with CoD4, and way past it with CoD6.

But even after you have that heavily modified car, the people who have seen it make each change along the way still know what the base car was. Will they ever be wrong by calling it a heavily modified "x" car?

I dare say THAT is why we still see the iD Software on the box, because is it really worth getting into a legal fight trying to get the court to decide at what point a heavily modified engine stops being heavily modified and becomes its own creation?

worm

As someone who has never gotten into Doom 3 modding, I don't know how similar Doom 3 is overall in engine architecture to Quake3, so for my purposes I will compare to Q3. Either way the end result is the same.The engine archetecture is fundamentally different between Doom 3 and Quake 3. Just focusing on 2 aspects:

1. Quake 3 is written in C;
2. Quake 3 renders light via gouraud shading;

3. Doom 3 is written in C++;
4. Doom 3 renders light via phong shading.

The COD2 engine cannot be a heavily modified Quake 3 engine because it is written in C++. The reverse engineered COD2 executable proved that. Quake 3 is written in C. Even though C++ is obviously derived from C, there are such fundamental differences between the 2 languages that if you re-wrote a piece of software from C into C++ you couldn't do it piece-meal - you would have to completely re-write the whole damn thing.

Secondly, COD2 renders light via phong shading, which is why bump and specular mapping is possible. You cannot take a gouraund shading renderer like the vCOD one and just bolt a phong shading renderer on to it, you would have to completely re-write the renderer.

It is much easier to think that IW started with a Doom 3 source code base than to start with a Quake 3 code base. First, there is the fact that it is already a phong shading engine, and secondly, it is already written in C++, which suits COD script better as it is more C++ than it is C.

Cvar list was almost identical, file system identical, networking packets almost identical, server/client interface almost identical, etcIt is impossible to determine a game engines code base from such external things as this, because you could take any game engine and engineer it to have an identical file system, or var reference system, or even its netcode, as another engine's. For example, I could take the Frostbite engine and model Quake-like systems into it. This is why it is such a tricky question when asking about source code derivation - was it simply modelled on a previous engine? Or was it actually derived from it? Without seeing the actual source code, it is just pure conjecture.

Going on your modified car analogy, I can take a Merc's body kit and put it over a Ford chasis and engine, but its still a Ford underneath. On the other hand, I could take a Ford body kit and put it on a Merc's chasis and engine, but it is still a Merc. Its the engine which determines what it is, not its external appearance. No one outside of IW has seen the "official" source code so we really cant look under the hood. The closest we've come to seeing it is with the illegally reverse engineered executable that Activision legal jumped all over a few years back. That had such striking similarities to the Doom 3 source code that I have been lead to believe it is either modelled on the Doom 3 source, or - at least in parts - actually derived from it.


I dare say THAT is why we still see the iD Software on the box, because is it really worth getting into a legal fight trying to get the court to decide at what point a heavily modified engine stops being heavily modified and becomes its own creation?
I would point out that I personally believe it refers to the Doom 3 code base that I believe the COD2 engine started from. However, in difference to balance, I would also point out that Jon Shiring (IWSlothy) has argued that the license notice isnt to "software" as such but to "software technology". A game engine would not usually be refered to as "software technology" in a license notice, but refered to as "software" or "code". So it is quite possible that it simply refers to id Software's proprietary file types such as the .BSP file type (Im not 100% sure about this but I believe the .H and .DEF file types are also id Software's proprietary types as well).

When people see the notice, they automatically think it refers to a whole engine. It could just be part of it, or it could quite possibly be simply a reference to registered proprietary file system, just like the BINK notice.

[DemonSeed]

What engine will Vince and Jason of Respawn use for their next game? People sometimes forget or overlook a studio who has used nothing but the same engine for the past X years. It's not as easy as you think to move to a whole new platform.


We will be writing our own engine. I think me stating that isnt going to surprise anyone. What starting code it will be, whether or not it will be from scratch, I really couldnt say - not only because Im bound by an NDA but also because I have absolutely no idea (yet).

[bullet-worm]

To be honest, this has been the Achilles heel for me with games too. Animation and how to deal with network latency....

The original MoH (Allied Assault) had this same "natural looking" fluid model animations as well, and dealt with network latency in an acceptable way as well. However future titles thus far from MoH have not been able to replicate that.

I'm confident that whatever Respawn does will be where we find that pop up again. It was THEY who made the original MoH AND CoD engines look and feel "right". I am confident that they can do it again with whatever base engine they decide to start with this time.

I would be SHOCKED though if it were not the same "IW engine". They know that engine backwards and forwards. It would be a waste to throw all that knowledge away and attempt to start from scratch. But the precedence is there, they did it moving from the MoH engine to the CoD engine. But then again, they really only built one game for MoH.

I'd like for them to start from scratch again. The CoD4 engine was getting so heavily hacked together that modding for it was getting to be a serious pain in the arse! Remember when all we had to do was zip up some files and change the file extension to make a mod? I hope they get back to SIMPLICITY.

But that assumes they want to support a modding community. I'm not sure at this point that is what they truly want. I'd bet they would like the "image" of being community friendly, but I'm sure the bank accounts are hungering for more paid DLC dollars too.

Que my idea for an in-game "apps" store like the smart phones do now. Let custom content developers go to town, and sell the custom content through their system to make everyone (developer AND modder/mapper) a dollar AND be community friendly.

worm

[bullet-worm]

Oh, and congrats Demonseed! I hope you interface with the community then just as much as you do now. Granted we don't expect information from you that you can't give. What will you be doing at Respawn?

Working for a game development company was ALWAYS a dream of mine, made impossible by the reality that the kind of pay and number of hours involved would not suffice to support my current lifestyle... lol

worm

[DemonSeed]

To be honest, this has been the Achilles heel for me with games too. Animation and how to deal with network latency....

The original MoH (Allied Assault) had this same "natural looking" fluid model animations as well, and dealt with network latency in an acceptable way as well. However future titles thus far from MoH have not been able to replicate that.

I'm confident that whatever Respawn does will be where we find that pop up again. It was THEY who made the original MoH AND CoD engines look and feel "right". I am confident that they can do it again with whatever base engine they decide to start with this time.

I would be SHOCKED though if it were not the same "IW engine". They know that engine backwards and forwards. It would be a waste to throw all that knowledge away and attempt to start from scratch. But the precedence is there, they did it moving from the MoH engine to the CoD engine. But then again, they really only built one game for MoH.

I'd like for them to start from scratch again. The CoD4 engine was getting so heavily hacked together that modding for it was getting to be a serious pain in the arse! Remember when all we had to do was zip up some files and change the file extension to make a mod? I hope they get back to SIMPLICITY.

But that assumes they want to support a modding community. I'm not sure at this point that is what they truly want. I'd bet they would like the "image" of being community friendly, but I'm sure the bank accounts are hungering for more paid DLC dollars too.

Que my idea for an in-game "apps" store like the smart phones do now. Let custom content developers go to town, and sell the custom content through their system to make everyone (developer AND modder/mapper) a dollar AND be community friendly.

worm

As to your comments about supporting modders -

When I went for my interview, I was intereviewed by Jason West and another guy (whose name I cant remember). We talked for a long time about our roots, where we come from, etc. Jason West was a hobby modder when he was in College, modding for Quake 1. It has always been Jason behind getting the mod tools out to the fans right from the start because he always remembers how much fun it is. Of course, there were other former hobby modders at IW then, but Jason was a studio head, so it was always ultimately down to him that mod tools got produced.

I didn't know this at the time of the interview, but it was Jason who insisted we got mod tools for COD2 when Activision initially said "no" to the idea. He was the one who rallied the team together to work in their own time to produce them.

So Jason West may have said some .. shall we diplomatically say "questionable" things? ... after the release of MW2, but going on what he said at my interview, he still believes in modding and modders. I also know that the other devs do as well. So, I can be almost sure that mod tools will always be on the agenda at Respawn. I will be very surprised if they arent.

[DemonSeed]

Oh, and congrats Demonseed! I hope you interface with the community then just as much as you do now. Granted we don't expect information from you that you can't give. What will you be doing at Respawn?

Working for a game development company was ALWAYS a dream of mine, made impossible by the reality that the kind of pay and number of hours involved would not suffice to support my current lifestyle... lol

worm

Thanks for the congrats.

I am employed essentially as a "gameplay designer", but I will be also working on art work as well - from concept art, to finished game art.

I dont know about my prescence on modding forums after I start work. I expect it will be exactly like it has been for a couple of friends of mine - it starts off ok, but then the pressure of the insistence on you saying something "off the record" on development when you really cant say anything, will make me run away for a bit of piece. You tell people you cant say anything, but they just dont listen.

However, as Respawn will be having its own forums for fans, I expect I will hang out there a lot.

[bacon]

Now that was a very insightful overview from a very well known modder and community member from the old days (sorry Bullet :salute: - we're all getting old)

The real question is when will Activision/IW/Treyarch/fill in dev studio here move to a new "modern" engine? And by moving to a new engine, will the CoD franchise see the same faith as the MOH franchise did when they moved to a completely new engine?

What engine will Vince and Jason of Respawn use for their next game? People sometimes forget or overlook a studio who has used nothing but the same engine for the past X years. It's not as easy as you think to move to a whole new platform.

again thanks Bullet for your very valuable insite :salute: :salute:

I was wondering this as well, and from what we have seen of Rage the new engine looks amazing. :p

If I were in charge of Respawn why not use the new ID engine?

[bullet-worm]

The engine archetecture is fundamentally different between Doom 3 and Quake 3. Just focusing on 2 aspects:

1. Quake 3 is written in C;
2. Quake 3 renders light via gouraud shading;

3. Doom 3 is written in C++;
4. Doom 3 renders light via phong shading.

The COD2 engine cannot be a heavily modified Quake 3 engine because it is written in C++. The reverse engineered COD2 executable proved that. Quake 3 is written in C. Even though C++ is obviously derived from C, there are such fundamental differences between the 2 languages that if you re-wrote a piece of software from C into C++ you couldn't do it piece-meal - you would have to completely re-write the whole damn thing.

Secondly, COD2 renders light via phong shading, which is why bump and specular mapping is possible. You cannot take a gouraund shading renderer like the vCOD one and just bolt a phong shading renderer on to it, you would have to completely re-write the renderer.

It is much easier to think that IW started with a Doom 3 source code base than to start with a Quake 3 code base. First, there is the fact that it is already a phong shading engine, and secondly, it is already written in C++, which suits COD script better as it is more C++ than it is C.

It is impossible to determine a game engines code base from such external things as this, because you could take any game engine and engineer it to have an identical file system, or var reference system, or even its netcode, as another engine's. For example, I could take the Frostbite engine and model Quake-like systems into it. This is why it is such a tricky question when asking about source code derivation - was it simply modelled on a previous engine? Or was it actually derived from it? Without seeing the actual source code, it is just pure conjecture.

I'd respectfully have to disagree on lots of points there.

There were dvars (cvars back then) left in the game that were antiquated in the Quake3 engine (they did nothing anymore but were still there), yet they still showed up in the CoD1 engine too. At the very least, that shows that there was some very heavy handed copy/pasting going on. Again, I don't know how similar Doom3 was in variable configuration, perhaps it is possible the cut/paste came from it as I honestly know nothing about that engine at all. [ugh - for the life of me I had a post about this half a decade ago with examples... where does the time go?]

As for the C or C++, it is very common for companies who know/prefer C++ over C but had to work with pre-written C code to write a wrapper around the core C code. I'm just saying there are plausible reasons for finding C++ code even if the original was done in C.

CoD2's lighting system may indeed be borrowed from Doom3. But as you said, CoD1's lighting system was from Quake3, not Doom. It wouldn't surprise me at all that IW ripped out one to implement the other between titles, that's what they have been doing all along, especially in the graphics part of the engine. Which was understandable since everything was about eye candy in those days.

Wish I knew more about the Doom3 engine, I was just never really into that game. I guess it is also entirely possible that IW switched from the Quake3 engine to some pre-released version of the Doom3 engine between CoD1 and CoD2. Even if they did, its all a moot point.

The CoD engine was a GOOD one (well, it was better when it wasn't so convoluted to mod for anyway). IW is dead (though Activision is going to prop it up like a cardboard dummy for its investors) and is essentially a company in name only. Anything they produce (if anything) will be the same as if a whole brand new company just opened its doors. And as much as I love Treyarch, I'm just not confident they will be able to keep updating the engine as needed like IW did.

The spotlight is on Respawn now. Make us proud Demonseed!

worm