id Tech 5 will not use DX10

Sorry, I don't really get the point of this. Quake engines have always been OpenGL, have they not? So it doesn't matter what the jump from DX9 to DX10 is none of the engines used DX9 either.

But just so you know I'm not bashing your thread, I am indeed very happy that a company like this continues to use OpenGL instead of jumping on Microsoft's DX10/Games for Windows bandwagon.

[QUOTE="heatpackinyum"]

id, while not dead, is no longer the producer of the de-facto standard engine. Yes, there's Quake 4 and Quake Wars, but they don't own the market like in the Q1/Q2 engine days.

PCgamerX

Obviously id has not been at the forefront of gaming as much lately because they have been working on this new technology and a brand new IP to go with it, called Rage. Tech 5 may very well become the "de-facto standard engine" once developers see how cool it is. The megatexture concept being implemented on all surfaces (not just terrain as in the modified Doom 3 engine used in Enemy Territory: Quake Wars) and the built-in support for multi-platform development are going to be huge. I think Tech 5 will be every bit as big as the Doom 3 engine was 3 years ago, especially since id is developing a brand new game with this one.

This reeks of fanboyism. id hasn't put out a completely new ip since quake, and empirical data suggests it would be a non-issue anyway; they disappeared from the face of the earth, brought out Doom 3 and a common reaction was "well, id makes great engines, not necessarily spectacular games." Raven licensed the engine, as Raven always does. If a company resting on its laurels from ten plus years ago develops an engine that nobody else licenses, does it have any effect on the larger industry?

If a company resting on its laurels from ten plus years ago develops an engine that nobody else licenses, does it have any effect on the larger industry?

heatpackinyum

What makes you think that nobody else will license the Tech 5 engine? The engine is not even finished, and it certainly has not been made available to potential licensees.

And by the way, as I said before, an engine does not need to be the most popular licensed engine in order for it to drive the technology in the industry forward. The Doom 3 or Source engines, for example, set a new standard for graphical detail and quality that other developers must meet in future games. Also, the fact that Carmack has supported the use of an open API rather than the proprietary DirectX shows that there are still serious developers in the game industry who realize the benefits of not letting one company control everything.

And no I am not an id fanboy at all; I simply support John Carmack's views on this particular aspect of game development. And I do not think you are being objective if you take a look at the Rage teaser and research the features of the Tech 5 engine and then say that id is behind the times and cannot be a serious competitor with Epic or Crytek's latest engines.

[QUOTE="heatpackinyum"]

If a company resting on its laurels from ten plus years ago develops an engine that nobody else licenses, does it have any effect on the larger industry?

PCgamerX

What makes you think that nobody else will license the Tech 5 engine? The engine is not even finished, and it certainly has not been made available to potential licensees.

I doubt nobody will license it, I'm sure somebody will. But for it to become as popular as UE3.0? ID lacks capability to pull it off

[QUOTE="PCgamerX"][QUOTE="heatpackinyum"]

If a company resting on its laurels from ten plus years ago develops an engine that nobody else licenses, does it have any effect on the larger industry?

AdrianWerner

What makes you think that nobody else will license the Tech 5 engine? The engine is not even finished, and it certainly has not been made available to potential licensees.

I doubt nobody will license it, I'm sure somebody will. But for it to become as popular as UE3.0? ID lacks capability to pull it off

The simplicity of the toolsets combined with the megatexturing process will probably make the engine really popular. I was watching the John Carmack waltkthroughs on gametrailers and it seems like it this engine just makes everything easier to create.

Maybe Silicon Knights will use it for Too Human ;)

[QUOTE="Subacious"]...at least not for lisenses. PCgamerX

Was Source a popular licensed engine? I don't know if the Doom 3 or Source engines were used in a lot of other company's games, but nobody questions how important they were in advancing graphics technology and game engines. You don't need to have a bunch of companies buy your technology in order for it to be innovative.

[QUOTE="PCgamerX"]

[QUOTE="Subacious"]...at least not for lisenses. Greyhound222

Was Source a popular licensed engine? I don't know if the Doom 3 or Source engines were used in a lot of other company's games, but nobody questions how important they were in advancing graphics technology and game engines. You don't need to have a bunch of companies buy your technology in order for it to be innovative.

Did you know that the original Half-Life was built using a modified Quake 1 engine? And that the Source engine was just a heavily modified version of the engine used in Half-Life? In fact, Carmack says that you can go into the Source code and still see comment fields created by him and other id developers from the original Quake engine.

I thought it was kinda self explanatory since they said it was on open gl:|inyourface_12

Well, they are using Direct3D for the 360 version and Carmack said that they could convert everything to D3D 10 for the PC version if they wanted. It just sounds like he does not think they have much reason to do that.