Hard Light Productions Forums

Hosted Projects - FS2 Required => Blue Planet => Topic started by: Fury on November 28, 2010, 07:32:20 am

Title: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Fury on November 28, 2010, 07:32:20 am
This includes five different post processing sets with varying saturation, contrast and film grain values that are enabled by default for all missions. I would also like to ask people to try out lighting settings in launcher that are referenced in readme.txt.

Thanks. :)

Download link (http://www.mediafire.com/?81ztabptuy4xxzb)

readme.txt
Code: [Select]
=== What's included ===
This test includes five data folders. The only difference is in post processing effects that are enabled by default in all of them.
In mild saturation is 0.75, contrast 1.05 and film grain 0.2.
In strong saturation is 0.5, contrast is 1.1 and film grain is 0.25.
In verystrong saturatiin is 0.25, contrast is 1.1 and film grain is 0.25.

And as a bonus, two additional post processing sets:
In gray saturation is 0.1, contrast is 1.1 and film grain is 0.25.
In bw saturation is 0.0, contrast is 1.1 and film grain is 0.25.

=== Lighting settings ===
Recommended lighting settings to be used in launcher's custom flags are:
-no_emissive_light -ambient_factor 120 -ogl_spec 32 -spec_exp 16 -spec_point 1.5 -spec_static 1.25 -spec_tube 1.5 -bloom_intensity 90
You can also try without -no_emissive_light flag. Even if you like your current lighting settings a lot, please do give these a chance.

=== What you need ===
- Antipodes 7 that was updated on 24th November. http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=72205.0
- Mediavps 3.6.12 and patch. http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=70736.0
- Latest War in Heave and Age of Aquarius. While not required, I tested these settings only in War in Heaven missions. http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?board=169.0
- Enable post processing in launcher. It can be found in Features tab, under experimental list. If you're using nightly build 6783 or newer, the post processing flag can be again found under graphics list.

=== How to use ===
First extract contents of this archive to your freespace 2 folder.
To try out each one of those post processing effects, you need first rename one of the to "data".
For example, rename "data_subtle" to "data". When you want to try another, simply rename "data" back to "data_subtle" and then another folder to "data".
And finally, select lighting_test_wih as your mod folder in launcher's mod tab and play.

Thank KeldorKatarn, The E and Zacam for these new shaders which will find their way to mediavps eventually. And thank taylor for rewriting post processing code.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: General Battuta on November 28, 2010, 08:22:51 am
ogod, MUST try this

Fury, maybe post the screenshot from the postprocessed intro to show how awesome everything can look?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Deadly in a Shadow on November 28, 2010, 08:53:45 am
Lol I tested the grayish Intro, the white beams are totally awesome. It's like you watch an oldshool sci-fi film. Respect.

I think I post some impressions of the grey WiH. And the other "styles"

(http://www6.pic-upload.de/28.11.10/uua82bbd2k2o.png) (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-7928642/fs2_open_ant_6r_INF_SSE-2010-11-28-15-48-29-14.png.html)

(http://www6.pic-upload.de/28.11.10/r8njykwhpyam.png) (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-7928647/fs2_open_ant_6r_INF_SSE-2010-11-28-15-48-44-79.png.html)

(http://www6.pic-upload.de/28.11.10/kt2kn99fl4qk.png) (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-7928657/fs2_open_ant_6r_INF_SSE-2010-11-28-15-49-22-25.png.html)

(http://www6.pic-upload.de/28.11.10/tecez8celd.png) (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-7928664/fs2_open_ant_6r_INF_SSE-2010-11-28-15-49-24-48.png.html)

(http://www6.pic-upload.de/28.11.10/uanmdxi8k9he.png) (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-7928674/fs2_open_ant_6r_INF_SSE-2010-11-28-15-49-42-37.png.html)

(http://www6.pic-upload.de/28.11.10/ee7rykupkzk8.png) (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-7928639/fs2_open_ant_6r_INF_SSE-2010-11-28-15-50-11-70.png.html)
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Angelus on November 28, 2010, 09:05:07 am
lvlshot FTW!

Gonna test those settings later this evening.  :yes:
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Fury on November 28, 2010, 09:06:02 am
Fury, maybe post the screenshot from the postprocessed intro to show how awesome everything can look?
Hard request because this is mostly about lighting which is hard to capture in screenshots. Those post processing sets are secondary really. But here's three screenshots of the Artemis cutscene without post processing with my lighting settings.

(http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/5817/screen0083.th.png) (http://img641.imageshack.us/i/screen0083.png/) (http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4850/screen0090.th.png) (http://img18.imageshack.us/i/screen0090.png/) (http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/296/screen0108.th.png) (http://img16.imageshack.us/i/screen0108.png/)
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Satellight on November 28, 2010, 09:10:20 am
The BW settings make the game appear in a very nice and beautiful way... And it hide the lack of AA  :D

I played the first mission with no_emissive_light deactivated (or it's too dark IMO)

Very nice work, thanks  :yes:
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on November 28, 2010, 09:12:45 am
Film Noir. :D

edit: Strange, done everything as told yet the game still seems to use normal lighting, colours etc. Clueless here, maybe it's my ATI?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Fury on November 28, 2010, 09:43:47 am
Post debug log please (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,56279.msg1180359.html#msg1180359)
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Commander Zane on November 28, 2010, 10:41:59 am
Awesome.

What about some screens with the settings that made this:
Quote from: Fury
(http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/5728/screen0099.png)
I thought this one was godly, but I can't play Blue Planet to try it for myself.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on November 28, 2010, 10:47:24 am
Cheers Fury, the subtle effect is my most favourite for all round gameplay. Screencaps don't do it justice. I found it really enhanced beam weapon light making it really bloomey. I used your light settings and then mine. I have to say I liked the ones I had before, with lower ambience but higher spec:

(http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/8805/light1z.th.png) (http://img207.imageshack.us/i/light1z.png/) (http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/2302/light2.th.png) (http://img560.imageshack.us/i/light2.png/) (http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1599/light30.th.png) (http://img842.imageshack.us/i/light30.png/)


A video of the effects is the best example imo.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: MatthTheGeek on November 28, 2010, 10:53:32 am
Of all those posted here, I prefer those from Fury by far. Those post-processing thingies don't look very enjoyable to me.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Fury on November 28, 2010, 10:59:58 am
What about some screens with the settings that made this:]
I thought this one was godly, but I can't play Blue Planet to try it for myself.

Unfortunately current Artemis Station cutscene mission has very different lighting than it used to be when that screenshot was taken. This practically means that it is impossible to recreate with current mission.

However, I checked out the very version of the mission the screenshot was taken with (thank god for SVN!) and "verystrong" is closest to those PP settings seen in the screenshot. Unfortunately I don't have the slightest clue what my custom flags for lighting were at the time.

But, I took two screenshots of the old mission with lighting settings detailed in the first post and same PP settings I used back when I took the old Artemis screenshot.
(http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8780/screen0124.th.png) (http://img143.imageshack.us/i/screen0124.png/) (http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/9613/screen0148.th.png) (http://img19.imageshack.us/i/screen0148.png/)

As you can see, current version of the mission is much darker. This happened because Sun position had to be changed when Europa skybox was added to the mission, otherwise Sun would have been within the skybox.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on November 28, 2010, 11:02:15 am
Tried to turn the AA of my vidcard off manually as post-processing and AA usually do not go hand-in-hand but that seemed to do nothing. Catalyst now has the habbit of allowing no lower than 2x AA unless you manually fiddle with the file where the settings are stored.

Anyways...

Code: [Select]
==========================================================================
DEBUG SPEW: No debug_filter.cfg found, so only general, error, and warning
categories can be shown and no debug_filter.cfg info will be saved.
==========================================================================
FreeSpace version: 3.6.12
Passed cmdline options:
  -env
  -missile_lighting
  -glow
  -nomotiondebris
  -spec
  -normal
  -3dshockwave
  -post_process
  -ballistic_gauge
  -dualscanlines
  -orbradar
  -rearm_timer
  -targetinfo
  -3dwarp
  -ship_choice_3d
  -weapon_choice_3d
  -warp_flash
  -snd_preload
  -mod lighting_test_wih,blueplanet2,blueplanet,mediavps_3612
  -window
Building file index...
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet2\bp2-adv-visuals.vp' with a checksum of 0x2fa0cebd
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet2\bp2-audio1.vp' with a checksum of 0x60465ead
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet2\bp2-core.vp' with a checksum of 0x2a530d55
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet2\bp2-visuals1.vp' with a checksum of 0x5d4c1bfb
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet2\bp2-visuals2.vp' with a checksum of 0x8fea63ef
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet\bp-adv-core.vp' with a checksum of 0x2851edb0
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet\bp-adv-visuals.vp' with a checksum of 0x1541da12
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet\bp-audio1.vp' with a checksum of 0xcc452f9d
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet\bp-audio2.vp' with a checksum of 0x060bee91
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet\bp-core.vp' with a checksum of 0xe2219ccf
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet\bp-visuals1.vp' with a checksum of 0x7e75407b
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet\bp-visuals2.vp' with a checksum of 0x44c7e8dd
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\mediavps_3612\MV_Advanced.vp' with a checksum of 0x4b8b0f5a
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\mediavps_3612\MV_AnimGlows.vp' with a checksum of 0x6a554026
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\mediavps_3612\MV_Assets.vp' with a checksum of 0x529cc70f
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\mediavps_3612\MV_Effects.vp' with a checksum of 0xb9a9a485
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\mediavps_3612\MV_Music.vp' with a checksum of 0xb3e21469
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\mediavps_3612\MV_Root.vp' with a checksum of 0x6ffd5c78
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\Root_fs2.vp' with a checksum of 0x747372cc
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\smarty_fs2.vp' with a checksum of 0xddeb3b1e
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\sparky_fs2.vp' with a checksum of 0x164fe65a
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\sparky_hi_fs2.vp' with a checksum of 0xa11d56f1
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\stu_fs2.vp' with a checksum of 0xd77da83a
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\tango1_fs2.vp' with a checksum of 0x4c25221e
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\tango2_fs2.vp' with a checksum of 0x86920b82
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\tango3_fs2.vp' with a checksum of 0x705e8d71
Found root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\warble_fs2.vp' with a checksum of 0xd85c305d
Searching root 'D:\FreeSpace2\lighting_test_wih\' ... 15 files
Searching root 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet2\' ... 3143 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet2\bp2-adv-visuals.vp' ... 23 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet2\bp2-audio1.vp' ... 154 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet2\bp2-core.vp' ... 61 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet2\bp2-visuals1.vp' ... 660 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet2\bp2-visuals2.vp' ... 1976 files
Searching root 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet\' ... 4 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet\bp-adv-core.vp' ... 2 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet\bp-adv-visuals.vp' ... 403 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet\bp-audio1.vp' ... 41 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet\bp-audio2.vp' ... 685 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet\bp-core.vp' ... 46 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet\bp-visuals1.vp' ... 400 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\blueplanet\bp-visuals2.vp' ... 1488 files
Searching root 'D:\FreeSpace2\mediavps_3612\' ... 1 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\mediavps_3612\MV_Advanced.vp' ... 1283 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\mediavps_3612\MV_AnimGlows.vp' ... 1641 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\mediavps_3612\MV_Assets.vp' ... 1905 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\mediavps_3612\MV_Effects.vp' ... 1892 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\mediavps_3612\MV_Music.vp' ... 32 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\mediavps_3612\MV_Root.vp' ... 358 files
Searching root 'D:\FreeSpace2\' ... 160 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\Root_fs2.vp' ... 157 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\smarty_fs2.vp' ... 10 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\sparky_fs2.vp' ... 3027 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\sparky_hi_fs2.vp' ... 1337 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\stu_fs2.vp' ... 2355 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\tango1_fs2.vp' ... 32 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\tango2_fs2.vp' ... 15 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\tango3_fs2.vp' ... 10 files
Searching root pack 'D:\FreeSpace2\warble_fs2.vp' ... 52 files
Searching root 'g:\' ... 0 files
Found 33 roots and 23368 files.
AutoLang: Language auto-detection successful...
Setting language to English
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_core-lcl.tbm' ...
Initializing OpenAL...
  Using 'Speakers (SoundMAX Integrated Digital HD Audio)' as OpenAL sound device...
  OpenAL Vendor     : Creative Labs Inc.
  OpenAL Renderer   : Software
  OpenAL Version    : 1.1

... OpenAL successfully initialized!
Initializing OpenGL graphics device at 1920x1200 with 32-bit color...
  Initializing WGL...
  Requested WGL Video values = R: 8, G: 8, B: 8, depth: 32, double-buffer: 1
  Actual WGL Video values    = R: 8, G: 8, B: 8, depth: 32, double-buffer: 1
  OpenGL Vendor     : ATI Technologies Inc.
  OpenGL Renderer   : ATI Radeon HD 5900 Series
  OpenGL Version    : 4.0.10317 Compatibility Profile Context

  Using extension "GL_EXT_fog_coord".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_multitexture".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_texture_env_add".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_texture_compression".
  Using extension "GL_EXT_texture_compression_s3tc".
  Using extension "GL_EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_texture_env_combine".
  Using extension "GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array".
  Using extension "GL_EXT_draw_range_elements".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_texture_mirrored_repeat".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_texture_non_power_of_two".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_pixel_buffer_object".
  Using extension "GL_SGIS_generate_mipmap".
  Using extension "GL_EXT_framebuffer_object".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_texture_rectangle".
  Using extension "GL_EXT_bgra".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_texture_cube_map".
  Using extension "GL_EXT_texture_lod_bias".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_point_sprite".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_shading_language_100".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_shader_objects".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_vertex_shader".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_fragment_shader".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_shader_texture_lod".
  Found special extension function "wglSwapIntervalEXT".

  Initializing Shaders Manager...
  Loading and compiling main shaders...
    Compiling main shader ->  main-v.sdr (null-v.sdr) / main-f.sdr (null-f.sdr) ...
    Fragment shader failed to compile:
Fragment shader failed to compile with the following errors:
ERROR: 0:35: error(#71) Syntax error incorrect preprocessor directive
WARNING: 0:35: warning(#64) Unexpected tokens following the preprocessor directive - expected a newline(#if )
ERROR: error(#273) 1 compilation errors.  No code generated

    ERROR! Unable to create fragment shader!
      Shader in_error!  Disabling GLSL!
  Shaders Manager initialized.

  Max texture units: 8 (8)
  Max elements vertices: 2147483647
  Max elements indices: 16777215
  Max texture size: 16384x16384
  Can use compressed textures: YES
  Texture compression available: YES
  Using trilinear texture filter.
... OpenGL init is complete!
Size of bitmap info = 760 KB
Size of bitmap extra info = 52 bytes
ANI cursorweb with size 24x24 (25.0% wasted)
GRAPHICS: Initializing default colors...
SCRIPTING: Beginning initialization sequence...
SCRIPTING: Beginning Lua initialization...
LUA: Opening LUA state...
LUA: Initializing base Lua libraries...
LUA: Beginning ADE initialization
ADE: Initializing enumeration constants...
ADE: Assigning Lua session...
SCRIPTING: Beginning main hook parse sequence....
Wokka!  Error opening file (scripting.tbl)!
TABLES: Unable to parse 'scripting.tbl'!  Error code = 5.
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_flak-sct.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_exp-sct.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_dbrs-sct.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-tcard-sct.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-stupid-sct.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-csc-sct.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-betty-sct.tbm' ...
SCRIPTING: Inititialization complete.
SCRIPTING: Splash screen overrides checked
SCRIPTING: Splash hook has been run
SCRIPTING: Splash screen conditional hook has been run
Using high memory settings...
Wokka!  Error opening file (interface.tbl)!
WMCGUI: Unable to parse 'interface.tbl'!  Error code = 5.
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_effects-sdf.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp-sdf.tbm' ...
ANI 2_radar1 with size 209x170 (33.6% wasted)
Windows reported 16 joysticks, we found 0
Current soundtrack set to -1 in event_music_reset_choices
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_music-mus.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp-mus.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-mus.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_effects-mfl.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp-mfl.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp-advanced-mfl.tbm' ...
WARNING: "Muzzle flash "BP_Cmuzzle_tiny" already exists!  Using existing entry instead." at muzzleflash.cpp:164
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-mfl.tbm' ...
Wokka!  Error opening file (armor.tbl)!
TABLES: Unable to parse 'armor.tbl'!  Error code = 5.
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_effects-amr.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-amr.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_effects-wxp.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp-wxp.tbm' ...
BMPMAN: Found EFF (exp20.eff) with 75 frames at 20 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (ExpMissileHit1.eff) with 92 frames at 20 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (exp04.eff) with 49 frames at 22 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (exp05.eff) with 93 frames at 20 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (exp06.eff) with 92 frames at 22 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (capflash.eff) with 40 frames at 10 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (Maxim_Impact.eff) with 23 frames at 30 fps.
ANI Lamprey_Impact with size 80x80 (37.5% wasted)
BMPMAN: Found EFF (explo3.eff) with 48 frames at 22 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (HFlakExp.eff) with 48 frames at 22 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (exp06b.eff) with 92 frames at 22 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (bomb_flare.eff) with 69 frames at 20 fps.
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_core-wep.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_effects-wep.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_assets-wep.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp-wep.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp-advanced-wep.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-wep.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp-aip.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-aip.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_effects-obt.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-obt.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_core-shp.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_effects-shp.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_assets-shp.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp-shp.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-shp.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_core-hdg.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_effects-str.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp-str.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-str.tbm' ...
loading animated cursor "cursor"
MediaVPs: Explosions script loaded!
MediaVPs: Flaming debris script loaded!
Ships.tbl is : INVALID!!!!
Weapons.tbl is : INVALID!!!!
cfile_init() took 462
Movie Error:  Unable to open 'intro' movie in any supported format.
Got event GS_EVENT_GAME_INIT (49) in state NOT A VALID STATE (0)
Got event GS_EVENT_MAIN_MENU (0) in state GS_STATE_INITIAL_PLAYER_SELECT (37)
WARNING!, Could not load door anim 2_Exit in main hall
WARNING!, Could not load door anim 2_Pilot in main hall
WARNING!, Could not load door anim 2_Continue in main hall
WARNING!, Could not load door anim 2_Tech in main hall
WARNING!, Could not load door anim 2_Option in main hall
WARNING!, Could not load door anim 2_Campaign in main hall
Got event GS_EVENT_QUIT_GAME (5) in state GS_STATE_MAIN_MENU (1)
Freeing all existing models...
... Log closed, Sun Nov 28 18:00:02 2010
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Fury on November 28, 2010, 11:08:07 am
Sara, your problem is this:
Code: [Select]
Fragment shader failed to compile with the following errors:
ERROR: 0:35: error(#71) Syntax error incorrect preprocessor directive
WARNING: 0:35: warning(#64) Unexpected tokens following the preprocessor directive - expected a newline(#if )
ERROR: error(#273) 1 compilation errors.  No code generated

    ERROR! Unable to create fragment shader!
      Shader in_error!  Disabling GLSL!
  Shaders Manager initialized.

I dunno how to fix that, but you may want to check this topic:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=72251.0

I'll yell The E to check this particular error.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Fury on November 28, 2010, 11:12:28 am
Sara, please delete bp-adv-core.vp. It's obsolete and shouldn't be there.

The E says you need to use Antipodes 7 or recent nightly build. Shaders won't work on 3.6.12 final which is what you're using. You didn't follow instructions in the readme, bad Sara! :p
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: The E on November 28, 2010, 11:13:29 am
The problem is this:
Code: [Select]
FreeSpace version: 3.6.12
You need to use a post-Antipodes 6 nightly or Antipodes 7 build.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on November 28, 2010, 11:45:05 am
That did it. :) Did not know of an Antipodes build. Thanks!
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Fury on November 28, 2010, 11:49:02 am
Umm, readme.txt. It was included within the archive and the first post. They're meant to be read. :p
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on November 28, 2010, 06:22:25 pm
Some showcasing of the light effects. :) Makes the game look far better!

Post-processed lighting demo - Helios. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hp5FCqRORk)
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: General Battuta on November 28, 2010, 07:05:05 pm
Some showcasing of the light effects. :) Makes the game look far better!

Post-processed lighting demo - Helios. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hp5FCqRORk)

good GOD what the

is that FreeSpace? that can't be FreeSpace

they should've sent a poet
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Raiden on November 28, 2010, 07:14:00 pm
I've just tried Ariestia (sp?) with Herra's lighting settings, no-emissive light disabled and the Very Strong pp settings and everything looks great. Real gritty and dark. But I noticed that if I switched view to the rear, right or left, I wouldn't recieve any comm text even when facing forward again. Don't know if you guys are aware of this but it's something I noticed.

Sara, holy God, that video looks incredible! What settings are you using?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Rodo on November 28, 2010, 07:16:45 pm
And that mission is?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Hero_Swe on November 28, 2010, 07:17:21 pm
Jesus dear christ mother of god and every other deity :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:


Release that mission this instant. I don't even care if it's not finished or doesn't have an end game. I wanna play that so badly.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on November 28, 2010, 07:19:06 pm
Slightly updated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hp5FCqRORk) vid in the the link, should play at about the 60fps I recorded it at. :P It helps having a new PC though *blush*.

Some showcasing of the light effects. :) Makes the game look far better!

Post-processed lighting demo - Helios. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hp5FCqRORk)

good GOD what the

is that FreeSpace? that can't be FreeSpace

they should've sent a poet

Yea, kudos to Fury!

I've just tried Ariestia (sp?) with Herra's lighting settings, no-emissive light disabled and the Very Strong pp settings and everything looks great. Real gritty and dark. But I noticed that if I switched view to the rear or the left, I wouldn't recieve any comm text even when facing forward again. Don't know if you guys are aware of this but it's something I noticed.

Sara, holy God, that video looks incredible! What settings are you using?

Fury's verystrong saturation setting plus the settings he adviced to put into the launcher in his readme (which I honestly read now!).

And that mission is?

Says so in the youtube description.

"Shown here is "Helios", a what-if scenario concerning what would have happened if the GTVA had constructed another warship based on the template of the Colossus. Rather than sending Admiral Steele's battlegroup, command decides to give the new GTVA Helios a trial by fire. It's mission: crush the UEF resistance in Sol."

Jesus dear christ mother of god and every other deity :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:


Release that mission this instant. I don't even care if it's not finished or doesn't have an end game. I wanna play that so badly.

With some time and possibly some help I might consider doing that.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Hero_Swe on November 28, 2010, 07:26:19 pm
Love that version of Adagio For Strings btw. Can I ask for the full name of the song?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on November 28, 2010, 07:27:48 pm
Love that version of Adagio For Strings btw. Can I ask for the full name of the song?


Unfortunately that is the full version already, lasting only 2 minutes. The guy's called Adam Wiktor.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Hero_Swe on November 28, 2010, 07:31:01 pm
Damn. Shame, cause it sounds awesome.

If I knew fredding at all I would help in any way I could, but I'm pretty much useless except for shooting things down :P
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on November 28, 2010, 07:38:21 pm
Damn. Shame, cause it sounds awesome.

If I knew fredding at all I would help in any way I could, but I'm pretty much useless except for shooting things down :P

Neither could I a few weeks ago. This is my first real FRED attempt not consisting of the standard sun and two ships to try out new ideas. :) Just try, read tutorials, ask feedback, keep improving. Trial and error can teach you a lot.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Dilmah G on November 28, 2010, 07:46:16 pm
That looks fecking brilliant.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Commander Zane on November 28, 2010, 08:58:16 pm
The video. GODLY.
Do want mission. :D
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Kolgena on November 28, 2010, 09:44:59 pm
Whoa...

It's like FSO got TOD and tone-mapping tweakables. It kinda looks 2010ish now.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Scotty on November 28, 2010, 10:38:12 pm
I...



There are no words to describe the awesome.  I am speechless.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Fury on November 28, 2010, 11:20:45 pm
Brilliant video, Sara. :)
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Ypoknons on November 28, 2010, 11:52:18 pm
The Carthage gets away again! Carthago delenda est!

(I don't know if it was the Carthage or not, but I don't really care :p)
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: MatthTheGeek on November 29, 2010, 12:47:45 am
The video is good, but I can't say I like the settings. I'm born not colorblind for something, damnit.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Deadly in a Shadow on November 29, 2010, 01:12:27 am

I think we've encountered the Crysis of the the space shooters, nothing to say, totally epic :D
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Klaustrophobia on November 29, 2010, 01:22:48 am
The video is good, but I can't say I like the settings. I'm born not colorblind for something, damnit.

i have to agree.  shiny is good and all, but vibrant colors was always one of the things i liked best
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Deadly in a Shadow on November 29, 2010, 03:30:41 am
The Carthage gets away again! Carthago delenda est!

(I don't know if it was the Carthage or not, but I don't really care :p)

The Carthage is the only Orion-Destroyer in Sol. It must be the Carthage.

I hope there is no Helios/Colossus in Release 2 (but a nice idea in such an apocalyptical mission). I have tested it in a fredded battle, three Narayanas against a Colossus (distance between both was 12 km). It was crazy to watch the frigates gutting the biggest ship of the GTVA in such short time.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Pred the Penguin on November 29, 2010, 04:19:52 am
That looks really pretty, but it seems hard to play.
Have you tried it with any WiH missions?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: ktistai228 on November 29, 2010, 05:27:13 am
dear GOD what is that:O nooo, that can't be FreeSpace, it is impossible!
Oh my God that is genius:O It's brilliant....It's... It's.... You've got me speechless.....
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: T-LoW on November 29, 2010, 05:36:13 am
Well I'm not speechless but very impressed though ;)

Great colorization :yes:
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Zacam on November 29, 2010, 06:16:41 am
Slightly updated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hp5FCqRORk) vid in the the link, should play at about the 60fps I recorded it at. :P It helps having a new PC though *blush*.

If I may, what sort of system are we talking about here? I get that there is an ATI 5900 (good choice, btw) but is it Crossfire? What's the rest of the system got?

Epic vid there. And for being a first time event for Fredding (if I have read correctly) very well done.

Edit: Found from another post: i7 920, 12GB RAM, HD5970 2GB vidcard
/me whistles in amazement

Finally, somebody beats my rig.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on November 29, 2010, 07:38:29 am
Some showcasing of the light effects. :) Makes the game look far better!

Post-processed lighting demo - Helios. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hp5FCqRORk)

War in Noir (WiN). ;)

By the way, when I first watched this video on my school's computer earlier today, I had it on mute so as not to disturb my classmates around me, so I listened to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUXKKWAGK0E) on my iPod touch instead while I watched the video. :nervous:
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Deadly in a Shadow on November 29, 2010, 07:57:43 am

Dear god :eek2:
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Spoon on November 29, 2010, 09:34:07 am
The video is good, but I can't say I like the settings. I'm born not colorblind for something, damnit.

i have to agree.  shiny is good and all, but vibrant colors was always one of the things i liked best
Yeah same.
It looks good as a trailer kinda thing but I wouldn't want to play with it.

Modern FPS: Brown, grey and bloom
Modern FS2: No lighting, no colors and bloom
 :p
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Commander Zane on November 29, 2010, 10:03:16 am
It was crazy to watch the frigates gutting the biggest ship of the GTVA in such short time.
If a Colossus was featured in the campaign I'm pretty sure it would have a custom armor entry to negate that.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on November 29, 2010, 10:22:25 am
The Carthage gets away again! Carthago delenda est!

(I don't know if it was the Carthage or not, but I don't really care :p)

The Carthage is the only Orion-Destroyer in Sol. It must be the Carthage.

I hope there is no Helios/Colossus in Release 2 (but a nice idea in such an apocalyptical mission). I have tested it in a fredded battle, three Narayanas against a Colossus (distance between both was 12 km). It was crazy to watch the frigates gutting the biggest ship of the GTVA in such short time.

Have not worked out which ship it is, currently it's an Orion which was part of the Helios' battlegroup. Currently GTD Rommel, more of a placeholder.

As for the Colossus/Helios, it's rigged/modded ofcourse to pack the proper armour. It's also pretty artillery-based with it's new front gun. And if you spotted the fighter screens (the second one after the first engagement) it's hard to get any bomber through. Maybe a Lao Tze with paveways can hurt the beam cannon, if it's lucky to avoid the crossfire with some skillfull gliding.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Norbert- on November 29, 2010, 10:22:25 am
I agree that the setting seen in -Sara-s video leeches too much color to be used as standard setting (though I would work well for certain situations, like the pilot being dazed for example), but Fury provided several settings in his download.
I fiddles around a bit with the saturation value in the "subtle" variant and as long as you keep the value above 60 you still get quite a lot of color:
Here are three screens with a saturation value of 0.68 (suble had a value of 0.75 before my fiddling), which I'm currently using.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on November 29, 2010, 10:32:22 am
It's the beam lighting on that Diomedes I love best, with Fury's settings it looks so much more vibrant and bloomey.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on November 29, 2010, 10:34:13 am
I just saw the vid, AND I WANT THAT LEVEL!!!  Please tell me there is a download site!
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Deadly in a Shadow on November 29, 2010, 10:38:24 am
Sara made this mission to show  Fury's post processing. There is (for now) no download link/site.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on November 29, 2010, 10:38:41 am
Starting to think my monitor might have too much contrast or such then. :P I can see it all fine on my screen.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Commander Zane on November 29, 2010, 10:42:09 am
Starting to think my monitor might have too much contrast or such then. :P I can see it all fine on my screen.
I wonder how it will look when my laptop with an LCD monitor is fixed, it looked good on this laptop, even with less vibrant colors.
Plus if that mission goes public that laptop will be the one that'll play it without dropping frames...a Karuna in the Ship Lab bogs this one down something fierce. :(
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Rodo on November 29, 2010, 10:50:50 am
So I rapidly tested some of the settings that Fury sent with this release yesterday.

I don't know if this has happened to someone but, when I tested the strong, grey and black and white settings I got some weird rendering problems, any bright light coming from a subspace node or a beam fire would make the ships surrounding them look completely white, black or blue and no texture could be seen, like if the light was getting right through the mesh and overlapping over the diffuse texture itself.

I don't have screenies right now since I'm at work but I can get some for tomorrow.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on November 29, 2010, 10:57:47 am
Well, Sara, post that level!  I want to play it! :p
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on November 29, 2010, 11:05:55 am
Well, Sara, post that level!  I want to play it! :p

It's too sandboxy to release still.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: General Battuta on November 29, 2010, 11:08:03 am
Yeah, the reason you rarely see that kind of 'whoaomg' battle scene in released stuff is because it's very hard to craft a balanced, interesting mission out of it.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on November 29, 2010, 11:33:02 am
Exactly, just like Battuta said. In fact when I turned to face that Karuna which just started to flank, normally at that timing the Orion fires a well placed shot wrecking it's rotating subsystem after which a more or less that then derelict Karuna is the first to fall victim to the Helios' dreadful beam cannon. In fact at about 3 minutes the Toutatis joins in flanking the Helios in this version of the mission, taking a beating while two escorting Karuna's try and suppress enemy turrets and the escorting Raynor. In one version of the mission a desperate cruiser even tries to crash into one of the GTVA capital ships to try and do some required damage.

When it is released it's probably done in bitesize chunks. Through cinematics probably the player is moved to several parts of the mission, not unlike a Battle of Endor, where at pointblank range several destroyers are faced until the UEF makes a daring bid to run the blockade through to try and disarm the Helios.

BUT! I'm starting to feel like I've totally hijacked Fury's post. *blush*. So feel free to PM me instead. If I do decide to release Helios, I might make a seperate thread for it.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Norbert- on November 29, 2010, 11:43:01 am
Are those files made BP only or can I just savely use them for other mods as well?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Deadly in a Shadow on November 29, 2010, 11:45:40 am

It doesn't work with WoD, I tested it. Or I did something wrong.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on November 29, 2010, 12:00:29 pm
Well, nevertheless, Sara, that's one heck of a level you did!  That seriously looked like an FS version of the Battle of Endor!
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Deadly in a Shadow on November 29, 2010, 12:09:49 pm
Without Star Destroyers you mean.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Commander Zane on November 29, 2010, 12:13:06 pm
I would imagine a team effort with Sara and DilmahG would result in a massively epic mission battleground. :D
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on November 29, 2010, 01:25:30 pm
Without Star Destroyers you mean.

Well, duh!  Why do you think I said "an FS version of the Battle of Endor"?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: bigchunk1 on November 29, 2010, 02:42:21 pm
I've never before made a point of it to play around with the Fs2 SCP graphical settings. Whoa do they make a big difference! The video that Sara posted looks like a next gen game. I'm impressed. I'm going to keep messing around until I get a similar effect.

I feel like a refugee out of retail land.

Well, Sara, post that level!  I want to play it! :p

It's an Orion being attacked by several frigs. You can FRED it quick if you want. What makes that level so cool is the graphical settings. That's what you should salivating over. Well that background looks pretty sweet too. Ok nevermind. I want that background!!!
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: General Battuta on November 29, 2010, 02:43:43 pm
It's not just the graphical settings in the sense of lighting, it's the postprocessing, which is quite new to the engine.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on November 29, 2010, 03:31:58 pm
Actually, I was going nuts over how intense the fighting looked.  I mean, that was a big freakin' dogfight!  Looks only count for ten percent in my books.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: torc on November 29, 2010, 03:32:35 pm
guys i need help...just some question:

1: where have i to paste data folder? in the original fs2 or in the data mod folder?
2: where have i to paste mod file?
thanks again:)

PS: Incredible!!! better than tarr chronicles patch!
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Norbert- on November 29, 2010, 05:41:06 pm
Just drop the lighting_test_wih folder as it is into the FS2 root directory.
Then choose one of the data_<describtion> folders and rename it into data.
And now select the lighting_test_wih as your current mod.
Provided you have a fitting build and your folder names are as they are supposed to be (blueplanet, blueplanet2 and mediavps_3612) then it will run.


It doesn't work with WoD, I tested it. Or I did something wrong.
I just tried it and for me it worked. All it needed was to change the secondarylist-line in the mod.ini to
Code: [Select]
secondarylist = wings of dawn,mediavps_3612;Though with the very strong saturation settings the Fura'ngle ships are very, very translucent.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Aurora Paradox on November 30, 2010, 01:08:00 am
I just finished watching the lighting test video and I have one thing to say.

HOLY HELL!

I didn't think the game could look that good.  It felt like I was watching a movie and an epic one at that.  It certainly does have that Battle of Endor feel as has already been mentioned.

You just gave me another reason to replay AOA and WIH Part 1.

EDIT:  Awesome job on creating that mission Sara.  Even if it isn't finished yet it looks amazing.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Fury on November 30, 2010, 01:32:23 am
So I was asked a short while ago on IRC how to make WiH missions to look like what was seen in Sara's video.

The short answer is that you can't.

The long answer is that the difference in lighting doesn't come from post processing set or command line lighting settings. It's the mission itself. WiH missions were designed to have more realistic lighting than what you're used to in FS campaigns. Without post processing and standard lighting settings this provides grittier atmosphere to the campaign.

But as you have seen, the difference is huge when you use post processing to get less saturation and lighting settings that rely on lighting the mission has. In this regard, I urge you to play several missions from FS2 campaign (with mediavps of course) and BP: Age of Aquarius (not counting missions taking place in Sol). You will notice that the post processing sets and lighting settings provide much better colors and contrast than most if not all WiH missions.

Because of how dark WiH is by its very nature, I had to keep -ambient_factor at 120. In other campaigns, I think value of 60 would work nicely. But of course, it's a matter of taste.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Norbert- on November 30, 2010, 04:10:31 am
Is there a way to write the ambient factor into the mod.ini or settings.ini?
I once tried to use
Code: [Select]
[settings]
flags:
in the mod.ini for this, but it didn't work. On the other hand that was back in 3.6.9 or .10
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Fury on November 30, 2010, 04:12:25 am
Nope, there isn't. Which is a shame because mods could really have some control over how their lighting is.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Pred the Penguin on November 30, 2010, 04:21:52 am
That's exactly why I asked for custom lighting settings for WiH...
but if I understand you correctly, I guess that would be kinda pointless.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Fury on November 30, 2010, 04:27:13 am
You can use the lighting settings as detailed in the first post with or without post processing. Low saturation post processing is what doesn't work all that well in WiH. I guess I should have been more clear on that.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: torc on November 30, 2010, 04:34:39 am
Please coul you post some video? my intel graphic card don't support post processing (really suks!!!! ) and i'm reallly curious to see some gameplay! thanks again guys!
PS: it should work in btrl too... can you test the mod?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Fury on November 30, 2010, 04:38:20 am
Video like the one that was linked to in second to last post on first page? Or the one that is currently the first highlight on forum index?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: pecenipicek on November 30, 2010, 05:37:06 am
Some showcasing of the light effects. :) Makes the game look far better!

Post-processed lighting demo - Helios. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hp5FCqRORk)
Urgh. The music gets so heavily distorted its not funny.

Cool vid tho.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Deadly in a Shadow on November 30, 2010, 07:06:21 am
Just drop the lighting_test_wih folder as it is into the FS2 root directory.
Then choose one of the data_<describtion> folders and rename it into data.
And now select the lighting_test_wih as your current mod.
Provided you have a fitting build and your folder names are as they are supposed to be (blueplanet, blueplanet2 and mediavps_3612) then it will run.


It doesn't work with WoD, I tested it. Or I did something wrong.
I just tried it and for me it worked. All it needed was to change the secondarylist-line in the mod.ini to
Code: [Select]
secondarylist = wings of dawn,mediavps_3612;

Though with the very strong saturation settings the Fura'ngle ships are very, very translucent.

Oh thanks :yes:. The fail was that I wrote WoD as one word:WingsofDawn.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Spoon on November 30, 2010, 08:42:20 am
Though with the very strong saturation settings the Fura'ngle ships are very, very translucent.
While you can hardly see the other ships  :o
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Deadly in a Shadow on November 30, 2010, 09:03:57 am

I wonder how WoD looks in bw :ick:
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Nemesis6 on November 30, 2010, 09:15:26 am
Can't get any of the newer builds to work...
Code: [Select]
weapons.tbl(line 4963:
Error: Required token = [#End] or [$Name:], found [2.2]
in weapon: MX-64#Shivan
.

ntdll.dll! ZwWaitForSingleObject + 21 bytes
kernel32.dll! WaitForSingleObjectEx + 67 bytes
kernel32.dll! WaitForSingleObject + 18 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_13r_INF_SSE2-20101129_r6796.exe! <no symbol>
fs2_open_3_6_13r_INF_SSE2-20101129_r6796.exe! <no symbol>
ntdll.dll! SbSelectProcedure + 243 bytes
<no module>! <no symbol>
ntdll.dll! RtlFreeHeap + 126 bytes
KERNELBASE.dll! CreateFileW + 1018 bytes
ntdll.dll! RtlFreeHeap + 126 bytes
ntdll.dll! RtlDeleteBoundaryDescriptor + 27 bytes
KERNELBASE.dll! GetFileType + 120 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_13r_INF_SSE2-20101129_r6796.exe! <no symbol>
KERNELBASE.dll! SetFilePointer + 231 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_13r_INF_SSE2-20101129_r6796.exe! <no symbol>
ntdll.dll! RtlInterlockedFlushSList + 3198 bytes
kernel32.dll! ReadFile + 89 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_13r_INF_SSE2-20101129_r6796.exe! <no symbol>
fs2_open_3_6_13r_INF_SSE2-20101129_r6796.exe! <no symbol>
fs2_open_3_6_13r_INF_SSE2-20101129_r6796.exe! <no symbol>
ntdll.dll! RtlInterlockedFlushSList + 2149 bytes
ntdll.dll! RtlInterlockedFlushSList + 1117 bytes
KERNELBASE.dll! CloseHandle + 45 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_13r_INF_SSE2-20101129_r6796.exe! <no symbol>
fs2_open_3_6_13r_INF_SSE2-20101129_r6796.exe! <no symbol>

When I try to start.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: General Battuta on November 30, 2010, 09:16:44 am
Debug log, please.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Norbert- on November 30, 2010, 09:32:50 am
Though with the very strong saturation settings the Fura'ngle ships are very, very translucent.
While you can hardly see the other ships  :o
Don't worry, I just took the very strong saturation to show it's possible, since it's the most visible in screenshots. With sublte saturation (saturation value of 0.68 in my case), the ships are visible enough.
But come to think of it.... the retro-style mission must really look eye-jarring with that much blur... gotta try that out now.

Edit: Or it doesn't... I expected the ships to have lines all over them, but as it turns out, there are only the lines that are supposed to be there, even though they are a little bit blurry.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on November 30, 2010, 10:49:41 am
Some showcasing of the light effects. :) Makes the game look far better!

Post-processed lighting demo - Helios. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hp5FCqRORk)
Urgh. The music gets so heavily distorted its not funny.

Cool vid tho.

Try to play it in HD, most youtube vids using a certain number of channels distort when you do not use the HD setting. It sounds fine on my speakers.

Can't get any of the newer builds to work...
Code: [Select]
weapons.tbl(line 4963:
Error: Required token = [#End] or [$Name:], found [2.2]
in weapon: MX-64#Shivan
.

ntdll.dll! ZwWaitForSingleObject + 21 bytes
kernel32.dll! WaitForSingleObjectEx + 67 bytes
kernel32.dll! WaitForSingleObject + 18 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_13r_INF_SSE2-20101129_r6796.exe! <no symbol>
fs2_open_3_6_13r_INF_SSE2-20101129_r6796.exe! <no symbol>
ntdll.dll! SbSelectProcedure + 243 bytes
<no module>! <no symbol>
ntdll.dll! RtlFreeHeap + 126 bytes
KERNELBASE.dll! CreateFileW + 1018 bytes
ntdll.dll! RtlFreeHeap + 126 bytes
ntdll.dll! RtlDeleteBoundaryDescriptor + 27 bytes
KERNELBASE.dll! GetFileType + 120 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_13r_INF_SSE2-20101129_r6796.exe! <no symbol>
KERNELBASE.dll! SetFilePointer + 231 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_13r_INF_SSE2-20101129_r6796.exe! <no symbol>
ntdll.dll! RtlInterlockedFlushSList + 3198 bytes
kernel32.dll! ReadFile + 89 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_13r_INF_SSE2-20101129_r6796.exe! <no symbol>
fs2_open_3_6_13r_INF_SSE2-20101129_r6796.exe! <no symbol>
fs2_open_3_6_13r_INF_SSE2-20101129_r6796.exe! <no symbol>
ntdll.dll! RtlInterlockedFlushSList + 2149 bytes
ntdll.dll! RtlInterlockedFlushSList + 1117 bytes
KERNELBASE.dll! CloseHandle + 45 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_13r_INF_SSE2-20101129_r6796.exe! <no symbol>
fs2_open_3_6_13r_INF_SSE2-20101129_r6796.exe! <no symbol>

When I try to start.

Alternately, access the settings button on your monitor and turn down brightness with 50%, increase contrast with 50% and tune down the RGB channels to about 20% each.  :lol:
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: The E on November 30, 2010, 10:52:52 am
Or, don't do that, and fix the problem instead...
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: pecenipicek on November 30, 2010, 12:18:19 pm
Some showcasing of the light effects. :) Makes the game look far better!

Post-processed lighting demo - Helios. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hp5FCqRORk)
Urgh. The music gets so heavily distorted its not funny.

Cool vid tho.

Try to play it in HD, most youtube vids using a certain number of channels distort when you do not use the HD setting. It sounds fine on my speakers.

you think i didnt? i played the 1080p one, when the guitar starts it gets distorted like hell, and that sounds more like a song problem than a yt problem.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Belisarius on November 30, 2010, 12:37:26 pm
I can't confirm the sound distortion. Watched it twice now, so the problem seems to be at your end.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on November 30, 2010, 12:39:01 pm
Either your speaker system, or a dislike for the genre.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Commander Zane on November 30, 2010, 12:46:11 pm
Either your speaker system, or a dislike for the genre.
Agreed, sounds fine to me.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on November 30, 2010, 03:15:45 pm
I'm also in agreement.  Audio quality's fine for me.  Must be something wrong on your end.

EDIT: After watching the video a few more times, I've noticed a part where Sara's fighter moves backwards when she's hitting the burners.  Was that a GTVA fighter making her do that, or was that done by her?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on November 30, 2010, 04:01:06 pm
It's supposed to be a huge selling point of the Kent that it can fly backwards on afterburners. I use the word 'supposed' here...
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on November 30, 2010, 04:03:06 pm
So...It can't?  I've just never seen anything in the controls about doing that.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: General Battuta on November 30, 2010, 04:04:09 pm
So...It can't?  I've just never seen anything in the controls about doing that.

It can, so can the Uriel. As Simms mentions at the start of 'The Intervention', kick in the reverse throttle and then hit afterburner. Holding decelerate past zero speed will get you into reverse.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on November 30, 2010, 04:04:59 pm
Ah.  I didn't know that.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: MatthTheGeek on November 30, 2010, 04:32:23 pm
I have yet to find any real use for it that isn't "I want to hit the front beam cannons of that capital ship that is moving forward"
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on November 30, 2010, 04:34:44 pm
I found use for it in the vid, when I saw the cluster of herc 2's I rapidly pulled back in reverse to get distance and shot a slammer, wacking 4 or 5 of them.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: General Battuta on November 30, 2010, 04:43:08 pm
I have yet to find any real use for it that isn't "I want to hit the front beam cannons of that capital ship that is moving forward"

This is a pretty good use for it. Slammers are also a good use for it.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Rodo on November 30, 2010, 05:02:13 pm
Yeah, Slammers are good but only if you get to learn how to use them.

Same goes for the Archer (I think It was called that way) ammo, quite good for taking out turrets at long range... only if you know how to use it.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Norbert- on November 30, 2010, 06:05:28 pm
In the mission were you attack the hood it comes in handy. Get in maximum missile range of the advancing enemy fighters, reverse thrust (and use reverse afterburner to keep at maximum distance) and lob missiles to thin them out before they get close to your buddies.
Also tends to keep the enemy nice and close together for slammer multikills.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on November 30, 2010, 06:18:04 pm
I have yet to find any real use for it that isn't "I want to hit the front beam cannons of that capital ship that is moving forward"

If you use reverse aftterburn real quick you can break out of dogfight 'chase loops' with the and end up being the one with your guns to the enemy. It can be a huge advantage if used right. I can see how this would be abused if BP ever went multi.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: pecenipicek on November 30, 2010, 07:14:52 pm
I have yet to find any real use for it that isn't "I want to hit the front beam cannons of that capital ship that is moving forward"

If you use reverse aftterburn real quick you can break out of dogfight 'chase loops' with the and end up being the one with your guns to the enemy. It can be a huge advantage if used right. I can see how this would be abused if BP ever went multi.

*shudders at the tought of playing against QD in BP multi*


Either your speaker system, or a dislike for the genre.
Drop the elitism, please.


Listen to the cymbals and drums around 0:59 and a fair bit afterwards. Its maybe just all the combat noise driving the whole thing into clipping that overall part, not 100% sure.

anyhow, the part between 1:00 and 1:16, listen to the guitar and the drums. Something sounds so wrong at that part...



[edit] also, by listening to other youtube stuff, it doesnt seem like its my sound system. (nothing stellar at the moment, integrated realtek and sony headphones, but it didnt distort stuff in that particular way ever.)


[edit#2] nope, no way is it my sound system in any way. tell me, how did you add the particular song in and in which format was it originally?


[edit#3] yeah its in the original song, and there's not much that can be done about it. the author while doing it in Fruity Loops didnt pay too much attention to the drums when mixing it together and they tend to overpower the guitar sound strongly at that point. (link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34TRLN2-htM) for those interested)

[edit#] as a side note, i greatly prefer this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETyk10bXHcw) version of the song. If yer gonna do a metal-ish cover, then do it right :p



i think that thats it from the edits from me :p
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Kolgena on December 01, 2010, 01:31:54 am
So... why exactly are we getting into an audiophile discussion? I thought we were on the topic of pretty lights.

Speaking of which, (while these are not from BP): behold the application of the filters to King's Gambit. You say that the beams are too big? I can't hear you over HOW AWESOME THESE LOOK. (actually, I should totally take some time out to see if the smaller beams actually look any good)

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: MatthTheGeek on December 01, 2010, 03:00:51 am
Hey, been a long time since colours didn't appear in that thread. **** IT DESATURATION LOVERS. trololololol
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: pecenipicek on December 01, 2010, 05:45:44 am
preeeetty
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on December 01, 2010, 09:16:23 am
Oooooh!  Shiny!
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on December 01, 2010, 09:27:59 am
So... why exactly are we getting into an audiophile discussion? I thought we were on the topic of pretty lights.

Speaking of which, (while these are not from BP): behold the application of the filters to King's Gambit. You say that the beams are too big? I can't hear you over HOW AWESOME THESE LOOK. (actually, I should totally take some time out to see if the smaller beams actually look any good)

Looks good! Too many colours for my personal preference (that's just a matter of taste) but it really works and improves over the original lighting.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Kobrar44 on December 01, 2010, 09:36:42 am
Oh. WHat is firing that?  :D I mean mjolnirs are not visible at all. And you need... um... 5 pulses to take down a Deimos? Width of the beam suggests me that it is more powerful. It looks cool, but to me it feels a little wrong.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Kolgena on December 01, 2010, 09:47:34 am
So... why exactly are we getting into an audiophile discussion? I thought we were on the topic of pretty lights.

Speaking of which, (while these are not from BP): behold the application of the filters to King's Gambit. You say that the beams are too big? I can't hear you over HOW AWESOME THESE LOOK. (actually, I should totally take some time out to see if the smaller beams actually look any good)

Looks good! Too many colours for my personal preference (that's just a matter of taste) but it really works and improves over the original lighting.

While I found your desaturated (reminds me of a film effect where you wash everything in a silver salt--I think) settings stylistically beautiful, they're a pain in the ass to play with. Readability of everything goes waaay down when colors aren't apparent.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on December 01, 2010, 09:53:31 am
So... why exactly are we getting into an audiophile discussion? I thought we were on the topic of pretty lights.

Speaking of which, (while these are not from BP): behold the application of the filters to King's Gambit. You say that the beams are too big? I can't hear you over HOW AWESOME THESE LOOK. (actually, I should totally take some time out to see if the smaller beams actually look any good)

Looks good! Too many colours for my personal preference (that's just a matter of taste) but it really works and improves over the original lighting.

While I found your desaturated (reminds me of a film effect where you wash everything in a silver salt--I think) settings stylistically beautiful, they're a pain in the ass to play with. Readability of everything goes waaay down when colors aren't apparent.

My monitor is probably too bright on the settings. It doubles as television and has 'dynamic brightness' whatever that is. :) Stuff prints darker from my printer too than how it appears on the monitor. Going to fiddle a bit with the files at some point to make a somewhat brighter version.

edit: seems to have a 'MagicBright' feature enabled, going to see if I can turn it off.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Rodo on December 01, 2010, 11:24:53 am
YEAH! Eat real beams you PAX!
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Fury on December 01, 2010, 01:39:11 pm
I just noticed that I completely forgot to give credits to where credits are due in the first post. :( Now I am ashamed of myself. Added credits to first post now.

Quote
Thank KeldorKatarn, The E and Zacam for these new shaders which will find their way to mediavps eventually. And thank taylor for rewriting post processing code.
Sorry about that.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Firartix on December 01, 2010, 03:53:11 pm
<The following post is useless>

Hey! I tried all this stuff with very strong sets. It's nice. (What else can I say anyway??! Everyone else already said about how cool it is!)

Though, somethings annoys me, idk what might be the cause, but it feels real strange...
The Uriel's cockpit. Whereas it was usually shows up quite clearly, you can only barely see it with the post processing stuff.... unless facing the sun. I don't think it has anything to do w/ launcher sets though... tried a couple and it remained same.

BTW, i tried with the lighting sets recommended on the first post and the whole lighting deal somehow feels odd to me.... as if you couldn't see stuff at all in certain places, whereas you see em really clearly in others (eg the cormorant in the opening cutscene, i never ever knew what it was like before applying those).

Other than that, all i can say is that it's so much shiny it's not even fair anymore !
This might be some weird impression but i seriously feel like the flak is way more dangerous than before. You see it coming much more clearly o_o
 
.......... now i know i kept talking about "weird" and "strange" stuff but i really can't express it any other way. I know that's weird.

Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Dragon on December 01, 2010, 04:02:34 pm
New Uriel cockpit lacks glowmaps, so maybe that's the case.
I'm someday going to make a cockpit pack which uses old models and cockpits with glow maps, or a "Show ship" flag and edited glowmaps.
The second solution would require SCP to fix the cockpit glass transparency problem though.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on December 01, 2010, 07:43:42 pm
The glass transparency isn't all that bad for me, but I really hate the Erinies cockpit!  That's feakin' bar just gets in the way all the time!  Still, that's for a different topic, not this.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: MatthTheGeek on December 02, 2010, 01:27:35 am
Don't use visible cockpit. Problem solved.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on December 02, 2010, 02:08:31 am
Well, I like to have them to enhance the feel of the game, but we digress.  We can talk about it in a different topic.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: pecenipicek on December 02, 2010, 04:24:40 am
it enhances nothing, and gets in the way of the gameplay FSO was designed for.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Commander Zane on December 02, 2010, 04:46:12 am
Matter of opinion. I love seeing the inside of the ship I'm piloting, I get Imp's HUD mod for X3: Terran Conflict so I can see the insides of the cockpit, it doesn't get in the way for me in any way. I actually don't like having just a blank view with the HUD indicators, I hate that.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Kolgena on December 02, 2010, 09:46:45 am
To each their own. I just find that without TrackIR or something similar, the cockpit takes up too much screenspace and affects your combat abilities. Especially in such ships like the Loki or Erinyes.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: pecenipicek on December 02, 2010, 10:57:33 am
Matter of opinion. I love seeing the inside of the ship I'm piloting, I get Imp's HUD mod for X3: Terran Conflict so I can see the insides of the cockpit, it doesn't get in the way for me in any way. I actually don't like having just a blank view with the HUD indicators, I hate that.
it enhances nothing, and gets in the way of the gameplay FSO was designed for.


I have bolded the important part for you. If the HUD wasnt drawn over the cockpit like normal, i'd agree. but as it is, cockpits are useless if you ask me, and i vastly preferred cockpit-less models of all fighters.



Also, i meant to say the gameplay FS2 was designed for, not FSO, just not to get any confusions in
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: rscaper1070 on December 02, 2010, 11:29:30 am
Well, the cockpit haters have hijacked another thread. Wasn't this about post-processing?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: torc on December 02, 2010, 12:22:42 pm
we aren't cockpit haters, we want a real cockpit!!!!!  :lol:
back to the topic: i notice the motion blur effect seems applicated only to the stars...is that right or the effect is applied at the ships too?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: The E on December 02, 2010, 12:29:44 pm
The "motion blur" effect (which really isn't motion blur) has been in the engine since retail, and only affects stars.

It's also horrible.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on December 02, 2010, 01:05:55 pm
Sort of a "/blur on" and "/blur off" while everything not background stays crispy.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on December 02, 2010, 01:48:20 pm
At Fury's request, one without post-processing.

Blue Planet - the vid without post processing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1q-Kwu2yvI)

Blue Planet - the original vid with post processing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hp5FCqRORk)

As colourful as a divebar jukebox.. or a rave party..  :ick:

NOTE: For those who think it's too dark, just don't use the additional command line Fury included seperate from the post processing data and it should show up lighter. It's also worth checking your monitor settings. Many monitors at factory values show too much contrast and may not have a proper brightness level.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Spoon on December 02, 2010, 02:02:16 pm
Hey look, colors

Awesome
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: General Battuta on December 02, 2010, 02:05:32 pm
I definitely prefer it with postprocessing over without, but I think we can hopefully find a compromise setting that's less desaturated.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on December 02, 2010, 02:09:49 pm
I agree with Battuta, but I also like fuller colors.  I guess you can't have the best of two worlds, huh?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on December 02, 2010, 02:34:49 pm
New experiment with a modified PP table. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMS-4gHk9NI)
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: General Battuta on December 02, 2010, 02:53:59 pm
New experiment with a modified PP table. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMS-4gHk9NI)

I rather like this one.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on December 02, 2010, 02:56:52 pm
New experiment with a modified PP table. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMS-4gHk9NI)

I honestly can't see the difference...
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Liberator on December 02, 2010, 03:01:07 pm
Definately better than the first one, but I'm inclined to reserve this kind of "noir" for flashbacks/foreshadowing than regular gameplay.  It's "unreal" qualities would serve very well as a narrative break to indicate that this is not part of the existing narrative.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Deadly in a Shadow on December 02, 2010, 03:01:46 pm
What a the differences in this video (despite the music). Like NFSRacer I didn't see any unusual.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on December 02, 2010, 03:11:24 pm
The Orion isn't pitch black.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Norbert- on December 02, 2010, 03:37:30 pm
I agree with Battuta, but I also like fuller colors.  I guess you can't have the best of two worlds, huh?
Did you even download the archive Fury provided in the first post? Or for that matter read the rest of this thread?
You CAN have a version with post processing and only very little color loss. Just use the data_subtle folder instead of data_verystrong.

Or if that's still too little color you can even open up the table file and edit the value to whatever you like, including 100% (which would be 1.0 in the file) and maybe even beyond, though since I havn't tried that I have no idea how that would look.... eyeglaring maybe....
But I couldn't really tell the difference between normal colors and the subtle saturaiton sets, unless I get two pictures side-by-side.

See http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=72883.msg1439827#msg1439827 for some screenshots with post-processing and color, even though the saturation value is lower (less color) than in the "stock" subtle folder of Furys archive.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on December 02, 2010, 03:50:31 pm
For example, 500% saturation.

(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9880/fs2openant7rinf20101202v.th.jpg) (http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9880/fs2openant7rinf20101202v.jpg)
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: SpardaSon21 on December 02, 2010, 03:57:30 pm
MY EYES!!!
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on December 02, 2010, 04:12:36 pm
Oh.  I thought the effects levels were fixed?  Okay, then I guess I can have them both! :warp:
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Norbert- on December 02, 2010, 05:05:37 pm
500% looks about right for JAD  :lol:
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: torc on December 02, 2010, 05:15:18 pm
definitely prefer with p.processing.... incredible
EDIT!!! Sara...can you make a video from inside the cockpit please?

thanks a lot  ;)
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on December 02, 2010, 06:11:04 pm
500% looks about right for JAD  :lol:

Yeah, no kidding! :ick:
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: crizza on December 02, 2010, 06:21:06 pm
For example, 500% saturation.

(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9880/fs2openant7rinf20101202v.th.jpg) (http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9880/fs2openant7rinf20101202v.jpg)
On this pic you can actually see the cruisers behind that orion^^
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on December 02, 2010, 06:24:25 pm
Yeah, you can, but you need to know what you're looking for, else the ships'll look like the asteroids.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: crizza on December 02, 2010, 06:36:33 pm
Veeeeeeeeeery strange looking asteriods though...;)
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on December 02, 2010, 06:38:33 pm
Well, duh!  That's because you know what to look for!  You have to think of it in terms of new players or people that have never played the game.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Jellyfish on December 02, 2010, 07:34:27 pm
For example, 500% saturation.

(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9880/fs2openant7rinf20101202v.th.jpg) (http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9880/fs2openant7rinf20101202v.jpg)

War in Heaven by Andy Warhol?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on December 02, 2010, 07:43:53 pm
For example, 500% saturation.

(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9880/fs2openant7rinf20101202v.th.jpg) (http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9880/fs2openant7rinf20101202v.jpg)

War in Heaven by Andy Warhol?

War(hol) in Heaven
(http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/651/warho.th.jpg) (http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/651/warho.jpg)

That should make a few wallpapers. :P
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on December 02, 2010, 08:09:34 pm
Wow.  That's better than when I had to do that in Photoshop!
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Ypoknons on December 02, 2010, 09:32:04 pm
ahahaha that is so awesome
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Waistless on December 02, 2010, 10:18:07 pm
Is it possible for saturation and contrast levels change during a mission? For example decrease saturation and increase contrast when you hit the burners to simulate an adrenaline rush, or damage when you get hit by a beam etc. could have enormous potential if used in that way.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: General Battuta on December 02, 2010, 10:34:20 pm
Yeah, that capability exists.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Kolgena on December 02, 2010, 11:27:26 pm
Are we able to fade the levels though? Sharp changes could look weird.

Also, 5.00 saturation needs a -bloom_intensity 500 to go with it.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Fury on December 02, 2010, 11:39:15 pm
I definitely prefer it with postprocessing over without, but I think we can hopefully find a compromise setting that's less desaturated.
Feel free to find a setting you prefer and suggest it. Just tweak post_processing.tbl saturation value, the tbl is in svn. Current saturation value is 0.7. You can try out different contrast values too, but I think 1.1 works best.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Kolgena on December 02, 2010, 11:46:42 pm
It might be just me, but a small amount of desaturation coupled with a moderate boost in contrast helps to control skybox blooming.

Or maybe I'm too distracted by the shiny to notice.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Norbert- on December 03, 2010, 04:12:55 am
For example, 500% saturation.

(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9880/fs2openant7rinf20101202v.th.jpg) (http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9880/fs2openant7rinf20101202v.jpg)
On this pic you can actually see the cruisers behind that orion^^
Kinda looks like the Orion is smoking a cigar, rather than flying in front of a Fenris/Leviathan  :pimp:
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: torc on December 03, 2010, 03:36:22 pm
please a cockpit vid!  :)
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on December 03, 2010, 04:02:44 pm
Cockpits aren't fully up to quality, not going to deliver a vid of that until something better excists.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Shivan Hunter on December 03, 2010, 04:58:00 pm
BP needs Diaspora-like cockpits :o

I kid, I kid
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: torc on December 03, 2010, 05:06:11 pm
excuse me sara... i just want to see a vid in first person view without cockpit and hud active... just to see the real feeling compared with a normal game session... excuse my english i am italian... and i want to thank you for your amazing vid....i can't run p.processing in my  notebook...   :(
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Sara- on December 03, 2010, 05:09:49 pm
I'll make some screenshots next time I'm ingame, torc. No need to guilttrip me.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: torc on December 03, 2010, 05:15:51 pm
is not my intention... nevermind
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: docfu on December 07, 2010, 04:27:15 am
Hello to the Creator of this mod(the post processing) and the dev team,

I'm a long time fan who just signed up to say that this definitely needs to be part of the base package for FSO. I'm not saying it needs to be enabled by default but having optional movie-like effects like these available greatly improve the quality of Freespace and truely bring it up to date versus other games in the genre.

The effects fury provided remind me of another game that was way ahead of it's time, steel battalion/tekki. Even though the game resolution was low, the post processing effects made the game way more interesting to play and really force you to rely on hud/targeting systems. Between that and the giant controller it felt like a true generational leap that no game has been able to come close to as far as integration just like almost no game has come close to freespace in terms of combat intensity.

That is all. Carry on.

TL:DR; Keep up the good work.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on December 09, 2010, 09:21:52 am
Some shots of how data_subtle looks on Age of Aquarius:

(http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/7285/screen0076.th.png) (http://img146.imageshack.us/i/screen0076.png/) (http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/8733/screen0078t.th.png) (http://img713.imageshack.us/i/screen0078t.png/) (http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/9598/screen0081s.th.png) (http://img704.imageshack.us/i/screen0081s.png/) (http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/1249/sathkill1.th.png) (http://img84.imageshack.us/i/sathkill1.png/)
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Norbert- on December 09, 2010, 10:08:27 am
"Your ships truly are as beautifull as Iwakura told!" ;)
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Pred the Penguin on December 10, 2010, 04:48:09 am
That second pic looks amazing!
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: MatthTheGeek on December 10, 2010, 08:26:27 am
The first pic reminds me how I miss with the absence of normal mapping.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Gregster2k on December 11, 2010, 01:54:22 am
Re. the video:  Looks cool, just seems a tad overblown.  :D

I don't necessarily agree with everything in the following two links; my point is merely, "just be careful not to overdo it."  It's very easy to get carried away (especially with film grain; I feel it's best to reserve that for cutscenes where the view is from a camera).  I love how Valve implemented bloom (HDR, actually), though.*

http://screwattack.com/blogs/XenoLs-blog/Five-of-the-Most-Annoying-Graphical-Effects (http://"http://screwattack.com/blogs/XenoLs-blog/Five-of-the-Most-Annoying-Graphical-Effects")
http://gangles.ca/2008/07/18/bloom-disasters/ (http://"http://gangles.ca/2008/07/18/bloom-disasters/")

*http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/HDR (http://"http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/HDR")
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Klaustrophobia on December 11, 2010, 02:21:32 am
Re. the video:  Looks cool, just seems a tad overblown.  :D

I don't necessarily agree with everything in the following two links; my point is merely, "just be careful not to overdo it."  It's very easy to get carried away (especially with film grain; I feel it's best to reserve that for cutscenes where the view is from a camera).  I love how Valve implemented bloom (HDR, actually), though.*

http://screwattack.com/blogs/XenoLs-blog/Five-of-the-Most-Annoying-Graphical-Effects (http://screwattack.com/blogs/XenoLs-blog/Five-of-the-Most-Annoying-Graphical-Effects)
http://gangles.ca/2008/07/18/bloom-disasters/ (http://gangles.ca/2008/07/18/bloom-disasters/)

*http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/HDR (http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/HDR)
fixed links

that first one just sounds like someone whining though.  HDR, depth of field, motion blur, etc are all amazing when done right.  (take a look at crysis).  bloom can start to get into trouble, and i agree that film grain is completely unnecessary.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Commander Zane on December 11, 2010, 03:10:36 am
I think all of what's on those sites is mindless *****ing, I like all of the effects, maybe not film grain so much, but the rest I think are awesome.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Klaustrophobia on December 11, 2010, 10:47:19 am
i must say their "primary example" of bloom Twilight Princess is retarded.  i love the lighting in that game.  it's a magical forest you twit, it's supposed to be shiny :P
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Norbert- on December 11, 2010, 11:49:42 am
But guildwars is a very good example of how bloom shouldn't be used. Just smashing it over the whole screen at an intensity that blinds you on beaches and in the snow and everywere else completely blurs everything....
Nexus on the other hand handles bloom very well. Instead of just blooming the whole screen, it's used to enhance weapon and explosion effects, planetary atmospheres and suns.
Less is often more.... or at least better.

And while film-grain isn't going to be good for scenes that you play yourself, it might come in handy for cutscenes that show flashbacks, or maybe newsvids to have a visual difference between those and the "normal" cutscenes.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: torc on December 11, 2010, 07:17:36 pm
i like a lot film grain....reminds me the '80 james cameron's movies  :yes:
i find it fantastic used a little bit (less Avatar and more Aliens  :nod: )
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on December 11, 2010, 07:27:37 pm
I've never been too crazy about the film grains.  It always takes out of the game's performance...
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Kolgena on December 11, 2010, 10:09:46 pm
It's good if done right, but it rarely ever is. I think part of the point is to obscure textures so that the player assume they look better than they actually are, but without the player realizing it.

I'm wondering how much of a performance hit film grain specifically has on FSO... If it's huge, I'd gladly turn it off to scrape some frames back.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on December 11, 2010, 10:13:41 pm
Ditto.  Looks only count for 10% of the game in my books.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: General Battuta on December 11, 2010, 10:15:58 pm
Never seen any real performance hit due to postprocessing.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Kolgena on December 11, 2010, 10:21:08 pm
Are you kidding me? Maybe my GPU sucks, but there's no way that it doesn't impact performance (unless your bottleneck isn't what runs the post-processing)

Ship lab.
Show post-processing off: 120 fps locked
Show post-processing on: ~94 fps

Mind, 120 is the game's cap, so impact would be higher than that. Anyways, did a quick test: I get 10% less FPS running noise filter (at 0.18 intensity), so I'm leaving that off.

Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Klaustrophobia on December 12, 2010, 12:33:12 am
It's good if done right, but it rarely ever is. I think part of the point is to obscure textures so that the player assume they look better than they actually are, but without the player realizing it.

I'm wondering how much of a performance hit film grain specifically has on FSO... If it's huge, I'd gladly turn it off to scrape some frames back.

that is a RETARDED reason for an effect imo.  making it deliberately worse to make it better? :ick:
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: General Battuta on December 12, 2010, 12:34:47 am
It's good if done right, but it rarely ever is. I think part of the point is to obscure textures so that the player assume they look better than they actually are, but without the player realizing it.

I'm wondering how much of a performance hit film grain specifically has on FSO... If it's huge, I'd gladly turn it off to scrape some frames back.

that is a RETARDED reason for an effect imo.  making it deliberately worse to make it better? :ick:

It's an excellent reason. One of the reasons bloom is great is because it can help cover up effect clipping.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: The E on December 12, 2010, 12:38:46 am
Rule of perception. If you can trick the brain into filling in details you can't give for whatever reason, that's good enough.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Klaustrophobia on December 12, 2010, 01:10:11 am
except bloom is a good* effect.  film grain makes it look like **** to cover up how it looks like ****.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Scotty on December 12, 2010, 01:17:45 am
Opinions for everyone! \o/
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: docfu on December 12, 2010, 02:38:54 am
Opinions for everyone! \o/

I think you made a misspelling there. I think you meant "options"...
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Kolgena on December 12, 2010, 10:19:30 am
Rule of perception. If you can trick the brain into filling in details you can't give for whatever reason, that's good enough.

I just thought of how this is like softcore vs hardco--

nevermind
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Scotty on December 12, 2010, 01:50:54 pm
Opinions for everyone! \o/

I think you made a misspelling there. I think you meant "options"...

No.  Saying you think film grain is a ****ty effect is an opinion (which, you didn't, but Klaustrophobia did).  I, personally, disagree with it.

Similarly, saying bloom is a good effect is also opinion.  Wouldn't take long to find someone here that hates it with a passion.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Commander Zane on December 12, 2010, 01:55:26 pm
But options could fit in that sentence as well, since you'd have choices to what you want to use.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: General Battuta on December 12, 2010, 01:58:19 pm
Opinions for everyone! \o/

I think you made a misspelling there. I think you meant "options"...

No.  Saying you think film grain is a ****ty effect is an opinion (which, you didn't, but Klaustrophobia did).  I, personally, disagree with it.

Similarly, saying bloom is a good effect is also opinion.  Wouldn't take long to find someone here that hates it with a passion.

Don't think it's a native speaker, so go easy.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Shivan Hunter on December 12, 2010, 02:21:15 pm
Opinions for everyone! \o/

I think you made a misspelling there. I think you meant "options"...

No.  Saying you think film grain is a ****ty effect is an opinion (which, you didn't, but Klaustrophobia did).  I, personally, disagree with it.

Similarly, saying bloom is a good effect is also opinion.  Wouldn't take long to find someone here that hates it with a passion.

And I think I heard the "whoosh" as docfu's point sailed right over your head. Effects in FSO are optional; if someone doesn't like an effect, they can turn it off in the launcher. Which is why arguing about them is completely pointless.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Scotty on December 12, 2010, 02:23:39 pm
Yeah, except that what he thought I meant wasn't what I meant.  There was no point to go "whoosh."  I'm fully aware that they're all optional, but saying "<x> is ****ty" is still only an opinion.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: torc on December 12, 2010, 02:31:31 pm
FILM GRAIN FOREVER!!!!!  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on December 12, 2010, 04:54:34 pm
Specularity ftw! Me wants the shiny shiny!
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Cobaltred on December 13, 2010, 02:25:31 am
Quick question: is there anyway to use these settings without using the mod?  I like the pretty backgrounds of WiH, but I'm playing through FS2 for the first time and was enjoying the default FS2 main hall.  When I select this mod, everything becomes WiHerized.

But these settings are very cool by the way.  I enjoy subtle.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Norbert- on December 13, 2010, 03:06:19 am
Just delete the "BluePlanet2,BluePlanet," part out of the mod.inis secondary list line, leaving only "MediaVPs3612" (or insert any mod you like in front of the mediavps).
The better solution would be to first copy the whole folder, rename it to something else and then do the mod.ini editing in the new folder, to make sure you still have the original in case you mess something up by mistake.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: docfu on December 13, 2010, 08:25:07 am
Opinions for everyone! \o/

I think you made a misspelling there. I think you meant "options"...

No.  Saying you think film grain is a ****ty effect is an opinion (which, you didn't, but Klaustrophobia did).  I, personally, disagree with it.

Similarly, saying bloom is a good effect is also opinion.  Wouldn't take long to find someone here that hates it with a passion.

And I think I heard the "whoosh" as docfu's point sailed right over your head. Effects in FSO are optional; if someone doesn't like an effect, they can turn it off in the launcher. Which is why arguing about them is completely pointless.

Naw, Scotty is right. I shouldn't have made an inside joke against someone who doesn't know me.

That aside, I think there should be a separate panel in the options for post processing effects. While it would seem "the correct way" that individual mods turn on post processing effects as needed, it would be nice to stack up post processing effects right from inside the launcher. Turning on and off effects with sliders to get the whole game looking the way you want it.

I realize that to the newer generation of hi-definition gamers, anything that reduces resolution and clarity would probably seem to detract from the game, but if there is one thing that games need to look realistic its fluidity of motion and the appearance of a constantly changing environment. Space is obviously a "low light" situation most of the time (depending on your distance from the sun.) and anyone who has done true photography knows that filming in the dark is a next to impossible task due to the lack of contrast.

Some night shots you see in movies and tv are actually filmed during the day and then made darker using post processing later. This is simply because daytime lighting provides a higher contrast to work with and to make it dark all they have to do is tone it down a little.

Personally, while every ship in freespace "has" a cockpit in it, I've never felt like I've been in ship in this game. Maybe it's because every HUD is exactly the same, there is no internal cockpit drawn, and the perspective of the display window seems a little ackward. In this game I've always felt like I WAS the ship, rather than riding in one. (Until I played beyond the red line but that's another story.)

These post processing filters help to break that mold. It's easier to believe I'm lining enemy ships up on a big display in the cockpit rather than looking out a window at them. I also grew up in the era of crappy analog electronics and bad wiring so a little flicker just makes it that much more realistic.

Besides. I'd prefer film grain for a post processing effect over "dead pixels" any day...

And on a last note, I'd like to say these run fine on my Nvidia 8400GS. I seriously thought I was gonna have to upgrade my card to get any kind of a decent framerate but it runs mostly smooth in the game.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: General Battuta on December 13, 2010, 08:31:04 am
Hella good post.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: docfu on December 19, 2010, 01:32:02 am
I just spent 30 minutes playing with Distort, recommend 0.001 for any kind of playability in the game.

One thing I just noticed, these post processing effects are not applied over the HUD, nor are they applied over the menus. This breaks the continuity of the game.

I also noticed that reducing saturation to zero does not effect the ship targeting display(bottom left) or the colors of the hud.

Could this be an option in the future to have continual post processing effects in both menus and over the hud?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Kolgena on December 19, 2010, 02:06:36 am
More on the film-grain:

Have you ever noticed when you close your eyes, you can kind of see a noise pattern? In low light conditions, this same noise pattern can be seen as a sort of overlay. You really need to be looking for it though, since your brain's good at getting rid of its perception. (Actually, you can even force yourself to see the noise in bright lighting conditions if I'm looking at a pretty big expanse of one color.)

While this noise is really hard to describe, it's pretty close to a film grain. It's closer to the pin-prickle tactile "noise" pattern you feel when a limb is recovering from "falling asleep". You can use this to justify why there's slight film grain in your vision. What doesn't quite work here is that the grain is more noticeable on brighter objects, rather than the other way around.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on December 19, 2010, 11:45:42 am
Actually, have you ever played a game like Left 4 Dead with the film grain for about an hour, then shut it off?  As it turns out (and I'm repeating myself a bit), the film grain shaves off about two to three frames in most games.  I have yet to try it on FSO, but that's just fact.  Nevertheless, it does add a nice extra bit of quality, that's for sure.  A bit of a gritty feel to the game (then again, WiH had that to begin with! :D).
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: MetalDestroyer on December 20, 2010, 07:47:32 am
Adding film grain in FSO give something very unique and pretty bad ass (or not for others). If you add also some desaturation to it, well, you'll get something AWESOME.
Normally, I hate film grain, but in some games, it give more depth. I don't know how to describe but it's so ****ing awesome. :)
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Deadly in a Shadow on December 27, 2010, 04:14:25 am
Desaturated enough?

[IMG=http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1361/44325726.jpg]http://[/img] (http://img227.imageshack.us/i/44325726.jpg/)

(http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/8206/96484735.jpg) (http://img191.imageshack.us/i/96484735.jpg/)

(http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/4394/34301886.jpg) (http://img191.imageshack.us/i/34301886.jpg/)

(http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/2306/83721573.jpg) (http://img526.imageshack.us/i/83721573.jpg/)

(http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/9233/66012559.jpg) (http://img585.imageshack.us/i/66012559.jpg/)

(http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/651/56075727.jpg) (http://img220.imageshack.us/i/56075727.jpg/)
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on December 27, 2010, 07:31:58 am
I see a black box containing five of this:

(http://www5.pic-upload.de/allownt.gif)

Are you sure you're doing it right?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Commander Zane on December 27, 2010, 08:16:56 am
I can still see all of the images. Yellow & orange Terran ships look pretty cool.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Deadly in a Shadow on December 27, 2010, 08:48:13 am

Ok I uploaded them on Imageshack now. :P
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Kolgena on December 27, 2010, 05:12:11 pm
Er, okay. Did you make saturation negative to invert the colors?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on December 28, 2010, 12:34:45 am

Ok I uploaded them on Imageshack now. :P

I see them now, and they look ... very interesting. It makes the battlefield look like it was shot in some sort of big space studio.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Deadly in a Shadow on December 28, 2010, 03:29:30 am
Er, okay. Did you make saturation negative to invert the colors?

I desaturated them, yes.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Icewater on January 01, 2011, 08:28:18 pm
Alright, decided to try this out and I'm getting a weird error. Whenever I fire anything the dynamic lighting from the shot causes ships to light up like this (http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/6995/errorxf.jpg). I tested it with a few different settings, and with both the Age of Aquarius and the default FS2 campaigns and the exact same thing happens. Anyone happen to know what might cause this?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Rodo on January 01, 2011, 08:53:35 pm
No idea, had the same issue myself.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on January 01, 2011, 09:16:31 pm
Could it be faulty coding or something in the download file became corrupt for some reason?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on January 02, 2011, 04:17:16 am
What are your lighting settings? It looks like your spec_static value is too high.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: The E on January 02, 2011, 04:32:18 am
Alright, decided to try this out and I'm getting a weird error. Whenever I fire anything the dynamic lighting from the shot causes ships to light up like this (http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/6995/errorxf.jpg). I tested it with a few different settings, and with both the Age of Aquarius and the default FS2 campaigns and the exact same thing happens. Anyone happen to know what might cause this?

/me activates psychic debugging powers

You are using an nVidia GPU. You have not updated your GPU drivers. You should do so.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Icewater on January 02, 2011, 01:15:47 pm

/me activates psychic debugging powers

You are using an nVidia GPU. You have not updated your GPU drivers. You should do so.

Woot, this fixed it! Thanks!


Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: NFSRacer on January 02, 2011, 02:32:59 pm
Alright, decided to try this out and I'm getting a weird error. Whenever I fire anything the dynamic lighting from the shot causes ships to light up like this (http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/6995/errorxf.jpg). I tested it with a few different settings, and with both the Age of Aquarius and the default FS2 campaigns and the exact same thing happens. Anyone happen to know what might cause this?


/me activates psychic debugging powers

You are using an nVidia GPU. You have not updated your GPU drivers. You should do so.

...Just goes to show you what I know. :P
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Raiden on April 07, 2011, 09:09:19 am
Sorry to bump an old topic, but figured some people might have missed this the first time.

I just wanted to ask you guys what your plans are for this lighting test. I know not everyone will feel the same, but I feel that using the 'very-strong' folder and the suggested lighting settings in the readme really, really enhances the visuals and mood of WiH. I use an all-white hud and the grainy image kind of looks like you're looking through a camera mounted on the fighter. If you look at the start of Post-Meridian, the Meridian seriously looks like something out of the first Alien movie, and the convoy in The Cost of War look industrial as ****.

I tried the HLP default settings just for a change last night with WiH, and to me there's just no comparison. Everything looks way too colourful for such a depressing mod  :P  Basically I just want to thank anyone who worked on this because I love it, and also wanna ask if you're planning on using these settings for R2 (and BP3). Would hate for this to be a one-off experiment when I think the atmosphere is highly enhanced by it.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: General Battuta on April 07, 2011, 09:11:02 am
I think they could be offered as options.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Norbert- on April 07, 2011, 09:52:25 am
Another addition to The BP2 Optional Extras thread (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=70841.0) maybe?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Kolgena on April 07, 2011, 09:35:27 pm
The post-processing filters can look very good if rather subtly applied, even outside of BP. I've been playing FS2 using them, and I think they're great. It'd be neat if it was ported out to the MVPs, and some sort of table system could allow other mods to pull on them as needed on a per-mod basis.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: qazwsx on April 08, 2011, 01:41:40 am
Do they really need to be ported to the media VPs? I'd rather the use of such post processing effects be left as a choice to the end user, maybe a mod could have preferred shaders as a 'recommended' extra, similar to how this 'lighting test' is set up.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Luis Dias on April 08, 2011, 05:33:24 am
Make it optional in the launcher, user friendly and I'll agree.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Mars on April 08, 2011, 09:44:28 am
The trouble is that they're incompatible with the Anti-Aliasing that many people use most of the time. At the very least you'd need to slap a giant "Do not play with AA" sticker on the front if it became a default setting.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Kolgena on April 08, 2011, 09:53:14 am
Bloom is incompatible with AA, but that's a default package in the mediavps already.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Klaustrophobia on April 10, 2011, 12:18:10 pm
i guess that would explain why my AA setting never seems to stick in FSO.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: General Battuta on April 10, 2011, 12:19:27 pm
i guess that would explain why my AA setting never seems to stick in FSO.

That and the fact that the launcher AA settings don't actually do anything.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Kolgena on April 10, 2011, 06:53:35 pm
Basically, it's been many years since AA was workable on windows without forcing drivers. Same goes for AF.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Klaustrophobia on April 10, 2011, 10:08:08 pm
i guess that would explain why my AA setting never seems to stick in FSO.

That and the fact that the launcher AA settings don't actually do anything.

i mean when forced through CCC.  never works.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Vespene on April 21, 2011, 04:49:07 am
Has anyone tried these lighting mods on a Mac?  I've been trying for days to get it to work.

My card is an NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS.  Maybe it's a video card limitation?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: -Norbert- on April 21, 2011, 05:49:47 am
They ran fine on my old 8800 GTX (though that was on Windows), so I don't think it's the card itself. Are you sure you have all the correct path in the mod.ini and have one folder named "data"?
By default the sub-folders inside the lightingtest_wih folder come named in a discribtive way and you need to rename the one you like into just "data" and of course select the lightingtest as active mod, rather than bp2.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Kolgena on April 21, 2011, 09:21:59 am
Are you running a build recent enough to use post-processing?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: The E on April 21, 2011, 09:30:42 am
And if you are, do you have post-processing enabled (by starting the program with the -post_process commandline parameter)?

Also, when reporting issues, you should always post an fs2_open.log.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: MatthTheGeek on April 21, 2011, 12:17:20 pm
Also, make sure you have updated drivers. Or maybe your gpu isn't powerful for PP. Anyway, get us a log.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Insomniac34 on April 21, 2011, 01:37:38 pm
My old 8800GT handled anything on the FS open engine with ease, I'm pretty sure your GPU is fine...
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: X3N0-Life-Form on April 21, 2011, 04:54:56 pm
My 8800 GTS doesn't handle the fireworks very well. It can run Crysis maxed out fairly well on the other hand. That's odd.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Kolgena on April 21, 2011, 05:13:52 pm
Also, make sure you have updated drivers. Or maybe your gpu isn't powerful for PP. Anyway, get us a log.

Then PP would still work, but chug. There isn't such thing as graphical features getting turned off if your GPU isn't powerful enough, unless the code is specifically built that way (newest lighting pixel shaders in the MVPs are like this)


Also, FSO is CPU limited, and BP has a couple unoptimized models that would cripple any machine. That would explain your crappy framerates when they show up.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Vespene on April 21, 2011, 09:29:40 pm
Sorry for the late update.  Figured it out.  The launcher wasn't adding the -post_process line when launching for some reason.  Edited the config file to add the line manually.

I just noticed another problem though.  This one's an overall issue with the game however.  When capital ships blow up and split, they clone themselves into two copies that fly appart.  The game isn't clipping the ships as they disintegrate with the explosion.  They're also not clipping out through warp effects, just fly straight through and then pop from existence.  I know this isn't part of the topic, so I'll make a thread elsewhere about it, unless someone can give a quick answer here in the next 24 hours or so.

Long log:
Code: [Select]
==========================================================================
DEBUG SPEW: No debug_filter.cfg found, so only general, error, and warning
categories can be shown and no debug_filter.cfg info will be saved.
==========================================================================
Opened log '/Users/sythis/Library/FS2_Open/data/fs2_open.log', Thu Apr 21 19:14:59 2011 ...
FreeSpace version: 3.6.13
Passed cmdline options:
  -spec_exp 16
  -ogl_spec 32
  -spec_static 1.25
  -spec_point 1.5
  -spec_tube 1.5
  -ambient_factor 120.00
  -env
  -mipmap
  -missile_lighting
  -glow
  -nomotiondebris
  -spec
  -normal
  -3dshockwave
  -post_process
  -ballistic_gauge
  -dualscanlines
  -orbradar
  -rearm_timer
  -targetinfo
  -3dwarp
  -ship_choice_3d
  -weapon_choice_3d
  -warp_flash
  -snd_preload
  -mod lighting_test_wih,blueplanet2,blueplanet,mediavps_3612
Building file index...
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet2/bp2-adv-visuals.vp' with a checksum of 0x2fa0cebd
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet2/bp2-audio1.vp' with a checksum of 0x60465ead
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet2/bp2-core.vp' with a checksum of 0x24b50f90
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet2/bp2-visuals1.vp' with a checksum of 0x5d4c1bfb
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet2/bp2-visuals2.vp' with a checksum of 0x8fea63ef
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet/bp-adv-visuals.vp' with a checksum of 0x1541da12
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet/bp-audio1.vp' with a checksum of 0xcc452f9d
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet/bp-audio2.vp' with a checksum of 0x060bee91
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet/bp-core.vp' with a checksum of 0xe2219ccf
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet/bp-visuals1.vp' with a checksum of 0x7e75407b
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet/bp-visuals2.vp' with a checksum of 0x44c7e8dd
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/MV_Advanced.vp' with a checksum of 0x4b8b0f5a
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/MV_AnimGlows.vp' with a checksum of 0x6a554026
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/MV_Assets.3612.vp' with a checksum of 0x59649c21
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/MV_Assets.vp' with a checksum of 0x529cc70f
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/MV_Effects.3612.vp' with a checksum of 0x9c510aa0
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/MV_Effects.vp' with a checksum of 0xb9a9a485
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/MV_Music.vp' with a checksum of 0xb3e21469
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/MV_RadarIcons.vp' with a checksum of 0x31dd7781
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/MV_Root.3612.vp' with a checksum of 0x7c9d7e74
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/MV_Root.vp' with a checksum of 0x6ffd5c78
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/multi-mission-pack.vp' with a checksum of 0x377695e0
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/multi-voice-pack.vp' with a checksum of 0xd50e7442
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/Root_fs2.vp' with a checksum of 0xce10d76c
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/smarty_fs2.vp' with a checksum of 0xddeb3b1e
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/sparky_fs2.vp' with a checksum of 0x164fe65a
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/sparky_hi_fs2.vp' with a checksum of 0xa11d56f1
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/stu_fs2.vp' with a checksum of 0xd77da83a
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/tango1_fs2.vp' with a checksum of 0x4c25221e
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/tango2_fs2.vp' with a checksum of 0x86920b82
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/tango3_fs2.vp' with a checksum of 0x705e8d71
Found root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/warble_fs2.vp' with a checksum of 0xd85c305d
Searching root '/Users/sythis/Library/FS2_Open/lighting_test_wih/' ... 50 files
Searching root '/Users/sythis/Library/FS2_Open/blueplanet2/' ... 0 files
Searching root '/Users/sythis/Library/FS2_Open/blueplanet/' ... 31 files
Searching root '/Users/sythis/Library/FS2_Open/mediavps_3612/' ... 2 files
Searching root '/Users/sythis/Library/FS2_Open/' ... 3 files
Searching root '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/lighting_test_wih/' ... 7 files
Searching root '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet2/' ... 1 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet2/bp2-adv-visuals.vp' ... 23 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet2/bp2-audio1.vp' ... 154 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet2/bp2-core.vp' ... 61 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet2/bp2-visuals1.vp' ... 494 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet2/bp2-visuals2.vp' ... 1976 files
Searching root '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet/' ... 0 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet/bp-adv-visuals.vp' ... 403 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet/bp-audio1.vp' ... 41 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet/bp-audio2.vp' ... 685 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet/bp-core.vp' ... 46 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet/bp-visuals1.vp' ... 326 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/blueplanet/bp-visuals2.vp' ... 1488 files
Searching root '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/' ... 1 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/MV_Advanced.vp' ... 1283 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/MV_AnimGlows.vp' ... 1641 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/MV_Assets.3612.vp' ... 315 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/MV_Assets.vp' ... 1527 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/MV_Effects.3612.vp' ... 10 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/MV_Effects.vp' ... 1876 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/MV_Music.vp' ... 32 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/MV_RadarIcons.vp' ... 24 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/MV_Root.3612.vp' ... 13 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/mediavps_3612/MV_Root.vp' ... 94 files
Searching root '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/' ... 19 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/multi-mission-pack.vp' ... 110 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/multi-voice-pack.vp' ... 307 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/Root_fs2.vp' ... 157 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/smarty_fs2.vp' ... 10 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/sparky_fs2.vp' ... 3027 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/sparky_hi_fs2.vp' ... 1337 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/stu_fs2.vp' ... 2355 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/tango1_fs2.vp' ... 32 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/tango2_fs2.vp' ... 15 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/tango3_fs2.vp' ... 10 files
Searching root pack '/Users/sythis/Applications/Freespace 2/warble_fs2.vp' ... 52 files
Found 42 roots and 20038 files.
AutoLang: Language auto-detection successful...
Setting language to English
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_core-lcl.tbm' ...
Initializing OpenAL...
  OpenAL Vendor     : Apple Computer Inc.
  OpenAL Renderer   : Software
  OpenAL Version    : 1.1

  Found extension "AL_EXT_float32".

  Sample rate: 0 (44100)
  EFX enabled: NO
  Playback device: Built-in Output
  Capture device: Built-in Microphone
... OpenAL successfully initialized!
Failed to init speech
Initializing OpenGL graphics device at 1920x1200 with 32-bit color...
  Initializing SDL...
  Requested SDL Video values = R: 8, G: 8, B: 8, depth: 24, double-buffer: 1, FSAA: 8
  Actual SDL Video values    = R: 8, G: 8, B: 8, depth: 24, double-buffer: 1, FSAA: 8
  OpenGL Vendor    : NVIDIA Corporation
  OpenGL Renderer  : NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS OpenGL Engine
  OpenGL Version   : 2.1 NVIDIA-1.6.26

  Using extension "GL_EXT_fog_coord".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_multitexture".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_texture_env_add".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_texture_compression".
  Using extension "GL_EXT_texture_compression_s3tc".
  Using extension "GL_EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_texture_env_combine".
  Using extension "GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array".
  Using extension "GL_EXT_draw_range_elements".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_texture_mirrored_repeat".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_texture_non_power_of_two".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_pixel_buffer_object".
  Using extension "GL_SGIS_generate_mipmap".
  Using extension "GL_EXT_framebuffer_object".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_texture_rectangle".
  Using extension "GL_EXT_bgra".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_texture_cube_map".
  Using extension "GL_EXT_texture_lod_bias".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_point_sprite".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_shading_language_100".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_shader_objects".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_vertex_shader".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_fragment_shader".
  Using extension "GL_ARB_shader_texture_lod".

  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (null-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (null-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (l-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lb-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (b-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (b-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (b-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (bg-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (l-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lbg-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (l-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lbgs-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (l-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lbs-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (le-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lbgse-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (le-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lbse-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (ln-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lbgn-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (ln-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lbgsn-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (ln-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lbn-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (ln-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lbsn-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (lne-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lbgsne-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (lne-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lbsne-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (lf-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lfb-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (lf-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lfbg-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (lf-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lfbgs-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (lf-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lfbs-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (lfe-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lfbgse-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (lfe-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lfbse-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (lfn-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lfbgn-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (lfn-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lfbgsn-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (lfn-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lfbn-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (lfn-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lfbsn-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (lfne-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lfbgsne-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (lfne-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lfbsne-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (l-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (null-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (l-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lg-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (l-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lgs-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (l-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (ls-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (le-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lgse-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (le-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lse-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (ln-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lgn-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (ln-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lgsn-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (ln-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (ln-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (ln-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lsn-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (lne-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lgsne-f.sdr)
  Compiling shader: main-v.sdr (lne-v.sdr), main-f.sdr (lsne-f.sdr)

  Compiling post-processing shader 1 ...
  Compiling post-processing shader 2 ...
  Compiling post-processing shader 3 ...
  Compiling post-processing shader 4 ...

  Max texture units: 8 (16)
  Max elements vertices: 2048
  Max elements indices: 150000
  Max texture size: 8192x8192
  Max render buffer size: 8192x8192
  Can use compressed textures: YES
  Texture compression available: YES
  Post-processing enabled: YES
  Using trilinear texture filter.
  Using GLSL for model rendering.
  OpenGL Shader Version: 1.20
... OpenGL init is complete!
Size of bitmap info = 760 KB
Size of bitmap extra info = 52 bytes
ANI cursorweb with size 24x24 (25.0% wasted)
GRAPHICS: Initializing default colors...
SCRIPTING: Beginning initialization sequence...
SCRIPTING: Beginning Lua initialization...
LUA: Opening LUA state...
LUA: Initializing base Lua libraries...
LUA: Beginning ADE initialization
ADE: Initializing enumeration constants...
ADE: Assigning Lua session...
SCRIPTING: Beginning main hook parse sequence....
Wokka!  Error opening file (scripting.tbl)!
TABLES: Unable to parse 'scripting.tbl'!  Error code = 5.
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_flak-sct.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_dbrs-sct.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_exp-sct.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-tcard-sct.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-stupid-sct.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-csc-sct.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-betty-sct.tbm' ...
SCRIPTING: Inititialization complete.
SCRIPTING: Splash screen overrides checked
SCRIPTING: Splash hook has been run
SCRIPTING: Splash screen conditional hook has been run
Using high memory settings...
Wokka!  Error opening file (interface.tbl)!
WMCGUI: Unable to parse 'interface.tbl'!  Error code = 5.
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_effects-sdf.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp-sdf.tbm' ...
No joysticks found
Current soundtrack set to -1 in event_music_reset_choices
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_music-mus.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp-mus.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-mus.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_effects-mfl.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp-mfl.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-mfl.tbm' ...
Wokka!  Error opening file (armor.tbl)!
TABLES: Unable to parse 'armor.tbl'!  Error code = 5.
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_effects-amr.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-amr.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_effects-wxp.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp-wxp.tbm' ...
BMPMAN: Found EFF (exp20.eff) with 75 frames at 20 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (ExpMissileHit1.eff) with 92 frames at 20 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (exp04.eff) with 49 frames at 22 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (exp05.eff) with 93 frames at 20 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (exp06.eff) with 92 frames at 22 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (capflash.eff) with 40 frames at 10 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (Maxim_Impact.eff) with 23 frames at 30 fps.
ANI Lamprey_Impact with size 80x80 (37.5% wasted)
BMPMAN: Found EFF (explo3.eff) with 48 frames at 22 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (HFlakExp.eff) with 48 frames at 22 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (exp06b.eff) with 92 frames at 22 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (bomb_flare.eff) with 69 frames at 20 fps.
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_core-wep.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_effects-wep.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_assets-wep.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp-wep.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-wep.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp-aip.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-aip.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_effects-obt.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-obt.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_core-shp.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'radar-shp.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_effects-shp.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_assets-shp.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp-shp.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-shp.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_core-hdg.tbm' ...
ANI support1 with size 108x24 (25.0% wasted)
ANI damage1 with size 148x25 (21.9% wasted)
ANI wingman1 with size 71x53 (17.2% wasted)
ANI wingman2 with size 35x53 (17.2% wasted)
ANI wingman3 with size 14x53 (17.2% wasted)
ANI toggle1 with size 57x20 (37.5% wasted)
ANI head1 with size 164x132 (48.4% wasted)
ANI weapons1 with size 126x20 (37.5% wasted)
ANI weapons1_b with size 150x20 (37.5% wasted)
ANI objective1 with size 149x21 (34.4% wasted)
ANI netlag1 with size 29x30 (6.2% wasted)
ANI targhit1 with size 31x21 (34.4% wasted)
ANI 2_energy2 with size 86x96 (25.0% wasted)
ANI time1 with size 47x23 (28.1% wasted)
ANI energy1 with size 12x41 (35.9% wasted)
ANI targetview3 with size 7x20 (37.5% wasted)
ANI targetview1 with size 137x156 (39.1% wasted)
ANI targetview2 with size 4x96 (25.0% wasted)
ANI 2_reticle1 with size 40x24 (25.0% wasted)
ANI 2_leftarc with size 103x252 (1.6% wasted)
ANI 2_rightarc1 with size 103x252 (1.6% wasted)
ANI 2_toparc2 with size 35x24 (25.0% wasted)
ANI 2_toparc3 with size 41x29 (9.4% wasted)
ANI 2_lead1 with size 26x26 (18.8% wasted)
ANI 2_lock1 with size 56x53 (17.2% wasted)
ANI 2_lockspin with size 100x100 (21.9% wasted)
ANI 2_radar1 with size 209x170 (33.6% wasted)
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_effects-str.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp-str.tbm' ...
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'bp2-str.tbm' ...
loading animated cursor "cursor"
MediaVPs: Flaming debris script loaded!
MediaVPs: Explosions script loaded!
Ships.tbl is : VALID
Weapons.tbl is : VALID
cfile_init() took 388
Got event GS_EVENT_GAME_INIT (49) in state NOT A VALID STATE (0)
Got event GS_EVENT_MAIN_MENU (0) in state GS_STATE_INITIAL_PLAYER_SELECT (37)
WARNING!, Could not load door anim 2_Exit in main hall
WARNING!, Could not load door anim 2_Pilot in main hall
WARNING!, Could not load door anim 2_Continue in main hall
WARNING!, Could not load door anim 2_Tech in main hall
WARNING!, Could not load door anim 2_Option in main hall
WARNING!, Could not load door anim 2_Campaign in main hall
Got event GS_EVENT_TECH_MENU (11) in state GS_STATE_MAIN_MENU (1)
Techroom successfully initialized, now changing tab...
Loading model 'fighter01.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'fighter01.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x3503498e, IBX checksum: 0x8f5f3d48 -- "fighter01.pof"
Got event GS_EVENT_GOTO_VIEW_CUTSCENES_SCREEN (34) in state GS_STATE_TECH_MENU (7)
Freeing all existing models...
Got event GS_EVENT_SIMULATOR_ROOM (58) in state GS_STATE_VIEW_CUTSCENES (28)
Frame  0 too long!!: frametime = 0.448 (0.448)
Got event GS_EVENT_START_GAME (1) in state GS_STATE_SIMULATOR_ROOM (20)
=================== STARTING LEVEL LOAD ==================
Someone passed an extension to bm_load for file '2_LoadingBGM00.png'
BMPMAN: Found EFF (2_Loading.eff) with 14 frames at 15 fps.
Starting model page in...
Beginning level bitmap paging...
BMPMAN: Found EFF (particleexp01.eff) with 10 frames at 8 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (particlesmoke01.eff) with 54 frames at 15 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (particlesmoke02.eff) with 39 frames at 24 fps.
TBM  =>  Starting parse of 'mv_effects-fbl.tbm' ...
BMPMAN: Found EFF (WarpMap01.eff) with 30 frames at 30 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (WarpMap02.eff) with 30 frames at 30 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (Rock_Exp.eff) with 55 frames at 30 fps.
Loading warp model
Loading model 'warp.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'warp.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0xbf802ad0, IBX checksum: 0xe7aa5a55 -- "warp.pof"
 600
BMPMAN: Found EFF (shieldhit01a.eff) with 23 frames at 21 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (shieldhit02a.eff) with 45 frames at 30 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (shieldhit03a.eff) with 22 frames at 30 fps.
SHOCKWAVE =>  Loading default shockwave model...
Loading model 'shockwave.pof'
BMPMAN: Found EFF (shockwave3d-glow.eff) with 159 frames at 24 fps.
Model shockwave.pof has a null moment of inertia!  (This is only a problem if the model is a ship.)
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'shockwave.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0xa85bec39, IBX checksum: 0x9af155c2 -- "shockwave.pof"
SHOCKWAVE =>  Default model load: SUCCEEDED!!
MISSION LOAD: 'bp2-00.fs2'
Hmmm... Extension passed to mission_load...
Starting mission message count : 294
Ending mission message count : 296
Current soundtrack set to -1 in event_music_reset_choices
Current soundtrack set to -1 in event_music_set_soundtrack
Loading model 'nighthawk.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'nighthawk.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0xa29e310b, IBX checksum: 0xa8dda81f -- "nighthawk.pof"
Submodel 'detail-1b' is detail level 1 of 'detail-1a'
Loading model 'HyperionD.pof'
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'fighterbay', believed to be in ship HyperionD.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'rotator', believed to be in ship HyperionD.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'Reactor01', believed to be in ship HyperionD.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'Reactor02', believed to be in ship HyperionD.pof
Found live debris model for 'rotator'
Found live debris model for 'rotator'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'HyperionD.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x8aea7be0, IBX checksum: 0x41a0f551 -- "HyperionD.pof"
Allocating space for at least 43 new ship subsystems ...  a total of 200 is now available (43 in-use).
Loading model 'LargeStarbase2.pof'
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'fighterbay1', believed to be in ship LargeStarbase2.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'fighterbay2', believed to be in ship LargeStarbase2.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'fighterbay3', believed to be in ship LargeStarbase2.pof
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'LargeStarbase2.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0xfc4d626c, IBX checksum: 0x7f5a1a47 -- "LargeStarbase2.pof"
Loading model 'medliner.pof'
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'Bridge', believed to be in ship medliner.pof
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'medliner.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x867feedb, IBX checksum: 0xe40252a0 -- "medliner.pof"
Loading model 'Torrent.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'Torrent.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x29fb97c8, IBX checksum: 0x319c93b0 -- "Torrent.pof"
Submodel 'CRUISERHULLb' is detail level 1 of 'CRUISERHULLa'
Loading model 'raynor.pof'
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'fighterbay', believed to be in ship raynor.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'fighterbay', believed to be in ship raynor.pof
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'raynor.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x9b9ac3c6, IBX checksum: 0x9887f033 -- "raynor.pof"
Loading model 'corvette3t-03.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'corvette3t-03.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x9142af71, IBX checksum: 0xf793794d -- "corvette3t-03.pof"
Loading model 'corvette3t-01.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'corvette3t-01.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0xd009b1ca, IBX checksum: 0xe057b300 -- "corvette3t-01.pof"
Allocating space for at least 32 new ship subsystems ...  a total of 400 is now available (223 in-use).
Loading model 'corvette3t-04.pof'
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'fighterbay', believed to be in ship corvette3t-04.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'deck', believed to be in ship corvette3t-04.pof
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'corvette3t-04.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x78973ff2, IBX checksum: 0x5f6de06a -- "corvette3t-04.pof"
Loading model 'cruiser3t-01.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'cruiser3t-01.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x1372f4a4, IBX checksum: 0x81089a12 -- "cruiser3t-01.pof"
Loading model 'FtUhlan.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'FtUhlan.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x6ac9794d, IBX checksum: 0x70900cd2 -- "FtUhlan.pof"
Submodel 'Uhland' is detail level 3 of 'Uhlana'
Submodel 'Uhlanc' is detail level 2 of 'Uhlana'
Submodel 'Uhlanb' is detail level 1 of 'Uhlana'
Loading model 'Jackal.pof'
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'WingPodL', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'WingPodR', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'RightVentBL', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'RightVentBR', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'RightVentTR', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'RightVentTL', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'RightIntake', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'TailBR', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'TailTR', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'TailTL', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'TailBL', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'LeftIntake', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'LeftVentTL', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'LeftVentTR', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'LeftVentBR', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'LeftVentBL', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'HullPodR', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'HullPodL', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'Guns', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'Tdeflector1', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'Tdeflector2', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'Tdeflector3', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'Tdeflector4', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'Tdeflector6', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'Tdeflector5', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'Tdeflector10', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'Tdeflector11', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'Tdeflector12', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'Tdeflector7', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'Tdeflector9', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'Tdeflector8', believed to be in ship Jackal.pof
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'Jackal.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x8b0ae621, IBX checksum: 0x82a982c4 -- "Jackal.pof"
Loading model 'fighter2t-04.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'fighter2t-04.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0xe611ce17, IBX checksum: 0x97cf5fc2 -- "fighter2t-04.pof"
Loading model 'bomber2t-01.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'bomber2t-01.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x13bb548d, IBX checksum: 0xad039fff -- "bomber2t-01.pof"
Submodel 'bomb0x-d' is detail level 3 of 'bomb0x-a'
Submodel 'bomb0x-c' is detail level 2 of 'bomb0x-a'
Submodel 'bomb0x-b' is detail level 1 of 'bomb0x-a'
Loading model 'Wraith.pof'
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'PanelBL', believed to be in ship Wraith.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'PanelBR', believed to be in ship Wraith.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'PanelTL', believed to be in ship Wraith.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'PanelTR', believed to be in ship Wraith.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'RailL', believed to be in ship Wraith.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'RailR', believed to be in ship Wraith.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'Spiner', believed to be in ship Wraith.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'GPodF', believed to be in ship Wraith.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'GPodL', believed to be in ship Wraith.pof
Potential problem found: Unrecognized subsystem type 'GPodR', believed to be in ship Wraith.pof
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'Wraith.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0xa618dd02, IBX checksum: 0xfcbdcb37 -- "Wraith.pof"
Loading model 'corvette2t-01.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'corvette2t-01.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x3aaebe96, IBX checksum: 0xef205014 -- "corvette2t-01.pof"
Allocating space for at least 33 new ship subsystems ...  a total of 600 is now available (412 in-use).
Loading model 'kadmos.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'kadmos.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x922ba49f, IBX checksum: 0xdc269d8a -- "kadmos.pof"
Loading model 'GTT_Corsair.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'GTT_Corsair.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x31d30f0e, IBX checksum: 0xd20321e3 -- "GTT_Corsair.pof"
OpenGL: Created 512x512 FBO!
Loading model 'europa.pof'
Model europa.pof has a null moment of inertia!  (This is only a problem if the model is a ship.)
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'europa.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x401bf33d, IBX checksum: 0xaeae6faf -- "europa.pof"
=================== STARTING LEVEL DATA LOAD ==================
Loading model 'support2t-01.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'support2t-01.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x6512c7b6, IBX checksum: 0xc0ade8e6 -- "support2t-01.pof"
Submodel 'bodyb' is detail level 1 of 'bodya'
Submodel 'bodyc' is detail level 2 of 'bodya'
Submodel 'bodyd' is detail level 3 of 'bodya'
Loading model 'support2v-01.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'support2v-01.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0xbca18023, IBX checksum: 0x16765db6 -- "support2v-01.pof"
Submodel 'hercb' is detail level 1 of 'herca'
Submodel 'hercc' is detail level 2 of 'herca'
Submodel 'hercd' is detail level 3 of 'herca'
Loading model 'support01.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'support01.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x7a26cbbf, IBX checksum: 0xf0119b2d -- "support01.pof"
Allocating space for at least 475 new ship subsystems ...  a total of 1000 is now available (474 in-use).
About to page in ships!
ANI shieldft-04 with size 112x93 (27.3% wasted)
ANI shieldbt-01 with size 112x93 (27.3% wasted)
ANI shieldlancer with size 112x93 (27.3% wasted)
ANI shieldjackal with size 112x93 (27.3% wasted)
ANI shieldwraith with size 112x93 (27.3% wasted)
ANI genericshield with size 112x93 (27.3% wasted)
BMPMAN: Found EFF (Subach_AniBitmap.eff) with 6 frames at 5 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (PrometheusR_AniBitmap.eff) with 12 frames at 5 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (Kayser_AniBitmap.eff) with 4 frames at 5 fps.
ANI Kayser_Particle with size 80x80 (37.5% wasted)
Loading model 'avenger3.pof'
Model avenger3.pof has a null moment of inertia!  (This is only a problem if the model is a ship.)
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'avenger3.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x8855f87f, IBX checksum: 0x08b235f9 -- "avenger3.pof"
Loading model 'VulcanGUN.pof'
Model VulcanGUN.pof has a null moment of inertia!  (This is only a problem if the model is a ship.)
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'VulcanGUN.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x67299b6b, IBX checksum: 0xa705cb68 -- "VulcanGUN.pof"
Loading model 'FB11a.pof'
Model FB11a.pof has a null moment of inertia!  (This is only a problem if the model is a ship.)
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'FB11a.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x987c87de, IBX checksum: 0x807e2c36 -- "FB11a.pof"
Loading model 'Talon.pof'
Model Talon.pof has a null moment of inertia!  (This is only a problem if the model is a ship.)
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'Talon.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x3716c44a, IBX checksum: 0x1d16f8c1 -- "Talon.pof"
Loading model 'TachyionGUN.pof'
Model TachyionGUN.pof has a null moment of inertia!  (This is only a problem if the model is a ship.)
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'TachyionGUN.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x93a351da, IBX checksum: 0x012e3508 -- "TachyionGUN.pof"
Loading model 'Redeemer.pof'
Model Redeemer.pof has a null moment of inertia!  (This is only a problem if the model is a ship.)
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'Redeemer.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x318c1042, IBX checksum: 0xb212a769 -- "Redeemer.pof"
BMPMAN: Found EFF (particle_blue.eff) with 11 frames at 22 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (AAAbeamAglow.eff) with 35 frames at 30 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (AAAbeamAB.eff) with 15 frames at 15 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (particle_green.eff) with 11 frames at 22 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (GreenBeamGlow.eff) with 30 frames at 60 fps.
Loading model 'Blip.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'Blip.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x8701ba27, IBX checksum: 0x3ee2fcac -- "Blip.pof"
Submodel 'blipb' is detail level 1 of 'blipa'
Submodel 'blipc' is detail level 2 of 'blipa'
Submodel 'blipd' is detail level 3 of 'blipa'
BMPMAN: Found EFF (BlueBeamGlow2.eff) with 60 frames at 26 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (Particle_Yellow.eff) with 11 frames at 22 fps.
Loading model 'NewHornet.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'NewHornet.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x2c76000e, IBX checksum: 0x19f7f55e -- "NewHornet.pof"
Loading model 'bombardier.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'bombardier.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x11edee12, IBX checksum: 0x19816d20 -- "bombardier.pof"
Submodel 'realhornet-b' is detail level 1 of 'realhornet-a'
Submodel 'realhornet-c' is detail level 2 of 'realhornet-a'
Loading model 'crossbow.pof'
No subsystems found for model "crossbow.pof".
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'crossbow.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x19e682bb, IBX checksum: 0x885d0786 -- "crossbow.pof"
Loading model 'piranha.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'piranha.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x484195d2, IBX checksum: 0xf272dc8a -- "piranha.pof"
BMPMAN: Found EFF (shockwave01.eff) with 94 frames at 30 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (missilespew04.eff) with 20 frames at 30 fps.
Loading model 'belial.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'belial.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x99bae2a2, IBX checksum: 0x77d1d113 -- "belial.pof"
BMPMAN: Found EFF (missilespew02.eff) with 20 frames at 30 fps.
Loading model 'helios.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'helios.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0xc75db1da, IBX checksum: 0x60bd5c91 -- "helios.pof"
Loading model 'cmeasure01.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'cmeasure01.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x562739c3, IBX checksum: 0x76256515 -- "cmeasure01.pof"
Loading model 'Longbow.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'Longbow.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x9ed18a4a, IBX checksum: 0xab339ee0 -- "Longbow.pof"
Loading model 'dirk1pod.pof'
Model dirk1pod.pof has a null moment of inertia!  (This is only a problem if the model is a ship.)
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'dirk1pod.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0xc39767db, IBX checksum: 0xc8c3d73f -- "dirk1pod.pof"
Loading model 'dart.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'dart.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x5c10bb69, IBX checksum: 0xdfc3e934 -- "dart.pof"
Loading model 'swarmpod.pof'
Model swarmpod.pof has a null moment of inertia!  (This is only a problem if the model is a ship.)
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'swarmpod.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x52a567ee, IBX checksum: 0xa04f292a -- "swarmpod.pof"
Loading model 'InterceptorT.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'InterceptorT.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x8d57e22a, IBX checksum: 0x34f751a7 -- "InterceptorT.pof"
Loading model 'DirkPodHC.pof'
Model DirkPodHC.pof has a null moment of inertia!  (This is only a problem if the model is a ship.)
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'DirkPodHC.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x1a57e9d9, IBX checksum: 0xd238d70f -- "DirkPodHC.pof"
Loading model 'Slammer.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'Slammer.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0xa43d47ec, IBX checksum: 0x99fe9d26 -- "Slammer.pof"
Loading model 'SlammerPOD.pof'
Model SlammerPOD.pof has a null moment of inertia!  (This is only a problem if the model is a ship.)
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'SlammerPOD.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0xb2f95f62, IBX checksum: 0xb2f3ac57 -- "SlammerPOD.pof"
Loading model 'paveway12.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'paveway12.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0xfd1fbe88, IBX checksum: 0x06b8aa20 -- "paveway12.pof"
Loading model 'paveway12rack.pof'
Model paveway12rack.pof has a null moment of inertia!  (This is only a problem if the model is a ship.)
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'paveway12rack.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x91c338a9, IBX checksum: 0xc0a88b15 -- "paveway12rack.pof"
Loading model 'hellfire.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'hellfire.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x095d2434, IBX checksum: 0xbf74030a -- "hellfire.pof"
Loading model 'hellfireEXT.pof'
Model hellfireEXT.pof has a null moment of inertia!  (This is only a problem if the model is a ship.)
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'hellfireEXT.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x80933ea9, IBX checksum: 0xb4bff5af -- "hellfireEXT.pof"
BMPMAN: Found EFF (missilespew03.eff) with 20 frames at 30 fps.
Loading model 'MissileM.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'MissileM.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x00957668, IBX checksum: 0x7b7e1778 -- "MissileM.pof"
BMPMAN: Found EFF (missilespew01.eff) with 20 frames at 30 fps.
Loading model 'GBU-240.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'GBU-240.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0xb388876a, IBX checksum: 0x7eebd3b1 -- "GBU-240.pof"
Loading model 'hornet.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'hornet.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x066a989a, IBX checksum: 0x8d7227a4 -- "hornet.pof"
Loading model 'SlammerCluster.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'SlammerCluster.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x615fcf8e, IBX checksum: 0x41858756 -- "SlammerCluster.pof"
Loading model 'debris01.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'debris01.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x974f214b, IBX checksum: 0x0cb49c79 -- "debris01.pof"
Loading model 'debris02.pof'
IBX: Found a good IBX to read for 'debris02.pof'.
IBX-DEBUG => POF checksum: 0x8e0eed50, IBX checksum: 0x3e979514 -- "debris02.pof"
BMPMAN: Found EFF (explode1.eff) with 43 frames at 25 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (PWmuzzle.eff) with 4 frames at 30 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (Gmuzzle.eff) with 5 frames at 30 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (Bmuzzle.eff) with 5 frames at 30 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (Cmuzzle.eff) with 4 frames at 30 fps.
BMPMAN: Found EFF (Rmuzzle.eff) with 4 frames at 30 fps.
Paging in mission messages
Stopping model page in...
ANI support1.ani with size 108x24 (25.0% wasted)
ANI damage1.ani with size 148x25 (21.9% wasted)
ANI wingman1.ani with size 71x53 (17.2% wasted)
ANI wingman2.ani with size 35x53 (17.2% wasted)
ANI wingman3.ani with size 14x53 (17.2% wasted)
ANI toggle1.ani with size 57x20 (37.5% wasted)
ANI head1.ani with size 164x132 (48.4% wasted)
ANI weapons1.ani with size 126x20 (37.5% wasted)
ANI weapons1_b.ani with size 150x20 (37.5% wasted)
ANI objective1.ani with size 149x21 (34.4% wasted)
ANI netlag1.ani with size 29x30 (6.2% wasted)
ANI targhit1.ani with size 31x21 (34.4% wasted)
ANI 2_energy2.ani with size 86x96 (25.0% wasted)
ANI time1.ani with size 47x23 (28.1% wasted)
ANI energy1.ani with size 12x41 (35.9% wasted)
ANI targetview3.ani with size 7x20 (37.5% wasted)
ANI targetview1.ani with size 137x156 (39.1% wasted)
ANI targetview2.ani with size 4x96 (25.0% wasted)
ANI 2_reticle1.ani with size 40x24 (25.0% wasted)
ANI 2_leftarc.ani with size 103x252 (1.6% wasted)
ANI 2_rightarc1.ani with size 103x252 (1.6% wasted)
ANI 2_toparc2.ani with size 35x24 (25.0% wasted)
ANI 2_toparc3.ani with size 41x29 (9.4% wasted)
ANI 2_lead1.ani with size 26x26 (18.8% wasted)
ANI 2_lock1.ani with size 56x53 (17.2% wasted)
ANI 2_lockspin.ani with size 100x100 (21.9% wasted)
ANI 2_radar1.ani with size 209x170 (33.6% wasted)
ANI shieldft-04.ani with size 112x93 (27.3% wasted)
ANI shieldbt-01.ani with size 112x93 (27.3% wasted)
ANI shieldlancer.ani with size 112x93 (27.3% wasted)
ANI shieldjackal.ani with size 112x93 (27.3% wasted)
ANI shieldwraith.ani with size 112x93 (27.3% wasted)
ANI genericshield.ani with size 112x93 (27.3% wasted)
ANI Kayser_Particle.ani with size 80x80 (37.5% wasted)
User bitmap 'TMP256x256+8'
User bitmap 'TMP256x256+8'
User bitmap 'TMP128x128+8'
Bmpman: 2519/4750 bitmap slots in use.
Ending level bitmap paging...
=================== ENDING LOAD ================
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: General Battuta on April 21, 2011, 09:34:59 pm
Ugh, yeah, that's a known Mac issue. I don't recall if there was a resolution.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Vespene on April 21, 2011, 10:59:42 pm
I see.  I'll investigate further this weekend.  I have the game installed on my Mac at work and I'm not having the issue there.  I'll compare logs between my two Macs.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Iss Mneur on April 21, 2011, 11:09:43 pm
I see.  I'll investigate further this weekend.  I have the game installed on my Mac at work and I'm not having the issue there.  I'll compare logs between my two Macs.

Using -novbo normally helps with clipping issues like that.  Or updating your OpenGL on you machine, which as a mac, I believe is only done by installing OS updates.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Familiar on February 04, 2014, 12:53:13 am
I'm terribly sorry for the necromancing this topic, but...
Where I can get this post processing stuff (DL link is dead in OP) ?

Also the question - will it wor with FSO 3.7.1 (or FSO BP 3.7.1) ?
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: The E on February 04, 2014, 02:23:11 am
The tests have been taken down deliberately. They were intended to nail the final look for War In Heaven, and the final version has been shipped with every WiH release since.
Title: Re: Lighting test for WiH
Post by: Familiar on February 04, 2014, 05:11:46 am
The tests have been taken down deliberately. They were intended to nail the final look for War In Heaven, and the final version has been shipped with every WiH release since.

Thank you very much for the answer. After further invesigation -
I've found the post explainig pretty much I wanted to know here: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=82694.msg1650722#msg1650722

Also, would you be so kind to have a look on this : http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=83318.msg1733364#msg1733364
Appeciate you answer, thank you.