Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: Woolie Wool on January 29, 2008, 07:20:57 pm
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinn%E2%80%93Phong_shading_model
Would it be feasible to use a more sophisticated shading model in FreeSpace? Gouraud shading was perfectly adequate in FS retail, but I find that it often leads to odd results with specular lighting. Would this require an entirely different lighting system or could we drop the Blinn-Phong model in place of Gouraud?
-
From the second sentence of the linked article:
Blinn-Phong is the default shading model used in OpenGL and Direct3D's fixed-function pipeline.
-
The behavior of the specular highlights on the borders of polygons reminds me strongly of Gouraud shading for some reason. Is this just because many models are so low-poly that a good-looking highlight is impossible?
-
Pretty much. And some models just have issues anyway that work to hinder lighting quality. But there is also the issue that the default specular exponent is not what I personally prefer, but what other people wanted since it better matched the D3D code effect wise. You can play around with that using the -ogl_spec cmdline option, which may help improve the specular highlight effects for you (to some extent anyway).
-
The behavior of the specular highlights on the borders of polygons reminds me strongly of Gouraud shading for some reason. Is this just because many models are so low-poly that a good-looking highlight is impossible?
That's because of per-vertex lighting. What you want is per-pixel lighting, and it's being used in glsl builds. For the main light only, though.
-
Which builds are those? Unstable branch?
-
Which builds are those? Unstable branch?
My Xt builds, the ones with normal mapping support.
-
Looking at the Wiki, I've never thought there are so many maths behind shadering.
-
Computer graphics are nothing more than visualized math.
-
I read that as Bling shading, thought it must some kind of really heavy environment mapping shader or the like :nervous:
-
Phlame me if you wantm but I don't view a real difference between the three pics. A more obvious/larger example, maybe?
-
the difference was in the highlights and they way they look in comparison with each other.
compare that to the standard fs2 shading method and you'll see a real difference.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gouraud_shading <--This is the standard FS2 method. Compare it with the above examples.
-
(http://i25.tinypic.com/2ywba82.jpg)
-
I'm using the XT build on a GeForce 8800 and mine doesn't look that good...is there a newer XT build than 10/28?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gouraud_shading <--This is the standard FS2 method. Compare it with the above examples.
That was published in 1971?
Did they use like 10 University Mainframes to calculate that for a sphere? :wtf:?
-
Full-on Phong shading (not Blinn-Phong) was invented in 1973, and it wasn't feasible for computer games until very recently. A lot of stuff is developed for CGI rendering and trickles down to games.
-
Back in 1973, I don't think they had CGI already.
-
phong did do a computer rendering of a vw beetle back in 'the 70s i think. with their computing power it probibly took a few months to render.
-
And how did he model it :wtf:?
-
This entire conversation is irrelevant.
Taylor's Xt builds use custom pixel and vertex shaders. That means that none of those methods are used. It doesn't matter what FS2's default shading technique is, because we aren't freaking using it.
Thank you.
-
Then how the hell did you get that kind of quality in the screenshot? Or is that a doctored picture? :P
-
Then how the hell did you get that kind of quality in the screenshot? Or is that a doctored picture? :P
Umm...thats the latest builds with bump mapping. Still a work in progress.
-
And how did he model it :wtf:?
probably useing mathematical primitives, the older CG software was more oriented around that than polygons. so you'd have a sphere + a box - a come, **** like that, it required a lot less memory and that was the bottle neck back then. if you doubt the competency of 1970s CG watch Tron, the fx for that WAS done on graphics software of the day. it was the bleeding crying edge of it, but it was done on a computer.