[pecenipicek]

can we actually do something looking like a proper volumetric one? since the shader stuff isnt yet implemented, the best bet IMHO is to make a semi transparent sphere with a certain texture and put some particles in to simulate a volumetric boom. just my 2 cents.

[chief1983]

I had this explained and demonstrated to me, at length, in IRC the other day, why a volumetric shockwave won't work without shaders.  Trust me, this is as good as it's likely to get for now.  Feel free to try to prove Zacam, VA, and HT wrong about that though, cause I'd love to see a volumetric shockwave effect that looked great too.

[TrashMan]

Without a real exapnding spherical/volumetric model, the shockwave is never going to be "accurate"; however the 2D shockwave is the better approximation of the two options, as long as the 3D shockwave does this behaviour where it doesn't always face the viewpoint (and if it would, the "3d-ness" would be a moot point anyway, at least in case of the ringwaves)...

True.
 However it would still be easier on the resources to have a 3D shockwave that just faces the viewpoint, wouldn't it?

[DaBrain]

If we could use our own mesh as sprite/particle, instead of a simple quad, we could reduce the memory use of this new 2d/3d shockwave by 3/4.

Of course that would be even lower with a single frame/texture.


But to be honest, I never understood the 'realism' point in a game like FS2.
There are so many things "wrong" and unrealistic, that it simply doesn't make sense to me to argue about the realism of a shockwave.
What about the weapons? Subach Laser? The explosions would have to look different. And there I don't want to play without sound.

It's either complete realism, or this kind of "Star Wars realism", which has shockwaves just like the 3d shockwave.

A completely realistic space game would be interesting as well, but it wouldn't be anything like Freespace.

And if you still want to argue about it, watch this video and tell me again that 3d shockwaves do not fit into Freespace.

[TrashMan]

But to be honest, I never understood the 'realism' point in a game like FS2.
There are so many things "wrong" and unrealistic, that it simply doesn't make sense to me to argue about the realism of a shockwave.
What about the weapons? Subach Laser? The explosions would have to look different. And there I don't want to play without sound.

Fair enough.
What about "because the shockwave as facing you in stock FS2 and it looked better"?

Also on another note - just case FS isn't fully realistic, does that mean we should add even more things that aren't realistic? an approach like that IMHO, sorta cheapens the setting. It's like saying - LOTR isn't realistic. Let's add fluffy talking bunnies.
Add realism = added immersion.
Or maybe I just like bits of realism cause they make me feel like the product is a higher intelectual quality (read: Makes me feel smarter for usaing said product)

[Mobius]

I don't think it's a matter of pure realism, we're not asking for radical changes in terms of game physics. Many members consider 2D shockwaves a much better choice and this has nearly nothing to do with realism. There are unrealistic things that may seem plausible - 3D shockwaves don't belong to this cathegory.

Not to mention technical advantages...3D shockwaves kill slow computers.

[Vasudan Admiral]

If you don't like 3d shockwaves - for any reason, do not use the '-3Dshockwave' command line in the builds you run the final  3.6.10 VPs from. Problem solved.

Unless anyone can produce a much much better shockwave that can take the place of both 2D and 3D waves without people complaining, this is the way it's gonna be.

Not to mention technical advantages...3D shockwaves kill slow computers.

Just a note here - the low end part of the package will also contain a 2d and 3d shockwave - and in this case the 3d version is far more efficient than the 2d. The inverse is true of the high end part.

[chief1983]

Yeah I was just going to comment on that VA, saying that the 3d kills slow computers is terribly untrue, anyone running a low end computer and not the adveffects would be better off running the 3d shockwave in terms of speed.

[Romanmolf]

I always thought that the whole 3D thing slowed computers down.

[castor]

How hard would it be to simply have the 3D shockwave on a 90° angle to the viewer, instead of on random planes?
It would look like a 2D shockwave, but performance would be improved.

This would increase the usability of the 3D version immensely. Yet I'd rather have it only cut out the really low angles instead of forcing 90 degrees all the time (except for the "side views" it looks cooler than the 2d version already).

Maybe hand this out the next time some fresh coder appears asking for something to tinker with in the code

[Mobius]

If you don't like 3d shockwaves - for any reason, do not use the '-3Dshockwave' command line in the builds you run the final  3.6.10 VPs from. Problem solved.

I'm glad . I was refering to old situation in my post, anyway.

[TrashMan]

Then to make everyone happy, we need a third option!

2D shockwaves look better for many, but drain resources.

3D shockwaves are better performance-wise, but look stupid with all those funky angles.

So add a "Realistic 3D" shockwave that fixes the angle thing and everyone should be happy. I hope.

[DaBrain]

Just wait for my next shockwave. It won't look weird, even in the worst case angle.

It will be a 256*512 texture. If things work out, it will look better than the current 3d shockwave. It's going to be some hard work, but it should enhance the whole capital ship explosion in a way, a 2d shockwave could not.

There is no need for another type/class of shockwave.

Not to mention technical advantages...3D shockwaves kill slow computers.[/mobius]

The other FSU members have replied to this already, but let me tell you again. In terms of resources all 3d shockwaves are better. They use a quarter of the full texture. So at the same on-screen res, they only need 1/4 of the memory of a similar 2d shockwave.

And the low-end shockwave is even more efficient than the original FS2 shockwave.

[Droid803]

IIRC, some 3d shockwaves use a full ring texture...
But its not like its hard to change.

[TrashMan]

Just wait for my next shockwave. It won't look weird, even in the worst case angle.

It will be a 256*512 texture. If things work out, it will look better than the current 3d shockwave. It's going to be some hard work, but it should enhance the whole capital ship explosion in a way, a 2d shockwave could not.

There is no need for another type/class of shockwave.

Now you peeked my interest. I have no idea how you plan to fix the 3D shockwave without fixing the angle thing (I believe that's impossible), but hey, I've been proven wrong before! Not often, but still....

[DaBrain]

It's all about avoind the flat look.

In theory, that's not too hard. But what I aim for is actually pretty hard.
The texture will look pretty funky, but the effect will not.

My concept is pretty solid.

[Droid803]

Oooh...
Can't wait

[pecenipicek]

why do i have a feeling it will have something to do with fresnels?

[DaBrain]

Fresnel without shaders? 

[Mobius]

Then to make everyone happy, we need a third option!

2D shockwaves look better for many, but drain resources.

3D shockwaves are better performance-wise, but look stupid with all those funky angles.

So add a "Realistic 3D" shockwave that fixes the angle thing and everyone should be happy. I hope.

Isn't what you said the exact contrary of the truth? Aren't 3D shockwaves the cause of massive slowdowns?

And how would you deal with a 3D shockwave with fixed angle in multiplayer missions?