Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Arts & Talents => Topic started by: mikhael on November 05, 2003, 09:11:52 pm
-
For those that don't generally read the SCP forum, I've just rebuilt my Mjolnir Mk2 model from scratch. It took about 3hrs and came down to a mere 3600 polys, so it should be reasonably SCP friendly.
(http://home.nc.rr.com/mikhael/MjolnirSCP-01-sm.jpg) (http://home.nc.rr.com/mikhael/MjolnirSCP-01.jpg)(http://home.nc.rr.com/mikhael/MjolnirSCP-02-sm.jpg) (http://home.nc.rr.com/mikhael/MjolnirSCP-02.jpg)(http://home.nc.rr.com/mikhael/MjolnirSCP-03-sm.jpg) (http://home.nc.rr.com/mikhael/MjolnirSCP-03.jpg)(http://home.nc.rr.com/mikhael/MjolnirSCP-04-sm.jpg) (http://home.nc.rr.com/mikhael/MjolnirSCP-04.jpg)
(http://home.nc.rr.com/mikhael/MjolnirSCP-05-sm.jpg) (http://home.nc.rr.com/mikhael/MjolnirSCP-05.jpg)(http://home.nc.rr.com/mikhael/MjolnirSCP-06-sm.jpg) (http://home.nc.rr.com/mikhael/MjolnirSCP-06.jpg)(http://home.nc.rr.com/mikhael/MjolnirSCP-07-sm.jpg) (http://home.nc.rr.com/mikhael/MjolnirSCP-07.jpg)
I'm looking for volunteers to map it, path it, and convert it. I'll do the LODs and debris.
-
If that baby gets a map job that does justice to the mesh, I promise you she'll be in the highlights. :)
-
Ummm...wow!
I can see stripping some more poly details infavor of a good texture and she'd still look amazingly good. Awesome quality of the mesh to be sure!
-
yar!:yes:
-
Whoa.
-
Now that is what I'm talking about! Do that for the rest of the fleet and FS2 will have the most detailed ships in gaming history!
-
GO GO GO SCP!!!!!!!!!!1
-
Ok, the model looks great, but the majority of those small details will be completely lost in game... I don't think the model needs to be so complex. But it's a nice model, and with a proper texture map it'll look great.
-
[color=66ff00]Scary detail. :)
I don't want to throw a dampner on things (and I have to admit that I'm not familiar with how far we can push it) but won't a few of those really stress the engine even with HT&L?
I consider capships to be the main target of high poly updating, after all you get to do flyby's on them and take in the detail, isn't the sheer LOD on the Mjolnir Mk2 a bit excessive?
You can do an awful lot more with a simple model and good textures than with a complex model with lower detail textures. I base this on not only my own experiences but on the thoughts of industry professionals.
Still, these thoughs do not detract from what is an amazing piece of work. :nod:
[/color]
-
its 3600 polies. my old gf2 did well over 200k triangles per frame at 45 fps
-
it'll be fine, 30 or 40 on screen you won't even see a frame rate hit, well if you have a semi-recent card
-
I do hope that any new texture maps will try to be as close as possible to the look of the original Mjolnir. (Minus some issues the original had with it's maps)
-
Jesus H Christ on a pogo stick, that thing's amazing :eek:
-
it's called detail levels
that's LOD0 - only seen when really upclose
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Ok, the model looks great, but the majority of those small details will be completely lost in game... I don't think the model needs to be so complex. But it's a nice model, and with a proper texture map it'll look great.
The funny thing is, Styxx, there are nearly NO small scale details on this version of the model. The smallest details are the 'nails' on the front of the fingers of the outer grinder. I removed something like 28K polys of 'small details' like etching/seaming, hatches, thruster details, vents, railings, pipes, heatsinks, reaction tanks and exhaust ports. Everything you see in these pictures is reasonably large scale detail.
Which parts do you think will get lost? I'm thinking the antenna bobs and the focus arms on the inner grinder will be hard to at a distance, but that's the way they should be.
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
its 3600 polies. my old gf2 did well over 200k triangles per frame at 45 fps
[color=66ff00]Wow! I had no idea you could push that many polys around comfortably. I stand thoroughly corrected. :D
BTW Kazan, I am aware of the LOD setup I was just considering that a small area melee could result in choppy framerates but like I said, I stand corrected. :nod:
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
it'll be fine, 30 or 40 on screen you won't even see a frame rate hit, well if you have a semi-recent card
While we are here what exactly are the limits modders should be aiming for now?
Wasn't it around 3k for fighters and bombers and 20k for caps?
-
texture and shinemap this SOB already
-
Well said Kazan!
And on a side note regarding detail - I'm thinking that the majority of detail will be in the smoothing of ships and so on - for instance the Perseus is fairly angular (due to low polys) but smooth it all out and it'll look far more impressive without any real detail added. A couple of additional details and it'll be fine - no massive detail increase but overall it'll be much more pleasing.
Capships are another matter, again everything should be smoothed out - but antenna arrays should be uber-detailed. Turrents should be round (in the case of beam turrets) and detailed on others. Missile launchers should stand out as such etc. etc. A lot of this will be down to texturing but without modelling in the correct places it'll be hard to pick out the details.
-
So who wants to step up and do the textures? ;)
I sure as hell can't. :)
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Well said Kazan!
And on a side note regarding detail - I'm thinking that the majority of detail will be in the smoothing of ships and so on - for instance the Perseus is fairly angular (due to low polys) but smooth it all out and it'll look far more impressive without any real detail added. A couple of additional details and it'll be fine - no massive detail increase but overall it'll be much more pleasing.
Capships are another matter, again everything should be smoothed out - but antenna arrays should be uber-detailed. Turrents should be round (in the case of beam turrets) and detailed on others. Missile launchers should stand out as such etc. etc. A lot of this will be down to texturing but without modelling in the correct places it'll be hard to pick out the details.
I agree with you Thunder. It should be noted, of course, that this version of the Mjolnir came about as a response to the thoroughly broken :V: Mjolnir. Not as a game model really. It just kinda found its way back.
-
Post the 3DS and whoever does it will post. :p
-
3ds? I'm afraid to do that. It'll get decomposed into triangles. Right now its a combination of quads and triangles.
-
I'm working on the LODs and debris as I write this. I'll try to have the mesh uploaded as an LWO in the next couple of days.
-
I might texture it :D
-
ud better do a kickass job m8 :p
-
Doesn't FS only take triangular polys? I'd imagine so, at least, since that's the base for everything else. In which case, it'd be a good idea to find out what the real polycount is.
-
oh he will...(i hope he does) lightspeed's the best. just take a look at all his shinemaps.
-
whoops... forgot to quote
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Doesn't FS only take triangular polys? I'd imagine so, at least, since that's the base for everything else. In which case, it'd be a good idea to find out what the real polycount is.
I'll agree with you there but the HT&L build automatically triangulates models so you don't need to triangulate models yourself (In fact it leads to bigger file sizes and longer load times so it's a good idea not to).
The only reason you need to triangulate a model is just to check the poly count.
-
Let's see some textures! ;) :nod: :yes:
-
Someone needs the model to have a try texturing it. Best would be to have a model with placeholder textures (solid green, red, blue, etc) so you can mess around without actually having to edit the model :)
-
woah, woah, wait a minute here... FS does and always has taken polygons with greater than 3 sides. In the HT&L builds they get triangulated, yes, but in regular freespace they do not and you just have to follow the geometry rules. Now with a model this complex, you might want to triangulate it and see what happens to the polycount. But it still sounds like it's within limits.
-
But it's built for HT&L, which does triangles. And he's been saying that his model has a lotta quads, and that he doesn't want it to get triangulated- i.e. because that'll increase the polycount substantially. So, as I was saying, the polycount with quads might not be very useful in determining how useable it is. Just sayin, y'know, so that we don't end up with a lotta crashing later and a buncha people stuck doing it all over again from scratch.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
woah, woah, wait a minute here... FS does and always has taken polygons with greater than 3 sides. In the HT&L builds they get triangulated, yes, but in regular freespace they do not and you just have to follow the geometry rules. Now with a model this complex, you might want to triangulate it and see what happens to the polycount. But it still sounds like it's within limits.
As Stryke said the model is for HT&L. Anyone trying to run this on non HT&L will get crashes, shards of death and all other kinds of problems cause I doubt that Mikhael has stuck to the <~800 polys rule that you need to stick to in non-HT&L builds.
It is worth doing a triangulation just to test the poly count but the Mjolnir is closer to a capship than a fighter (even in Kings Gambit there were only a handful of them on screen at a time) and that means that it can use the capship limits of over 20,000 triangles. I think it's a fair bet that it's under that :D
-
Right now, the model is done as quads, tris and 25 higher order polys (hexs and octs). I will devolve the hexagons and octagons into tris and quads manually. I prefer to leave models with as many quads as possible, so the engine and/or model packing process can decide how best to triangulate the polys.
My main concern about converting the model to 3ds has nothing to do with the engine though. I just find the 3ds format is... untrustworthy when it comes to model conversion. Given the choice, I'd rather send it to Obj format and import from that. 3ds is just crap.
-
Originally posted by spaceman spiff
lightspeed's the best. just take a look at all his shinemaps.
:hopping:
Dude! Lightspeeds got nothing on GE!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Drew
:hopping:
Dude! Lightspeeds got nothing on GE!!!!!!!!!!!
..?
I'm flattered... :nervous:
-
Mik: Ah, makes sense. And I agree- MAX ain't so hot when it comes to communicating with non-MAX software...
-
(http://www.3dactionplanet.com/hlp/hosted/the158th/mik/MjolnirSCP-sm.jpg) (http://www.3dactionplanet.com/hlp/hosted/the158th/mik/MjolnirSCP.jpg)
The README.TXT from the zip file:
First, a dedication:
To the Freespace community at large, and the FS:Source
Code Project team in particular. Without you lot, this wouldn't
have been made and I'd probably still be doing some really
pathetic stuff in Truespace3.
This archive contains an updated version of the RBC Mjolnir
model from Volition, Inc.'s FreeSpace2. Though the concept
of this mesh is not original, the entirety of the mesh included
in this archive is modelled from scratch.
Permission is granted by the creator to use, modify and
distribute this mesh under the terms of the GNU General
Public License. For questions regarding the license, refer to
the LICENSE.TXT file within the archive.
The files contained in this archive are:
README.TXT -- You're reading it
LICENSE.TXT -- The GNU General Public License
MjolnirSCP-1layer.lwo -- The RBC Mjolnir in LWO format on a single layer, exploded
MjolnirSCP-10layer.lwo -- The RBC Mjolnir in LWO format on 10 layers, assembled
MjolnirSCP.3ds -- The RBC Mjolnir in 3ds format, exploded
If you choose to texture this model or convert it for use in
Freespace, or any other project, please send a copy of your
work back to me so I can include your work in this archive.
Questions about the mesh can be directed to [email][email protected][/email]
Thanks, and enjoy.
Mikhael@HLP
Get the zip file. (http://www.3dactionplanet.com/hlp/hosted/the158th/mik/MjolnirSCP.zip)
Currently lacks debris. I'll worry about that later. Now people can get to work trying to map her.
-
Yes!
This is what I want to see! And Bob is right, with HT&L we can push tons of polygons even on older cards. I've almost been tempted to start putting together some models myself because the old models are far too blocky and really don't put the new code to the test at all.
The other reason is that once high poly ships start floating around, people will stop complaining that specular is up too high. The reasons ships look to bright right now is that there aren't enough vertices to get lighting normals from, and thus you have these massive polies getting lit.
-
Looking cool :)
-
btw, will HT&L work fine even with non convex faces and faces with co-linear verts? and I suppose that faces should be also flat, right?
-
the engine will interpret them as triangles since
1: they are always convex
2: they are always coplanar
the only disadvantage to trangulating such a mesh would be to increase file size. loading time is pretty fast as it is and we still have a limit of 25000 polies per subobject. even though you can make a 20000 poly ship thats untriangulated, once it is triangluated it can exceed that limit and bad stuff will happen
on the other hand, this is an extremely nice model and i'm looking forward to it toasting ships in style ;7
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
the engine will interpret them as triangles since
1: they are always convex
2: they are always coplanar
the only disadvantage to trangulating such a mesh would be to increase file size. loading time is pretty fast as it is and we still have a limit of 25000 polies per subobject. even though you can make a 20000 poly ship thats untriangulated, once it is triangluated it can exceed that limit and bad stuff will happen
then what's the difference with retail fs2, except the polylimits?? :confused:
-
The conversion process, most likely.
-
I think Phreak was talking about HT&L. Non HT&L has always had a problem with linear verts etc.
HT&L automatically triangulates the model so you should always leave as many quads and higher order polys in as possible as this will speed up loading time. Before you do make the model you should triangulate it and check that non of the subobjects have more than 25,000 polys though. Then convert the untriangulated version.
-
With HT&L, you're passing your geometry to the card and letting it determine how to convert it to triangles for rendering. With non HTT&L, you'd have to triangulate the model in the conversion or modelling processes.
-
mikhael, I may be wrong, but I think this was already happening before.
The gpus work with triangles, and they always triangulate the nontriangulated faces.
In fs2 retail, you don't have necessarily to triangulate your model at the end of the modelling process, nor I think was happening during conversion (elseway you should see a pof triangulated in modelview).
I made many untriangulated models for fs2 retail, in order to go over the polylimits x subobject, you just had to don't go over 20 vertices for face, don't use convex faces, don't use colinear verts, don't use nonflat faces.
If I correctly understood, those limits are already present, except obviously the new huge polylimit ....then again, what's the difference?
I mean, you still have to stabilize the mesh if you don't want to triangulate
stabilize= manually subdivide non flat faces -if present-, convex faces, faces with colinear verts, faces with more than 20 verts..and let me say that this was bothering on 1000 polys ships, with 10000 polys ships it will be.....painful, to say the less
-
Good to know.
-
Originally posted by KARMA
I made many untriangulated models for fs2 retail, in order to go over the polylimits x subobject, you just had to don't go over 20 vertices for face, don't use convex faces, don't use colinear verts, don't use nonflat faces.
If I correctly understood, those limits are already present, except obviously the new huge polylimit ....then again, what's the difference?
With HT&L you only need to worry about the first of those problems. The way I understand it you don't have to worry about stabilsing the model at all because the way the HT&L build triangulates the model takes care of them for you.
You don't have to triangulate for either retail or HT&L Mikhael. It's just that many people do because either they are too lazy, inexperienced or use Max and have no other choice.
-
You should still avoid faces that are blatently curved (mostly because UV mapping tends to **** itself if it can't resolve a normal) and cases where you've got either polygons inset in other polygons without any connecting edges (max won't let you do this, but TS does it like it was going out of style, especially when you boolean) or having faces which have inner angles greater than 180 degrees are generaly things to be avoided.
-
ahhh ok, this changes things a bit
so you have only to get rid of nonflat faces (wich is easy) and of convex faces (wich still remain painful on ships with so many polys)
Well, I think that without a real polylimit to be aware of, I will go for an intermediate solution, just detriangulating the faces that I'm sure don't need to be splitted in triangles, but things may change after I'll try different strategies with the first HT&L ships
-
Originally posted by KARMA
I made many untriangulated models for fs2 retail, in order to go over the polylimits x subobject, you just had to don't go over 20 vertices for face, don't use convex faces, don't use colinear verts, don't use nonflat faces.
I think these problems (particularly non-convex polys and degenerate polys) were a consequence of the conversion process, or a just-in-time triangulation process in the game engine. Either way, these things would be solved because the game engine now passes off raw geometry to the GPU (before GPUs the game engine had to pass triangles only. triangle setup was done in software) and lets it figure out the proper triangulation.
-
actually the code is very hacked as it is. in a perfect world we'd do tri-strips and use index arrays (hella fast). we actually have it kinda go off the old code and just interpret each polygon as a triangle fan. we then stuff the verts into a giant array and send that off verts are repeated unfortunately. as long as the number of triangles after triangulation is under 25000 or something you should be ok. i think bob remembers all the limits
opengl_vertex_buffer *vbp=&vertex_buffers[idx];
glEnableClientState(GL_VERTEX_ARRAY);
if (vbp->vbo_vert)
{
glBindBufferARB(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER_ARB, vbp->vbo_vert);
glVertexPointer(3,GL_FLOAT,0, (void*)NULL);
}
else
{
glVertexPointer(3,GL_FLOAT,0,vbp->vertex_array);
}
glEnableClientState(GL_NORMAL_ARRAY);
if (vbp->vbo_norm)
{
glBindBufferARB(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER_ARB, vbp->vbo_norm);
glNormalPointer(GL_FLOAT,0, (void*)NULL);
}
else
{
glBindBufferARB(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER_ARB, 0);
glNormalPointer(GL_FLOAT,0,vbp->normal_array);
}
glClientActiveTextureARB(GL_TEXTURE0_ARB);
glEnableClientState(GL_TEXTURE_COORD_ARRAY);
if (vbp->vbo_tex)
{
glBindBufferARB(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER_ARB, vbp->vbo_tex);
glTexCoordPointer(2,GL_FLOAT,0,(void*)NULL);
}
else
{
glBindBufferARB(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER_ARB, 0);
glTexCoordPointer(2,GL_FLOAT,0,vbp->texcoord_array);
}
if (GLOWMAP > -1)
{
glClientActiveTextureARB(GL_TEXTURE1_ARB);
glEnableClientState(GL_TEXTURE_COORD_ARRAY);
if (vbp->vbo_tex)
{
glBindBufferARB(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER_ARB, vbp->vbo_tex);
glTexCoordPointer(2,GL_FLOAT,0,(void*)NULL);
}
else
{
glBindBufferARB(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER_ARB, 0);
glTexCoordPointer(2,GL_FLOAT,0,vbp->texcoord_array);
}
}
if ((Interp_multitex_cloakmap>0) && (max_multitex > 2))
{
glClientActiveTextureARB(GL_TEXTURE2_ARB);
glEnableClientState(GL_TEXTURE_COORD_ARRAY);
if (vbp->vbo_tex)
{
glBindBufferARB(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER_ARB, vbp->vbo_tex);
glTexCoordPointer(2,GL_FLOAT,0,(void*)NULL);
}
else
{
glBindBufferARB(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER_ARB, 0);
glTexCoordPointer(2,GL_FLOAT,0,vbp->texcoord_array);
}
}
int r,g,b,a,tmap_type;
opengl_setup_render_states(r,g,b,a,tmap_type,TMAP_FLAG_TEXTURED,0);
if (gr_screen.current_bitmap==CLOAKMAP)
{
glBlendFunc(GL_ONE,GL_ONE);
r=g=b=Interp_cloakmap_alpha;
a=255;
}
gr_tcache_set(gr_screen.current_bitmap, tmap_type, &u_scale, &v_scale, 0, gr_screen.current_bitmap_sx, gr_screen.current_bitmap_sy, 0);
glLockArraysEXT(0,vbp->n_poly*3);
glDrawArrays(GL_TRIANGLES,0,vbp->n_poly*3);
glUnlockArraysEXT();
this code may interest mik as i think he does some OGL
-
The only reason to prevent convex faces is that the GPU may decide to triangulate the model by connecting two verts between which the polygon does not exist. What you then get is a funky squared-off poly on the end and a backfacing (not rendered) poly recovering the now-filled outside of the convex face. Some ascii art to try to explain:
_______
|\ \
| \ \
| / /
|/ /
-------
Ok, that looks right.
Anyway, what you'd get is this:
_______
| \
| \
| /
| /
-------
rather than this:
_______
\ \
\ \
/ /
/ /
-------
I've run into this rendering bug in Max before, so I know Freespace can't be any smarter about how it triangulates. It's a computer after all, it has no way of knowing it's done it wrong when it screws up.
-
:D
The last time I looked at OpenGL was months ago, and the last time I looked at C++ was in May. I've been doign Python with SDL and not GL stuff at all of late. I'll take a look later when I'm at home though.
-
yes mik, i'm doing some VBO work and that may interest you. I've seen terrain engines that use that push about 50 million tris/sec using them with a bunch of huge textures and lots of lights. on GF4s of course ;)
-
Will someone move half the posts in this thread to the SCP forum? I gotta run. :p
-
it's the SCP ART thread :p
-
Woah. :eek2:
Talk about gorgeous!
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Will someone move half the posts in this thread to the SCP forum? I gotta run. :p
I would, but my power craze is restricted to TVWP...
-
Nah. None of this stuff belongs in the SCP forum. FSModding maybe, not SCP. Though its for SCP builds, its not really an SCP project.
-
what modeling progy do u use mikhael?
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Nah. None of this stuff belongs in the SCP forum. FSModding maybe, not SCP. Though its for SCP builds, its not really an SCP project.
So what would you call this, Matrix-esque for a blonde, a brunette, and a red-head? :wtf:
Originally posted by PhReAk
actually the code is very hacked as it is. in a perfect world we'd do tri-strips and use index arrays (hella fast). we actually have it kinda go off the old code and just interpret each polygon as a triangle fan. we then stuff the verts into a giant array and send that off verts are repeated unfortunately. as long as the number of triangles after triangulation is under 25000 or something you should be ok. i think bob remembers all the limits
opengl_vertex_buffer *vbp=&vertex_buffers[idx];
glEnableClientState(GL_VERTEX_ARRAY);
if (vbp->vbo_vert)
{
glBindBufferARB(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER_ARB, vbp->vbo_vert);
glVertexPointer(3,GL_FLOAT,0, (void*)NULL);
}
else
{
glVertexPointer(3,GL_FLOAT,0,vbp->vertex_array);
}
glEnableClientState(GL_NORMAL_ARRAY);
if (vbp->vbo_norm)
{
glBindBufferARB(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER_ARB, vbp->vbo_norm);
glNormalPointer(GL_FLOAT,0, (void*)NULL);
}
else
{
glBindBufferARB(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER_ARB, 0);
glNormalPointer(GL_FLOAT,0,vbp->normal_array);
}
glClientActiveTextureARB(GL_TEXTURE0_ARB);
glEnableClientState(GL_TEXTURE_COORD_ARRAY);
if (vbp->vbo_tex)
{
glBindBufferARB(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER_ARB, vbp->vbo_tex);
glTexCoordPointer(2,GL_FLOAT,0,(void*)NULL);
}
else
{
glBindBufferARB(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER_ARB, 0);
glTexCoordPointer(2,GL_FLOAT,0,vbp->texcoord_array);
}
if (GLOWMAP > -1)
{
glClientActiveTextureARB(GL_TEXTURE1_ARB);
glEnableClientState(GL_TEXTURE_COORD_ARRAY);
if (vbp->vbo_tex)
{
glBindBufferARB(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER_ARB, vbp->vbo_tex);
glTexCoordPointer(2,GL_FLOAT,0,(void*)NULL);
}
else
{
glBindBufferARB(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER_ARB, 0);
glTexCoordPointer(2,GL_FLOAT,0,vbp->texcoord_array);
}
}
if ((Interp_multitex_cloakmap>0) && (max_multitex > 2))
{
glClientActiveTextureARB(GL_TEXTURE2_ARB);
glEnableClientState(GL_TEXTURE_COORD_ARRAY);
if (vbp->vbo_tex)
{
glBindBufferARB(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER_ARB, vbp->vbo_tex);
glTexCoordPointer(2,GL_FLOAT,0,(void*)NULL);
}
else
{
glBindBufferARB(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER_ARB, 0);
glTexCoordPointer(2,GL_FLOAT,0,vbp->texcoord_array);
}
}
int r,g,b,a,tmap_type;
opengl_setup_render_states(r,g,b,a,tmap_type,TMAP_FLAG_TEXTURED,0);
if (gr_screen.current_bitmap==CLOAKMAP)
{
glBlendFunc(GL_ONE,GL_ONE);
r=g=b=Interp_cloakmap_alpha;
a=255;
}
gr_tcache_set(gr_screen.current_bitmap, tmap_type, &u_scale, &v_scale, 0, gr_screen.current_bitmap_sx, gr_screen.current_bitmap_sy, 0);
glLockArraysEXT(0,vbp->n_poly*3);
glDrawArrays(GL_TRIANGLES,0,vbp->n_poly*3);
glUnlockArraysEXT();
this code may interest mik as i think he does some OGL [/size][/B]
-
its matrix-esque for a hairy arse :nervous:
*runs*
-
Its a code snippet demonstrating some stuff using OpenGL. But its only one post, not half the thread, Sandwich. ;)
Krackers: I use Lightwave exclusively.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Its a code snippet demonstrating some stuff using OpenGL. But its only one post, not half the thread, Sandwich. ;)
Krackers: I use Lightwave exclusively.
Oh, you wanted me to quote half the thread in my post? That can be arranged... :drevil: