Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: Fineus on February 22, 2004, 03:03:32 pm
-
Following some recent discussion in Lightspeeds Planets 2.0 thread, it seems people have some opinion on the background nebulas of the game. So here's the thread to discuss it.
Edit: First time visitors to this thread, Lightspeeds development thread for his nebula files can be found here: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,21026..0.html Visit it for his latest work on nebula files.
Personally I think that despite the work thats been put in on the originals, new ones are badly needed. The backgrounds of the game look rather poor. Suffice to say, these are real:
(http://www-rcd.cc.purdue.edu/~aai/backgrounds/M16Full.jpg)
(http://www.prazen.com/cori/nebula.jpg)
And here's one from Eve:
(http://portal.gry-online.pl/mmorpg/images/eve/105359625.jpg)
And IWar 2:
(http://www.independencewar.com/images/screenshots/iwar2/ingame/large/advance_patcom_and_planet.jpg)
My point being, FS2s need a real polishing if they're going to compete. The resolution needs upping and they need an allover makeup *glances at Lightspeed*. What does everyone else think?
-
New ebbula backgrounds?
Why not...you can naver have too many beautifull backgrounds!:D
-
I'm talking about re-working the old ones by the way, not changing them entirely (that is to say, so that original missions would use the new nebula etc.)
-
I think a set of consistant hi res, 32 bit colour nebulas would be a very good thing. I dont see any reason why they couldnt be used as a direct replacement for the old ones, ut would be good if they were roughly the same kind of shades.
Code is of course very important but visually this project will only be as good as its art.
Go for it.
-
Yeah, you see what I meant about Eve's nebulas in the HiRes Planet thread? Looks good, eh? And I think that it would fit in more than ever due to the soft, pastel quality of Lightspeed's new planets. But thats just me..
-
Did they ever release that improved graphics patch for I-War2? Stephen Robertson mentioned it on a thread here once, IIRC.
-
First: nebulas and backgrounds from Haegemonia:
http://foxer.pl/freespace/Haegemonia_002.gif - nebulas
http://foxer.pl/freespace/Haegemonia_003.gif - black space - only stars (nice for skybox)
http://foxer.pl/freespace/Haegemonia_007.gif - nebulas in background and asteroids field in front
http://foxer.pl/freespace/Haegemonia_013.gif - nebulas, starry background, lens-flare and planets (not better than Lightspeed's planets ;D)
Secound: i think that we need not only a better re-worked nebulas... i think that SCP need to do some good thing with stars in game (or do some really good skybox), becouse FS2's nebulas are not compatibles with our "dots" (not STARS - its dots) like in this screen from Milliways:
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/effects_03.jpg)
Nebulas is good but not with that little and only FEW stars at background. We may compare it with Haegemonia screens. See different?
BTW. http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/effects_02.jpg This skyboxed stars will be look good if it will be in hi-res, its blur now... and some stars are stretch in this skybox.
I belive that SCP brings us some solution for this in 3.6 ;) :rolleyes:
-
the freespace 2 nebulas > the I-war 2 ones. at least according to the picture you posted.
-
I agree FS2 needs completely new nebulae. The multi coloured thingies look crap.
When I update them i'll probably go for a mix between realistic and EvE style.
-
as you know, I created a couple of nebs on my own,
this: http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/swfs2/img/starmap.jpg
and this: http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/swfs2/img/starfield2.jpg
and I made em as background pofs.
Now, I was wondering if I may substitute the vanilla fs2 nebs instead of having to create an entire skybox, since it would be many times easyer and less performance hit.
The background nebs are something that I never explorated so I don't even have a clue about what can be done or not
-
Since we're talking about nebulas, how about THE nebula. What we've got now is great, but how about maybe changing it out for some volumetric fog in the style of the Liberty Badlands from Freelancer. Now that's ominous.
-
THE nebula looks fine, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe we could make the background have a higher res, but that's about it.
-
http://nodewar.penguinbomb.com/aotd/Turnsky/Angels/paintings/etheric.jpg
something like that?
-
No, that's too much :D
-
What we need, and what I-War and and the like seem to have, is full 360% backgrounds. I'm not sure if they're generated procedurals or what, but they work, and they're beautiful. None of this patchy **** the Freespace bitmaps have, there's just this consistent look all around, and it works.
I'm betting there's a way to add onto the starfield generator FS2 already has to create something basic like that- nothing so complex as EVE's, probably (after all, this is an amateur project and we're theoretically trying to keep it low-demand on the processor deal), but a step up from FS1's ass-looking ones and more consistent than FS2's bitmaps.
Of course, how would be the kicker. I have a vague idea of how nebuloid-looking procedurals work in 3D graphics software, but I don't think it'd apply here, and that stuff's generally a bit higher quality (and hence a bit more demanding on the processor) than would be needed for FS. If anybody's got a workable idea for how to implement that sort of thing, well...
-
we have background pofs
-
It's called skyboxes, and they're trying to make it work.
-
check out my tutorial
-
How much more of a performance hit would skyboxes have over the regular FS2 nebuli though?
Also, would we be able to have the skyboxes take effect in standard FS2 missions? I'm kinda looking for backwards compatability as well - so that the original files are overwritten with something far more visually impressive... rather than have a totally separate skybox.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
How much more of a performance hit would skyboxes have over the regular FS2 nebuli though?
Also, would we be able to have the skyboxes take effect in standard FS2 missions? I'm kinda looking for backwards compatability as well - so that the original files are overwritten with something far more visually impressive... rather than have a totally separate skybox.
ok, but here I come again: can I put my neb as regular fs2 nebs? how will it work?
-
In theory I think any of the original nebula files can be replaced with anything you like... a sports car, a custom nebula, a smilie. Whatever you like. Certainly what you've produced could be put in there (though the surrounding stars would have to go).
That said, you'd still have the problems of them overlapping - or being alone in the middile of empty space. Generally it seems people much prefer the "all around you" style of the original FS nebula or the IWar2 nebula etc. Despite the fact that the original FS nebula looks as old as the game is:
(http://www.coolinfo.com/gameinfo/reviews/freespace/images/freespacescreen3.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
How much more of a performance hit would skyboxes have over the regular FS2 nebuli though?
Also, would we be able to have the skyboxes take effect in standard FS2 missions? I'm kinda looking for backwards compatability as well - so that the original files are overwritten with something far more visually impressive... rather than have a totally separate skybox.
That backward compatibility crap is what is holding everything back. I've grown to hate it. Look at windows, stayed "backward compatible" with DOS ( well supposedly ) until XP. Pain, pain.
On a side note, Eve has by far the most beautiful backgrounds. Oh, and that's not true, there's actually a majority of pure black parts, but the thing are so well done the black areas are "parts" of the nebula. Hard to explain, but ubber cool.
-
If it's not backwards compatable then someone has to go through each FS2 mission by hand and change things to take advantage of what changes we've made. A lengthy - but not impossible process.
Find someone to do that, and the issue goes out of the window - we can do what we please and then make the appropriate alterations to the mission later.
-
Here's my little attempt:
(http://3dactionplanet.com/hlp/hosted/14_year_war/LtCannonfodder/Fire_Nebula_LOW.jpg)
Check out the tutorial on this site. You can make fantastic nebulas with it.
http://www.ap3d.com/tutorials/
(BetterSpace>Building a Better Nebula Part 2)
-
Originally posted by Nico
That backward compatibility crap is what is holding everything back. I've grown to hate it. Look at windows, stayed "backward compatible" with DOS ( well supposedly ) until XP. Pain, pain.
There's no point in breaking backwards compatability just for the sake of it though.
And it's not just the main campaign that would need fixing. You'd need to Deralict and all the other campaigns that would look like crap if you break backwards compatability for no good reason.
Besides look at how long it takes to make campaigns for FS2. If you break backwards compatability what are you going to play on your new fancy graphics engine? F**k all. You'd have to sit around and wait for a year or two for all the new campaigns to finish. :rolleyes:
-
okay, you've forced my hand, i'll see what i can do to create a neb. ;)
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
I agree FS2 needs completely new nebulae. The multi coloured thingies look crap.
When I update them i'll probably go for a mix between realistic and EvE style.
Agreed. EVE is getting there, but it's still lacking in detail. It will change the look of the game vastly to have some skybox nebulae everywhere.
-
Out of all those I like the iWar2 ones the best. The stars really add to it though, so either you'd have to include them in the image or alter the rendering code to make far more.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
There's no point in breaking backwards compatability just for the sake of it though.
And it's not just the main campaign that would need fixing. You'd need to Deralict and all the other campaigns that would look like crap if you break backwards compatability for no good reason.
Besides look at how long it takes to make campaigns for FS2. If you break backwards compatability what are you going to play on your new fancy graphics engine? F**k all. You'd have to sit around and wait for a year or two for all the new campaigns to finish. :rolleyes:
What is that two cents rambling? Skybox don't render old style nebulas useless. Plus I don't want FS2 to be upgraded to play old campaigns w/o any of the new neat features added, mind you. Not much faith into upcoming campaigns, have we?
-
Here's an attempt to do a Freespace nebula.
(http://3dactionplanet.com/hlp/hosted/14_year_war/LtCannonfodder/Freespace_Nebula_TEST.jpg)
Any opinions?
-
That's very well detailed and textured, CF. Quite a departure from FS' style (the closest approach to those I've seen are IceFire's), but we are indeed going for a change in direction aren't we. ;)
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
I agree FS2 needs completely new nebulae. The multi coloured thingies look crap.
When I update them i'll probably go for a mix between realistic and EvE style.
Ok, there is no right or wrong answer, but thats the right answer :nod: :nod:
Originally posted by KARMA
as you know, I created a couple of nebs on my own,
this: http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/swfs2/img/starmap.jpg
and this: http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/swfs2/img/starfield2.jpg
and I made em as background pofs.
Now, I was wondering if I may substitute the vanilla fs2 nebs instead of having to create an entire skybox, since it would be many times easyer and less performance hit.
The background nebs are something that I never explorated so I don't even have a clue about what can be done or not
Slick. I like it, alot. Great use of colour. If there is any FS2 style neb's in the reworked versions, they should look like that.
Originally posted by Stryke 9
What we need, and what I-War and and the like seem to have, is full 360% backgrounds. I'm not sure if they're generated procedurals or what, but they work, and they're beautiful. None of this patchy **** the Freespace bitmaps have, there's just this consistent look all around, and it works.
What he said.
-
Originally posted by Nico
What is that two cents rambling? Skybox don't render old style nebulas useless. Plus I don't want FS2 to be upgraded to play old campaigns w/o any of the new neat features added, mind you. Not much faith into upcoming campaigns, have we?
You're the one who started ranting about how backwards compatability was holding everything back.
As for my faith in upcoming campaigns I have a lot of faith in them but it takes a lot of time to make a good campaign. If you break all the old ones you'll have long periods with absolutely nothing to play. The best of both worlds is when you can play the old campaigns with new SCP features while waiting for the new stuff.
-
just can't bother replying :doubt:
-
Then drop the arguement or take it to PMs, this is a nebula thread - not a backwards compatability thread :p
-
Ingame:
(http://3dactionplanet.com/hlp/hosted/14_year_war/LtCannonfodder/screen00_test.jpg)
There are some problems, but they are easy to fix.
-
I think it's too FS2-ish.
I like the soft and comfortable nebulae more.
-
now what would be great would be far off lightning strikes in the nebula. just parts of it lighting up randomly or in a sequence. But I am sure that is far from possible.
-
don't know cannonfodder, it's nice but it has something that don't convince me
it is a bit blurry and mmm "homogeneus". I mean that I can't see many dark details in the middle but only at edges, also the two colours are probably too similar.
I also suggest you to change the texture for the details (if you made it in photoshop, open the blending options and change the texture, and try different modes, screen or darken, depending by the texture chosen )
btw I have some questions:
if I draw a neb to be added to the :v: background nebs, black=transparent? or have I to use TGA's alpha?
I noticed that in many effects (shockwaves, thrusters...) the background is just black: will black be used as transparent colour? In the anis I can't use alpha channels, so...
The nebs I draw must be added to maps directory or effects?
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
I think it's too FS2-ish.
I like the soft and comfortable nebulae more.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion :)
Of course, I could easily make them a bit darker. Phostoshop is a wonderful tool :nod:
-
@redmenace: it's possible but limits you to 256 colours as ANI is the only supported animation format
@cannonfodder:
that's not what I meant.
(http://portal.gry-online.pl/mmorpg/images/eve/105359625.jpg)
I mean something like this, where the actual nebula is softer, more cloudy and less 'edgy' as well as the colour tone is more unified.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
now what would be great would be far off lightning strikes in the nebula. just parts of it lighting up randomly or in a sequence. But I am sure that is far from possible.
not necessarily.
In skyboxes you may animate some parts of the nebula. Problem is that at the detail level we're talking about it would be very performance hit
Also, I have a little idea about localized nebs, which was expressed IIRC for the frist time by venom:
Make a nebula model, not too high in pcount, you don't need it, and map it so that it's invisible.
IIRC you can have invisible polys not colliding with objects, if not possible make this mesh with lots of weird intersections, to confuse the bsp tree generation.
Make many thruster models (the name in the hierachy) with shapes designed for this purposes, and map them with some animated nebula textures, and make the thruster glows in many directions/sizes.
Those thrusters will have to intersect the mesh, will intersect eachother and will be the various neb elements. The glows will be the hot areas of the neb.
Give to the pof hitpoints, and in fred make it undestructable but with a very low % of hull (not sure if this will work, but I think yes). As result you will see the lightning bolts that FS2 use when a ship is near to be destroyed over the invisible mesh.
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
@cannonfodder:
I mean something like this, where the actual nebula is softer, more cloudy and less 'edgy' as well as the colour tone is more unified.
Meh, I like bright and cheery colors :p
-
Originally posted by Lt.Cannonfodder
Meh, I like bright and cheery colors :p
Well, there's a difference between cheery and cotton-candy. :p
I like those EVE ones, as well. There's something about an eggshell colored nebula that's amazing.
-
I like the soft colour and almost non existant contrast, as well as the lighting.
-
non existent contrast? going from pure black to almost white? hmm :p
-
I dont see any pure black or pure white in that EvE screenie :)
-
It would take the fun out of it but I think theres a photoshop plugin that makes nebulas.
-
Glitterato I think it's called.
-
And it's crappah! Best to make them by hand. :nod:
-
I agree with everything Lightspeed has said so far.
That is all.
-
if you have kai power tools you can do alot of cool stuff. i use lensflare for weapon glows, scenebulder to make interface art (lets you load and render 3ds files), fraxflameII makes cool fractal based nebulas, lightning is just awesom to make ligtning strikes. id highly recomend getting them.
-
get fractal wit it
(http://www.angelfire.com/ak3/nukewar/fractal.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Nuke
get fractal wit it
Very cool, but doesn't look like a nebula at all. Still, very nice :nod:
-
Would make a nice subspace effect though :D
-
Updated:
(http://3dactionplanet.com/hlp/hosted/14_year_war/LtCannonfodder/screen00_neb.jpg)
(http://3dactionplanet.com/hlp/hosted/14_year_war/LtCannonfodder/screen01_neb.jpg)
Now please tell me if these are good enough or should I just drop the whole thing? I might be able to make them I bit better, but the basic look is what you see here. And please note that jpg compression takes away some of the smaller and more detailed patterns.
-
Uhm.. actually, EvE's nebulas aren't 2D at all... they are made of particles, so it's easier to get a smoother and nicer effect.
I'll post a decent picture later.
-
Originally posted by Lt.Cannonfodder
Updated:
(http://3dactionplanet.com/hlp/hosted/14_year_war/LtCannonfodder/screen00_neb.jpg)
(http://3dactionplanet.com/hlp/hosted/14_year_war/LtCannonfodder/screen01_neb.jpg)
Now please tell me if these are good enough or should I just drop the whole thing? I might be able to make them I bit better, but the basic look is what you see here. And please note that jpg compression takes away some of the smaller and more detailed patterns.
The second one is interesting, but the problem is that they don't add much in my opinion to the vanilla fs2 nebs.
I suggest you to go search some cool images from nasa and other sources (I posted many links in the skybox thread of some months ago, and many images too), and try to reproduce em. The greg martin's tutorials and others could be useful
-
No, they're not :doubt:
I've travelled enough lightyears in the beta to know they're 2D, like in any other game.
-
What i meant is that they are made of 3d particles, squished on a 2d plane while rendering :)
(http://mypage.bluewin.ch/p98/evenebula.jpg)
-
No, it's just there's actually some places in eve where nebulas are actually not beautiful.
-
Well, this is propably the best I can do. I did aim for a Freespacy looking nebula.
(http://3dactionplanet.com/hlp/hosted/14_year_war/LtCannonfodder/Neb04copy.jpg)
-
Nuke you mentioned a plugin for kai power tools that lets you make particles and so forth. Do you think it could be of any use in creating nebulas?
-
I like it,
but I'm not sure we/you'r getting the bast bang for the buck
-
Cannonfodder, they look too Freespacey to look good. Might post an example of what I have in mind later.
:)
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
Cannonfodder, they look too Freespacey to look good. Might post an example of what I have in mind later.
:)
As I said before, I like Freespace's nebulas. That's why my version looks like that :)
-
My first try at doing one...
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/try01-fs2.jpg)
Still very basic, needs work etc, but to give you a general idea.
convienient 1024x1024 size for in-game use.
-
OK, Lightspeed. You win. No arguing about that. It looks lightyears better than my attempts :D
How you do that, I have no clue. I'm just happy seeing your work :nod:
-
step 1 - pick 2-5 real space nebulae as a base images
step 2 - remove all stars from them without messing up the images and cut out the useful parts of them
step 3 - create a blank image of the proportions you want to have (1024x1024 in this case)
step 4 - flick the parts together, adjust and tweak them to work on the shape you want to have
step 5 - edit in details and extra stuff by hand
step 6 - add effects (on this one, I added a blurred layer rendered with "Soft Light")
step 7 - adjust hue, contrast & brightness to match what you wanted to get
step 8 - Enjoy!
Its a lot of hard work and fiddling, and crappy results on the first tries, but it's worth it.
:)
-
I always wondered how you did this stuff - figured it was to much to do by hand! Greg Martin is the only guy I know of capable of that level of work...
That said, it's damn good ****. If that was part of a skybox with similar "whisps" of nebula going the entire way around (though perhaps not as many more big set-piece sections) it'd look incredible. As an aside though the star looks maybe a bit large, almost as if it's out on the edge of the nebula but very dim. I realise as you said though it's only early-stage :)
-
Lightspeed wins, again :D
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
I always wondered how you did this stuff - figured it was to much to do by hand! Greg Martin is the only guy I know of capable of that level of work...
Oh, I could probably do that, but it would take ages (and leave less time for making it look actually good). And since Real Life™ can provide eye candy like this there's no reason in not using it.
Although you will still have to do at least a quarter of it from scratch since normally only small parts are really suitable and fit together. It's sometimes almost more work than doing it from scratch :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Kalfireth
That said, it's damn good ****. If that was part of a skybox with similar "whisps" of nebula going the entire way around (though perhaps not as many more big set-piece sections) it'd look incredible. As an aside though the star looks maybe a bit large, almost as if it's out on the edge of the nebula but very dim. I realise as you said though it's only early-stage :)
I don't think it would be too good with a skybox. Everyone uses stuff like this on skyboxed and it results in making it look blurred and weird (unless you have a uber-high textures skybox slowing you down to death). The Idea is to use this as a normal background, and have some other pieces fitting it, so you can puzzle together your own 'skybox'. Heck, I'd even be willing to go through all the campaign missions to adjust the backgrounds if necessary :)
Might be necessary to give the FS standard 'skybox' a poly upgrade though. We'll have to see - haven't tried it in-game yet.
The star's alright, I did it like this on purpose. It's kinda in the center point of the nebula. And yeah, the nebula could use some more work - especially not too fond of the part lower left to the star (in the bottom left corner of the image).
-
Re: Upping the polies on the skybox itself, you can almost count on it being necessary - there's obvious warping on the stock backgrounds in some cases, it looks terrible.
Also, if you're going to piece them together it's necessary to have lots of whispy nebula and fewer "big set piece" ones. My reasoning being that if you look at the stock nebulas they're all quite definite and bright. Joining them together looks ugly and indeed rather un-gas like compared to things like EVE.
-
I finally managed to fix some errors on this neb so that now can be used in the background pof
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/swfs2/img/starmapa.jpg)
and since I was working on the file, I noticed casually, while I was toggling visibility of some layers, that it was possible to obtain a cool image from it, this one: (http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/swfs2/img/starmapb.jpg)
which once flipped/rotated will be used as a third background pof in the Starwars conversion.
they are 100%handwork (and take helluva time to do em), and I'm already using them on high poly background pofs, with another texture as a basic starfield tiled 5 times.
Btw guys, if you like em, I don't mind giving the bacground pofs to be used in the scp's additional artworks vp too
-
I've noticed the warping partially is due to the low-res textures being used, though. When I use a stock planet at screen filling size theres warping like hell, if I use one of my substitutes theres no warping at all. I'll have to see if warping will be killed by having high res nebulae, but i'm not too sure; so a poly upgrade might indeed be necessary.
And yeah, that was my plan. Is there any limitation to the background table?
I was thinking 7 - 14 whispy ambient ones per 'real' nebula.
-
@Karma:
1) *cough* [lvlshot] is your friend!
2) stars in a background = no good, as FS2 will add it's stars too and itll look odd having some of them with and some without motion blur, also stars in the background images will tend to get blurry
3) fix lenseflares? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
step 1 - pick 2-5 real space nebulae as a base images
step 2 - remove all stars from them without messing up the images and cut out the useful parts of them
step 3 - create a blank image of the proportions you want to have (1024x1024 in this case)
step 4 - flick the parts together, adjust and tweak them to work on the shape you want to have
step 5 - edit in details and extra stuff by hand
step 6 - add effects (on this one, I added a blurred layer rendered with "Soft Light")
step 7 - adjust hue, contrast & brightness to match what you wanted to get
step 8 - Enjoy!
Its a lot of hard work and fiddling, and crappy results on the first tries, but it's worth it :)
You used real images as a stating point? I'll have to try that.
My goal was to create similar yet better nebulas than the originals. I didn't wan't to make them totally different but more detailed and generally better looking. I guess I can still fiddle around with my version but I doubt it will be anything like The Master has done :D
EDIT: @Karma
Eek! Those lens flares just burn my eyes. Lose half of them and it'll look better.
Otherwise, not bad. This thread is starting to look really nice :)
-
See, I realized FS2's system was crappy all along so I'm going for a change. :)
-
stars are necessary because the starfield has to be coherent to the background of the neb.
Just reduce at minimum the stardensity in fred, and it'll work fine, I already tested in past and it looks damn nice;). The only problems were when the stars in the background were too dense (one of the things I fixed), causing an odd result.
And I'll not cut lens flares cuz I like em:p
-
ehy I was already editing with that tag goober:p I just didn't know of it:)
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
I was thinking 7 - 14 whispy ambient ones per 'real' nebula.
I'm presuming it's a fairly simple modification to the code to allow for more nebulas to be added? The more options a mission creator has with the backgrounds - the better it can end up looking (as it is you have to crush an existing image and sort of force it into where you want it to be).
-
a simple question: wh have I to do to put a nebula image as background?
I placed a neb in data/effects, and gave it the name of an existing nebula.
The problem is, that nor fred nor freespace seem to recognise it if I use 32 bit pcx or jpgs (not tryed with tga and I'd like to avoid 8 bit pcx for this kind of stuff)
-
Those are nice, Karma. The glowy globular whatsits are what FS2 was missing all along :nod:
-
okkkkey.... I made many tests, and now I have a big headache, so I'll stop it for the mo.
here are the results:
I solved my problems with the neb bitmaps and I was able to try both pcx8bit and jpg.
I noticed that the background nebs are rendered over a flat plane, a square.
When fs2 wasn't able to find the images (don't know why, after a reboot everything went normal:confused: ) it rendered this plane as full white:)
The square dimensions are those setted in fred.
BTW this is pretty crap in my opinion, since you can't have big images surrounding you: being the square flat, if it is too big it generate a weird fisheye effect at the borders. You don't notice with the simplistic vanilla nebs, but when the image is more complex it is weird.
On the other hand, you don't have the warpings caused by the sphere model, even when the sphere is high poly.
BTW probably those warping on skyboxes may be solved using something different than planar uvmaps, but I'm just tooo lazy to search a solution
Also I had big performance issues. When the 8bit pcx was fine, the jpg version (almost same order of kb size btw) killed the framerates. I remember RT saying that there was a bug with the system rendering twice the TGAs. Maybe it is the same problem? I'm using 1_20 version.
The highpoly (IIRC more than 500 polys) skybox with the same image + a second 1024 image was causing about half the performance hit of the background bitmap version. Since I used jpgs too, the problem could be not related to the fileformat, thought.
Also I had another bug with 1_20, which never noticed in older versions: when I move the skybox "shakes", it doesn't stay still (the cause of my headahce:p).
Stars:
Personally I think that a star image like a nebula must have an higher concentration of stars on it compared to the deep space areas. Also, I may want for example to create a milky way, or a spiral galaxy, etc.
I tryed to remove the star layers from the images, but didn't like the result.
If I put my nebs with stars in game as background nebs, the stars aren't that good obviously. They aren't crap at all, but viewing stars without motion blur only in a specific area isn't all that good.
In a skybox instead, reducing at minimum the number of stars generated by fs2 and using a coherent starfield image tiled over all the model except the nebula area works fine in my opinion.
There still is a difference between generated stars with motion blur and stars in the textures, but I noticed it just because I was aware of it since the stars in the textures are diffused all over the skybox. Also it gives a depth effect, with the stars with motion blur looking like if they are closer than those on the textures, which could be nice or not, personally I don't dislike it at all.
A fair solutions btw would be to have as minimum star density in FRED 0% instead of 10%
-
Originally posted by Nuke
get fractal wit it
(http://www.angelfire.com/ak3/nukewar/fractal.jpg)
Hey that would be something interesting for an jumpanimation instead of a nebule..what do you think?
-
Karma, you're wrong :)
FS2 pastes the scaled images onto a skybox like sphere.
I for one, like FS2's in-game stars (yes, they could be improved but hey, you can't get any decent resolution if theyre as images).
We could probably have more control over FS2's star system in the future, but right now i'm quite happy with what we have.
-
actually I just told you what happened, no more no less;)
fs2 for some reasons didn't load the the background image in one of my tests, and I had a giant white flat square directly in front of me.
The white color is given by fs2 when it doesn't find textures, it happen with models too.
You can vary the number of sections to make the rendering plane more curvy in theory but they are too few, and big images will never be rendered correctly (images like those of eve etc of the pages above).
Also I was already using a #division>1 but still I got just a white square (but of course it could be due to just a screwed general situation more than a specific issue), and in the other tests with the image at a big scale, I always got the fisheye effect, no matter the #division.
Background imgs are just not suited for wide backgrounds, that's it, the way to go is the skybox.
And about star images, for my tastes the the resolution wasn't really a problem, unless you pretend to map a whole skybox with a single 1024x1024. The skybox I used had 6 sections, 1 for the 1024 neb image and 5 for another 1024 image tiled.
-
fractals rule, unfortunately they make better spatial anomalies than nebulas.
-
Karma, I could argue months with you why i'm right, but i'll let actual in-game footage speak for myself:
1.
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/Screenshots/Lookie.jpg)
2.
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/Screenshots/Lookie02.jpg)
3.
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/Screenshots/Lookie03.jpg)
See how it works and looks?
Zero slowdown, by the way.
-
You're the man now dawg.
What? You are. Those are awesome.
But, I'de go for a bit more "ambient" colour, ala EVE. The neb still seems pretty localized. But whatever, looks great.
-
It is, as it's only the main image, no whisps whatsoever.
-
Oh, my dear sweet Lord, that is beautiful!
-
So... should I work on backgrounds simultaneously to my weapon effects? Will slow them down a bit, but you'll have nice WIP nebulae to play with as well. I'll merge the two zips together so it doesn't get confusing :)
-
Since we're going all out with improving the look of the game, can something be done about those little debris bits? They look like crap compared to everything else (always have, but each of Lightspeed's upgrades brings them out more). Particles, maybe?
-
they're already customizable. I had in mind fiddling around with them, but forgot about it. :)
So... what about the nebulae? Should I?
-
why not?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
why not?
Exactly. You'r work is superb Lightspeed. We all want to see more :)
Anyway, I just found out a method I can use to make really nice looking nebulas in Lightwave using real images. I'll post the results if they look good enough.
-
sweet!
can we get rotating subobjects in our skyboxes, that way i can recreate subspace with my fractal thing.
-
Although those new nebulas look awesome, I don't think they can replace the existing type altogether. For this post, I am going to call the original FS2 / Cannonfodder nebulas type 1 and the Lightspeed / Karma nebulas type 2. The type 1 nebula bits do not really have discernible shapes and are more just random collections of puffs, so it is up to the mission designer to make formations out of these pieces; it is hard to tell one type 1 nebula section from another at a glance, which is both good and bad. There is obviously less detail in them and no really distinctive formations (as with the type 2s) and between the individual bitmaps there is no contest as to which looks better. At the same time though, it is possible to use combinations of just a few of the type 1 bitmaps to cover up large parts of the background without having things look repetitive. You wouldn't be able to paste copies of the same type 2 bitmap around the background sphere without the player noticing the repetition and having too many of the unique, hi-res type 2 bitmaps would take more work to make and might cause the memory usage to become an issue. Then there is also the issue of how the FS2 campaign will deal with any changes here; if we heavily alter the general style of the bitmaps, the background placements in the missions will all have to redone in order for it to look right, but it might be worth it in the end.
Anyway, I personally think that the best solution is some combination of both; we can have one or two of the detailed type 2s per mission surrounded by clusters of the versatile type 1s. Also, in the meantime, the current TGA nebulas in the FSO VP should be removed, as those are by far the worst of the lot.
Regarding the stars, I think the existing ones look decent, but we need a lot more of them. Ideally, the stars slider in FRED2 should go from 0 to 20000 or so. Some variation in their colors and sizes would also be great.
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
Karma, I could argue months with you why i'm right, but i'll let actual in-game footage speak for myself:
1.
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/Screenshots/Lookie.jpg)
[...]
You know, that looks very sweet, but somehow, it feels like this nebula is in fact just a fraction of the nebula, illuminated because of the star. would be cool to have, say, a whole part of the skybox around that nebula to have that pink, almost black, tint to it too, and no star showing through.
There's someplace like that in Eve, at first, you think you're in the middle of a rng nebula, then you realize that you're in fact iright on the edge of a giggantic hole in a nebula, half the space around you is taken by this almost black nebula that is obscuring the stars, the other being "freespace" - :p ). The effects was just grandiose.
-
exactly what nico said. Now, try to increase the size of your image in game and you'll see what I've tryed to say you for 3 or 4 posts......
Or maybe I'll do it on my own to show you some pics of what I'm saying
Also nothing strange that you don't have slowdowns. I have a crap computer, you not, but when my slowdown is 20+ times what you could have, this let me see more what cause performance hits, and the point was not the slowdown per se but the slowdown compared with a skybox using the same image.
-
Guys this isn't some kind of competition, just experiment with what you feel works best - and remember there's nothing wrong with more than one person knocking out backgrounds ;)
That said Lightspeed - and indeed everyone else who's done something here - very nice work. Certainly a big step up from the stock nebulas.
And this one goes out just to Lightspeed - don't kill yourself doing one thing or the other mate, do what you feel most creative with at the time - overall quality will be far greater if your heart is with the work you're doing, rather than rushing something so you can get on with the next piece. Work on what you like and take your time :)
-
Props to all of you making efforts at this. Love it all. :)
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Guys this isn't some kind of competition, just experiment with what you feel works best -
The best results come from competition.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The type 1 nebula bits do not really have discernible shapes and are more just random collections of puffs, so it is up to the mission designer to make formations out of these pieces; it is hard to tell one type 1 nebula section from another at a glance, which is both good and bad. At the same time though, it is possible to use combinations of just a few of the type 1 bitmaps to cover up large parts of the background without having things look repetitive.
That will be simulated by having lots of 'puffy whisps' along with the 'detailed' blob. Look at what Kalfireth posted. You will have 1-2 detailed spots along with a lot of small whispy stuff per background set, and you can still combine them like you want.
You wouldn't be able to paste copies of the same type 2 bitmap around the background sphere without the player noticing the repetition and having too many of the unique, hi-res type 2 bitmaps would take more work to make and might cause the memory usage to become an issue. Then there is also the issue of how the FS2 campaign will deal with any changes here; if we heavily alter the general style of the bitmaps, the background placements in the missions will all have to redone in order for it to look right, but it might be worth it in the end.
You're 100% right here. If possible, i'll leave the originals in stars.tbl while adding the new ones in. This way the old ones work while I can go through the campaign and adjust the backgrounds. As for completed MODs or so, someone could write a 'converter' that simply copies and pastes backgrounds from a random 'new' set. Else, that shouldn't be too hard to do with NotePad.
Anyway, I personally think that the best solution is some combination of both; we can have one or two of the detailed type 2s per mission surrounded by clusters of the versatile type 1s.
Yes, that's what i'm planning to do. As Kalfireth said it's necessary to have lots of small stuff along with the main one.
Regarding the stars, I think the existing ones look decent, but we need a lot more of them. Ideally, the stars slider in FRED2 should go from 0 to 20000 or so. Some variation in their colors and sizes would also be great.
yes indeed :)
-
and it wasn't anyway, althought I like art competiotions too, time by time.
The point was not who has the longer penis but about the best way to go. Personally after many tests I think that background bitmaps does look BETTER than skyboxes when they are..uh... say not more than 70% of your screen (at default fov), but if they are larger you start seeing fisheye effects.
On the other hand skyboxes always have some warping, they just are lower when the image is bigger.
Fisheyes effects may also be due to the insanely high FOV settings of FS2 btw
The point is that with skyboxes you have a better control of all the area, and you can make for example nebs completely surrounding you (which I'm working on...).
If he has a different opinion it's not a prob to me, and the same about stars, personally I prefer and I'd like to have control over density in specific areas, and I also think it make look better many "star objects", and surely it is more tricky using background images: in skyboxes you can make a basic starfield background coherent with the main image, so you don't see areas with stars without motion blur and areas where the all the stars have it, and with background images you also have to make the star images decreasing in density while approaching the borders.
Also I found a better way to map the skysphere than the cubic uvmap, partially using spheric uvmaps, which reduce a lot the warpings present on many older skyboxes.
As for the performance issues, I'm having again headache, because background images are a bit random on my system, sometimes they just don't work, some others yes, regardless the flags, with different performance results.
oh I found another funny thing with skyboxes:
the pahntom tie:lol:
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/swfs2/img/screen00a.jpg)
-
Yeah. I had that problem, the skybox mesh isn't large enough. :doubt:
-
I think we all agree that FS2's default FOV is ugly and distorts the perspective. "-fov 0.39" is what the solution is called.
-
Thats looks really nice Karma. It more closely resembles FS2's style but its a great improvemenrt upon that style. The colours go great together and the little star things just plain look cool. Eve's style and FS2's style are not necesarilly exclusive. You could have the background be something like what you have in the top-left corner.
-
about the distorsion, increasing the polycount of the skybox sphere should help, too.
-
No, the distortion actually comes from a crappy set FOV. The fov option is one of the most useful things the SCP has implemented, as with a bit of fov alteration you get rid of the distortion :)
-
Okay... So.... I'll let images do the talk again:
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/Screenshots/Ambient.jpg)
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/Screenshots/Dawn.jpg)
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/Screenshots/Veil.jpg)
You can see the full previews (7 screenshots!) (http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/FS2Web_nebulae.html) on Milliways (http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/).
I have completed a full set consisting of:
- 2 Main Nebulae (1024x1024)
- 12 Whispy Additional Nebulae (512x512)
No slowdown in this mission (20 backgrounds used).
Want me to release it so you can play around with it in-game? :D
-
Only a fool would say no :D
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
Okay... So.... I'll let images do the talk again:
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/Screenshots/Ambient.jpg)
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/Screenshots/Dawn.jpg)
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/Screenshots/Veil.jpg)
You can see the full previews (7 screenshots!) (http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/FS2Web_nebulae.html) on Milliways (http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/).
I have completed a full set consisting of:
- 2 Main Nebulae (1024x1024)
- 12 Whispy Additional Nebulae (512x512)
No slowdown in this mission (20 backgrounds used).
Want me to release it so you can play around with it in-game? :D
JUMPING JOHOSEFAT YEEEHA
The Red Nebuli really complements the lucifer.
-
That did it. I'll forget that I even tried to do anything similar, everyone can see that Lightspeeds stuff is fantastic and superior in every way. I'll just stand back and drool :D
-
Setekh, Hightlights, Hightlights, Hightlights
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Only a fool would say no :D
I'm no fool, so i say yes!!!
-
oh another Idea. could it be possible to have lights randomly go off behind the nebula to faintly light it up in a limited fashion but not have it affect the rest of scene or enviroment? I am not talking about using ANI.
-
no.
want the test mission included?
-
Yes, a release would be very cool indeed!
I'd especially like to play in FRED2 and see what overlapping does to them - if you remember the original stock nebulas got incredibly bright and ugly when they're heavily overlapped - well I'd like to see what happens with these. Keeping them one color hue is a definite improvement though.. none of this red/green crap.
Also, how many stars do you have running with those in mission? It's just I can't see any... :p
-
As i said, mission uses 20 background images to create the shown constellations ~ overlapping works wonders :D
I havent modified the stars slider so I guess... uhhh minimum?
-
Cool beans - I'd like to see some stars (though the FS2 star code really needs an overhaul at some stage.. but thats another thread).
Anyhow, enough talk. Release! Release! Release!
Edit: Oh, and welcome to the highlights once again ;)
-
Originally posted by Nico
about the distorsion, increasing the polycount of the skybox sphere should help, too.
yes and no
I'm using a sphere of ~560 triangles, and I can't see many differences compared to a sphere of more than 1k triangles
BUT I can see many differences compared to a sphere of like 120 triangles.
Also the uvmapping is important.
All the ppl doing skyboxes (and me too) worked with cubic uvmaps, which means 6 sections. While planar is good 90% of the times, with curved meshes it creates some warping at the edges of the mapped area, caused by the texture being projected to the polys from a different direction than the polys normal....well I may be not completely clear but I think you already know what I'm talking about:)
I finally was able to use spheric uvmaps in a way that satisfied me, and the warpings disappeared almost completely, except for those caused by the FOV.
-
You're taunting us. Arent you? AREN'T YOU!?
Release it. Realease it. :D:D
-
wow:eek2:
that nebula look realy good like background for shivan ships:)
-
has anyone tryed makeing a simple 6 sided cube for the background pof (hint, if that were to become standard it would make environment mapping incredably easy)
-
I never did personally but others tryed and I remember they reported odd results (weird warpings and noticeble edges).
BTW if someone want to give it a try but don't want ot bother with uvmapping/conversions I may just upload an already correctly uvmapped sphere with 6 different sections.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
You're taunting us. Arent you? AREN'T YOU!?
Release it. Realease it. :D:D
I am evil, aren't I?
...
ookaaayy.... :D
Nebula dev thread coming up :)
-
Karma and Lightspeed's nebulae OWN
(I actually like Karma's better -- but that's preferance, they're both well done and extremely realistic)
You two OWN
-
karma's came out better than I thought it would, but LS's is just great
-
I know this looks like crap after seeing LS work, but I spent too much time working on this. I don't want all that time go to waste :(
(http://3dactionplanet.com/hlp/hosted/14_year_war/LtCannonfodder/screen01_newneb.jpg)
-
There's one thing you did wrong (IMO):
you didnt remove the stars. Do it and you'll see how much better it looks :D
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
There's one thing you did wrong (IMO):
you didnt remove the stars. Do it and you'll see how much better it looks :D
Oh trust me. I tried. For hours. And was an inch away from seriously injuring myself :D
As you can see, I'm not that experienced in PS. The actual image was completely done in LightWave with three nebula images. I only added couple of lens flares (LW is excellent with those).
-
well, patience is the main word for good results :)
you could send me the image without the lenseflases and i can finish it off and implement in Set 2. This way, your time didnt go waste, and you'll have it in-game lookin fine. :nod:
-
I was about to say I can remove the stars for you, but Lightspeed beat me to it :p
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
well, patience is the main word for good results :)
you could send me the image without the lenseflases and i can finish it off and implement in Set 2. This way, your time didnt go waste, and you'll have it in-game lookin fine. :nod:
Thanks, LS. I'll do that. Let me just re-render it, might take some time :)
LW is really nice tool for blending the different nebulas. You can make thousands different variations with only a few images. The only problem is the render time.
-
cubic skyboxes work fine if you render your scene. if you simply make a sphere and draw a texture on it you will get distortion. however if you render your bitmaps from an actual scene. warping gets compensated for by the field of veiw. warping gets greater twards the edge of the bitmap, but because its a cube the warping cansels out near the corners and the whole thing looks spherical.
-
Originally posted by Nuke
cubic skyboxes work fine if you render your scene.
:wtf:
Have you even tried? Guess not. So I'll answer by a simple: No, they don't.
-
considering the warpings that you can see on very low poly spheres, I guess that a cube will just increase those warpings instead of reducing em, but I never tryed...
I'm using now a sphere of 288 polys, not triangulated.
Could be probably less, tho
-
What program were the original nebulas made with?
-
Originally posted by Nico
:wtf:
Have you even tried? Guess not. So I'll answer by a simple: No, they don't.
i have a better answer for you:
a 6 poly skybox (http://www.angelfire.com/ak3/nukewar/skybox.zip)
rather impressive, all you need to do to get me to release something is to say it cant be done. although i never tested it in jpg format. enjoy
-
I don't say it's impossible, I say it looks crap. And I'm right.
-
Oh, damn, Lightspeed... :eek2:
-
It's just to have some feedback, and I'm wondering about leaving for the SW conversion eventual more complex combinations and future works, but...well, enjoy: http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/swfs2/files/neb.zip
the file blueneb (or something like that) is intended to be used as a background image, just don't use a too low scale factor in fred.
I'm wondering about darkening a bit the images, my monitor's brightness is flickering and sometimes it is very bright, some others not (it depends by how many fists I give it:p), and when it's bright I like the images less. Problem is, I don't know exactly how ppl will see em :|
I'm also curious about how they'll look on higher res monitor settings
-
I was thinking... would it be possible to have in fred the possibility to rotate/flip the background pofs?
This would let us make some simple variations w/o having to create a different skybox for each of them.
-
Originally posted by Nico
I don't say it's impossible, I say it looks crap. And I'm right.
indeed. That cube is... horrifying.
-
nobody likes my box, now im sad :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Nuke
nobody likes my box, now im sad :doubt:
The box is what I'd call a start. You aren't there yet, but at least you're well on your way :)
-
i remember when i use to make some good space nebulas and backgrounds... in the golden age of FS2... in this new Platinum era... i feel... old... :(
-
i remember when i use to make some good space nebulas and backgrounds... in the golden age of FS2... in this new Platinum era... i feel... old...
lol, same here. I made some extra nebulas for PI a long time ago that I am still using and they looked great in comparison to the default nebulas, but this was long before the source code was released. They are of standard 256x256x8 specification and look pretty decent but are nothing compared to the stuff Lightspeed has been posting. At least FRED2 and table experience won't become obsolete so easily. :D
-
same with all my ships which were designed before freespace went opensource, kept them in the 500 poly range and they were awesome back then, if i were to release them now people would go "eeeeeeew, whats that" so ive been re-diong some of my older models to make them a bit more cool under the new engine. i think fixing up old ships made me fall behind. ive been modding freespace sence fs1 and have been making mods altogether sence descent 2. i learned to work with low polyl imits and low res textures. newer modders need not be constrained by such limits, and so their learning curve streamelined for modern gaming technologies. i have to unlern my primative habbits.
-
*nods* Same here. You know, Platinum Era... has an interesting ring to it... ;)
-
anything that ends with "um" as a nice ring to it :p
look: consortium era, recitium era, rect... hem, never mind.
-
Don't finish that sentence, yes, that's right, forget you ever thought of it. :p
-
Yes, we sure have a great engine. :)
-
Most of those nebulas look nice, but they would look much nicer with more than half a dozen stars. There should be much more stars, (IW2 had about 6000 to 10000 background stars in different brightness grades).
-
FS2 does need a lot of work on its starfield. But I'm not sure how the existing one is done etc.
-
Originally posted by Lynx
Most of those nebulas look nice, but they would look much nicer with more than half a dozen stars. There should be much more stars, (IW2 had about 6000 to 10000 background stars in different brightness grades).
I dont think you should put any stars in otherwise they will stick out as being different from the seperately rendered stars.
It just renders them as lines at the moment, I image we could make them look better. If I ever stop having to code on maintainence issues perhaps I will take a look.
-
Yeah, I understand the whole code freeze things - we can still talk about what comes later though ;)
Having compared IWar 2s starfield with FS2s, I have to say the only difference seems to be that some of IWar2s are dimmer than FS2s - also there seems to be a lot more of them.
-
I wasnt actually on about the code freeze :)
New errors come out of nowhere for the launcher and DX8 as people upgrade and change their systems, keeps me too busy to think about features a lot of the time.
-
we could have them rendered as point sprites and have a trail left behind them (like beams and thruster glows)
-
Would that be hard? (You're talking to the manager figure of Dilbert here - the clueless one).
-
I'm not convinced that'd look any better... really, I don't think the stars are so bad, they just think less randomness in their... randomness :p ( star clusters, rather than one star there, then one there, then one there, etc ). and maybe being blurred when you rotate your ship.
-
Look at the IW2 starfields, they kick the ass of the FS starfields out of the house, down the road, up a skyscraper and...
We need more stars, with different brightness grades. The FS stars have all almost the same brightness and color, some variation would be nice; and it looks better if a star is just one pixel, insted of the FS ways where a star is a few pixels wide with darker edges to make them look smoother.
-
guess I just can't remember. Haven't played to both games for quite a long time now... ( tho I could play FS2 again now, it seems to work fine on my laptop ).
-
Wow... kudos all around.
Stars should be an inverse relationship of brightness related to amount... a few bright stars, more dimmer ones, and a ton of barely visible ones.
IMO for colorizing, the center should always remain unsaturated (white or grey), with the coloring coming from the "glow" pixels around it.
And Venom is right on - they need to be clustered in areas, nearly absent in others, but never to extremes. Also, the clustering should be only in the brightest stars, not in any of the dimmer ones.
-
...
What Mike said. :)
-
Ok, seperated-at-birth thing getting REALLY freaky. :nervous:
-
You think it's freaky for you? Here I am, opening up the nebula thread, thinking, "what suggestions can I make to refine these products visually?". And so I go to the quick reply box... and then I see I've already posted everything I've wanted to say - except you're the one who said it.
:eek2: :shaking:
-
Ok, stop it. :p
-
great backgrounds lightspeed. :)
tried to do proper background image heres a link.
http://personal.inet.fi/koti/jlippone/nebula.html
-
bump
-
Bump what for?
The influx in this thread died, and i'll have to wait with further releases till I have a bumped FREDopen.
That's about all the news there is.
-
Clean out your PM box lightspeed:)
-
d0ne.
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
Bump what for?
Quite possibly because nobody seems to have noticed Nakki's stuff? Which is rather cool. Screenies perchance Nak?
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Quite possibly because nobody seems to have noticed Nakki's stuff? Which is rather cool. Screenies perchance Nak?
Then it was a good bump. Those nebs do look good :)
-
Originally posted by nakki
great backgrounds lightspeed. :)
tried to do proper background image heres a link.
http://personal.inet.fi/koti/jlippone/nebula.html
that does indeed look good. could you get that ingame?
-
Probally, but you should see what lightspeeds nebula did to the regular Fs2 missions.;)