Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: Bobboau on July 27, 2004, 11:04:45 am
-
it's the blurring thing that makes stuff dificult
ok, I have a test build for you people to play with, but I want to make a few things clear:
1) it will only work with any degree of corectness in the tech room
2) it will not work at all in mission
3) don't use it in mission
4) if you do don't come complianing to me bacase I did warn you
5) what I have been doing over the last few days was nothing more than learning how to do this, I have found over the last few years that it's usualy not a good idea to submit your first try at something, and it's even a worse idea to try and implement a final solution based on your first try, wich is why decals went through about four versions (none of wich ended up in CVS) before the final implementation
6) don't use it on HTL models, I'm going to implement volum models after I reimplement the shadows, volume models will be used for both shadow casting and collision, (if a subobject isn't given one it will use it'self, more or less for bacwards compatability)
7) none of the code in the test build (asside from a little bit in silloette determineation and some extreemly low level stuff) is ever going to go into FSO, I am going to completely reimplement it useing what I have learned over the last four days
8)I have a test build available here (http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater/fs2_open_testshadow.zip), remember it only works in the tech room
-
Not bad at all!
I know the shading sort of 'inks' onto the model, but that's damn impressive for a technology test! :D
-
Flipside: Screenies?
-
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/Shadows1.jpg)
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/Shadows2.jpg)
:D
-
Now that sirs, is mad sexy.
/me looks at the Access database that I've been working on
/me feels so inadequate :P
-
I see you have some ambient lighting on?
-
I haven't got an ambient light setting in my command line at the moment, so it's at default, which I think is 0.75?
I looks a little like flood-filling at the moment, but as Bob said, it's just a technology test, and it's shadowing the right polygons, which I think is most important ;)
-
Damn Good Work, Bobboau! :yes:
-
Wow, I'm impressed dude. :)
-
HOLY ****!! :eek:
-
^^ What he said.
-
oh man.... What will DaveB request next?
GEOMOD!!!!!!!11111oneoneone!!!
-
*smacks ubermetroid*
Sheddup...
-
Now that looks cool. :yes:
-
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/Shadows3.jpg)
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/Shadows4.jpg)
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/Shadows5.jpg)
That's the lo-res maps at the moment I'm afraid, I took the Media vp out of my directory for now because of the memory thing :)
Edit : Oh no, I only took out the TGA files so most of those WILL be high res pcx files :D
-
/me drools
-
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/Shadows6.jpg)
Last one, just put the screen size up to 1600 x 1200 with 4x AA, it ran at about 8-10fps, but let me do a nice screenshot ;)
-
Amazing. It is beautiful... I can't wait for the 4th revision so it'll run as good as it looks!
-
Actually Raa, the shadows themselves didn't cause any slowdown that I noticed, it was the AA that was killing my frame rate.
I even got it working with the HTL Fenris, against Bobs advice above, though I must admit, the shadow routine certainly noticed that ;)
-
Actually, I follow orders just as well. :p But I meant I was waiting for it to be perfected first. :)
But I took screenies. ;7
Also I noticed 2 things:
Shadows are only applied to the subobject casting it. (The charybdis didn't have any shadows on it's rotating thingamabobbers)
Shadows overlay on top of glow mapping. I looked at the Asmodeus, and the shadows blackened the red glows...
But this is a first try, and I think it's feckin' amazing. :D
-
we'll beat doom3 in a few months :)
-
<----------- Still disobeying orders
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/Shadows7.jpg)
Mwahahahahahaha!
-
*Also disobeyed orders*
A preview of my insolence:
(http://s93727692.onlinehome.us/shadowscreenies/HTLFenris.jpg)
(http://s93727692.onlinehome.us/shadowscreenies/HTLFenris2.jpg)
http://s93727692.onlinehome.us/shadowscreenies/index.php
-
You think that's bad, I just played the first level of the campaign :p
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/Shadows8.jpg)
Must...go...to....bed.....
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/Shadows9.jpg)
I can give this up any time I like.....suuuure I can :nervous:
-
WHOA, self-shadowing looks mad cool.
-
insolent FOOLS!!!
well it's going to be shadowing more than self in a few days, I have an exam thursday, after that expect me to have this fully operational by the end of the next weekend
(notes to self that turrets arn't casting shadows even though they probly should be)
and I must say that the Ravana especaly rocks
-
you know I'm thinking with an 8 bit stencel buffer I could theorecicaly store all 8 htl lights as seperate chanelswith the way stencelshadowing works I could do the operation with only one bit available
-
sweet!!
now is anyone planning on redoing the turret code to make it compatable wits some of theese new features? it would allow you to shut up all those people demanding turret changes. :D
-
Dang it! Where's that worshiping smilie when you need it?! :mad:
But since we don't have those, this will have to do...
:eek:
-
Holy crap!
That....is amazing!!!!!!
Someone get a pic of the Orion! :o
-
The Orion doesn't look all that different with it in the tech room, I had a shot but threw it out...
-
That's cuz the Orion is basically a box. Last time I checked, boxes don't cast very much in the way of self shadows.
-
NGNGGGGNGNG.........my PRECCCIOUSSSSSSSSS!!
*falls of chair*
-
:eek: :eek2:
*SSLAP!!!*
Wow, it IS for real :yes:
-
KICK ASS!!!!!!!!:)
looks awesome!
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
(notes to self that turrets arn't casting shadows even though they probly should be)
Originally posted by Raa
Also I noticed 2 things:
Shadows are only applied to the subobject casting it. (The charybdis didn't have any shadows on it's rotating thingamabobbers)
Shadows overlay on top of glow mapping. I looked at the Asmodeus, and the shadows blackened the red glows...
-
I figured out why it was doing that, have it fixed, I did some work to get every thing to render properly in game, but there seems to be something wrong, becase whenever you go into a shadow everything gets messed up, and useing depth fail that shouldn't be happening
-
heh... looks like I was useing the wrong ztest, I'll post a new build in a moment
-
Excellenté!
-
eh, I don't have time to upload it, sorry, I'll put it up tonight
-
...
...poop.
-
Bob, isn't amazing how easy it is to get testers for graphical updates ;) If this was a feature change you'd be banging heads for people to test it :p
-
Especially if he had to rely on me exclusively. :p
-
Originally posted by Col. Fishguts
NGNGGGGNGNG.........my PRECCCIOUSSSSSSSSS!!
*falls of chair*
I think that says it best.
Bob - you've out-done yourself this time. I mean with everything else enabled in game.. this is just spectacular. FreeSpace2 has come so far and it wouldn't have been possible without you guys. Get this into a workable (non-alpha-ish build and a highlight will surely follow). Now I'm going to go and play :devil:
-
Now that is amazing. Incredible work Bobboau. Please add me to the Bobboau fan boy mailing list.
-
I'd reccomend that this be entered into the highlights... once more screenshots are posted with the upcoming build.
-
Bob, that's awesome..
Kudos to you, good man.
-
anyway...
http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater/fs2_open_shadow_2.zip
that's probly going to be the last build I post, unless I fix the one remaining graphical glitch (look at a myrmadon) but even then unlikely, I hacked in poper render order, the first build will give you a better idea about framerates, this one works better in game
-
Alas, this one refuses to work properly for me :(
I get a strange, almost transparant effect to models, as though the shadows from the opposite side of the ship are being rendered. It's hard to describe. Heres a piccy, though I'm not sure that'll help much either :(
http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/screen00.jpg
-
I think I had the zbuffer turned bacwards
redownload
but there are similar errors that I can't figure out
-
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/omg1.jpg)
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/omg2.jpg)
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/omg3.jpg)
Pictures, on this occasion, speak far louder than words ;)
-
As cool as that looks, it kinda highlights how low-poly the old Deimos is. Get shots with the new high-poly version and I'm happy :D
-
:eek2:
-
LOL Well, it runs pretty chunkily even with the Hecate on screen, once Bob's optimised it, then I'll use the higher poly models ;)
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/omg4.jpg)
-
:eek2::yes:
-
:eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:
-
Hoooooly..........s***............
That's all that can be said :eek:
-
Ooohh....awesome.
Turn down ambient light, so that the shadowed parts are darker....pretty please ?
-
well I'm actualy subtracting the light from the light that the shadow is being cast from, that way should make it relitively easy to make multable lights and have corect lighting
-
that is Really Cool :)
-
:eek2:
-
Thread split.
-
This deserves to be highlighted!
-
When it works completely bug free, I'm sure it will be.
But it is amazing work. Keep it up Bob. I hope you find the problems soon. :)
-
Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaakkkkkkkkkkkkkk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Falls out of chair in utter amazement)
That. Is. Fekking. Cool.
Very nice work indeed.
-
Nothing will ever be completely bug-free, you know. :p
-
espcially not anything bob does :P j/k
-
Well, there goes my afternoon!! :)
Great work Bobboau! :)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Nothing will ever be completely bug-free, you know. :p
Not with that attitude, mister!
*trouts the sandwich*
-
well I have the last test of the summer today, after that I'm gona have a month or so of lots of free time, I realy hope to get this working by the end of the weekend
-
Coooooooooooooooooooool.................
-
Highlighted, as it deserves.
-
Hmmm.
I think we once again need some of those "Vanilla FS2 v. FS2 with FS_open" comparisation pictures.
You know, just to piss off someone.
-
...ehh. too bad that screen shot in the highlight doesn't use shinemapping. :doubt:
And if it does, it's not appaerant.
-
bob.. when are you going to batch the rest of the effects :P
-
Raa : Shinemapping is on, and if the shine maps are PCX, I should have them in my maps folder. It looks shinemapped in the other pictures, so it was probably just the angle I was at.
-
O M G....!
This is awesome stuff! I swear you guys have the most graphically advanced space sim engine in existance!!! :)
That said, I wonder how long before Creative Labs try and sue us too :P :D
-
That is freakin awesome :yes:
-
I like it.... Good show, Bob. Check these out
(http://penguinbomb.com/omniscaper/Screenshots/stencil.jpg)
(http://penguinbomb.com/omniscaper/Screenshots/stencil1.jpg)
(http://penguinbomb.com/omniscaper/Screenshots/stencil2.jpg)
Heres that overlay issue.
This build shows this mesh's issues on the stencil, interesting. Excellent none the less.
-
is that the first build or the second one?
(they were named diferently)
-
That was the first build. The second produced stranger results......
(http://penguinbomb.com/omniscaper/Screenshots/stencil3.JPG)
(http://penguinbomb.com/omniscaper/Screenshots/stencil4.JPG)
-
Dude, now I know why Bungie's so excited about putting self-casting shadows into Halo 2. :)
-
Beautiful!!! Great work man!
-
In your face, Demon **** (DS, heh, ya know that fag who's well...yeah)
-
good work Bob, as always. Aside from Tenebrae for Quake, I don't know of any game engine that has been more modernized than Freespace 2, thanks largely to your efforts.
How much of a slowdown do you think this will produce?
-
Bobboau is it possible that ships made shadows on other ships
or that it is ever possible that other ships and weapons fire will be reflected by the hull?
if you get that to work i will build a temple for you:)
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Dude, now I know why Bungie's so excited about putting self-casting shadows into Halo 2. :)
Hah! SCP > Halo 2 :p
-
Originally posted by Rol
Bobboau is it possible that ships made shadows on other ships
or that it is ever possible that other ships and weapons fire will be reflected by the hull?
if you get that to work i will build a temple for you:)
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/omg1.jpg)
Not much use in a space sim I think, space being mostly empty, so that it is unlikely that a shadow will be reflected on another ship, and even then, it flicks by so fast. I can see how it useful for ground-based games, such as Doom, especially when they are mostly indoors.
But nevertheless, the self shadowing itself is worth it. Eye-candy ahoy.
-
oh i overlooked that..
but think on an escort mission when you fly with your wingmans ner a big ship and there are shadows of all ships... i would like it:)
another thing .. i remember a mission in freelancer were a prison ship is damaged and have a plasma leak or something and smoke come out of the hull and create a small lokal nebular ... is that possible?:)
-
Have you thought about "cheating" a little and limiting the distance a shadow can be cast depending on the size of the casting object? After all, the shadow of a pegasus on a capship will be pretty much invisible from even just 500m out.
-
Or using different LODs depending on how far the ship is from the camera.
-
there is no culling or anything in ether build, I'd say the first one would probly be a better representation of what the frame rate will be like
-
ok, this will defenately be the last build I post on the matter, I'm prety sure everything looks right (as far as placement of shadows is concerned), this friday, I will start to actualy implement a final implementation.
http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater/fs2_open_shadow3.zip
-
Cool. :cool:
-
ok the ones that worked are MAJOR COOL!
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater/fs2_open_shadow3.zip
Testing it and it runs fine.
(http://swooh.com/peon/ubermetroid/pics/ramming.jpg)
Fun to play in game. I did notice that the shadow could go on other ships too, not just cap. ships.
This is VERY noticable in game. Looks great!
-
Very IMPRESSIVE !! Good Work Bobboau !!
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Not much use in a space sim I think, space being mostly empty, so that it is unlikely that a shadow will be reflected on another ship, and even then, it flicks by so fast. I can see how it useful for ground-based games, such as Doom, especially when they are mostly indoors.
But nevertheless, the self shadowing itself is worth it. Eye-candy ahoy.
well imagine a superstardestroyer warping in and suddenly obscuring EVERYTHING......
@bob...
(http://www.ngi.it/forum/images/ngismiles/hail.gif) (http://www.ngi.it/forum/images/ngismiles/hail.gif) (http://www.ngi.it/forum/images/ngismiles/hail.gif)
that rocks! (http://www.ngi.it/forum/images/ngismiles/metal.gif)
I suppose you are limiting somewhat the shadows, so that fighters don't project their shadow too far away?
Ohh I only dream to be able to run that build, I really need a new pc:(
-
I just have to say this again! The stuff that you guys do here rivals what the modders of Falcon 4 have accomplished so far! Simply amazing!
-
you have not seen evil till you have seen the Lilith rotate in the Techroom, it's arms casting strange shadows on it's own, dark hull.
Strangely, the tech-room doesn't work at 640x480 for this build. I haven't tried it in-game though :/
-
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/Shadows10.jpg)
Mwaaaaaaaaa.....
-
yea... it really heapls out in giving a GREAT feel for the scale...
-
I got hypnotised watching the radar on the Fenris going round and casting shadows on itself :)
-
Thank god the hot weather is giving me a good excuse to sit in my fathers computer room.....
(He currently has the only PC with a reasonable vid card in it.)
-
:yes:damn this is awesome feature
-
I NEED this feature to be completed. 'Nuff said.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/Shadows10.jpg
That's a F***ing awesome scale shot. First thing you see id the hecate, then your eye is drawn to the Levi, and then, when you look harder, you notice the tiny, tiny little fighters. And then you realize. This stuff's big.
-
What kind of slowdowns are we looking at here? Or, is there no real difference in FPS drop as there would be if you have everything else enabled? :confused:
BTW I looked over the entire thread and this thing looks beautiful. :nod: :yes:
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
What kind of slowdowns are we looking at here? Or, is there no real difference in FPS drop as there would be if you have everything else enabled? :confused:
BTW I looked over the entire thread and this thing looks beautiful. :nod: :yes:
I'm not really noticing ANY slowdown....
-
Who wanted a sense of scale?
Ignore the crappy framerates and the horribly looking environment mapping. :p
This is me in a Kisou (roughly perseus/pegesus sized) By Enif Station
(http://3dap.com/hlp/hosted/14_year_war/Raa/scale1.jpg)
And this is the same mission. Guess where I am now... ;7
(http://3dap.com/hlp/hosted/14_year_war/Raa/scale2.jpg)
-
well imagine a superstardestroyer warping in and suddenly obscuring EVERYTHING......
Ahahaha, u are still on star wars universe. i'm waiting your total conversion. Made my cry with those Super Star Destroyer !! ;)
-
Is anyone else noticing the funky swirly colors in the shadows where there normally would be a shine? (Is this fixed in the 3rd build) Can we make it so shine is not applied to shadowed areas? (This should fix that problem) Oh and does the third build include Taylors memory leak fix?
-
In 16-bit colour Stenciled Shadows will likely cause massive slowdowns as usually the drivers will fall back to some CPU-heavy software calculations, but in 32-bit colour mode almost every modern card does the stencil stuff in hardware so almost no slowdown should be experienced :)
This is an awesome addon... so pretty... ooooo.....
-
!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Im running a Radeon 9600 XT and when playing mission 1, if I even so muched as glanced at the incoming Herc fighters (Only 2 of them) I would recieve a largely noticeable drop in Framerates. We are talking from 60 to 40 in a matter of seconds. :mad:
-
Are you using the HTL models?
-
I have the same card. A 256 Mb version. I get slowdowns from looking at the Fenris.. And the really uber high res maps on some of the shivan ships (with pulsing glowmaps) So something must be up with your setup, Tin Can.
You're not using -pcx32 are you? If you are, shut it down!
-
Let me turn it off and see what happens. What exactly does that effect do?
-
Very little. The interface looks slightly better supposedly. I find it makes the interface look a bit more blurry.
-
I find it makes everything laggy. It loads PCX's into 32 bit memory, but the PCX's aren't 32-bit themselves, so i see it as a waste.
-
get rid of HTL models, they arn't good for this
-
Is there any way to specify "key geometry"? That is... the parts of the model that really matter where shadow is concerned? That way there'd be far fewer points of shadow being calculated - HTL models could be used and still cast shadows without a massive drop in FPS.
Just a thought...
-
there is, you make a low poly version of the hull and flag it as being the volume geometry. anything other than that is going to requier being done on the fly wich would negate it's usefullness
-
So for the Fenris, since the old one is the level 1 LOD, use that, right?
-
could do that when a volume model isn't available
-
Well... we would have to recompile with another object that'd be used as a volume model?
-
there are maybe four HTL models done, what youd need to do is make a new subobject, and recompile the POF.
-
And the game would know not to render the subobject, correct? (I know I'm annoying, but I like to know how things work...)
-
yeah, it wouldn't even need to be textured (well it would but just so PCS would convert it corectly)
-
relatively OT.. those shots make me really think we need an high poly hecate:)
-
Originally posted by KARMA
relatively OT.. those shots make me really think we need an high poly hecate:)
The hecate is pretty ok..just needs a LOT better textures than the one it currently has..
-
Tell you what, we need a high poly Hatsheput, that one really does look odd at times, where the curves need smoothing out :(
-
I'd like to report a bug with build-3. A friend of mine was testing this out, and when he fired his hornets, the trails were more like dotted lines. Now, these were Lightspeed's Hornet designs, so this may be partially due to the particle code in there, but I thought I'd mention this.
Later!
-
Originally posted by Raa
Who wanted a sense of scale?
Ignore the crappy framerates and the horribly looking environment mapping. :p
This is me in a Kisou (roughly perseus/pegesus sized) By Enif Station
(http://3dap.com/hlp/hosted/14_year_war/Raa/scale1.jpg)
And this is the same mission. Guess where I am now... ;7
(http://3dap.com/hlp/hosted/14_year_war/Raa/scale2.jpg)
(http://www.gamerskingdom.net/forums/images/smilies/eek3.gif)
(http://www.gamerskingdom.net/forums/images/smilies/stare2.gif) I can't stop looking at it!
Bob this is excellent! Cheers! (http://www.gamerskingdom.net/forums/images/smilies/Drinking_Friends.gif) (http://www.gamerskingdom.net/forums/images/smilies/biggrinbounce.gif)
Oh and all hail king Bob!
(http://www.gamerskingdom.net/forums/images/smilies/respect.gif)
-
Whats up with the side of the colossus in that pic?
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Tell you what, we need a high poly Hatsheput, that one really does look odd at times, where the curves need smoothing out :(
Hat could probably be done relatively easily, as there aren't a wole lot of places that need detail added, it juts needs to be (selectively) smoothed.
Oh, and I suspect environment mapping is the culprit on the Callousness
-
Originally posted by Raa
You're not using -pcx32 are you? If you are, shut it down!
What should be turned on for the best look / best speed?
-
With the mediaVPs, probably
32-bit
-glow
-jpgtga
-shine
-pcx32
You can use pcxdds to gain a small boost but it will make textures look worse, how much depends on the texture.
-
I just realised something that's gona make things a lot harder, evey ship both casts and receives shadows - from it's self - wich means I can't do a check to see if there is nothing behind or in front of it. I will still be able to get rid of things that are too far away to be seen easily and a lot of subobjects, but this is going to make things hurt more than I thought it was going to.
-
You know, if each ship has a bounding box that encompasses it, you could just check to see if any other ship's bounding box lies within the first ship's bounding box. Then apply shadows if it does.
You could also do some culling with the direction of lights, ie no ship that lies between a ship and a light souce is going to receive any shadows from the latter ship because of the light source.
Edit: Revisement of that idea....
If you form a line between a given ship (A) and a light source, another ship that forms an acute angle with that line will receive no shadows from ship A.
AKA a ship closer to the light will receive no shadows from a ship father from the light.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
-shine
= -spec?
-
Wow, those scale shots rock. Pity about the performance hit, though.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Wow, those scale shots rock. Pity about the performance hit, though.
yeah, pretty damn impressive...
lessee what Daveb thinks about all this, eh?;)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I just realised something that's gona make things a lot harder, evey ship both casts and receives shadows - from it's self - wich means I can't do a check to see if there is nothing behind or in front of it. I will still be able to get rid of things that are too far away to be seen easily and a lot of subobjects, but this is going to make things hurt more than I thought it was going to.
I'm not sure what limits have you already placed in, but as a start, could you make it so that fighters don't cast shadows on each other at all?.
As I see it shadows have sense when casted from capships/big objects on other capships/big objects, on themself and on fighters/small objects, and from fighters only on capships/big objects.
Other useless shadows are probably those generated by fighters out of lod0 distance, and for all the ships all the shadows on lod 3 and all the shadows on lod1 and 2 except those generated by big objects, all the self shadows for lods different than 0 (lod1 for the big objects).
For fighters with shadows from big objects on them you could probably simply just turn on/off the light when lod is different than 0, and do the same for medium objects when lod is different than 0 or 1 (with the above limits they would have shadows only from big objects).
Finally, you could make it so that if a small object has shadows from a bigger ship it doesn't project shadows at all, but I like more what WMC proposed:p. It still remains the problem of partial shadows (i.e big ships partially obscured which should project a partial shadow)
BTW, as it is obvious it'd be better to have those limits setted in a function rather than categorizing the type of objects/lods, but I'm not a coder:p
-
it's not a matter of casting shadows from one ship to another, it's a matter of casting or receiveing shadows at all, the way it workis is you render the shadow volume to the stencil buffer in such a way that only when there is a discrepency between the front of it and the back of it anything gets changed (ie were it intersects with something that has been rendered already), you have to render all the objects, then render all the shadow volumes that are to be cast, then render the ships over again but only were the stencil buffer says there is a shadow, useing the lighing mode for being in a shadow, I have it subtracting most of the light of the first directional light, sence objects cast shadows on themselves then that means there is no way to cull out objects that will not be reciveing or casting shadows from either the casting pass or the shadow renderig pass, other than completely removeing them from both considerations (wich could be done if they are in the first or second LOD) becase all ships always both cast and recive shadows, from them selves
-
*cough* :hopping:
Heres a screenie of the problem I was mentioning earlier.
(http://server6.uploadit.org/files/DeepblueWA-Dangit.jpg)
-
so if I well understood, since the objects both receive and project the shadows themselves, an object OR receive and project all the shadows OR don't receive and cast shadow at all.
Would this also mean that you can't stop an object to cast shadows althought it is fully obscured by another object, right?
BTW it seem fair enough to remove an object completely when the lower lods are rendered, althought it would probably be better to discriminate between bigger and smaller objects
-
Originally posted by mrduckman
= -spec?
Yeah.
Re: the shadow thing, barg.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
ok, this will defenately be the last build I post on the matter, I'm prety sure everything looks right (as far as placement of shadows is concerned), this friday, I will start to actualy implement a final implementation.
http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater/fs2_open_shadow3.zip
You might want to fix this bug first:
click me (http://www.bakercountyonline.com/md-2389/glscreen00.jpg)
This only happens when you use opengl. In D3D it renders just fine. This bug was introduced in build #2. (I would've posted about it earlier, but I've been a little busy for the past couple of days.)
Specs:
AMD Athlon XP 2800+
512MB Corsair PC2700 DDR
Visiontek GF3 Ti200 (64MB DDR, 4xAGP running 53.03 dets...kinda stupid to use the newer ones since they don't offer any real benefits for me since my card is a couple generations back.) I have no problems at all running the main 3.6 release for FS2_Open nor your first build. (to be honest, this same bug is present in D2x in the briefings)
Deepblue: FFS man, atleast shrink the damn screenshot down before embedding it or atleast have the courtesy of just using an embedded link instead. Horizontal scrolling = teh suck.
-
yeah, I don't do OGL, expect it to be brocken when ever I am developing something new
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
yeah, I don't do OGL, expect it to be brocken when ever I am developing something new
Tis a shame, but it still looks nice in D3D.
I also noticed that build 2 made the engine flares translucent. I haven't had a chance to check build 3 yet. (noticed this on the Iota transports and the Psamtik in mission 1)
-
that would be becase the shadow rendering pass subtracts light, and it's after thruster glows are drawn.
-
So what we are looking at is basically a choice between high poly models or shadows for everything except for very fast cards? I can live with that personally, it's no different to the requirements of most other graphically demanding games out there :)
-
Damnit, Bob, I'm not gonna be able to use a GF MX 440. I'm gonna hafta get something bigger to get all the pretty stuff :(
Still, that shadow stuff looks awsome.
-
Unbelieveable fantastic stuff. I'm on a 1300Mhz with Geforce 2 and I'm not noticing any slowdown compared to other builds. :nod:
A couple of issues though - missile and afterburner trails get stippled, and when flying nebula missions, the shaded polygons aren't faded out properly, you can clearly see them when the rest of the ship is barely visibe.
-
Another slight problem - any mission with over 30-40 ships (of any class) CTDs. Running other builds, the mission loads fine.
-
Originally posted by Atalhlla
Damnit, Bob, I'm not gonna be able to use a GF MX 440. I'm gonna hafta get something bigger to get all the pretty stuff :(
Still, that shadow stuff looks awsome.
pretty much what im running as well....the FPS is ok if you remove the explosions and stuff. FS2 looks pretty darn sweet with just Specular (which, IMO, makes THE greatest difference to date)
Hey Bob, any idea if we can have a -noparticle line that reverts back to the old code? The new one gives me lots of slowdowns, especially when it comes to seeing a lot of Flak on screen.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
So what we are looking at is basically a choice between high poly models or shadows for everything except for very fast cards? I can live with that personally, it's no different to the requirements of most other graphically demanding games out there :)
Ah, just put everything in, and make it an option to use it. :D
-
the new particle code I am working on has never been displayed, becase it is not in any condition to be viewed
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
HOLY ****!! :eek:
...
My god.
My heart just jumped through my mouth.
My. God.
:yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes:
-
I dont want to quote myself so someone please look at my previous posts!!
-
i think, that the SCP is turning Freespace into a playable version of SPIRE :p
-
What is SPIRE?
-
Originally posted by Bri_Dog
What is SPIRE?
Setekh's own personal Render engine.
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
i think, that the SCP is turning Freespace into a playable version of SPIRE :p
I'll be out of a job! Not that I, or anyone else for that matter, is probably complaining. ;)
-
I tried the latest version of the shadows-enabled exe and I have to say that this addition gave a whole new perspective on SCP. I tried it on FS1Port also and the results were exceptional!!!
Ok, i might have an fps drop when i turn towards a cap ship (maybe i should chk again my starting settings), but the eyecandy... the shadow... OMFG!!!
Absolutely Great Work Bobboau, sometimes I wish I could do at least half of what you guys do on SCP...
Btw, whould it be possible to turn shadows on and off from the launcher when they are fully implemented on an official -forgive me if i used the wrong word- release? (just a thought)
-
Originally posted by Setekh
I'll be out of a job! Not that I, or anyone else for that matter, is probably complaining. ;)
well, you need to make SPIRE 2.0 or something.. go one better.;)
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
well, you need to make SPIRE 2.0 or something.. go one better.;)
Yeah, be cheeky - hack it into the Unreal 3.0 engine and sit back - knowing your engine is DX9 compliant *coughs*...
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Yeah, be cheeky - hack it into the Unreal 3.0 engine and sit back - knowing your engine is DX9 compliant *coughs*...
:lol: i'd love to see that.
actually, it'd be cool if somebody made some ultra high-res textures for use in renders.:)
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
Setekh's own personal Render engine.
Hey, that's almost the acronym...
Setekh's Personal Intuitive Render Engine.
I forget what the old one was. Something to do with shadows, I think...then it became spirit or something.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Is anyone else noticing the funky swirly colors in the shadows where there normally would be a shine? (Is this fixed in the 3rd build) Can we make it so shine is not applied to shadowed areas? (This should fix that problem) Oh and does the third build include Taylors memory leak fix?
Originally posted by Deepblue
*cough* :hopping:
Heres a screenie of the problem I was mentioning earlier.
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/DeepblueWA-Dangit.jpg
...
Image tag edited to keep the masses happy, click the link to load the image. :// Kalfireth
-
*cough*Photoshop to reduce your screenshot so it doens't scroll half a damn mile horizontally or just linking it is A-1 SUPAR!*/cough*
-
Or LVLSHOT
-
I can only say the shadows are great. It's almost playable.
I heard of many Nvidia shadow technologies, like "Shadow Buffers" and "Ultra Shadow".
Is there any way these features could prove useful ?
-
Don't bet on him doing it. he has a high end ATi card. Look for ATi features. :p
-
Oh that's bad... Nvidia powers my machine ...
-
Well, I have an nForce machine too, but I still went the ATi route.
-
I hae an nForce mobo, but an ATI card (Radeon 9800 pro 128, and yes that makes me better than you :p)
-
That's why we got truform ;) Pity really, since I own an NVidia too ;)
-
But Bob what if ... uhm ... well ... you win a Geforce? :p You should really go for the shadow buffer thing. ;7 :D
-
Amazing, can't wait to see this feature fully implemented. :yes:
-
Good Job man, I'm just simply awestruck.:yes: I get very little slow down ~4-5 fps but since that brings me down to ~60 it's worth it IMHO. Any how keep up the good work.
-
Here is a cool idea.... Will a clocked ship cast a shadow? Because if it did block out the sun that could lead for some really scary moments... (Like when everything goes dark for no reason and a cap. ship unclocks...)
-
. . . Or if an evil-looking Sathanas-shaped shadow suddenly moves over an unsuspecting GTVA destroyer . . .
-
Cloaked ships casting shadows = uber-wrong.
-
When Bobboau is going to commit shadow code to CVS? :)
-
Based on what he said he has to write it first.
What we've seen this time was mearly an experiment to see what could be done and how.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Cloaked ships casting shadows = uber-wrong.
It may be completely scientifically demented, but I think the effect would be awesome, as long as shadows couldn't be cast on cloaked ships and they don't cast shadows on themselves...
-
For Bobboau's cloaking code, I don't think it would be. I don't know much about optics but I don't think a ship could cast the same amount of light as a sun, in most cases, to cover up its shadow.
-
I'd like to see that as an option in ships.tbl...e.g.
$Cloaking Device: Yes
+Type: SmallKBOP
+Opacity: 25.0 (percentage of how much you CAN see the ship even while cloaked)
+Cloak Duration: 45.0 (seconds that cloak can be active before it automatically shuts down)
+Cloak Fadetime On: 0.5 (how long it takes for the ship to reach full cloaking)
+Cloak Fadetime Off: 1.0 (how long it takes for the ship to return to normal appearance upon cloak disengaging)
+Weapons: Disabled - ability (or none thereof) to fire whilst cloaked
+Casts Shadow: No - the casting of a shadow, while cloaked, on other ships*
*--- Be cool that if Casts Shadow were on and Opacity were changed that the shadow could be changed to be translucent if the ship is...I'd like to see the types as separate effects named in a separate new cloak.tbl file....example stock ones would be Small and Large Klingon Bird of Prey Effect (default) and Small and Large Wing Commander Fadeout or something =P (small and large meaning slightly different effects for capships and fighters) but whatever.
-
I played the shadows on my:
P4 2.4ghz
256 Megs of RAM
Geforce 4 Ti4600
Windows XP
with the Bablyon 5 mod enabled. While I was playing the Bab 5 mod, I had pretty much NO slowdown.
-
Originally posted by Gregster2k
I'd like to see that as an option in ships.tbl...e.g.
$Cloaking Device: Yes
+Type: SmallKBOP
+Opacity: 25.0 (percentage of how much you CAN see the ship even while cloaked)
+Cloak Duration: 45.0 (seconds that cloak can be active before it automatically shuts down)
+Cloak Fadetime On: 0.5 (how long it takes for the ship to reach full cloaking)
+Cloak Fadetime Off: 1.0 (how long it takes for the ship to return to normal appearance upon cloak disengaging)
+Weapons: Disabled - ability (or none thereof) to fire whilst cloaked
+Casts Shadow: No - the casting of a shadow, while cloaked, on other ships*
*--- Be cool that if Casts Shadow were on and Opacity were changed that the shadow could be changed to be translucent if the ship is...I'd like to see the types as separate effects named in a separate new cloak.tbl file....example stock ones would be Small and Large Klingon Bird of Prey Effect (default) and Small and Large Wing Commander Fadeout or something =P (small and large meaning slightly different effects for capships and fighters) but whatever.
I proposed something similar to this when cloaking was being discussed a few months ago. Since the plan has always been to include cloaks in with the planned Tertiary (weapons) system, then a separate table file would be created, that would encompass all tertiary devices, including cloaks. It would make it very useful for campaign and moders to have the power to say what properties and disadvantages a cloak will have on its target system, not to mention the advantages for expanding into non-Freespace (universe) mods. Unfortunately, tertiary implimentation has always been just beyond the horizon in coming features. I hope we can get all of this graphical stuff out of the way so these enhancements can be incorporated.
Later!
-
Bobboau, any chance you could make a shadow build that included all the latest SCP stuff too? I really like playing with the shadows, but I want all the new SCP things too....
-
Ditto.
-
and put in the code for a new shadow model, because looking at the hi-poly fenris with shadows slows down my 6800GT
it doesn't like to be slowed down
-
Originally posted by Turambar
and put in the code for a new shadow model, because looking at the hi-poly fenris with shadows slows down my 6800GT
it doesn't like to be slowed down
:wtf:
How much does it slow down? My 5600 runs it just fine... Not at 120 fps, but still ok.
-
code for the shadow model = vital.
We can't really afford any performance to go waste. (and Bob explicitely said it's problematic with hi-poly models)
-
yeah, perf-loss=bad
if i can play farcry on full settings smoothly with all the cool shadows and such, why not FS?
-
'cause the code is inefficient as hell.
When the FS2 engine was originally developed, nobody imagined THIS. :D
It will take a long time, if ever possible, for the SCP team to rewrite enough of the engine to warrant the same performance possible with games especially written for modern features.
-
So we got to wait for FE?
-
Well, there are a few things...
1) Bobboau is mostly working on Ferrium now... I haven't seen him work on SCP stuff in a while.
2) He said previously that this build was more of an experiment than anything else; it would require quite a lot of work to clean up the code enough to be able to merge it.
3) He has a nasty habit of partially coding a buggy implementation of a cool feature, and then taking ages to actually finish it and debug it.
In short, don't hold your breath; I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. I wish he wouldn't get people's hopes up with half-completed features. :(
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
3) He has a nasty habit of partially coding a buggy implementation of a cool feature, and then taking ages to actually finish it and debug it.
i've almost taken the Sabre of Justice to him a couple times for showing this tendancy in ferrium
:D
-
well if someone else wants to do it I'll tell them everything they have to do give them code ect, asside from that I could have not played around with this and not posted these builds, I don't think anybody would have wanted that.
the problems we were faceing in FE were more of me doing something and you doing almost the exact same thing slightly diferently, or you misreading what I was planning to do.
-
I don't know about you but having stencil shadows in TBP would greatly add jaw droppage factor for those not following SCP development or not having FS2 at all.
-
Can you please just do a build that has all the new stuff, and your old shadow stuff? with the line -shadow ?
-
Originally posted by ubermetroid
So we got to wait for FE?
Hehe, before we can play FE², SCP will have geomod support.
Seriously, I wouldnt bet half a penny on it. If it turns out to be finished at some point, that's cool. But I seriously don't think so.
Another problem arising with that is, FE² is NOT, and does NOT support FS2 in any way. So someone would have to do a FS2 --> FE² total conversion.
-
Bobboau, don't feel insulted by the what people say. But it is partly true that somethings you hae programmed have been buggy. But, you have done some valuable contribution to the community and to this project in general.
-
I think something is better than nothing even if some bug squashing has to be done for it. Great work Bob. :)
-
Niiiiiiiice. This, people, is why I love SCP.
-
Bit late aren't we?