Hard Light Productions Forums

General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Black Wolf on November 19, 2005, 01:33:17 pm

Title: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Black Wolf on November 19, 2005, 01:33:17 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freespace

Don't get me wrong - I'm not dissing Nico's Perseus. But given that all it really shows is a red fighter, it's not really demonstrating the sheer graphical improvement of the FSO engine. There're no new BGs or starfields, no new effects, only one High poly ship, the shine and glow maps are barely visible and the colours are all washed out by the red.

The picture should:
Basically, it needs to show the engine at its very best, which the current pic doesn't do. Wikipedia gets millions of hits per day, and though only a small fraction of those go to the freespace article, it's still a lot of people we can get interested in FSO. So, go to it. :)[/bw]
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: CP5670 on November 19, 2005, 02:04:48 pm
I'll see if I can get something a bit later. Although it might be difficult to get one that both has effects in it and doesn't look cluttered. (and ship explosions aren't a good idea, as those are still using the original graphics AFAIK and don't look very good)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Taristin on November 19, 2005, 02:19:13 pm
Too bad you can't use this:
(http://www.game-warden.com/bsg/staff_images/WIP%20Gallery/BSG_Nuked.jpg)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: CP5670 on November 19, 2005, 05:11:30 pm
How do you enable that camera mode in the game? I can't remember the command.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: watsisname on November 20, 2005, 05:19:46 pm
If you press Shift-pause or alt-pause (I forget which) it does a special kind of pause of the game.  Then you can press enter and exit the cockpit of your craft and use flight controls to move around.  With that you can take screenshots without any interference from the HUD, and you also get the benefit of being able to take a picture from any location and any angle that you want.  But this feature is only in SCP.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: StratComm on November 20, 2005, 05:27:06 pm
Alt-pause, and it's great.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Mongoose on November 20, 2005, 07:35:56 pm
Wow...why did I never know about this?

/goes to fool around :D
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: BlackDove on November 21, 2005, 11:25:59 am
You should use an image of some HTL cap.

Probably the FSU Hecate.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: StratComm on November 21, 2005, 12:07:05 pm
If it was done yet.  I personally am a fan of the new Aeolus or Deimos, though I'll admit that the Perseus is still the single best example of what the engine is capable of.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Taristin on November 21, 2005, 01:12:30 pm
(http://www.game-warden.com/raa/temp/cell/more.jpg)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: CP5670 on November 22, 2005, 03:25:53 am
Okay, I spent ten minutes grabbing a few shots. I can't seem to get one that has everything (high poly model, background and explosion/fire/beam effects). :p These were some of the better ones. Anything look good?

(http://home.comcast.net/~cp5670/FS2-5.jpg)

(http://home.comcast.net/~cp5670/FS2-6.jpg)

(http://home.comcast.net/~cp5670/FS2-7.jpg)

(http://home.comcast.net/~cp5670/FS2-8.jpg)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Pnakotus on November 22, 2005, 05:03:11 am
The last one is nearly perfect - it's a shame it doesn't have a beam in there.

Also, WTFOMGBBQ, are those green things explosion effects?  Which ones?  They're fantastic!

Then again, my backgrounds don't look anything like that, either... :)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: BlackDove on November 22, 2005, 07:16:31 am
Erm all of them suffer a great deal because of their native resolution.

They look great minimized by HLP's lvlshot, but when viewd as originals they're rather blurry and uncontrasted.

Might want to go down from the insane resolution and take them in the sensible 1024x786
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Col. Fishguts on November 22, 2005, 07:23:15 am
That green thing looks like a shot from some clouds in front of the sun, but I like it. Where is it from ?
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: phreak on November 22, 2005, 10:25:57 am
remove hud -- shift + o
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: CP5670 on November 22, 2005, 10:30:59 am
Quote
The last one is nearly perfect - it's a shame it doesn't have a beam in there.

Also, WTFOMGBBQ, are those green things explosion effects?  Which ones?  They're fantastic!

Then again, my backgrounds don't look anything like that, either...

Green explosions? :confused: You mean in the second picture? Those are just part of the Perseus's thruster glows.

I also think the last one is overall the best. It has no effects but shows off the new models and specular lighting nicely. :)

Quote
Erm all of them suffer a great deal because of their native resolution.

They look great minimized by HLP's lvlshot, but when viewd as originals they're rather blurry and uncontrasted.

Might want to go down from the insane resolution and take them in the sensible 1024x786

I can easily size them down if they are worth considering for putting up on wikipedia, especially since it's an exact multiple of 1024x768. That's what lvlshot is showing them as anyway.

Quote
That green thing looks like a shot from some clouds in front of the sun, but I like it. Where is it from ?

The background graphics were made by Lightspeed I think. I made a few minor color changes to them for my use. The mission is from my PI campaign (available in my thread in the campaigns section).
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Goober5000 on November 22, 2005, 11:54:19 am
I like the third one the best.  It's composed very well from a photography standpoint. :)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Polpolion on November 22, 2005, 04:37:52 pm
sigh...I wish my computer was good enough to run FS0...
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Setekh on November 22, 2005, 06:13:34 pm
Front paged. :)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: MetalDestroyer on November 23, 2005, 12:07:58 pm
Hop, my turn :

(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/2227/fs2openrp420051101200511092127.jpg)
(http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1527/fs2openr2005110520051109182357.jpg)

Others will come soon.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: wuu on November 23, 2005, 01:52:34 pm
It is my turn.

(http://img420.imageshack.us/img420/7387/screen00252qb.gif) (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img420.imageshack.us/img420/3506/screen00266pm.gif) (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img420.imageshack.us/img420/3984/screen00273lw.gif) (http://imageshack.us)

Image size 1280-1024gif.

(http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/9239/screen00354cq.gif) (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/4716/screen00407hf.gif) (http://imageshack.us)

Image size 1600-1024gif

Well, to get the right shot at the right time, is not easy.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Goober5000 on November 23, 2005, 02:17:29 pm
It is my turn.

[snip]

Wow... that fourth picture is excellent. :)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: FireCrack on November 23, 2005, 02:43:26 pm
^yeah, but the HUD is on... and it's not an HTL model oar anything...
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: wuu on November 23, 2005, 03:57:34 pm
^yeah, but the HUD is on... and it's not an HTL model oar anything...

K no Hud. Wich one is a htl model the perseus, deimos, I use 3.6.7 and the mv.vp files ?

(http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/8887/screen00462iu.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/505/screen00473zp.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

Low-compression jpeg 1600-1024

Thx for info PhReAk
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: phreak on November 23, 2005, 04:20:38 pm
no gifs as well -- they're limited to 256 colors.  use png or a low-compression jpeg.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: TrashMan on November 24, 2005, 07:05:03 am
Hm...I posted better pics of hte Orion and Hecate on hte wikipedia..

Looks like someone removed hte Hecae pics, but hte Orion is still there..
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Fineus on November 24, 2005, 07:07:32 am
I wasn't going to post this up, but since I used one of CP5670s pics in it - well - here you go :)

(http://www.zen8740.zen.co.uk/pics/advert.jpg)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: BlackDove on November 24, 2005, 08:11:18 am
Evolution of what? That image makes no sense whatsoever. Wing Commander Prophecy to whatever to Freespace?

Resounding no to whatever you intend on using that for.

Can't anyone get some good fighter+cap+explosion shots with pretty nebulae without the HUD? ****+O isn't that hard to press.

wuu's come closest so far but the Hatshepsut is mundane, mostly because it's still low-poly, and that shot of it isn't much appealing.

Metal Destroyer's first image would work had it been without the HUD and the ugly third person Pegasus engines.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Fineus on November 24, 2005, 01:18:49 pm
What do all three images have in common? Here’s a hint – they’re all space sims. Perhaps it's not blindingly obvious, what with the space ships and all…

As for your criticism of everyone elses images I'm afraid I have to point out the obvious again. If you've that much criticism then you do better. If you've time to find faults then you've time to give it a shot yourself.

Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: BlackDove on November 25, 2005, 11:14:26 am
Even if you put it in that context it still makes no sense, what with the fact that Prophecy was released more or less side by side with FreeSpace 1. It was most assuredly not a project that stood out in many ways, considering FS outshined it dramatically. Also let me point out the obvious faults regarding the order in which they're set, the actual images not looking good whatsoever when compared to the background, the fact that the HUD is visible in the third image, and the most painful one of all - no reference to where they're from. The only reason I know where the three are from is because I played the games. I'll take a stab that those who didn't play the two that are not FreeSpace will not get it.

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings and you needed to be sarcastic about it, but if you wanted to convey what you say you did, there are many better ways to be going about it.

As far as the Wikipedia image goes, I already picked out the obvious selection which should go if we're going to pick something that's been posted already, but I think we all know that there are better screenshots out there.

Oh and, I would give it a shot myself days ago, it's just that a Pentium 200mmx doesn't take shots that look so great. This isn't charity play and we all know what "proper" constitutes. Make a shot properly and let it be the representation. SHEESH.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Fineus on November 25, 2005, 12:02:41 pm
Hurt my feelings? Heh, I wouldn't give you that much credit. I made the image for my own amusement and have no intentions of using it anywhere - that has been a fact from the start. The order in which they're set is a fairly obvious chronological one. Prophecy was released before Freelancer and the SCP is still going now after that. In theory no further explanation should be required as the audience here is you people and myself. We all know what those games are.

I'd be interested to know what these "better ways" are. I'm sure they exist, and you don't need to produce anything. I merely challenge you to come up with the ideas so that I can learn what you had in mind.

As for your lack of graphics card power - it's obvious that I didn't know that before. Be that as it may I accept your criticism of what other people have done. It's a shame you can't do anything about it yourself.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: CP5670 on November 25, 2005, 12:22:05 pm
I like the idea, but it's not really clear what the games are at a glance. Try adding in labels on them and maybe making the pictures not overlap so you can fully see all of them.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: WMCoolmon on November 25, 2005, 01:05:47 pm
WMCoolmon's check-list for screenshots

I have some more screenies I could upload, but I doubt they use the new FX.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Fineus on November 25, 2005, 01:10:26 pm
I like the idea, but it's not really clear what the games are at a glance. Try adding in labels on them and maybe making the pictures not overlap so you can fully see all of them.
Fair enough, that's something I can appreciate. I've a couple of concepts of basic improvements I could make based on this and BlackDoves comment about the background being more impressive than the foreground.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Pnakotus on November 25, 2005, 06:41:14 pm
It'd be nice if you could still change targets in 'magic pause' mode: you can rotate but not move to other objects.  It'd make framing easier.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Flaser on November 25, 2005, 08:32:55 pm
I'm not a genius when it comes to image manipulation, but you should take a look at how the SCP trailer is being made.

A trailer? - you ask.

Yes:
A) It's kinda hard to take the split second 'perfect-shot' (even camera pro's take several and then 'pick' the 'right' ones.)
B) Even with Virtual Dub you can easly grab any frame from a video file - and AFAIK FRAPS isn't that hard to use.
C) Actually with the camera sexps now availible the 'perfect shot' shouldn't be an in-misison occurance by chance - FRED it.

So the things to make the perfect shot are:
1) A FREDer familiar with the camera-sexps
2) A badass computer to run the mission and FRAPS it.
3) Brushing through a couple of thousand frames (it's easier than that - you play it, catch something nice, go to the next keyframe and then check frame-by-frame for the best screenshot) to get the 'right' one.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: FireCrack on November 26, 2005, 12:37:06 am
Where can i get the new starfeilds?
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: WMCoolmon on December 09, 2005, 03:15:31 am
mv_effects 3.6.7
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Singh on December 10, 2005, 09:36:15 am
I took these pictures whilst shooting the Showcase trailer. I still have the high quality PNGs, or if needed, the missions themselves if anyone is interested in either using them, or taking a much higher-detailed shot in-game. :)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v107/anandraj/Jpgwiki1.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v107/anandraj/Jpgwiki2.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v107/anandraj/Jpgwiki3.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v107/anandraj/Jpgwiki4.jpg)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Singh on December 10, 2005, 09:59:17 am
last one for the moment. Ill have some more up soon with the HTL Lucifer.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v107/anandraj/Jpgwiki5.jpg)

Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Goober5000 on December 10, 2005, 04:33:35 pm
last one for the moment. Ill have some more up soon with the HTL Lucifer.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v107/anandraj/Jpgwiki5.jpg)

Whoa! :jaw: How on earth did you get that pic?  It looks like they're fighting in the corona of a sun or something.  Way cool!
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: NGTM-1R on December 10, 2005, 04:44:32 pm
IMO, put up Stratcomm's Cover Redux. It's recognizable to anyone who bought the game, little visual clutter, still damn cool.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: StratComm on December 10, 2005, 06:13:25 pm
You mean this?  This is actually sort of why I made it (actually it was supposed to be a splash screen, but it never made that cut).  And it presents a couple of things that the normal engine wasn't capable of.
(http://www.duke.edu/~cek6/cover_redux.jpg)

Of course, I'm opposed to taking down the closeup of the Perseus.  There's a lot more demonstrated in that one model than you'll get just about anywhere else.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: BlackDove on December 10, 2005, 06:27:16 pm
Ignore his opinion but steal his picture and remove that UGLEH Perseus, replace it with this.

Thread done.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Singh on December 10, 2005, 09:52:53 pm
Except for the beam clipping, of course. That REALLY needs to be fixed, IMO....but thats not possible without Geomodding anyway :p



Whoa! :jaw: How on earth did you get that pic? It looks like they're fighting in the corona of a sun or something. Way cool!

An Orion blew up in the background; that's how. The explosions were pretty enough for that to happen. :D

Anyways, as promised, some more from the latest recordings. If anyone is interested I still have the vids, so I can extract a fully-detailed version. Or if anyone has a better computer, the mission can be put up to run through it again with AA and what-not:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v107/anandraj/Jpgwiki6.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v107/anandraj/Jpgwiki7.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v107/anandraj/Jpgwiki8.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v107/anandraj/Jpgwiki9.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v107/anandraj/Jpgwiki10.jpg)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: FireCrack on December 11, 2005, 04:34:15 am
That last one looks awesome, gives a true sense of scale!
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: castor on December 11, 2005, 06:38:18 am
IMO, most of these are crammed with too much stuff.
CP's third pic is the best so far.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: ionia23 on December 11, 2005, 03:22:19 pm
Obviously missing nebulas and I don't know why it didn't pick up the starfield BUT...

A good head-on shot of the hi-poly hercules running the latest SCP build, plus running FSPort.
Shows off some of the better improvements to the original Freespace.  All shows off treats like
the shinemap against the see-through cockpit :).

If this doesn't cut it as a contribution, no harm, no foul.

(http://personal.riverusers.com/~ashengrace/images/private/screen0237.jpg)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: BlackDove on December 11, 2005, 04:11:32 pm
That's pretty good Ionia. But SC's rules all. It's hard to match the living box-art - even with that clipping error.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Flaser on December 11, 2005, 05:12:07 pm
That's pretty good Ionia. But SC's rules all. It's hard to match the living box-art - even with that clipping error.

Except the same shot, with a lowered ambient factor.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: StratComm on December 11, 2005, 05:26:34 pm
Easily enough done, but I don't think that'd help as much as you might think.  As back as the background is, I don't want to make the ships too low contrast for their own good.  They're already fairly dark as-is.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: WMCoolmon on December 12, 2005, 02:52:05 am
Not as impressive as the Perseus, IMHO. Shinemaps, glowmaps, glowpoints, the improved lighting, aren't as evident in the pic. There's also the extremely evident clipping error.

It does show off the skybox nicely, but it doesn't seem like a good fs2_open pic.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: karajorma on December 12, 2005, 09:18:22 am
And the high poly Deimos (and Moloch once we can get either of the WIPs finished) :D
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: StratComm on December 12, 2005, 01:36:45 pm
Not as impressive as the Perseus, IMHO. Shinemaps, glowmaps, glowpoints, the improved lighting, aren't as evident in the pic. There's also the extremely evident clipping error.

It does show off the skybox nicely, but it doesn't seem like a good fs2_open pic.

That's not a skybox :nervous:

And I'd love to get that clipping error fixed.  This isn't the only case where it looks ugly.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: BlackDove on December 12, 2005, 03:45:48 pm
Not as impressive as the Perseus, IMHO. Shinemaps, glowmaps, glowpoints, the improved lighting, aren't as evident in the pic. There's also the extremely evident clipping error.

It does show off the skybox nicely, but it doesn't seem like a good fs2_open pic.

All the glowmaps and shinemaps in the world don't help the fact that the image is butt ugly. The goal is visual beauty when comparing old to new, which is progress displayed at first glance. All of the glowmaps, shinemaps, etc. you can explain in text next to the image. They're inconsequential if the image looks bad.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: StratComm on December 12, 2005, 03:54:33 pm
Actually, other than the cockpit, the Perseus has no glowmap.  That said, I still couldn't disagree more with the quality of the Perseus image; it may not be the most action-intensive shot out there, but it's a lot better than a lot of what's out there in terms of showing off the power of the engine.  As an interum though, I say we pester Singh to get us a high-res, static shot of the HTL herc flying past that moon, as seen in his pimpage video.  No shot captures the "wow" factor nearly as well as that one.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: ionia23 on December 13, 2005, 11:46:33 am
Though I've read the requirements for the FSO picture, I want to know if you'd prefer an actual 'in game' shot or a custom render (like the boxart for FS2Retail).
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Black Wolf on December 13, 2005, 01:10:38 pm
Ingame - it wouldn't be much use for showing off the engine if ti wasn't generated by the engine :p
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Sandwich on December 13, 2005, 02:56:52 pm
And I'd love to get that clipping error fixed.  This isn't the only case where it looks ugly.

... :nervous:

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Sandwich on December 13, 2005, 03:00:42 pm
Hey, that brings up a question! How simple would it be to add a feature to the SCP where an explosion ANI is rendered at all points of a beam's collision detection, not just the first point?
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: FireCrack on December 13, 2005, 03:24:54 pm
Yeah, that'd be good.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Goober5000 on December 13, 2005, 03:46:16 pm
Not hard at all.  I've seen the code where it could be done.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: phreak on December 13, 2005, 04:23:57 pm
I just coded it between finals at school.  I'll test it tonight
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: phreak on December 13, 2005, 09:27:49 pm
(http://fs2source.warpcore.org/exes/phreak/exit_splode.jpg)

Build forthcoming
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Singh on December 13, 2005, 09:33:00 pm
Nice - really looks like it's being cored all the way through.

One step away from....*shuts mouth before he says the GM word*
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Goober5000 on December 13, 2005, 10:20:39 pm
I just coded it between finals at school.  I'll test it tonight

Nice. :)

Keep in mind, though, that in retail the beam stops at the first object it collides with (unless that object is going to explode in 1 or 2 seconds).  Having the weapon go through every object it collides with will necessitate a flag in weapons.tbl.

Nice - really looks like it's being cored all the way through.

One step away from....*shuts mouth before he says the GM word*

Ah, but combining this feature with dynamic decals, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, would you? ;)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: phreak on December 13, 2005, 10:49:29 pm
I just coded it between finals at school. I'll test it tonight

Nice. :)

Keep in mind, though, that in retail the beam stops at the first object it collides with (unless that object is going to explode in 1 or 2 seconds). Having the weapon go through every object it collides with will necessitate a flag in weapons.tbl.

Yea I just threw a do-while loop around the collision handling function and drew down the points until no more collisions could be found.  It also stopped if the ship wasn't about to be "tooled" (see beam_will_tool_target()).  I want to do a bit more testing first though to see if it handles cases like:

(http://fs2source.warpcore.org/exes/phreak/beam_pierce_cases.jpg)

Right now, 1&4 are definately handled, need to test 2&3 on the arms of the sath or ravana.

Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Sandwich on December 13, 2005, 11:26:59 pm
Hmm. Although it's a major improvement, there's still ironically the clipping problem, just this time it's with the explosion ANI. Can anyone think of any way to address this issue? Ideally, there'd be an actual 3D (volumetric?) explosion, which would naturally obstruct parts of the hull in a gradual manner...

Right now, 1&4 are definately handled, need to test 2&3 on the arms of the sath or ravana.

Try on a Hecate - a heck of a lot easier to set up. :p
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: phreak on December 14, 2005, 01:46:57 am
meh, it just looks that way since i didn't really line up for a good shot in game.  It looks alot better when you're moving. 

Also, the way i have things handled, explosions 1&3 in the picture above will cause damage.  So that X is receiving twice the damage it would usually get.  This shouldn't mess with the balance really since this case will occur only when the ship was going to be destroyed from that beam anyway.  Perhaps i can have 2&4 cause damage as well.  It would be fun watching the numbers go down in the escort list, and plummet once the beam goes through.

Edit:  Its now in CVS,  bother redmenace now.  I need to sleep - its 315 am
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Flaser on December 14, 2005, 03:37:25 am
I just coded it between finals at school.  I'll test it tonight

Nice. :)

Keep in mind, though, that in retail the beam stops at the first object it collides with (unless that object is going to explode in 1 or 2 seconds).  Having the weapon go through every object it collides with will necessitate a flag in weapons.tbl.

Nice - really looks like it's being cored all the way through.

One step away from....*shuts mouth before he says the GM word*

Ah, but combining this feature with dynamic decals, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, would you? ;)

Could this burn through be based on underlying subsystem strenght? The idea would be that if the underlying systems are shot, then there's not much to chew for the beam anymore.
(With damage modelling / destroyable subsystem models this could lead to ships imitating a cheese cake.)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: StratComm on December 15, 2005, 02:22:08 am
Sweet.  I'll try to retake that shot in a couple of days and see if I can't get what I was after originally.
Right now, 1&4 are definately handled, need to test 2&3 on the arms of the sath or ravana.

I've got a Vasudan corvette that would be really easy to test that with, if you're so inclined.  It was supposed to be in Inferno R2, though I don't know what Woo decided to name it there.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: BlackDove on December 15, 2005, 10:05:31 am
More bigass screenshots damnit.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: phreak on December 15, 2005, 11:06:32 am
Sweet. I'll try to retake that shot in a couple of days and see if I can't get what I was after originally.
Right now, 1&4 are definately handled, need to test 2&3 on the arms of the sath or ravana.

I've got a Vasudan corvette that would be really easy to test that with, if you're so inclined. It was supposed to be in Inferno R2, though I don't know what Woo decided to name it there.

I've since tested it and fixed any problems.  so now it is working.  The code is in CVS so get a better version of your screencap and we have a winner.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: BlackDove on December 16, 2005, 06:35:06 pm
StratComm.

Screenshot.

Quick.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Jetmech Jr. on December 16, 2005, 07:26:21 pm

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v107/anandraj/Jpgwiki9.jpg)



...It looks like it's coming to eat me...
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Pnakotus on December 16, 2005, 07:45:42 pm
Since we're talking about that beam penetration explosion, can someone fix it?  The edges of the square, where the orange 'debris' disappear, is extremely evident: at some points in the animation, it is clear that it's a postage-stamp recording of an explosion.  Can't DaBrain just reproduce the effect and make the animation large enough to include the 'debris' fading instead of suddenly disappearing at a hard, square outline?
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: StratComm on December 17, 2005, 12:29:57 am
Oh yeah.  I need to re-take that picture.  Yet another thing to do before I go home for christmas.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Murderous Species on December 18, 2005, 12:28:33 pm
I got a screenshot showing good background, a lot of stars (I think the proper name is starmaps),a beam, and some flak.

The problems:
Don't know how to upload it HERE.
Don't know how to make backgrounds brighter
Don't know how to make the pilot apper in the pilot cockpit.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Murderous Species on December 18, 2005, 12:37:10 pm
(http://C:\Games\FreeSpace2\screen0001.bmp)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Black Wolf on December 18, 2005, 01:04:54 pm
First, convert it from bmp to jpeg or png or something less space intensive than bmp. Then ypu need somewhere to upload it. Imageshack is free, easy to use and it even provides you with the correct formatting for forums. Try that'n for now.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Ghost on December 18, 2005, 08:39:44 pm
I think that antialiasing or something would be good for screenshot taking so the edges aren't so sharp.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: StratComm on December 19, 2005, 01:24:14 am
I take my screens at 1600x1200 and then size them down.  No one needs a screenshot much bigger than 800x600 anyway, and the downsizing takes care of the anti-aliasing.

And I didn't get a chance to take that screencap that I was looking for before heading home.  Try me again after New Years and I'll get that sorted out.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: phreak on December 19, 2005, 12:56:53 pm
Can you just post the mission see if one of us can take a good one?
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: BlackDove on December 19, 2005, 04:54:28 pm
Fishguts spewed this out in the FSU imagery.

I find it quite nice.

(http://n.ethz.ch/student/ebuerli/download/htl_medusa.jpg)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: NGTM-1R on December 19, 2005, 09:00:14 pm
(http://n.ethz.ch/student/ebuerli/download/htl_medusa.jpg)

We have a winner.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Col. Fishguts on December 20, 2005, 06:52:27 am
Wait, what ?

That was more a praise for Strat's beautiful Medusa, than SCP pimpage.

It's missing any of the pretty background nebulas. Someone who has them installed, should do a shot of a HTL-Medusa wing escorted by a HTL-Herc wing.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: BlackDove on December 20, 2005, 10:16:43 am
Who gives a ****? If it's pretty it goes. Don't fight the pretty. Pretty is what it's all about in adevrtisments.

That and, sex.

When you put it on the Wiki you advertise. That image is pretty enough.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: karajorma on December 20, 2005, 10:48:14 am
It's pretty but with small changes like background nebulae it could be much better.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: BlackDove on December 20, 2005, 01:20:04 pm
Of course. But who is to do it?
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: CP5670 on December 20, 2005, 01:25:08 pm
I'll see if I can get a few more. What resolution should these be in?
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: BlackDove on December 20, 2005, 02:46:39 pm
1024x768 maximum IMO.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: WMCoolmon on December 21, 2005, 06:34:16 pm
Even with background, it just looks more...polygonated and boxy than the Perseus. I mean, I hate to be Mr.Negative here, but the reason I put that pic up was because it was so unusually good. :p Even this (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v107/anandraj/Jpgwiki5.jpg) seems like a better candidate than that pic. (Although it's rather small, and I still think the Perseus one slightly beats it because of the sheer detail you can see on the model.)

However...I'm interested to see what you can come up with.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Singh on December 21, 2005, 08:02:55 pm
Even this (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v107/anandraj/Jpgwiki5.jpg) seems like a better candidate than that pic. (Although it's rather small, and I still think the Perseus one slightly beats it because of the sheer detail you can see on the model.)

Photobucket resized that image to it's current size. I still have the original large PNG on my HD if you're interested :p
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Admiral Nelson on January 03, 2006, 10:02:01 pm
This was suggested for posting here, so:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/FS2/TimberSurrender.jpg)

Sure, it has got the HUD, but then it IS a game, after all... :)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Black Wolf on January 04, 2006, 01:17:21 am
Oh Wow... I really like that one. It doesn't exactly fit all the guidelines, but who really xares - it sows the dramatic improvement in the engine, and it shows a few of the features that weren't mentioned in the initial brief, like the nameplate and 3D Radar.

In fact, I'm going to put it up, but keep in mind, this is a wiki we're workling with - nothing is neccesarily final. If anyone has an image that can trump it, post it here and we might be able to change it.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Sandwich on January 04, 2006, 03:18:54 am
I certainly don't xare. But then again, I never really did, either. :p

As for the picture, it is good, but it'd be better to get a less compressed version. Due to the sharp lines of the HUD and jumpnode, the compression shows up far too visibly.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Mr_Maniac on January 04, 2006, 07:43:35 am
Okay... My pictures don't meet the guidelines, but... I just wanted to post them anyway...
(http://home.arcor.de/mr_maniac/Bilder/fs2open/asteroid.png)
(http://home.arcor.de/mr_maniac/Bilder/fs2open/HTLherc.png)
(http://home.arcor.de/mr_maniac/Bilder/fs2open/PersPega.png)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Admiral Nelson on January 04, 2006, 08:35:02 am
I certainly don't xare. But then again, I never really did, either. :p

As for the picture, it is good, but it'd be better to get a less compressed version. Due to the sharp lines of the HUD and jumpnode, the compression shows up far too visibly.

The image isn't compressed;  the board will do that if your screen resolution is not great enough.
Direct link to shot (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/FS2/TimberSurrender.jpg)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Sandwich on January 05, 2006, 05:31:33 pm
The image isn't compressed;  the board will do that if your screen resolution is not great enough.
Direct link to shot (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/FS2/TimberSurrender.jpg)

Trust me, my screen resolution is plenty large (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,34326.msg711211.html#msg711211). :D

The image is compressed. It's a JPG. JPG's are always compressed. See?

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Admiral Nelson on January 05, 2006, 06:18:59 pm
Well, its mostly uncompressed :)

Original tga is here (http://www.fileh.com/NelsonAndBronte/TimberSurrender.zip), too large to host on photobucket wihtout compression.... ;)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Sandwich on January 06, 2006, 06:21:41 am
Ahh, this is good. :) Here:

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Mr_Maniac on January 06, 2006, 06:49:16 am
What about PNG?
It's smaller than TGA and lossless...
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Col. Fishguts on January 06, 2006, 08:07:19 am
No, not lossless, but much better.

If you want a lossless and compressed pic, use TGA wit RLE compression, or something similar.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Sandwich on January 06, 2006, 11:23:47 am
:rolleyes: PNG is lossless. The problem was that it was also a 900+ kb file. That JPG is sufficiently high quality IMO.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: BlackDove on January 06, 2006, 12:03:20 pm
Quote
(http://home.arcor.de/mr_maniac/Bilder/fs2open/HTLherc.png)

Head to head with the Medusa back on the second page, think I actually prefer this.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Col. Fishguts on January 06, 2006, 12:58:24 pm
:rolleyes: PNG is lossless.

Crikey, you learn something new every day. I really thought PNG was a variant of the JPEG algorithm.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: karajorma on January 06, 2006, 01:12:41 pm
PNGs closest relative is actually GIF (In terms of what it should be used for at least).
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Fineus on January 06, 2006, 01:33:33 pm
Quote
http://home.arcor.de/mr_maniac/Bilder/fs2open/HTLherc.png

Head to head with the Medusa back on the second page, think I actually prefer this.
I can't say I'm a fan of the little circles around the running lights on the Herc... although I know that's an effects thing and not any reflection on the shot itself.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Sandwich on January 06, 2006, 05:05:59 pm
PNGs closest relative is actually GIF (In terms of what it should be used for at least).

Err, no. :p There's two main forms of PNG as far as I know. One, PNG-24 (bit), is a completely lossless format, which also supports an alpha transparency channel. It's used for anything from pixel-perfect photos to screenshots that don't degrade. It is compressed, but not to the point where it starts to lose data. There's also PNG-8, which is very similar to GIF, in that it can have up to 256 colors. The compression is generally far superior to GIF compression; the only superiority GIF has over PNG is the animatability (the PNG version of which is .MNG, but I know next to nothing about that format).
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: karajorma on January 06, 2006, 05:09:29 pm
Yeah I was basically refering to PNG-8 there :) PNG was pretty much touted as a gif replacement when it first came out but the PC didn't really take it up due the dominance of IE at the time.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Taristin on January 06, 2006, 09:27:37 pm
3ds max offers a 48-bit PNG format :confused:
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Flipside on January 06, 2006, 11:00:09 pm
Lots of lovely pics, but to be honest guys, at some point, you need to stop debating and make a decision ;)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: WMCoolmon on January 06, 2006, 11:31:00 pm
The new pic is pretty good. I kind of liked them together, though, it really showed the progression of graphics. ;)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: CP5670 on January 07, 2006, 12:23:41 am
I like that green Fenris shot a lot, but it doesn't really show off the new FSO features. It would look better with environmental mapping and could definitely use some AA.

Lots of lovely pics, but to be honest guys, at some point, you need to stop debating and make a decision ;)

:yes:

I'm surprised this is still being debated actually. It's not like it's a really important decision. :D
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Fineus on January 07, 2006, 03:47:35 am
Trouble is... as soon as someone pics a picture - some shiny new feature comes out that makes it worth going back to the drawing board ;)
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Col. Fishguts on January 07, 2006, 04:20:58 am
You'll notice that the green Levi is already on the Wiki page.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Sandwich on January 07, 2006, 05:40:10 am
3ds max offers a 48-bit PNG format :confused:

You'll notice that in Photoshop > Image > Mode you can select 16 bits/channel as opposed to the default 8. a 48-bit PNG is simply a PNG that stores each RGB color channel using 16 bits of information for each pixel. So instead of 2563 (3 color channels of 28 possible colors per channel) = 16,777,216 colors, you have 65,5363 (3 color channels of 216 possible colors per channel) = 281,474,976,710,656 colors. :eek2:
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: karajorma on January 07, 2006, 05:45:16 am
Why? The human eye can only discern about a million colours anyway. Are we making webpages for aliens? :D
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Sandwich on January 07, 2006, 06:13:47 am
The eye may only be able to discern a certain amount of colors, but when graphics pros are processing images, applying all sorts of filters and such for publications, the image quality degrades more in 8bpc images as opposed to 16bpc, to the point where the difference is actually noticable in the final result.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Black Wolf on January 07, 2006, 07:56:31 am
You'll notice that the green Levi is already on the Wiki page.

:nod:

I put it up there, because

a) It's a wiki. If anyone has any major issues with it, they can change it as easily as I did, and

b) There's styill room for more shots, especially if we're going for featured article status (4 or 5 shots would be a maximum of course, but a good solid shot of, say, the Lucifer, or the Collosus, could easily be worked into the article.

Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Trivial Psychic on January 07, 2006, 12:20:13 pm
Too bad we can't create our own multi-layered image format to combine the main/transparent map, glowmap, and shine/env, all in one image, and use DDS type compression capabilities.  Granted, it would make for one massive file, and we'd probably need out own editor program to create them, but it would reduce the number of render passes.  Since some people feel like 8-bit is sufficient for glowmaps, while others prefer to keep the full color ranges available, there would need to be more than one format.  72-bit for the 8-bit glowmap, and 84-bit for the version with 24-bit glowmaps.  Granted, if/when we get normal maps enabled, we'd probably want to have a format for that later, so we'd need another 24-bit for that, so that'd make 98-bit for the 8-bit glowmap and 108-bit for the 24-bit glowmap.  Too bad it can't be done right?
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: Flipside on January 07, 2006, 12:59:25 pm
I think that is exactly what Bobboau is working on implementing in the future?
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: StratComm on January 07, 2006, 06:04:26 pm
I'm still intending to retake the cover-in-motion shot with the beam impact fix as soon as I have a chance.  So the debate isn't quite over yet.
Title: Re: Wikipedia needs a better FSO pic.
Post by: WMCoolmon on January 08, 2006, 02:34:09 am
Render passes are based on the operation that's being done, rather than the number of files being used. You could have all the channels in one file, or the all the channels in different files, you'd still need just as many passes.

Bobb's material system will let you do what TP is saying though (while reducing render passes).