Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Col. Fishguts on March 31, 2007, 06:03:46 am
-
Amazing what you can do with 96kB of code:
(http://kk.kema.at/files/gfx/full1.jpg)
It's a sci-fi themed FPS shooter developed by some code wizards from the demo scene.
You can get the beta release of chapter 1 here: http://212.202.219.162/kkrieger#22 (http://212.202.219.162/kkrieger#22).
You need a rather powerful system to run it decently though.
.kkrieger requires a relatively high-end machine to run properly. To be
precise:
- A 1.5GHz Pentium3/Athlon or faster.
- 512MB of RAM (or more)
- A Geforce4Ti (or higher) or ATI Radeon8500 (or higher) graphics card
supporting pixel shaders 1.3, preferably with 128MB or more of VRAM.
- Some kind of sound hardware
- DirectX 9.0b
If you're interested how they squeeze the models and textures in that little code: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.kkrieger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.kkrieger)
-
Its been around a while but still its amazing how small it is
-
.theprodukkt are absolute geniuses.
:yes:
EDIT: I nearly forgot what that reminded me of:
http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=482
Lunar Outpost in 4k!
-
rather impressive considering elite was 72k
-
impressive, not the greatest, but then what are you expecting out of 96k? It's quite good, reminds me of a 32bit quake2 with hdr.
-
its good for showcasing what can be done with procedural graphics alone. it eems the move to procedural is progressing along at a really fast rate, theese new multicore processors are really changing the way things are programmed. i forsee a future where modelers are useless.
-
Cool, but all I get on my machine is sound... the video doesn't show. Oh, well, guess I'll have to wait for the full release. :sigh:
EDIT: Tried again, this time it worked for some reason... only thing I changed was that I had FRAPS running the second time, but I doubt that was the problem. :D Anyways, cool game, but I only got 7 fps, and the mouse couldn't be inverted, so it was kinda awkward... 96K, huh? :eek:
-
Yeah, the mouse isn't inverted(hasn't anyone flown a flight sim before?...stupid question asking here of all places, apparently the developers haven't played flight sims). It has standard controls, except i couldn't crouch my dude with C button. I had slow framerates as well. And actually i checked out their site where they said they had some problems with kkreiger was on some ati radeon 9xxx cards slow frame rate and really dark picture, and on nvidia geforce 4 cards was slow framerate and really dark picture.
Of course i had the slow framerate and really dark picture until i killed a certain enemy and the framerate went up a lot. And this was with my mighty 7600gt.
-
fps gamers are usually of the dumbed down variety and dunt understand what "pull up" means so im not supprised that its a point and click game.
but then again the game was designed to be as small as possible, that means not much room custom control code . notice the lack of config files. they just wanted something post players would be familiar with. in fps games people who play inverted are few and far between.
-
Ya, I was lost without the mouse invert feature... kept staring at the ground! :lol: And with my BFG 6200OC 256 & Athlon XP 3200+ and 2GB RAM, I got about 9fps. :sigh:
-
Did you guys realize that any screenshots you take of the game are going to be bigger than the game itself.
-
Until you re-compress them into JPG... depending on the options you use. Here's compression level 15: (the default IIRC is 80) ... source BMP from FRAPS was 2.25 MB; I used IrfanView to save as JPG
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Wow, this is very impressive. Many of the textures are larger than in most modern games and it still runs at a constant 85fps. The level is also much longer than I thought. Commercial game developers could stand to learn a few things from these guys.
-
:wtf: you get 85 fps!! grrrr... :lol:
-
Ran great on my Radeon 9550. =) Decent game, for 90k, but for some reason movement was a bit disorienting. Graphics were great, but a little bland.
Modelers will never be useless. Modeling will always provide better quality and less buggieness. I mean, they even included special "spawn at" keys just so you could un-stick yourself if the collision code stuck you somewhere.
I liked the 96k music player/music better. That was sweet.
-
either way modeling will become much more technical. for example rather than moddeling a whole tree, you will model 3 or 4 leaves, a few twigs, a trunk, some brances, ect. and the game engine will assemble it for you, with suffieteint randomness as not too look like any other tree in the game. rather than modeling a car or a ship, you would model car parts and ship parts, and the engine can assemble them on the fly. it just seems to be the way things will go right now.
-
I think you have it right there for objects Nuke, but environments will always be more difficult to procedurally model, and probably onl worth the effort for large (1000 sq. miles plus) outdoor environments.
-
Until you re-compress them into JPG... depending on the options you use. Here's compression level 15: (the default IIRC is 80) ... source BMP from FRAPS was 2.25 MB; I used IrfanView to save as JPG
Of course if you want to cheat and make it smaller on purpose as opposed to not adding any compression......it's supposed to be depending on the options you wont use, image conversion is allowed, but not if you add any extra jpg compression.
-
By definition, converting to JPG is compressing a BMP (and converting it, of course). :p Default quality/compression setting is 80.
EDIT: :p Default quality (converted to JPG using MS pbrush, which has no settings for changing compression):
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
(http://www.vuze.com/magnet/72GCUU33EGYG6VXYOANECTMNBT7PUZEY.jpg) (http://www.vuze.com/details/72GCUU33EGYG6VXYOANECTMNBT7PUZEY.html)
OK, who saw this coming? :lol:
PS: I had to put a 1MB dummy file in there for VUZE to take it.
-
I think you have it right there for objects Nuke, but environments will always be more difficult to procedurally model, and probably onl worth the effort for large (1000 sq. miles plus) outdoor environments.
It works for Oblivion and it has much less than 1000 sq. miles :p
-
Default quality/compression setting is 80.
So this means your still adding extra compression :lol:
Default settings are culprits too :D
-
Nope, that's the default value set by the program. Unless you want to say you're only going to allow Windows Bitmap. :p
EDIT: IIRC, anything above 80 increases file size out of proportion to the quality gained.
-
Perhaps i am saying that. The whole lossy compression mumbo jumbo got my panties in a twist you see. Hell the reason i save in my images in png's or sometimes jpg's is because they're appropriate of which i know everyone here understands this. I also do a whole bunch of photo imaging so umm my final picture to be saved as a png or jpg with lossy compression? Get out of here with that notion plz :ick: You guessed it, colossuses downtime has no extra compression added besides the fact that it was saved as a png(i make that compression statusbar go down to 0 for no compression at all). People throw images around on the internet like they're nothing and throw them around with no thought either, low compression this, high compression this, at least the **** i'm going to have is no extra compression added besides being saved as a png. And you can save lossless compression jpg's and png's (pretty much that just adds no compression besides the image being in a new format).
And then on audio formats. I like flac because it's not lossy, but it's also not as small as mp3's. Also i will stay away from flac in the time being unless i owned music cd's to rip them into flac. The next thing i need to do is download some flac from somebody converted his entire mp3 collection into flac. No extra quality gained by converting mp3's to flac, in fact i'd say ****ing retarded. The next thing any of us needs to do is download the end product of some guy converting all of his wma's to mp3's (most wma's are encoded at 64kbps offering near cd quality sound and half the size of a 128kbps mp3) and hear something that sounds like a low quality retard trying to say some serious ****(the day my friend converted his eminem wma's to mp3....WHY not just rip that same cd again but this time as mp3!!). This just reminds me of when people rip cd's with windows media player 9(wmp9 only offered wma ripping). And then that same person wonders why those ripped files wont play on their mp3 player...oblivious people. I hate it when people don't do **** properly. Ogg versus mp3, both very similar but ogg uses more processing power so when you're using a mobile audio device, you should stick to mp3 for longer battery life. Wma versus mp3, wma can be encoded at the same bitrate of an mp3 (offering the same audio quality) or half the size of an mp3 (offering what is almost the same audio quality), you can also fit more than twice the music on a mobile audio player with wma. While fitting 2x the songs on a mobile audio player with just under cd quality sound, wma takes more processing power so yet again to have longer battery life stick with mp3 (mp3 still has the low power usage reign). Anyway what's clear here is that ogg is nice and so is mp3, wma (i dare you to convert one of your mp3's to 64kbps wma, and you might be suprised how cool wma's are) is even nicer, but mp3 is just that lower power usage bastard. I don't care if wma is made by mikeysoft they're great, and overall more useful than mp3's and ogg's, and even offering smaller sizes at better quality than realplayer format. You want to stream audio or video off the internet with lower bandwidth with higher quality content, wma does that for you. Ever since windows media formats came out they've been giving realplayer a serious run for its money, and wma is doing great in the mobile audio market as well...all i expect from a perfectly great format.
Anyway you can see why my panties are in a twist all i get to use that has benefits right now is lossy compression formats, and more than that, i deal with people who are being stupid about them. Just use what is appropriate for the situation with some basic research :pimp:
-
i go buy a general rule of thumb: it is bad to convert from one lossy format to another. i really don't care about noise so much as efficiency. noise only makes stuff sound trookvltgr1mnekro, which i like anyway. i like as much quality, for as little size as possible. converting something in a lossy format, which is full of fuzz (zoom in real close on a jpeg if you dont believe me, and the same goes for audio). fuzz is just alot of random noise added on top of the original data. this randomness breaks down the redundant patterns which compression uses to make things smaller. this fuzz adds complexity to the image/audio/whatever. this extra complexity causes all kinds of havok for the compression algorithms, making them less efficient. as a result you get files with more noise, and theyre bigger because its hard to compress noisy data. lossless formats are nice. and maybe one day when a few hundred xb of data can fit into a small glass cube, we can actually avoid lossy formats all together. for now just use the formats that are called for.
-
Well I hope games companies start using stuff like this or Carmack and his stupid Mega Textures will mean we're installing games of 16 DVDs.
What we need is a shift. I'm sure by now we should have the tech to build a RealTime Raytracer... then you won't need so many textures! Just have a metric arseloads of polys ;)
-
and to ever think ut2004 is 5.5 GB... :ick:
-
Well I hope games companies start using stuff like this or Carmack and his stupid Mega Textures will mean we're installing games of 16 DVDs.
What we need is a shift. I'm sure by now we should have the tech to build a RealTime Raytracer... then you won't need so many textures! Just have a metric arseloads of polys ;)
those megatextures just seems like theyre doing subdivision on the things, it cuts em up as much as it needs to in order to have as much surface rendered in one pass as possible. normally yuoud have to do a set number of maps to cover that area. problem with that is the max size a texture can be varies from card to card. only thing that carmack is really doing is automating the subdivision process so that the subdivision size is as big as possible, thuis optimizing performance and making sure the video card is utilizing its full capability. this is good news when your video card supports textures up to 8192^2. its just another cool way to get every ounce of speed out of htl.