[Mehrpack]

shadow isnt shadow.

hi,
ok.

you see in two games shadows, they look like shadows, but the programmcode behind the simulation of that shadows isnt the same.
one shadow use way 1 to got render and the other shadow the total different way 2.

thats i mean with, shadow isnt shadow.
its look maybe like the same, but isnt the same.

@chris: nope, stencil shadows are limit too, and i see very often in game with stencil shadows problem with the shadows itsself, like climbing.

and stencil shadows cost performence too, and if i remember they are limited, because thats a fixed function.
the first good shadows came up with the shaders and there with 2.x.

@dabrain: i think with shadersupport, its easier to implant shadows and i think the shader support can use to give performence free.

Mehrpack

[Bobboau]

ok, the thing with the shadows is, with the way our graphics abstraction is organised now, it would be a major headache to deal with the stencel buffer, and the shadow geometry. the changes I had in mind for the materials system would have made these problems disapear.

if people would be almost as happy with objects only shadowing themselves that would make the project vastly easier, as the majority of the hacitry I did was in makeing every object in game draw it'self four times (once full lit, once for the back of the shadow once for the front of the shadow and once for the in-shadow geometry) you have to draw everything, then draw everything again, then draw everything AGAIN, then, you have to draw it all over one last time.

now I want to do some reorganiseation of the graphics abstraction, to make the capabilities of both APIs a bit more available. but I'm not going to be able to do that untill after the next release.

[gonz]

Hi Bobboau

Have not seen you posting here for a while, had thought that real life had taken you away from the scp.

Will the material system will be implemented at some point or has work on that ceased? The screenies of the beta material system looked fantastic, it would be a shame if nothing ever came of it.

[IPAndrews]

Would doing it the elegant way (materials system) make it any quicker?

[Kaine]

if people would be almost as happy with objects only shadowing themselves that would make the project vastly easier, as the majority of the hacitry I did was in makeing every object in game draw it'self four times (once full lit, once for the back of the shadow once for the front of the shadow and once for the in-shadow geometry) you have to draw everything, then draw everything again, then draw everything AGAIN, then, you have to draw it all over one last time.

I know i could live with self-shadowing only. Even just self-shadowing on the larger ships (ie not fighters, too many of them around and moving too fast to appreciate the effect anyway)

[A2597]

I've little problem with self shadowing only...

but to be honest, how much of a hog can it be? Flight sims in the mid 1990s had shadows. Nowadays it's soft shadowing with multiple light sources that fades naturally at a distance thats the rage...simple scanline

and the graphical improvment of them is awesome. Just simple hard shadows, purhaps 80% opacity from a single light source and voila, would look awesome.   (Of course, I am not a coder, I'm a graphics guy...)

Also, is the aim of the source code project to make a game where everyone can crank the settings to max and get playable framerates, or to improve the capabilities of the engine? Because there are many people out there with ATI x850 graphics cards, and dua core 64bit processors with 2 gigs of ram, thats actually becoming the new minimum specs for next gen games. IMHO, the source code project should be making advances for those people, with the options of turning those options off for lower spec cards. older PC's are not capable of running next gen stuff, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be enabled. (And as DaBrain stated, gives even the coders something to look forward to on an upgrade)


All that said, please don't think I'm nagging for it to be implemented NOW. Obviously, I'd be extatic if that were possible, but you guys are doing a GREAT job on updating the engine, like I said, I'm not a coder, but I DO know how much work it is. And I thank you for doing all that work!

[Chris B. Yond]

Because there are many people out there with ATI x850 graphics cards, and dua core 64bit processors with 2 gigs of ram.

I really doubt that. Just because you happen to have that kind of money you think you can make demands here. Let the guys work at their pace.

is the aim of the source code project to make a game where everyone can crank the settings to max and get playable framerates, or to improve the capabilities of the engine?

The first. Because we need people actually playing this thing.

[Colonol Dekker]

Its actually to improve the capabilites of the engine,
Because the retail FS2 had the option of maxing detail etc..

[Shade]

The problem with shadows isn't that they're too expensive. That's what graphics options are for, so you can turn things off if they are too much for a particular system. The problem is that implementing them takes a coder who has the time, inclination, knowledge and currently-not-too-terribly-annoyed-at-people-assuming-it-will-be-easyness to do it.

[Colonol Dekker]

I gotta admit, i'm really not that bothered about the shadows, Sure it'll be fancy but will anyone use them effectively in campaigns, will people have time to appreciate them amidst combat.
etc.........

[Zacam]

Not everybodies migration to newer hardware happens at the rate that said new hardware happens.

At the current moment, for example, I'm on a Semperon (socket 462) 2400+ (1.67 Ghz) with 1gb DDR3200 and an 8x Sapphire Radeon 9600XT, Audigy 2 SE and IDE HDD's. I'm just now laying in to get parts for a 939 X2 3800+, PCI-E e-VGA 7600, 2gb DDR3200 and SATA HDD's. It's roughly $500+ (counting 3rd Party HS solutions and a new Power Supply). Can I really afford it? No, but I have different circumstances than most so I'm doing it one piece at a time.

Secondly, I have yet to see a single new game MINIMUM spec that states those requirements. I have yet to see it as a minimum spec for any game yet to be released. I could see it as a RECOMMENDED, but not as a minimum.

And for someone starting out with little in the way of income over expenses and no computer trying to settle in to one, even the Ars Technica budget box may be outside thier budget. And to some fashion, the SCP need's to avail itself to anyone who can atleast meet somewhere around or slightly above the recommended system specs for FS2. (Or atleast degrade nicely enough to make itself available to such a machine.)

Colonol Dekker: A good pointm however it would be noticed, that I can guarantee. I have no idea how many times I got creamed when I first started running the SCP vs. Retail because I kept stopping to look at all the interesting shiney improvements. Sadly, I'm now taking most of them for granted when I'm playing, so I have to remind myself (usually by launching a session in Retail mode, or the Retail EXE) that they're there.

[IPAndrews]

Look when it comes to expence and specs Shade hit the nail on the head. If your system isn't up to the shading you would be able to turn them off. So that's really not an issue. As for Shade's comment about people assuming it'll be easy? I don't think anyone is assuming that. Neither are we nagging. Just expressing an interest in / enquiring about the possibility of. If it's upsetting you guys though then I for one will shut up and more onto a different topic.

[karajorma]

It's also worth remembering that although shadows will look good in the engine they'll look great in screenshots So when pimping out the engine to new people we'll have yet one more reason why they should realise that this isn't last century's Freespace any more.

[Colonol Dekker]

I'm not knocking it, my comp is full of beef

Spoiler:

(tick tock elves or elctronics would be more help)

it could probably handle it,  As long as its scalable i should be fine. As you say though the coders have their own stuff to do before a hobby as this can be considered though.

All in all, i play this arguemnt swiss and stay neutral.

[Shade]

As for Shade's comment about people assuming it'll be easy? I don't think anyone is assuming that. Neither are we nagging. Just expressing an interest in / enquiring about the possibility of. If it's upsetting you guys though then I for one will shut up and more onto a different topic.

I wasn't referring to this thread in particular in that comment, so no need to worry in that regard It just happens to be one of the main factors in whether something gets done or not, as it is a free-time project and one still needs to be in the mood regardless of other factors, and that particular thing is one of the main reasons why one might not be in the mood for coding.

[IPAndrews]

Shuoldn't you code it anyway? Look at your name?   

[Shade]

Wish I could. But I only satisfy two of the four criteria

I have inclination and I'm not annoyed, but I have zero time at the moment (it's been week since I even gave the code any more than a cursory look. Not even had time to finish many of the wiki updates I was working on a month ago) and I have no knowledge whatsoever about working with the stencil buffer, or indeed 3d graphics in general. I'm more of a SEXP and minor feature guy, when I have the time for it anyway...

I'm learning though. So maybe in 2-3 years if noone has gotten around to it by then

[IPAndrews]

Just in time for Machina Terra's release then.

[A2597]

Crysis, due later this fall requires it, and reccomends dual core.
I guess it's just that my main hangout these days is a tech forum, so I see of people with kicking rigs to play games like Oblivion, Crysis, etc.

Myself? Nooo..thats not my rig. my poor rig is a Athlon XP 2800+, 1 gig ram, and a Radeon 9600 Pro 256MB (Was a 9800 Pro, but I burned it out)

Even on my current rig, which is starting to show it's age though, I can crank Freespace 2 SCP and it runs quite fast. Obviously I know most people are not in a situation to update frequently, but it just seems like thee purpose should be to add features for current and future systems, rather then systems a few years old. 

I agree it should be available to people with PC's the meet the specs for FS2, but that is why there is an option to turn on or off features in the launcher. But really, Freespace 2 is 7 years old now, can we really keep system requirement that are litterally hundreds of times slower than current systems as a limit when trying to add new features? 

(As for coding, I do web work...LOL)

[wolf]

At the current moment, for example, I'm on a Semperon (socket 462) 2400+ (1.67 Ghz) with 1gb DDR3200 and an 8x Sapphire Radeon 9600XT, Audigy 2 SE and IDE HDD's. I'm just now laying in to get parts for a 939 X2 3800+, PCI-E e-VGA 7600, 2gb DDR3200 and SATA HDD's. It's roughly $500+ (counting 3rd Party HS solutions and a new Power Supply). Can I really afford it? No, but I have different circumstances than most so I'm doing it one piece at a time.

Secondly, I have yet to see a single new game MINIMUM spec that states those requirements. I have yet to see it as a minimum spec for any game yet to be released. I could see it as a RECOMMENDED, but not as a minimum.

Already mentioned here, Crysis:

Minimum Requirements

CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
Graphics: Nvidia 6600/X800GTO (SM 2.0)
RAM: 768Mb/1Gb on Windows Vista
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 256k+
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX9.0c with Windows XP

And for someone starting out with little in the way of income over expenses and no computer trying to settle in to one, even the Ars Technica budget box may be outside thier budget. And to some fashion, the SCP need's to avail itself to anyone who can atleast meet somewhere around or slightly above the recommended system specs for FS2. (Or atleast degrade nicely enough to make itself available to such a machine.)

And just what forbids these people to run fs2_open without every available switch turned on?