Author Topic: What do you want? (Read 4642 times)

penguin · **Reply #20 on:** August 27, 2002, 11:46:11 pm

Quote

Originally posted by zinjo
What I want is a better multi-play capabilities. PXO and the other game servers are fine, but I'd rather see an update. I truly like the idea of each system being capable of hosting as a server. Similar to JK2:Outcast, Wolfenstein, et al. Where there is one online "control" server that links all "personal" servers together. With more and more broadband users, this is the evolution of online gaming.
The other feature is improved peer to peer multi-play or IP to IP play, allowing direct gaming between players.

Actually, this is how PXO works. It's essentially p2p, PXO just has the list of currently active games.

But PXO support is missing in the released source

I've taken some steps towards getting a substitute, but we're not there yet...

Grey Wolf · **Reply #21 on:** August 27, 2002, 11:51:16 pm

Quote

Originally posted by LtNarol
I was thinking about smoother gameplay, I have a 550mhz pc with 128mg SDram (though almost no L2ram) and mine slows down quite a bit after a couple of missions, especially on medium or high detail levels...so if theres a way to make this engine any more efficient (doubtful), then that would be the biggest help I think.

That's strange. I have a truly crappy video card (TNT2 Model 64), and it runs just fine with everything on high. What resolution are you using?

RandomTiger · **Reply #22 on:** August 28, 2002, 04:03:31 am

The TNT2 is a great graphics card, mine served me well. Sure glad I didnt buy a crappy voodoo card like everyone said I should.

Anyway, what happened here? I thought this thread was dead!

The freespace engine isnt designed to take advantage of most of the cool stuff in the new 3D cards like hardware 3D trans and light so really a TNT2 is just fine. This will change when we get DX8 going.

Nico · **Reply #23 on:** August 28, 2002, 06:51:24 am

Quote

Originally posted by RandomTiger
More graphical effects: What do you want and are you willing to wait for the DX8 upgrade. I see some people are in favour of 3D effects but I wouldnt abandon 2D yet, its easier and cheaper and tends to look better as well.

what do I want: bump maps would be nice ( and a first for a space sim ), reflection maps would be cool( ala Iwar2 ), self illumination maps is A MUST DO, coz first it's so handy you can't even imagine, and second coz it should already have been done since it's already in the damn code ( FS in glide mode has that, and the entry is still in the tbl ).
would I wait for the DX8 upgrade: don't have much choice do I? still I think the self illu map should already be back, but anyway.

about an engine upgrade: do something about the Zbuffer, dunno, bring back the descent1 one

The Zbuffer sux, try any intersecting polys and you'll know why. Having a good Zbuffer would allow for models with less polys ( two intersecting boxes use much less polys than a box with two faces extruded/bevelled/extruded... ), so better performances, so more ships, faster on slow machines, and everybody would be happy. Voila.

RandomTiger · **Reply #24 on:** August 28, 2002, 07:18:06 am

As a space sim its a perfect choice for bumpmapping, no ground or walls to worry about, just the ships and it will look great. If DX8 happens, bumpmapping WILL happen, the other things should be easy enough as well. Will need to get 'real' lighting in there first though

I know nothing about how freespace uses its Z buffer but I imagine its not making use of the new W buffer system that will most likely provide a better result on the cards that support it.

But as a general rule, avoid intersecting polys, there is no good, clean solution to that. Seriously, if you dont believe me look at the way the directX pipeline works with on card buffers and then look into polygon clipping. Owch!

CP5670 · **Reply #25 on:** August 28, 2002, 10:20:00 am

The main thing I would like is improved AI, followed closely by an optional newtonian physics system.

Any new graphics extras woulf also be great.

Nico · **Reply #26 on:** August 28, 2002, 10:44:50 am

Quote

Originally posted by RandomTiger
But as a general rule, avoid intersecting polys, there is no good, clean solution to that. Seriously, if you dont believe me look at the way the directX pipeline works with on card buffers and then look into polygon clipping. Owch!

I know nothig about programming, but the freespace engine comes from the descent one, wish used a lot of intersecting polys for the bots, and that really ease the polycount, believe me. for a more recent game, take Iwar2 for exemple

RandomTiger · **Reply #27 on:** August 28, 2002, 11:13:53 am

Well, you program it and you can have what you want.
Otherwise I will use my own discression if I have to solve that problem.

It could always be refined later. Details like that are going to come second place to actually getting the new engine up and running.

Nico · **Reply #28 on:** August 28, 2002, 04:54:05 pm

the thread title asks what I want, so I tell what I want

anyway, what I really want is just the self ilum colours back

RandomTiger · **Reply #29 on:** August 29, 2002, 07:02:51 am

Quote

Originally posted by RandomTiger
It could always be refined later. Details like that are going to come second place to actually getting the new engine up and running.

However the DX8 upgrade will be happening on a different code branch so its unlikely you will be forced to use an the engine thats not everything you want it to be at that time.

Redfang · **Reply #30 on:** September 01, 2002, 10:51:26 am

DX9 upgrade would be better... DX9 will come out after a month or two and there is already beta out. And no games support DX9 for two or so years. Though that must mean it isn't easy job to make DX9 engine.

DX8 (8.1 is better) isn't easy either, DaveB has said that.

LtNarol · **Reply #31 on:** September 01, 2002, 11:32:02 am

Additions I'd like to see:

First: a sexp to turn control of the player's fighter over to an ai that can follow orders given in sexps or departure settings. This will allow the player to exit a mission in a hangar or switch to autopilot (use in conjunction with the is-key-pressed sexp) and fly a set of waypoints.

Second, and more difficult; probably impossible at this stage: planar based shockwaves. By this i mean so that the shockwave animation is rendered on a set plain instead of always facing the player. This will allow the player to fly over the shockwave even though still getting hit with the blast but it would look a lot better than the shockwave always facing the player. Even better would be if the plain on which the shockwave(s) could be set in a pof editor, location and orientation.

RandomTiger · **Reply #32 on:** September 02, 2002, 04:44:40 am

Quote

Originally posted by Redfang
DX9 upgrade would be better... DX9 will come out after a month or two and there is already beta out. And no games support DX9 for two or so years. Though that must mean it isn't easy job to make DX9 engine.

Hopefully DX9 will be more or less the same as DX8.
I certainly dont want to program with a beta, it might have bugs.
Your right though. I guess I should do some research into what changes DX9 offers / requires.

Quote

Originally posted by Redfang
DX8 (8.1 is better) isn't easy either, DaveB has said that.

Tell me about it!

News:

Poll

What do you want?