PDA

View Full Version : a bit of selfpromotion



zed
08-31-2005, 01:38 PM
on the first day of spring my truelove gave to me
http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/CC/captain_courgette.html

Java Cool Dude
08-31-2005, 03:29 PM
Gave you a temporarily unavailable Yahoo page?
Go you :p

Java Cool Dude
08-31-2005, 06:18 PM
Oh the site is back up again, those screens are sweeeeet dude, two thumbs up :)

SeskaPeel
09-01-2005, 01:44 AM
Nice, you're now only missing light scattering, HDR, and a fancy GUI :)
And yes, you already said you were missing an artist. What most impress me is your ability to design not so LSD-like graphisms.

SeskaPeel.

ZbuffeR
09-01-2005, 02:33 AM
"The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer."
too bad

knackered
09-01-2005, 02:52 AM
uff, linux. Too bad, you could have been a contender.

JD
09-01-2005, 05:28 AM
These types of engines are really only good for night time environments. I don't even think that depthmaps are going to be that hot for outdoors. Radiosity is out as well. The best is either lightmaps or plain textures with projected shadowmaps. I like how morrowind4 has solved the problem and host of other games. Sometimes simplicity is the best cure. HDR reminds me of early lensflares and how overdone/unnatural they were. There is a game demo for new console that uses HDR and I can't even make out the terrain well because it's so dark. It's the one where you drive thru country side. I find it annoying to drive thru that in real life so why would I do it in a game?

knackered
09-01-2005, 09:03 AM
You don't have a point.
Of course depth maps work for outdoor scenes. Take a look at battlefield2 for a good example.
As for HDR, it looks good, it looks realistic, and in a driving simulation (which all driving games intend to be, to a greater or lesser degree) it adds to the realism. Also, I find it baffling to hear people comparing HDR/blooming to lens flare...it's a lazy comparison.
If you find it distasteful, then that's just a quirk of your taste, not a view shared by many. Most people think HDR is fantastic - I've done a survey at the local drugs rehabilition centre, which gave HDR the thumbs up...along with something called tamazipam.

zed
09-01-2005, 10:52 AM
These types of engines are really only good for night time environments. I don't even think that depthmaps are going to be that hot for outdoors.check out the videos, theres one without the sun + one with the sun both have total lighting ie doom3 on steroids, i believe the engine is able to render stuff very movielike in quality (maybe not the new starwars movie, but certainly older sci-fi stuff)

on a personal opinion some things that are pushed dont look good, eg the fullscreen glow that u see often used now, i find it doesnt improve the scene.
also fullscreen antialiasing given the choice of that vs running at a higher resolution ild take the higher resolution any day.

knackered
09-01-2005, 11:13 AM
what videos? so far all we've got is 6 pictures of your engine, and 2 pictures of Doom3 (for some bizarre reason).
Also, I'm not trying to be funny, but are you being ironic when you compare your engines meagre renderings to pre-rendered movie special effects?

zed
09-01-2005, 11:37 AM
what videos? so far all we've got is 6 pictures of your engine, and 2 pictures of Doom3 (for some bizarre reason).
Also, I'm not trying to be funny, but are you being ironic when you compare your engines meagre renderings to pre-rendered movie special effects?1/ u have to email me for them i would stick them on the site but as theyre about 5mb each the site couldnt handle the traffic (it cant even handle it now + its just a page with a couple of pictures)
2/ theres a saying (maybe not) basking in reflected light
3/ Yeah! It's like goldy and bronzy

Ysaneya
09-01-2005, 11:57 AM
Don't confuse HDRI + bloom, with the infamous and abused glow effect. The first one is pretty realistic and can look very good; in the second one, people generally blur the whole scene and add it back additively, and i'd definately agree it's the new "lens-flare" fashion. For example, Ghost Recon 3:
http://www.nofrag.com/images/000b2d/
http://www.nofrag.com/images/000b2c/

Y.

jwilliams
09-01-2005, 04:09 PM
Hey that does look pretty good. My first thought was that it looks a bit like plastic. But I read you comments about no artists etc, so I guess a good artist might fix that problem.

The other thing is that is a shame to have such terrible clouds in those scenes :) From what I see the lack of good sky is a major short coming.

Also you have a total lack of water. And finally, I think not supporting the windows platform is going to doom you :)

But it does look cool, although an actual playable demo would be nice

V-man
09-01-2005, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Ysaneya:
Don't confuse HDRI + bloom, with the infamous and abused glow effect. The first one is pretty realistic and can look very good; in the second one, people generally blur the whole scene and add it back additively, and i'd definately agree it's the new "lens-flare" fashion. For example, Ghost Recon 3:
http://www.nofrag.com/images/000b2d/
http://www.nofrag.com/images/000b2c/

Y.That's disgusting. The sunlit parts are burned.

zed
09-01-2005, 10:18 PM
http://www.nofrag.com/images/000b2c/
That's disgusting. The sunlit parts are burned.yeah it is quite bad and the best part it performs worse as well :)


The other thing is that is a shame to have such terrible clouds in those scenes :) From what I see the lack of good sky is a major short coming.
Also you have a total lack of waterclouds are just a skybox, so u can blame terragen, personally i thing they look quite good + there is water

though i believe everyones making a mistake and judging my game by the static screenshots, the game is a fast action shootemup.
its like comparing doom3 with myst


and i'd definately agree it's the new "lens-flare" fashionwith pixel shader water a close second

knackered
09-01-2005, 11:42 PM
yeah, and people using VBO to speed up rendering, it's soooo jumping the bandwagon.
Seriously, adding cinematic effects can only be a good thing. Bloom and over-exposure are even being used in movies and commercials now - so games are influencing the look of them, which can only be a good thing.

SeskaPeel
09-02-2005, 01:14 AM
I *hugely* prefer 800*600 FSAA compared to 1024*768 no FSAA ... and I have to agree with knackered with quite everything.

JD
09-02-2005, 05:02 AM
I meant the combination of direct per-pixel light + depth maps. Depth maps alone are fine, I don't have problem with them. However, trying to mimick global illumination or more precisely indirect lighting with direct per-pixel lighting doesn't do it for me. I don't have problem with gfx as long as they're not annoying and don't prevent me from squinting my eyes while playing the game.

Something else. All of us here concentrate too much on gfx while most games I've seen use artistic flare to bring out the best gfx for their particular style of game. Zed's game shows this perfectly. His terrain lighting is inappropriate for that game imo. It would be more colorful, better looking if he had used lightmaps that bake indirect lighting into it and make the terrain not black or high contrast looking. My sister would say "zed, why does the game looks so dark and depressing in some areas?". And after all, my sister's opinion, the one who could buy/play your game is more important than mine who ahhhhs at the pretty per-pixel lighting purely from gfx practitioner perspective.

knackered
09-02-2005, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by SeskaPeel:
... and I have to agree with knackered with quite everything.You said that almost apologetically. :)


Originally posted by JD:
Zed's game shows this perfectly. His terrain lighting is inappropriate for that game imo. It would be more colorful, better looking if he had used lightmaps that bake indirect lighting into it and make the terrain not black or high contrast looking. My sister would say "zed, why does the game looks so dark and depressing in some areas?". And after all, my sister's opinion, the one who could buy/play your game is more important than mine who ahhhhs at the pretty per-pixel lighting purely from gfx practitioner perspective.I agree entirely with you - good point, well made. This isn't taking anything away from what zed's achieved here, it looks excellent - but the lighting model in this particular environment is not appropriate.

zed
09-02-2005, 11:06 AM
youre still making the mistake of judging the game by static screenshots. this is a game that is desgned to be seen in motion. view the videos and then respond, until then your posts are illinformed.

also visually how do u merge the two methods lightmapping + depthmaps so they both look the same visual, ie u cant have a tree casting a different shadow to a person? (retorical question).

also what happens when the person walks behind a building's shadow thats casting a nice shadow onto the ground (with a lightmap) does it also cast this nice shadow onto the person.


Something else. All of us here concentrate too much on gfx while most games I've seen use artistic flare to bring out the best gfxyawn, i was waiting for someone to bring up this inevitable comment, check the the top of the webpage its openGRAPHICSl not openGAMEPLAYl

zed
09-02-2005, 01:44 PM
to satisfy everyone (and there sisters)
after racking my brains for hours ive finally solved the issue of it being to dark
http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/CC/03_09A.jpg
this marvoleous piece of programming skill was achieved by
changing
<SUN dir="1.9 0.7 0" />
to
<SUN dir="1.9 0.9 0" />
sheesh :)

jwilliams
09-02-2005, 02:11 PM
youre still making the mistake of judging the game by static screenshots. this is a game that is desgned to be seen in motion. view the videos and then respond, until then your posts are illinformed.
Zed, it kind of takes a lot of balls to post static screen shots of your program and then say people are making a mistake in judging it by the static screen shots. I mean that is all you provided so what else can I judge it by, and I don't really feel like going through the hassle of emailing you for a video.

So please post a video up or a demo, I'd like to judge it in its proper format.

JD
09-02-2005, 07:42 PM
Still doesn't look good imo. There is too much darkness vs. too much lighting. You are approaching game dev from gfx practitioner which is wrong as I've tried to tell you. The fact that you're concerned with right shadow casting tells me this. You have to start making tradeoffs vs. gfx accuracy. The self-shadowing and lighting that you do does not look good for your outdoor scene. Right now, it's like shining light into a dark room. The places hit with light are shiny while the places next to them are nearly or fully dark. This is the high black/light contrast that is wrong with using doom3 like engines for outdoors. I don't know how to better explain this to you. Goto gamespot.com and pull up some games screenshots of past games and study and learn from them.

You have to learn how to take in criticism and improve your game and not be defensive all the time. I could care less what you code up. I told you because I care. I could sit by like others and not tell you anything and you won't learn. You rather have that?

CrazyButcher
09-02-2005, 10:04 PM
while your stuff surely is cool, I as well think for outdoors, the classic shadow/lit approach isnt convincing. while you will get relative sharp shadows lets say in the desert or clear skies summer, normally there is too much scattering going on. soft shadows definetely dominate outdoor scenes.

hence I am with the people that said for outdoor precalced lightmaps are still quite important. just take trees or any vegetation, which normally should dominate outdoors, they will not give you such dark areas, like seeing every twig and leave as shadow.

clouds do a great deal of illumination, and of course reflection from ground/objects, simply as sun is too strong to be just absorbed by the first thing it hits on.

so for outdoors I guess some mixing of ambiocclusion maps/ lightmaps, with some sort of faked soft shadows (no techexpert, just thinking artist way) would look much more convincing. at least when I think of other "cheaper" shadow effects like just proj texturing, their "softness" looks more real, of course not unified and often not casted correctly on other objects, but well, I guess there is ways to achieve that as well.

bf2 while I havent played it yet, looked quite nice from the screenshots.

zed
09-02-2005, 10:54 PM
You have to learn how to take in criticism and improve your game and not be defensive all the timei can take valid critism fine + will readily admit to being wrong (as i have done on these forums before)

http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/exhibitA.jpg
http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/exhibitB.jpg
http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/exhibitC.jpg

though i have a feeling that even if i present photoreastic screenshots it wouldnt be enuf


he classic shadow/lit approach isnt convincing. while you will get relative sharp shadows lets say in the desert or clear skies summer, normally there is too much scattering going on. soft shadows definetely dominate outdoor scenes.
hence I am with the people that said for outdoor precalced lightmaps are still quite important. just take trees or any vegetation, which normally should dominate outdoors, they will not give you such dark areas, like seeing every twig and leave as shadowtrue shadows cast throught scattering objects (like trees) cast fuzzy shadows, though in my game all objects (so far) are hard object spaceships/buildings etc + they do cast hard shadows rember the sun is a long way away and the shadows it casts tend to be sharp.
heres my game engine from last year (same shadow technique but at a lower quality) rendering vegetation
http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/CC/futureA.jpg
http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/CC/futureB.jpg

case closed (by tommorrow i should have a video posted + then u can judge) the game in action :)

knackered
09-03-2005, 02:30 AM
Exhibit B + C are taken on a very clear day with the sun low in the sky. That's when you get sharp shadows.
But fair enough, you've put up a valid defense.
I do think your screenshots look brilliant though - just a bit hyper-real - which is what global illumination techniques are being constantly invented to solve. You do agree that some form of global illumination would make your game look more realistic, don't you?

Ysaneya
09-03-2005, 05:06 AM
Personnally, i think the terrain you had last year:
http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/CC/futureA.jpg

is looking much, much better than your recent one:
http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/exhibitA.jpg

I think it's all due to color balancing and your choice of textures. The colors in "futureA" are less bright/less saturated, and generally, more realistic.

Even the photos you posted (exhibitB and exhibitC) do not exhibit pure green grass, but brown-greenish grass.

Another thing that might be missing is the lack of variety in your textures. In exhibitA, it looks like you're only using two textures (grass and dirt), and you're interpolating them based on the slope of the terrain. If you add more textures (another type of grass and another type of dirt/rock), and subtely alter your interpolation conditions with some noise, it might look a lot nicer.

Y.

zed
09-03-2005, 11:42 AM
You do agree that some form of global illumination would make your game look more realistic, don't you?sure i agree realtime GI would be far better but we're years away from that (maybe with the cell + 1000cores u can do it)


Another thing that might be missing is the lack of variety in your texturesyes thats correct, with older stuff i was blending with more detail textures (4) vs now (2), the reasons being speed, since each light requires another pass on the terrain (ive found 4textures in gameplay == ~20%slower than 2 textures), during gameplay to be honest u dont notice the number of textures in the terrain, these and other things are only apparent with screenshots.
im not denying what im doing (shadowmaps) is faultless but the majority of issues that ppl have brought up (to dark) etc have nothing to do with the technique + can be easily changed with a few artistic parameter tweaks

knackered
09-03-2005, 01:46 PM
one thing I'm interested in, zed, if you don't mind: what technique are you using to generate your shadowmap frustum(s)? Is it perspective shadowmaps, or having a nest of shadow maps, each covering twice as much area as the previous one, centred around the viewpos?

ZbuffeR
09-03-2005, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by zed:

You do agree that some form of global illumination would make your game look more realistic, don't you?sure i agree realtime GI would be far better but we're years away from that (maybe with the cell + 1000cores u can do it)

And what about pre-baking only ambient GI (i.e. skydome lighting) ? That way you keep all the benefits of sharp and dynamic shadows for sun/spotlights etc, and nobody would complain anymore about 100% black parts in shadows :D
Costs one more texture access of course.

Trying to explain visually (thanks to google images):
pre-baked ambient lightmap (http://www.alias.com/eng/community/tutorials/maya_global_illumination/img/01_sky2.jpg)
pre-baked ambient + dynamic lighting for diffuse & specular (http://www.alias.com/eng/community/tutorials/maya_global_illumination/img/01_sky3.jpg)

ratta
09-03-2005, 03:50 PM
I looked carefully, but on the website there is no demo, oly screenshots! (not even the linux one as binary or source code)
BTW, i'm happy to see that i'm not the only one OpenGL'er that takes linux seriously, keep up the goo work! :)

Cheers.

zed
09-03-2005, 04:49 PM
finally online
http://rapidshare.de/files/4699884/04_09B.avi.html


one thing I'm interested in, zed, if you don't mind: what technique are you using to generate your shadowmap frustum(s)? Is it perspective shadowmaps, or having a nest of shadow maps, each covering twice as much area as the previous one, centred around the viewpos?at the moment a single standard shadowmap. ive trying a few perspective shadowmap things
*PSM - tried about 1.5 years ago couldnt get working based on the info in the paper (spent about a day on it as well)
*LispSM - got working in the game but dont use, seems to have cases where the result is worse than standard SMs
*the rest i havent tried, tsm (others), and aint to interested in to tell the truth what i have at the moment is good enuf. (im a person that works on the 90% good is ok, i dont want perfection as the final 10% usually takes longer to achieve than the first 90%, so instead of farting around getting that extra 10% i prefer to do something else, this is with everything i do, eg writing songs, recording guitar whatever. first take. bam thats it)

ive used the multiple frustum method in the past as well (and do recommend it esp if u just have the sun + maybe a few lights, but in my game with all the extra lights the extra performance hit isnt acceptable. though this might change in the future, as i havent started to optimize yet, finally got some time to add VBO support this morning :) , anyways its in the engine and will prolly be reenabled later on)


Costs one more texture access of coursenot to mention all the extra texture data.
My original idea was for the planet to be spherical and u fly around it, unfortunaly when i made a testcase this didnt work out gameplay wise as it took to long to fly around the planet.
It would of been nice to have a spining planet, one half in night and one half in the sun.
i still havent ruled out having night/day periods in the game which does rule out prebaking in the suns lightdata

andras
09-03-2005, 07:15 PM
the smoke is nice. it doesn't cast shadow though. :)

CrazyButcher
09-04-2005, 01:19 AM
in ambient occlusion you are not completely prebaking the sun, more or less the stuff that hardly ever catches light, as the images ZBuffer showed, the sun is in the second shot, not in the ambient first.

and you could "blacken" the ambient at nights easily too. however since you probably do your engine specifically for that game, with the strong sun... it may not be really worth it. but if you were to add more complex geometry, like not just simple convex stuff sticking out, but something like a big building complex, the larg "shadow" areas would then ruin the detail in the objects.
thats why artists never use just a single light, completely ruins shape perception, when the dark is just "flat".
for the same reason you will see that most artists will present their models with some GI or HDR lighting these days, as it just looks a lot better, and conveys shape better.

all this is just making something good even better, really you did a good job.

but think of how texture artists have prebaked lighting into the textures by just painting them as if they were lit, the days before normal mapping. then they had "shape" info still in the ambient parts of the model, surely the shadows were light independent but they still existed.

knackered
09-04-2005, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by zed:
finally online
http://rapidshare.de/files/4699884/04_09B.avi.html
looks very cool. Although I see how you can get away with using a single standard shadow map - your terrain is very small, and the viewpoint doesn't seem to ever get very close the surface to see the artefacts.

Vexator
09-04-2005, 07:58 AM
looks really impressive! the graphics don't fit together all the time, but you already said you're a coder not an artist :)

zed
09-04-2005, 10:58 AM
the smoke is nice. it doesn't cast shadow though.true translucent things (glass/smoke etc) dont cast shadows. i could add this with opaque shadows (requires only a small change with the billboards) + also have the shadows cast different strength shadows depending on their translucency eg smoke == 50% shadow glass == 10% but this will incur (i guess) a 20-30% performance hit. i may include this as an option when i get time later on.


but think of how texture artists have prebaked lighting into the textures by just painting them as if they were lit, the days before normal mapping. then they had "shape" info still in the ambient parts of the model, surely the shadows were light independent but they still existed.and it does often look good eg compare quake3 to doom3 (without normalmaps) and im betting quake3 looks better in screenshots, but in actual gameplay cause of light interaction doom3 feels more 'inmersive'


looks very cool. Although I see how you can get away with using a single standard shadow map - your terrain is very small, and the viewpoint doesn't seem to ever get very close the surface to see the artefacts.true but thats the nature of the game i want a small area think defender, if your game has a much larger area eg MMOPRG/flightsim with multiple frustums u can basically extend the area to the far clipplane.
funnily enuf if i replace more water with land the fps goes UP cause the water shader is more expensive (ill have to look into this)

azcoder
09-04-2005, 09:26 PM
Zed - I like it. It looks fun - although perhaps a little chaotic.. The smoke looks really cool....

I am also a huge Linux advocate.....you gotta post a demo to try.

Nice job!

:)

Toni
09-05-2005, 02:39 AM
Ok totally off topic but in that picture of yourself u look like sawyer in lost :)

knackered
09-05-2005, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by zed:
true but thats the nature of the game i want a small area think defender, if your game has a much larger area eg MMOPRG/flightsim with multiple frustums u can basically extend the area to the far clipplane.
funnily enuf if i replace more water with land the fps goes UP cause the water shader is more expensive (ill have to look into this)very handy that a small terrain is in the nature of the game ;)
so I take it anything over the water doesn't cast a shadow?
also, I take it the water is just a pixel shader - there's no geometry in it? (apart from the inevitable single quad)

[edit: removed unnecessary drivel]

zed
09-05-2005, 11:49 AM
very handy that a small terrain is in the nature of the game ;)design to your limitations


so I take it anything over the water doesn't cast a shadow?yeah they do water is just another object like the terrain building (goes through the same pipeline), if you notice some water/landscape without a shadow in the distance that'll be due i cast sun shadows up to 750m distance (the terrain is 1km x 1km)


also, I take it the water is just a pixel shader - there's no geometry in it? (apart from the inevitable single quad)theres multiple patches (u need to cause of the lights) the further away from the terrain the larger the patches are.

also WRT to shadows for whatever youre working on if its something where the viewpoint is close to the terrain eg FPS/car game then u might wanna look closer at a perspective SM technique.

theres actually an error somewhere (esp apparent with the water) the optimized build is ~30% slower than the slow build. (which is good news), im not zeroing memory somewhere of something i assume, ill track it down today (i love that stuff).

thanks everyone for the kind words, i dont know what the next milestone is


Ok totally off topic but in that picture of yourself u look like sawyer in lostyeah ive got a generic face (wacko stole my nose)
ppl look phyiscally similar when htey're young + old. (is it a pure physical thing or does metal play a part eg the dumbing down of values the ppl hold when they get older)

knackered
09-05-2005, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by zed:

very handy that a small terrain is in the nature of the game ;)design to your limitations
It must be so nice to be able to design a product around your current technical abilities. I sometimes consider getting into shareware just for that reason.
BTW, I currently do use perspective shadow maps, but am not particularly happy with them, but haven't the time to re-address the shadow thing...like you say, it's done, the manager's fairly happy with it, move on to the next thing. But I don't like leaving stuff 'half finished', as I consider a shadow pipeline with the problems/limitations of mine (and yours) is 'half finished'.