What are you working on? V4 (HTML ISN'T PROGRAMMING) - Developers

[img]http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4577/terragrafics1.jpg[/img] Not much to look at right now, and the textures are a bit shitty, but they were thrown together. I worked in a lot of optimizations behind the drawing and the code. Next is to ditch the fixed-function pipeline. I'm all set to start implementing phong shading, normal maps, and then it's on to multi-passes with shadow-mapping and HDR and SSAO. One thing at a time.

[QUOTE=r4nk_;18143469]Thanks, we are going for a cartoon-ish look, but I could never bring myself to make a cel-shaded game. Maybe you are an undiscovered metal head \m/ Here's the test: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiMEpOJa6xc[/media][/QUOTE] Goddamn I love that song :D

[QUOTE=Cathbadh;18145735]-jaggies- Not much to look at right now, and the textures are a bit shitty, but they were thrown together. I worked in a lot of optimizations behind the drawing and the code. Next is to ditch the fixed-function pipeline. I'm all set to start implementing phong shading, normal maps, and then it's on to multi-passes with shadow-mapping and HDR and SSAO. One thing at a time.[/QUOTE] Please tell me AA is in that list.

[QUOTE=gparent;18149278]Please tell me AA is in that list.[/QUOTE] On higher resolutions, I've noticed AA isn't really needed. Like that's like 800*600 of course it's going to look crap with like 10 poly models and crappy textures.

[QUOTE=Jawalt;18150156]On higher resolutions, I've noticed AA isn't really needed. Like that's like 800*600 of course it's going to look crap with like 10 poly models and crappy textures.[/QUOTE] AA is needed at any resolution.

[QUOTE=gparent;18149278]Please tell me AA is in that list.[/QUOTE] Whatever, dude. That's a one-line change to my code.

[QUOTE=Robber;18150832]AA is needed at any resolution.[/QUOTE] That's stupid. The idea of AA is to make it seem as if the colors are blending, like what happens on higher resolutions naturally. Our eyes don't need AA. That's an extreme example as our eyes are estimated at like 500-something megapixels, but at the resolutions newer video cards can handle the difference between AA and no AA is becoming minimal.

[QUOTE=Jawalt;18151314]Our eyes don't need AA.[/QUOTE] Obviously. Eyes aren't sampling sensors. They are quite analog and there is no high-frequency aliasing with analog sensing. Take a signal-processing class.

You can't deny the difference between those two: [IMG_thumb]http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/FPRobber/Unigine/00008.jpg[/IMG_thumb] Kinda ugly and pixelated [IMG_thumb]http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/FPRobber/Unigine/00012.jpg[/IMG_thumb] Smooth and wonderful Maybe it's just me because my monitor has huge pixels or something.

[QUOTE=Cathbadh;18151424]Obviously. Eyes aren't sampling sensors. They are quite analog and there is no high-frequency aliasing with analog sensing. Take a signal-processing class.[/QUOTE] Wow, I don't know how you want me to respond to that. What I said is more or less correct though, the more pixels showing an edge, the less the jaggedness is percieved. I'm not going to get into whatever you said, because I as just about anyone else have no idea what that means, and it's mostly irrelevant to the concept I presented. [editline]01:47PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Robber;18151476]You can't deny the difference between those two: [IMG_thumb]http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/FPRobber/Unigine/00008.jpg[/IMG_thumb] Kinda ugly and pixelated although it's displayed without up/downscaling. [IMG_thumb]http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/FPRobber/Unigine/00012.jpg[/IMG_thumb] Smooth and wonderful Maybe it's just me because my monitor has huge pixels or something.[/QUOTE] Only place where I see any difference at all is the trees. They're both also fairly low-resolution.

[QUOTE=Jawalt;18151510]Wow, I don't know how you want me to respond to that. What I said is more or less correct though, the more pixels showing an edge, the less the jaggedness is percieved. I'm not going to get into whatever you said, because I as just about anyone else have no idea what that means, and it's mostly irrelevant to the concept I presented. [editline]01:47PM[/editline] Only place where I see any difference at all is the trees.[/QUOTE] Yeah well the higher your resolution the bigger your monitor tends to be and therefore the farther away from it you're sitting, blending the pixels in your eyes more smoothly. There's correlation, but no causality. More pixels doesn't mean smoother edges.

The only difference I see is because i'm staring at it for ages. I think AA only really matters for screenshots.

[QUOTE=ThePuska;18151563]Yeah well the higher your resolution the bigger your monitor tends to be and therefore the farther away from it you're sitting, blending the pixels in your eyes more smoothly. There's correlation, but no causality. More pixels doesn't mean smoother edges.[/QUOTE] Not really, the monitors have been staying around the same size since the 90s, right now I'm playing on a CRT with a larger screen than most monitors but it only supports 1024x768. What.

[QUOTE=Jawalt;18151631]Not really, the monitors have been staying around the same size since the 90s, right now I'm playing on a CRT with a larger screen than most monitors but it only supports 1024x768. What.[/QUOTE] Then you must be half-blind if you can't see a difference in those two screenshots.

[IMG]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q17/Mattayu/sample2.png[/IMG] Approx 17x17 resized to 50x50 [IMG]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q17/Mattayu/sample1.png[/IMG] A line at native 50x50 Both of these lines are identical in angle and drawing style, just one is of a lesser 'resolution'. Now tell me that resolution doesn't have shit to do with AA.

[QUOTE=Jawalt;18151743][IMG]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q17/Mattayu/sample2.png[/IMG] Approx 17x17 resized to 50x50 [IMG]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q17/Mattayu/sample1.png[/IMG] A line at native 50x50 Both of these lines are identical in angle and drawing style, just one is of a lesser 'resolution'. Now tell me that resolution doesn't have shit to do with AA.[/QUOTE] For whatever reason you're assuming that pixels get bigger with smaller resolutions. Or are you perhaps arguing that if you stretch images they start to look like shit? Because I don't think there's anything to argue there.

[QUOTE=Jawalt;18151510]Wow, I don't know how you want me to respond to that. What I said is more or less correct though, the more pixels showing an edge, the less the jaggedness is percieved. I'm not going to get into whatever you said, because I as just about anyone else have no idea what that means, and it's mostly irrelevant to the concept I presented.[/QUOTE] Irrelevant? I don't think the mathematical concept of aliasing is irrelevant at all. After all, your suspicions are completely correct. I'm just trying to explain exactly [I]why[/I] they are correct. Aliasing is an error that comes up in signal processing from discrete sampling. (In graphics, this means sampling in space with each sample being a pixel, but in signals processing, it is usually a 1D signal sampled in time) And you are right. Increasing the sampling resolution (i.e. frequency) will spread the sample bands further out from each other. Aliasing occurs when the sample bands overlap and you end up with more high-frequency content than you intended. To avoid aliasing with a 1D time-sampled function, you need to sample at twice the highest frequency found in the original analog function. Translate this concept to a 2D space-sampled function (i.e. computer graphics) you need a resolution of twice the size to resolve the smallest feature to avoid aliasing.

[QUOTE=ThePuska;18151839]For whatever reason you're assuming that pixels get bigger with smaller resolutions.[/QUOTE] That's exactly what happens. If you have a screen, and put a high resolution on it, the pixels will be smaller than a large resolution on the same screen.

Back to [url]http://welovebrew.kerplunc.com/add_brew[/url], finalizing input and so on.

[QUOTE=ThePuska;18151563]More pixels doesn't mean smoother edges.[/QUOTE] No, but smaller pixels does.

[QUOTE=Robber;18151476]You can't deny the difference between those two: [IMG_thumb]http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/FPRobber/Unigine/00008.jpg[/IMG_thumb] Kinda ugly and pixelated [IMG_thumb]http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/FPRobber/Unigine/00012.jpg[/IMG_thumb] Smooth and wonderful Maybe it's just me because my monitor has huge pixels or something.[/QUOTE] Yeah nice and smooth with JPEG artifacts all over the place. Lossful compression methods are the best for quality comparison!

[QUOTE=Cathbadh;18151857]Irrelevant? I don't think the mathematical concept of aliasing is irrelevant at all. After all, your suspicions are completely correct. I'm just trying to explain exactly [I]why[/I] they are correct. Aliasing is an error that comes up in signal processing from discrete sampling. (In graphics, this means sampling in space with each sample being a pixel, but in signals processing, it is usually a 1D signal sampled in time) And you are right. Increasing the sampling resolution (i.e. frequency) will spread the sample bands further out from each other. Aliasing occurs when the sample bands overlap and you end up with more high-frequency content than you intended. To avoid aliasing with a 1D time-sampled function, you need to sample at twice the highest frequency found in the original analog function. Translate this concept to a 2D space-sampled function (i.e. computer graphics) you need a resolution of twice the size to resolve the smallest feature to avoid aliasing.[/QUOTE] I get it, I think. Alot of the stuff there went over my head though :(

As a result, realizing I prefer Lua to PHP Fuckin' $ sign whoops, automerge with above message xD

[QUOTE=Jawalt;18151899]I get it, I think. Alot of the stuff there went over my head though :([/QUOTE] You do get it perfectly fine, he just has a hobby of writing relatively simple things in an overly complicated tone. Don't let it confuse you.

My computer's out of action so I can't do any graphical work really. Installed python on my mums computer temporairly, working on a random universe generator till friday :D How it works: Runs for 100000 cycles Every cycle it has a random chance to create a galaxy If a galaxy is created generate a random chance to create a solar system 100-1000 times If a solar system is created generate a random chance to create a planet 100-1000 times So for now it is pretty basic, I am working on making it more complex, firstly by storing it in a dictionary and then the data can be printed for each galaxy and solar system to the screen. Then I am going to make it add suns too for each solar system, also moons :D

[QUOTE=Jawalt;18151510]Only place where I see any difference at all is the trees. They're both also fairly low-resolution.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter what resolution they are because they are displayed at their native resolution, it would look like that on any resolution as long as you are not scaling them. [editline]08:25PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Spoco;18151886]Yeah nice and smooth with JPEG artifacts all over the place. Lossful compression methods are the best for quality comparison![/QUOTE] Not my fault, that's how the engine saved them.

Do you have the source code of the engine? If so, fix it.

[QUOTE=Eleventeen;18152120]Do you have the source code of the engine? If so, fix it.[/QUOTE] No, I don't. Why would I have the source code of some random benchmark. :v:

[QUOTE=Robber;18152070]It doesn't matter what resolution they are because they are displayed at their native resolution, it would look like that on any resolution as long as you are not scaling them. [editline]08:25PM[/editline] Not my fault, that's how the engine saved them.[/QUOTE] Run the benchmark at a higher res, and repost the images.

[QUOTE=Jawalt;18152179]Run the benchmark at a higher res, and repost the images.[/QUOTE] It won't make a difference. I could crop the high resolution image and would get the lower resolution image with the same quality and aliasing.