[QUOTE=Nigey Nige;33543221]I'm not so sure about that. Depending on the aesthetic of the game, less smooth pixel animations can be a lot nicer to look at than skeletal. Comparisons, I suppose, would be LIMBO (skeletal) versus, say... Eternal Daughter (pixel).
[b]Edit:[/b]
I guess being able to precisely control the speed of limb movement and switch it up with mad hella styled-out special maneuvres gives hand-drawn animation the edge.[/QUOTE]
Well.. of course.
[editline]3rd December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=amcfaggot;33543252]Sorry to reask this question, as I do recall it being discussed before, but how can I create a webm clip? I'd be taking a video from Fraps and converting it, I suppose through VirtualDub with a webm extension of some sort?[/QUOTE]
Looks good: [url]http://www.mirovideoconverter.com/[/url]
You know what, nevermind.
[editline]2nd December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=garry;33543257]Looks good: [url]http://www.mirovideoconverter.com/[/url][/QUOTE]
Oh thanks!
[QUOTE=garry;33541623]I'm using Chrome. Works fine here without blocking 5 animated gifs.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, my PC is more on the low end. And I've been having some hardware issues.
[QUOTE=garry;33543257]Well.. of course.
[editline]3rd December 2011[/editline]
Looks good: [url]http://www.mirovideoconverter.com/[/url][/QUOTE]
...must...argue...despite...lack...of...opponents...hnnngnggnf
Oh you reminded me
[vid]http://triebr.com/Example.ogg[/vid]
Added mouse following support to my desktop capture program :)
[QUOTE=Nigey Nige;33543377]...must...argue...despite...lack...of...opponents...hnnngnggnf[/QUOTE]
I just use ffmpeg command line to convert to webm. Miro uses ffmpeg, but just converts one format to another with defaulted options
[QUOTE=thisBrad;33543396]Oh you reminded me
-video-
Added mouse following support to my desktop capture program :)[/QUOTE]
Holy compression rape
Makes me want to tear my eyes out
im making a clock in lisp.
[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;33542430]This is kind of what I was guessing, and it's reassuring to see some verification.
Most of the scene-graph driven games I've played (The Elder Scrolls III/IV and Fallout 3/NV being Netimmerse/Gamebryo-based) have never struck me as being particularly efficient at what they do. My desktop often struggles with these games when it probably would have no trouble rendering the same scene in any other engine.
Games that tend to run smoother usually use an approach that is centered around partitioning space or defining minimal bounding volumes. BSP trees, octrees, bounding volume hierarchies, etc., all of them focus on making depth-sorting, collision detection, or frustum/occlusion culling operations faster instead of worrying about how to associate meshes for minimal state switching.[/QUOTE]
I can agree with partitioning space - I was thinking using brushes (akin to Source) to build volumes (and a BSP tree) would still be quite effective in an engine full of models.
[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;33542430]This is kind of what I was guessing, and it's reassuring to see some verification.
Most of the scene-graph driven games I've played (The Elder Scrolls III/IV and Fallout 3/NV being Netimmerse/Gamebryo-based) have never struck me as being particularly efficient at what they do. My desktop often struggles with these games when it probably would have no trouble rendering the same scene in any other engine.
Games that tend to run smoother usually use an approach that is centered around partitioning space or defining minimal bounding volumes. BSP trees, octrees, bounding volume hierarchies, etc., all of them focus on making depth-sorting, collision detection, or frustum/occlusion culling operations faster instead of worrying about how to associate meshes for minimal state switching.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lord Ned;33543627]I can agree with partitioning space - I was thinking using brushes (akin to Source) to build volumes (and a BSP tree) would still be quite effective in an engine full of models.[/QUOTE]
Whoa, whoa, whoa. No. I mean, hold on. Scene-graph stuff is extremely fantastic for what it does, you can't really compare it to BSP or similar geometric compile systems, because standard BSP isn't capable of doing anything near scene-graph range work.
This is really a discussion fit for both this subforum, but also the mapping section, as I'm sure you'd hear a mouth full from them on that subject.
My point is though, you can't compare scene-graph work to BSP or similar systems in terms of efficiency, because scene-graph rendering is a runtime process of rendering and culling, whereas compiled geometric approaches give you a world rendering set and other model subsets of what to render without having the computer figure that out outside of camera positions and visibility sectors. They do two different things in two widely different approaches.
[QUOTE=Yogurt;33542102]But why?[/QUOTE]
windows version won't earn me money
Was trying to decode iTunes WiFi sync packets so I could make a Winamp plugin.
Fucking Apple enables SSL encryption after 18 packets :(
[QUOTE=amcfaggot;33543781]Whoa, whoa, whoa. No. I mean, hold on. Scene-graph stuff is extremely fantastic for what it does, you can't really compare it to BSP or similar geometric compile systems, because standard BSP isn't capable of doing anything near scene-graph range work.
This is really a discussion fit for both this subforum, but also the mapping section, as I'm sure you'd hear a mouth full from them on that subject.
My point is though, you can't compare scene-graph work to BSP or similar systems in terms of efficiency, because scene-graph rendering is a runtime process of rendering and culling, whereas compiled geometric approaches give you a world rendering set and other model subsets of what to render without having the computer figure that out outside of camera positions and visibility sectors. They do two different things in two widely different approaches.[/QUOTE]
The point is really about scene graph traversal not actually being efficient at what it does in relation to rendering. Of course they are different, I don't really get your point.
[QUOTE=amcfaggot;33543781]Whoa, whoa, whoa. No. I mean, hold on. Scene-graph stuff is extremely fantastic for what it does, you can't really compare it to BSP or similar geometric compile systems, because standard BSP isn't capable of doing anything near scene-graph range work.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry. I wasn't trying to directly compare it. It was sort of a tangent thought you made resurface in my mind - I was thinking a reasonable way to do it if you were writing your own engine was what I suggested.
It's not something that I've done, but it's something I'd like to do at one point in life.
Well then let me get to the point.
[quote] My desktop often struggles with these games when it probably would have no trouble rendering the same scene in any other engine.[/quote]
No, it would be worse.
[QUOTE=icantread49;33543893]windows version won't earn me money[/QUOTE]
So? Neither will not releasing it on Windows, which really doesn't take that long.
[QUOTE=icantread49;33543893]windows version won't earn me money[/QUOTE]
If you make 5 bucks off that app, I'll poop myself from disbelief
figuratively speaking
[QUOTE=amcfaggot;33543781]Whoa, whoa, whoa. No. I mean, hold on. Scene-graph stuff is extremely fantastic for what it does, you can't really compare it to BSP or similar geometric compile systems, because standard BSP isn't capable of doing anything near scene-graph range work.
This is really a discussion fit for both this subforum, but also the mapping section, as I'm sure you'd hear a mouth full from them on that subject.
My point is though, you can't compare scene-graph work to BSP or similar systems in terms of efficiency, because scene-graph rendering is a runtime process of rendering and culling, whereas compiled geometric approaches give you a world rendering set and other model subsets of what to render without having the computer figure that out outside of camera positions and visibility sectors. They do two different things in two widely different approaches.[/QUOTE]
What are you even talking about? Scene graphs, at least in the traditional sense, don't usually provide qualities that aid in the (usually most important) processes of collision detection, nearest-neighbor searches, or occlusion culling.
Ignoring BSP for a moment, I listed two other (very dynamic) schemes that can be constructed at runtime and modified whenever you need to. Octrees you should be familiar with. If you're not, I'm not going to explain them to you, they're common and simple enough that you should have no trouble at all finding information about them. Bounding volume hierarchies are a structure where items are grouped into bounding volumes (usually bounding-boxes or spheres, although any other shape will work just fine) in such a way that pairs (or three, four, etc.) of nearby objects are children of a node whose bounding geometry encompasses both, in a tree like structure with one root node which encompasses the entire scene. It makes [i]no [/i]assumptions about scene structure (unlike even octrees, which requires you to choose some maximum dimensions for your root node) and can be built entirely at runtime using simple online construction techniques. Nodes can be inserted or removed whenever you want in O(log n) time. It works great for collision detection (including frustum culling, which is effectively a collision detection problem) and can be used to accelerate [url=http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems2/gpugems2_chapter06.html]occlusion queries[/url].
Now, getting back to BSP. BSP is a [i]very [/i]broad term. It applies to [i]any [/i]structure which recursively partitions space using hyperplanes (or spheres). Its use in the Id Tech and Source engines is only one of many possible applications, and you absolutely should not write it off as a "compile-time" structure.
I started out as a mapper, and I am well aware of the frustration you can encounter working with a tools that were written for an era when computers had only a small fraction of the power they have today. The choice to offload work to the level designers and map compiler was an excellent design decision [i]at the time, [/i]but the constraints that were imposed are not an intrinsic quality of BSP trees.
When you show me any form of BSP structure that can do what scene-graphs are currently doing and on the scale they're doing it, then I'll be impressed.
[QUOTE=amcfaggot;33544177]If you make 5 bucks off that app, I'll poop myself from disbelief
figuratively speaking[/QUOTE]
how about this, when i make 5 bucks off that app, i'll pay you to make me a less shitty icon
[QUOTE=amcfaggot;33544437]When you show me any form of BSP structure that can do what scene-graphs are currently doing and on the scale they're doing it, then I'll be impressed.[/QUOTE]
Do you understand what a BSP tree is? Outside of the bastardized Source mapping definition?
A k-D tree is a form of BSP tree.
A quad- or oct-tree is a form of BSP tree.
You can have a BSP tree using spheres instead of planes, where the volume inside is one child, while the volume outside is another. This is called a vantage-point tree, or VP-tree, and it has qualities that make it useful for finding nearest-neighbors when only a distance metric is available (think spell-check).
It's a very diverse structure, with many variants, and it's used a whole hell of a lot of places where you probably wouldn't think to look.
If you have a 'scene-graph based' renderer that scales well, it's probably also employing one of these other structures in addition to the basic scene graph.
[QUOTE=icantread49;33544448]how about this, when i make 5 bucks off that app, i'll pay you to make me a less shitty icon[/QUOTE]
I'll make you an icon if you make an Arch Linux 64bit port.
[QUOTE=Jookia;33544503]I'll make you an icon if you make an Arch Linux 64bit port.[/QUOTE]
nono
amcfaggot is getting my first $5 to make a better icon
the next $50 are going to someone who knows about more than gradients and nice fonts
One of the problems I have with a lot of skeletal animations I see is that they can seem very jerky, because the slope (derivative) of the velocity of their bones isn't 0 when they start and stop. Using something like [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothstep"]smoothstep[/URL] instead of regular interpolation can help, although even then humans can still notice when the second derivative doesn't go to 0 at the start and end.
Another issue is that for many objects (especially ones that are alive), the movement of one part of the object can affect other parts, whereas most skeletal animation systems treats them independently.
[QUOTE=icantread49;33544542]nono
amcfaggot is getting my first $5 to make a better icon
the next $50 are going to someone who knows about more than gradients and nice fonts[/QUOTE]
$50 emboss investment
[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;33544457]Do you understand what a BSP tree is? Outside of the bastardized Source mapping definition?
A k-D tree is a form of BSP tree.
A quad- or oct-tree is a form of BSP tree.
You can have a BSP tree using spheres instead of planes, where the volume inside is one child, while the volume outside is another (this is called a vantage-point tree, or VP-tree, and it has qualities that make it useful for finding nearest-neighbors in higher dimensional spaces [think spell-check]).
It's a very diverse structure, with many variants, and it's used a whole hell of a lot of places where you probably wouldn't think to look.
If you have a 'scene-graph based' renderer that scales well, it's probably also employing one of these other structures in addition to the basic scene graph.[/QUOTE]
Just to also add on to this, the unreal engine uses BSP for rendering the CSG within the engine, and has since the first iteration of it. (All that's changed recently is they've gone from subtractive to additive CSG. Along with all those other engine improvements :v:)
I've currently got visual C++, visual C#, and Visual Basic all open at the same time, for the same project
Hmm, this looks rather boring...
[img]http://puu.sh/9NTB[/img]
I know!
[img]http://puu.sh/9NU2[/img]
[img]http://puu.sh/9NU4[/img]
[img]http://puu.sh/9NUa[/img]
I've been sucked into the world of assembly. I don't know why but I find assembly so much fun.
[edit] oh and
[QUOTE=AzLaN;33538182]Brittish people, it's your time to [URL="http://canyoucrackit.co.uk/"]shine[/URL].[/QUOTE]
Hi, [url]http://www.canyoucrackit.co.uk/soyoudidit.asp[/url]
[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;33544457]Do you understand what a BSP tree is? Outside of the bastardized Source mapping definition?
A k-D tree is a form of BSP tree.
A quad- or oct-tree is a form of BSP tree.
You can have a BSP tree using spheres instead of planes, where the volume inside is one child, while the volume outside is another. This is called a vantage-point tree, or VP-tree, and it has qualities that make it useful for finding nearest-neighbors in higher dimensional spaces (think spell-check).
It's a very diverse structure, with many variants, and it's used a whole hell of a lot of places where you probably wouldn't think to look.
If you have a 'scene-graph based' renderer that scales well, it's probably also employing one of these other structures in addition to the basic scene graph.[/QUOTE]
It's funny; I was under the impression you were blanketing any sort of spacial partitioning under "BSP" and saying scene-graph approaches weren't using these.
Oh wait, you did explicitly lay this statement out.
[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;33542430]This is kind of what I was guessing, and it's reassuring to see some verification.
Most of the scene-graph driven games I've played (The Elder Scrolls III/IV and Fallout 3/NV being Netimmerse/Gamebryo-based) have never struck me as being particularly efficient at what they do. My desktop often struggles with these games when it probably would have no trouble rendering the same scene in any other engine.
[b]Games that tend to run smoother usually use an approach that is centered around partitioning space or defining minimal bounding volumes. BSP trees, octrees, bounding volume hierarchies, etc., all of them focus on making depth-sorting, collision detection, or frustum/occlusion culling operations faster instead of worrying about how to associate meshes for minimal state switching.[/b][/QUOTE]
Except what modern game doesn't partition space in even most naive method, ROBO_DONUT?
One of the series you mention above is The Elder Scrolls. Those games use their own BSP structure for world rendering internally referred to as cells. Additionally, world geometry has mipmapping which works hand in hand with bounding volume hierarchy, so I'm not quite sure if you're talking out of your ass and not looking up on these things beforehand or not.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
