UDK. Vrad may have had an advantage with radiosity before, but after lightmass that advantage has evaporated.
[QUOTE=BmB;26557663]UDK. Vrad may have had an advantage with radiosity before, but after lightmass that advantage has evaporated.[/QUOTE]
The advantage was minimal. Source's radiosity is quite shit if you compare it with other offline GI solvers.
Exactly. Lightmass does that better. But Source for some reason had the best one around for a while.
It really depends on which game is it for
well, for detail, i could make an army of 100000 individual terracotta warriors, or i could clone a single one over and over again
nobody will ever see every one of them, while it might be something to brag about- nobody will care
if valve gave us better models it mught be alright though
[QUOTE=jack254;26622116]well, for detail, i could make an army of 100000 individual terracotta warriors, or i could clone a single one over and over again
nobody will ever see every one of them, while it might be something to brag about- nobody will care
if valve gave us better models it mught be alright though[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about?
[QUOTE=Firegod522;26622262]What are you talking about?[/QUOTE]
I was wondering the same thing. Where's the "Wtf?" rating when you need it? :P
[QUOTE=Reactors;26626690]I was wondering the same thing. Where's the "Wtf?" rating when you need it? :P[/QUOTE]
He means if you have everything look different, and nothing is ever the same in the game you can brag about it but no one will care?
[QUOTE=BmB;26556837]I prefer to define a ratio of gameplay detail to superficial detail. In the total amount of detail, there are parts of the detail like: Floors, walls, obstacles, physics objects, buttons, enemies etc, that can be considered gameplay detail and integral to the game. Animations that show something about the enemy like a downed antlion squirming is gameplay detail.
But then there's the superficial detail, like the bumpmapping and intricate details on said antlions, the sky, the background, elaborate buildings looming, cutscene npc's out of your reach and a whole lot of other things. These don't matter. As long as the player is occupied by the gameplay detail, the superficial detail might as well be *invisible*. It simply does not exist due to tunnel vision. HL2 however does offer moments of respite where gameplay detail is not necessarily occupying you and where a good looking vista might be apt.
And, for an example, if you were to reduce a character to its gameplay detail, you would see only the hitbox because this is all that is relevant to the game when you are fighting the character. Anything more detailed than this is basically not going to be seen during combat. Something like glowing eyes on the combine do however increase visibility and has relevance to gameplay, so does the weapon carried. And general enemy type visual id like valve did excellently in TF2 does have a say.[/QUOTE]
This man speaks the truth. Pay attention to the detail in the first few HL2 maps. You'll see that the areas where you, as a player, are supposed to sprint through (the part in the beginning where you're chased by combine) barely have any detail. And then you wonder why you didn't notice that when playing HL2 for the first time.
I don't know if you consider this detail, but this would probably be very original to have. It would be a paint brush that you can change filter and what not such as color. With this you could create road markers without the use of custom decals.
[QUOTE=.FLAP.JACK.DAN.;26630784]I don't know if you consider this detail, but this would probably be very original to have. It would be a paint brush that you can change filter and what not such as color. With this you could create road markers without the use of custom decals.[/QUOTE]
That would be a really cool idea. Sadly nothing like that will happen.
pretty much i was saying that extreme detail is never needed
i was going to use sandbags instead of terracota warriors, but then i remembered this
[img]http://www.jingdaily.com/kaizhi/jing/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/xian_terracotta_army.jpg[/img]
it might be incredibly that they are all individuals- but does it matter? does it affect life noticeably?
no
You still never make any sense at all, jack
yeah, i am great at posting things wrongly
3X4R3AM D3T4L3 D03N4 M@443R 1N L33T SP34K
still dont know what i am on about
I THINK what he is saying is that If you have a bunch of different models that represent the same thing, nobody will notice the detail because they are all the same thing, rather than what they wear. Like the rebels, nobody really cared that they all wore the same uniform, it was their heads you payed attention to.
yeah, but you see valve are realy fucked up when it comes to their models, if their models where better then maps would look better
tf2 hats have more polygons than characters
day of defeat characters and weapons are complete shit- yet valve would rather make an insanely high polly hat than make day of defeat look reasonable
valve make shit cars, but excellent looking gnomes
valve make citizens and common characters that you see EVERYWHERE with a lot less detail than characters you see only a few times
I personally just think, sexy lighting and better shaders on the engine would be equal to success.
Like if we could have really good shaders then I think it would be a lot easier to make higher detail stuff in the game.
[QUOTE=Reactors;26640219]I personally just think, sexy lighting and better shaders on the engine would be equal to success.
Like if we could have really good shaders then I think it would be a lot easier to make higher detail stuff in the game.[/QUOTE]
better models and weather effects- and we have a deal
destructible environments might help (especialy if func brushes could be used)
Um, Source has some pretty nifty shaders.
[QUOTE=BmB;26643406]Um, Source has some pretty nifty shaders.[/QUOTE]
Like what? The only thing remotely decent is the refract shader. Even that does each refraction as its own pass which causes huge overdraw when using lots of refractive materials.
How about the one that lets you see Alyx's insides?
[editline]12th December 2010[/editline]
Or the one that lets trees sway.
[b]Edit:[/b]
I like how I get a dumb for posting complex shaders that Source already has. :v:
Fully dynamic lighting would be great.
Source doesn't need to be hyper detail, but it'd be nice if the textures had better bump maps/tessellation in my personal opinion, nothing extreme, just to help make super flat textures feel more real.
[editline]12th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lord Ned;26650872]How about the one that lets you see Alyx's insides?
[editline]12th December 2010[/editline]
Or the one that lets trees sway.[/QUOTE]
Swaying trees would be sexy.
Check L4D2.
I would say little details and lots of it but with minimal fps loss along with better lighting and higher-res textures
[QUOTE=Lord Ned;26654628]Check L4D2.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that has nothing to do with shaders, now if your talking about having the animated and not talking about sources shaders then, yes that would be cool
[QUOTE=Adzter;26656403]I would say little details and lots of it but with minimal fps loss along with better lighting and higher-res textures[/QUOTE]
I think textures are high enough resolutions for now, though I wouldn't mind them being higher, Ithink it's just the lighting and the bump maps and speculation maps and such would make this a lot better.
I would like Phong mapping on world textures. Just because it'd be more accurate than the clunky specularity system we have to use at the moment, with wonky cubemaps being a common problem.
[QUOTE=TBot_Alpha;26660671]I would like Phong mapping on world textures. Just because it'd be more accurate than the clunky specularity system we have to use at the moment, with wonky cubemaps being a common problem.[/QUOTE]
True. Can someone that has a mod do that? Or is that based on the engine?
[QUOTE=Reactors;26660772]True. Can someone that has a mod do that? Or is that based on the engine?[/QUOTE]
Its a shader. I've been working on it for a while, learning HLSL.
[QUOTE=Lord Ned;26650872]How about the one that lets you see Alyx's insides?
[editline]12th December 2010[/editline]
Or the one that lets trees sway.
[b]Edit:[/b]
I like how I get a dumb for posting complex shaders that Source already has. :v:[/QUOTE]
Wow, forgot how amazingly complex a vertex offsetting was, same with the scrolling muscle textures. I don't see any [b]practical[/b] shaders in source that are actually any good. All the good ones are one-time use and even those aren't amazing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
