GMod - What are you working on? September 2017 (#73)

[Leafdroid]

Another one of these.

[I][B]Project ReScale[/B]
Used to simulate way bigger maps than source engine normally can handle.

Note that this map is only 1/4 of the max source engine map size in terms of units so I could make it 4x bigger. (gm_fork would be 4x bigger than this world in P.R.S.)[/I]
Note that the grey spots are clusters of 13 real-size trees.
FPS is around 78 when fully rendering the entire map (I have 280 on gm_construct) so with fog and stopping drawing of stuff on a certain distance should make the fps very :ok:.
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/rCYY9Fb.jpg[/IMG]
[B]More images: [/B][url]https://imgur.com/a/UgbRB[/url]

[koolaidmini]

A .. uh .. [B]'Recycler'
[/B][IMG]https://i.imgur.com/3SjzPUu.jpg[/IMG]

modeling is addictive

[NeatNit]

[QUOTE=Thiefdroid;52713047]Another one of these.

[I][B]Project ReScale[/B]
Used to simulate way bigger maps than source engine normally can handle.

Note that this map is only 1/4 of the max source engine map size in terms of units so I could make it 4x bigger. (gm_fork would be 4x bigger than this world in P.R.S.)[/I]

:snip:[/QUOTE]
It scales all the entities down so the map is huge compared to them, right? Looks great. I heard L4D or L4D2 used this trick as well.

[koolaidmini]

[QUOTE=Koolaidmini;52714569]A .. uh .. [B]'Recycler'
[/B][I]picture[/I][/QUOTE]

Some uh - gooey 2

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/Mu2bTuc.png[/IMG]

The icons that look all alias'd are rotating, but obviously pictures don't capture movement s0

[Leafdroid]

[QUOTE=NeatNit;52715124]It scales all the entities down so the map is huge compared to them, right? Looks great. I heard L4D or L4D2 used this trick as well.[/QUOTE]

Yep, haven't heard anything about L4D using that tho. It also breaks player interaction with props, vehicles and doors so I am making custom ones.

[Bobblehead]

[QUOTE=Thiefdroid;52715294]Yep, haven't heard anything about L4D using that tho. It also breaks player interaction with props, vehicles and doors so I am making custom ones.[/QUOTE]

Talk to ya boi EthanTheGreat.

EDIT:
What scale are you using anyway?

[FluffyXVI]

[QUOTE=Koolaidmini;52715279]Some uh - gooey 2

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/Mu2bTuc.png[/IMG]

The icons that look all alias'd are rotating, but obviously pictures don't capture movement s0[/QUOTE]

Your UI stuff is always so gorgeous :lick:
There's some seriously good UI shown in this thread, but yours is definitely among the best. It's just consistently really nice and has such a great style.

[shadowscion]

[QUOTE=Thiefdroid;52713047]Another one of these.

[I][B]Project ReScale[/B]
Used to simulate way bigger maps than source engine normally can handle.

Note that this map is only 1/4 of the max source engine map size in terms of units so I could make it 4x bigger. (gm_fork would be 4x bigger than this world in P.R.S.)[/I]
Note that the grey spots are clusters of 13 real-size trees.
FPS is around 78 when fully rendering the entire map (I have 280 on gm_construct) so with fog and stopping drawing of stuff on a certain distance should make the fps very :ok:.
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/rCYY9Fb.jpg[/IMG]
[B]More images: [/B][url]https://imgur.com/a/UgbRB[/url][/QUOTE]

The two major problems with these are always:
• getting someone to make a good looking map specifically for it
• getting prop physics to properly interact with playermodels and the physgun

Good luck.

[Nykez]

[QUOTE=unrezt;52715667]The two major problems with these are always:
• getting someone to make a good looking map specifically for it
• getting prop physics to properly interact with playermodels and the physgun

Good luck.[/QUOTE]

create your own physics system duh.

On a real note; I jumped on that band wagon when I see Ethan do it. From my experience, it only works on paper. Lots of work.

[shadowscion]

[QUOTE=Nykez;52717517]create your own physics system duh.

On a real note; I jumped on that band wagon when I see Ethan do it. From my experience, it only works on paper. Lots of work.[/QUOTE]

no one is going to use it if it isn't source physics

[c👌de_g🎷]

A new physics system wouldn't really solve it. Source float imprecision + issues with player collision/hulls when scaled are the primary two issues and only one could maybe be fixable with an entire movement rewrite.

[shadowscion]

It would probably be pretty great for an air, naval, or space based gamemode. Ground vehicles not so much, source already hates things like rotating wheels even at full scale.

[Loriborn]

[QUOTE=unrezt;52717654]It would probably be pretty great for an air, naval, or space based gamemode. Ground vehicles not so much, source already hates things like rotating wheels even at full scale.[/QUOTE]

just simulate the wheels rather than using actual physics for movement; would be pretty necessary at that kind of scale anyway

[shadowscion]

[QUOTE=Loriborn;52717720]just simulate the wheels rather than using actual physics for movement; would be pretty necessary at that kind of scale anyway[/QUOTE]

like I said, no one will use it if you have to do that, it takes away the entire point of the game

[MeepDarknessM]

[url]https://gist.github.com/meepdarknessmeep/5566c9598e0e610e5885d12fad2ec3a8[/url]
[url=https://github.com/meepdarknessmeep/gmod-hooks-revamped]Github link[/url]

Big changes have happened over the past day.

I have changed the hook system from an iterative modal to a linked list one. This helped speed a ton and also enabled me to do prioritization easier, which has been a long requested thing in the hook library.

The prioritization works in a similar way of ULX, but this time the priority being a higher number will be ran earlier. I also included something I think should be a standard convention which is hook.Priority.NO_RETURN

This variable, which the name implies, should be used when you want to listen but not modify.
This is not enforced in any way in the code to ensure speed is kept, and is just something you should do to ensure nothing is broken.

I also improved the benchmarking tools and added test cases which ensure the working-ness of the library benchmarked.

When testing my system against [url=https://github.com/SuperiorServers/dash/blob/master/lua/dash/libraries/hook.lua]dash's hook system[/url] it comes out in the margin of error in every test (<1.5%) besides the crazily impractical case of 25 invalid hooks every call.

When testing against Garry's Mod, it comes out above in margin of error or better in every test.
When testing with 3 hooks on one event and having it called it performed up to 75,000% faster (generally around 70,000%, lowest to 63,000% shown below).

BENCHMARK
-------------
Verify (1 calls)
linkedhooks.lua (nan%)
hook.lua:        0.000000000 s
linkedhooks.lua: 0.000000000 s
-------------
CallInvalid (200 calls)
linkedhooks.lua (-115.47%)
hook.lua:        0.002679130 s
linkedhooks.lua: 0.001243370 s
-------------
CallNoHooks (200000000 calls)
hook.lua (-1.44%)
hook.lua:        0.084636653 s
linkedhooks.lua: 0.085853314 s
-------------
CallGMOnly (200000000 calls)
hook.lua (-1.99%)
hook.lua:        0.084623842 s
linkedhooks.lua: 0.086310838 s
-------------
CallNoGM (32000000 calls)
linkedhooks.lua (-59539.40%)
hook.lua:        8.155496569 s
linkedhooks.lua: 0.013674679 s
-------------
CallGM (32000000 calls)
linkedhooks.lua (-63033.15%)
hook.lua:        8.837108138 s
linkedhooks.lua: 0.013997573 s
-------------

[img]https://i.imgur.com/sf4d8fT.png[/img]

P.S. A huge thanks to aStonedPenguin for battling me in this fierce code optimization battle. Really helped us both improve and learn as well as help the community as a whole.

[MysteryPancake]

[QUOTE=MeepDarknessM;52718207]75,000% faster[/QUOTE]
I don't quite understand the use of goto in Lua. It reminds me of DOS, which reminds me of an incredible number of bugs and errors. Is it faster than calling a function?
Also, it might be worth putting it on GitHub so people can suggest stuff

[B]EDIT:[/B]
I always think of Gists like I think of Pastebin. Mainly used for temporary garbage you don't want anyone to see.
For things like your project, they definitely deserve their own GitHub page, not only for collaboration, but because it's worth it.

[MeepDarknessM]

[QUOTE=MPan1;52718221]I don't quite understand the use of goto in Lua. It reminds me of DOS, which reminds me of an incredible number of bugs and errors. Is it faster than calling a function?

Also, it might be worth putting it on GitHub so people can suggest stuff[/QUOTE]

While testing I jokingly suggested using goto loops to stoned, who actually implemented it and he got a 33% speed increase in his own code. I did the same.

Github is always a possibility.

[url=https://github.com/meepdarknessmeep/gmod-hooks-revamped]Github link[/url]

[koolaidmini]

I can't stop

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/GLdx8m2.jpg[/IMG]

[Leafdroid]

[QUOTE=unrezt;52715667]The two major problems with these are always:
• getting someone to make a good looking map specifically for it
• getting prop physics to properly interact with playermodels and the physgun

Good luck.[/QUOTE]

I'm a pretty good mapper myself. ;)

Also the custom physics are almost done now and work pretty well. :)

[Vioxtar]

[QUOTE=NeatNit;52715124]It scales all the entities down so the map is huge compared to them, right? [/QUOTE]

these kinds of tricks make me question reality itself

[KaChing]

[QUOTE=Thiefdroid;52713047]Another one of these.

[I][B]Project ReScale[/B]
Used to simulate way bigger maps than source engine normally can handle.

Note that this map is only 1/4 of the max source engine map size in terms of units so I could make it 4x bigger. (gm_fork would be 4x bigger than this world in P.R.S.)[/I]
Note that the grey spots are clusters of 13 real-size trees.
FPS is around 78 when fully rendering the entire map (I have 280 on gm_construct) so with fog and stopping drawing of stuff on a certain distance should make the fps very :ok:.
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/rCYY9Fb.jpg[/IMG]
[B]More images: [/B][url]https://imgur.com/a/UgbRB[/url][/QUOTE]

Wow thougth i was the only one working on this. Ive been testing 10x10 maps for a while for GTA san andreas remap to Gmod

ive done some fps test with just plain meshes and so on and been successfully to very good fps

Here is Prop next to GTASA Basic test map

[IMG]https://i.gyazo.com/02e31a4f13af6a694baaa00c8b8b5777.jpg[/IMG]

more GTASan Andreas ( ive tried to convert map objects directly to source, with some luck actually)

[IMG]https://i.gyazo.com/227159388f8aea19ca012f7498f676a4.png[/IMG]

second import of an area (skins are not working)

[IMG]https://i.gyazo.com/0077b8b6252b9fa40f7ecfa724312160.png[/IMG]

[IMG]https://i.gyazo.com/52719aa6362aa6fc96c7aaaa6e78488b.png[/IMG]

And here is Atomic in 4x4

DayZ map ( restored my harddrive lost 50% so i only have the basics)

[IMG]https://i.gyazo.com/5eddeada41ebaeb9ab7f709b4d6e446b.png[/IMG]

and ofc the test fps map

[IMG]https://i.gyazo.com/f3c51e0fc7e31966321d371d442f454f.png[/IMG]

ive done ever more intense and they have worked very fine so it will work m8 :)

ive been at it for around a year now, check my previous threads or ask me if you need help with anything related to scaling down.

or we could work on same maps if you want to :) im swedish too.

[editline]26th September 2017[/editline]

[QUOTE=code_gs;52717621]A new physics system wouldn't really solve it. Source float imprecision + issues with player collision/hulls when scaled are the primary two issues and only one could maybe be fixable with an entire movement rewrite.[/QUOTE]

Ive gotten the physics to work pretty good, what becomes an issue D: ?

[shadowscion]

[QUOTE=KaChing;52719092]Ive gotten the physics to work pretty good, what becomes an issue D: ?[/QUOTE]

Entity and displacement limits/detail, and precise prop placement

[A1steaksa]

[QUOTE=Koolaidmini;52718330]I can't stop

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/GLdx8m2.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

That's a hot aesthetic. The left side with the symbol and the stripe is visually great. I love the way it looks. The right side looks a little off. The silver metal looks too continuous like you just applied one of the stock metal textures from the material tool to the model. I'm not an artist so I can't say what it does need, but as an observer I can say it looks a little empty.

They're very bioshock. It's nice. I'd like to see more of it.

[koolaidmini]

[QUOTE=a1steaksa;52719572]That's a hot aesthetic. The left side with the symbol and the stripe is visually great. I love the way it looks. The right side looks a little off. The silver metal looks too continuous like you just applied one of the stock metal textures from the material tool to the model. I'm not an artist so I can't say what it does need, but as an observer I can say it looks a little empty.

They're very bioshock. It's nice. I'd like to see more of it.[/QUOTE]

Honestly, I kind of lost my creative flow when I was setting up the contents on the right side ( below the small screen )

[A1steaksa]

[QUOTE=Koolaidmini;52719670]Honestly, I kind of lost my creative flow when I was setting up the contents on the right side ( below the small screen )[/QUOTE]

You could put something in there like canisters full of red or blue mystery liquid similar to the black mesa ones. Or a warning sticker on the door panel. Really anything to break up the gray

[[FSG] ToXiiC]

I'm working on a little PUBG Hud,

[video]https://youtu.be/jGJNVYCcACw[/video]

[ThatOneLegGuy]

Can anyone provide feedback on what I made?

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/rBgdxzX.gif[/IMG]
This animtion took roughly 1 day to make and has 3 different revisions.

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/lU22NCN.gif[/IMG]
This animation took me around 30-40 mintues to make.

The difference wasn't in frame length, but in the technique I used, one uses a stiff more robotic movement. While the other uses a more organic movement.

[A1steaksa]

[QUOTE=ThatOneLegGuy;52721060]Can anyone provide feedback on what I made?

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/rBgdxzX.gif[/IMG]
This animtion took roughly 1 day to make and has 3 different revisions.

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/lU22NCN.gif[/IMG]
This animation took me around 30-40 mintues to make.

The difference wasn't in frame length, but in the technique I used, one uses a stiff more robotic movement. While the other uses a more organic movement.[/QUOTE]

Step timing should be longer. It should raise the leg, wait a second, then slam it down rather than a smooth spiderlike stepping motion

[MysteryPancake]

[QUOTE=ThatOneLegGuy;52721060]Can anyone provide feedback on what I made?[/QUOTE]
Good texture

[LegendofRobbo]

[QUOTE=ThatOneLegGuy;52721060]Can anyone provide feedback on what I made?
This animtion took roughly 1 day to make and has 3 different revisions.
This animation took me around 30-40 mintues to make.
The difference wasn't in frame length, but in the technique I used, one uses a stiff more robotic movement. While the other uses a more organic movement.[/QUOTE]

The walking animation is about the right speed but much too stiff and unenergetic
edit: it would still work well as a low throttle creeping animation but definitely have a better one for normal walking
if you watch how they walk in halo they raise their leg a fair bit higher than that then stomp it down so it anchors well into whatever terrain they are walking on
the flaps on their knees also slam up and down as the legs raise and lower