Tremulous Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: rotacak on January 04, 2010, 01:24:39 pm
-
Can someone, who understand engine problems, look at this?: http://sauerbraten.sourceforge.net/screenshots.html
It is suitable for Tremulous or not? I tried Sauerbraten game and I got low FPS (but I have old PC). Gameplay reminds me old DOOM I, but graphic is really nice, especially water or even bullet marks on wall. On the other side, animations are ugly even they should be ragdoll, same with explosions. I think that can be improved but what do you think about this engine?
Engine Features
* 6 directional heightfield in octree world structure allowing for instant easy in-game geometry editing (even in multiplayer, coop edit).
* Rendering engine optimized for high geometry throughput, supporting hardware occlusion culling and software precomputed conservative PVS with occluder fusion.
* Lightmap based lighting with accurate shadows from everything including mapmodels, smooth lighting for faceted geometry, and fast compiles. Soft shadowmap based shadows for dynamic entities.
* Pixel and vertex shader support, each model and world texture can have its own shader assigned. Supports normal and parallax mapping, specular and dynamic lighting with bloom and glow, environment-mapped and planar reflections/refractions, and post-process effects.
* Robust physics written specifically for this world structure.
* Loading of md2/md3/md5/obj models for skeletal and vertex animated characters, weapons, items, and world objects. Supports animation blending, procedural pitch animation, and ragdoll physics for skeletally-animated characters.
* Network library designed for high speed games, client/server network system.
* Small but complete configuration/scripting language.
* Simple stereo positional sound system.
* Particle engine, supporting text particles, volumetric explosions, soft particles, and decals.
* 3d menu/gui system, for in-world representation of choices.
-
There's issues with support, security, and cheating, afaik.
It has some nice rendering and whatnot, but past that, I don't see it being feasible for a whole lot.
Also, if you've ever played online, you'd know that there is horrid map support.
When a server plays a map you don't have, you get stuck on the last map you were playing, but see the other players in spots relative to the actual map the server is playing.
Needless to say, this causes tons of issues and makes the cube2 engine annoying to the utmost point.
It might be interesting to see if the graphical upgrades could be ported, but they would probably need to be optimized.
They take a pretty heavy toll compared to the same features on other engines.
-
Autodownload map system should not be hard to code. But I don't know if Cube2 engine using gfx cards better than Tremulous engine. If not, then Cube2 engine will be nicer but even more slower than Tremulous.
-
Good idea. Too bad it is not applicable
-
There's issues with support, security, and cheating, afaik.
It has some nice rendering and whatnot, but past that, I don't see it being feasible for a whole lot.
Also, if you've ever played online, you'd know that there is horrid map support.
When a server plays a map you don't have, you get stuck on the last map you were playing, but see the other players in spots relative to the actual map the server is playing.
Needless to say, this causes tons of issues and makes the cube2 engine annoying to the utmost point.
It might be interesting to see if the graphical upgrades could be ported, but they would probably need to be optimized.
They take a pretty heavy toll compared to the same features on other engines.
AFAUK, you don't know "far."
Cheating, when I used to do it, has been changed a year ago or so, to the point where it has become server-sided now. So you can't hack ammo and HPs.
But yeah, bottom line is: Cube2 would have to be heavily modified to be suitable for trem. Just not worth the effort at its current stage.
Map-Creation is a pain in the ass. But whatever...
-
The Intensity engine: http://www.syntensity.com/toplevel/intensityengine/ is largely based on Qube2/Sauerbraten, and addresses some of these issues. Perhaps a trem implementation could be written for it, though again that is allot of work.
-
If we're "porting", I very strongly suggest we "port" to Source.
-
Why bother? The code is already in XreaL, a far superior engine. The simple fact is, nobody is contributing art assets, and guess what? That's not going to change by going to an engine like Source/Cube2/pickurfancy
-
Why bother? The code is already in XreaL, a far superior engine. The simple fact is, nobody is contributing art assets, and guess what? That's not going to change by going to an engine like Source/Cube2/pickurfancy
Superior is largely a matter of opinion.
T'was just my two cents. I know that no one's contributing assets, and that's likely the way it'll stay.
-
If we're "porting", I very strongly suggest we "port" to Source.
and source engine really supports all the platforms our userbase is on(if you didnt know no it doesnt)
that rules source out unless if you want to stop the 99pct of users who use linux to play tremulous
XReal is quite good still has a lil way to go though but not too far.
you might not need new assets if the engine is opensource just code another resource loader and use all the old assets then you can release with a new engine and slowly port assets to better alternatives
im still hoping they'll release doom3 engine opensource like they said they would ages ago but its 2010 and looks like it isnt ever going to happen that would be my choice hands down if it was ever opensourced
-
If we're "porting", I very strongly suggest we "port" to Source.
and source engine really supports all the platforms our userbase is on(if you didnt know no it doesnt)
that rules source out unless if you want to stop the 99pct of users who use linux to play tremulous
XReal is quite good still has a lil way to go though but not too far.
you might not need new assets if the engine is opensource just code another resource loader and use all the old assets then you can release with a new engine and slowly port assets to better alternatives
im still hoping they'll release doom3 engine opensource like they said they would ages ago but its 2010 and looks like it isnt ever going to happen that would be my choice hands down if it was ever opensourced
But on a technical level, the Doom 3 engine (aka ID Tech4) is less superior then Xreal. And like said before, Tremulous is already ported to Xreal, so there would be little gain in doing so.
-
.
-
Superior is largely a matter of opinion.
No, superior comes down to technical features, reliability, and overall engine performance. XreaL _does_ excel in this field. Source does not support any form of heightmapping, nor map-side dynamic lighting (You can do it with lightstyles). The only thing going for source is a better toolchain, but that's not heart to the engine, and source still mostly relies on external tools to do so.
XReal is quite good still has a lil way to go though but not too far.
XreaL as it is now seems to be as good as it's going to get. Tr3b seems pretty out on the project as of recent, which is very unfortunate when features such as bullet physics/JVM/ambient occlusion were extremely close on the horizon.
you might not need new assets if the engine is opensource just code another resource loader and use all the old assets then you can release with a new engine and slowly port assets to better alternatives
I don't really get what you mean here, the XreaL port already uses the current trem assets, as well as one default map, and one 1.1 custom map being distributed with it.
-
No matter how many of those threads you open, No one will port trem to [insert awesome engine here] for you.
You should do it yourself.
every time you open a thread like this a baby rant dies :(
-
No matter how many of those threads you open, No one will port trem to [insert awesome engine here] for you.
You should do it yourself.
every time you open a thread like this a baby rant dies :(
Sigged, if you don't mind..
-
you might not need new assets if the engine is opensource just code another resource loader and use all the old assets then you can release with a new engine and slowly port assets to better alternatives
I don't really get what you mean here, the XreaL port already uses the current trem assets, as well as one default map, and one 1.1 custom map being distributed with it.
im talking about other engines not XReal sometimes its faster to code a loader to load current assets then it is to remake all the assets(2-3 loaders to load current assets or over 1000 or so assets to be remade id go with coding loaders). XReal afaik is just Q3 with new renderer / few other enhancements so porting wouldn't be as big of a deal and all the filetypes/resources would already be supported so its really only the game code that needs to be added which is already done.
-
Writing loaders for the old content on any modern engine doesn't make sense. You put a 300 poly asset on a modern engine and it's still going to look 300 poly.
-
No matter how many of those threads you open, No one will port trem to [insert awesome engine here] for you.
You should do it yourself.
every time you open a thread like this a baby rant dies :(
Maybe you should re-read topic. I not asking for porting trem to Cube2 Engine...
Well, Xreal looks better. I will look at that engine. Sadly, it is written in C++ :-(
-
Well, Xreal looks better. I will look at that engine. Sadly, it is written in C++ :-(
Uhhhh no, it definitely isn't.
XrealRadiant uses C++ ( It's just DarkRadiant with a few modifications ) but XreaL itself uses C.
-
But it's compiled with MSVC studio?
-
Damn, I can't test Xreal due to my old gfx card (does not support shader pixel 3.0) :'(
-
Writing loaders for the old content on any modern engine doesn't make sense. You put a 300 poly asset on a modern engine and it's still going to look 300 poly.
but it gets those 300 poly resources working in the new engine using any "enhancement" the engine might have (like bloom etc). of-course then you gotta redo the assets better but they don't have to be done all at once or right away they can be done slowly and the game can be released at any stage since there's nothing "missing"
-
You put a 300 poly asset on a modern engine and it's still going to look 300 poly.
Seconded.
Bump mapping can only do so much. And porting tremulous to another engine would be the same as what valve did to counterstrike 1.6
(those of you who remember 1.6, valve stopped us shooting through walls, and gave grenades a 'bounding box' so that you cant throw it through a pin sized gap :()
I think tremulous 1.2 should use this awesome engine ioQuake3. The graphics are a little out dated, but that means more people can play it. More players = more fun + more servers.
In conclusion, money = hat. :helmet:
-
outdated engine = less interest = less players
-
But on a technical level, the Doom 3 engine (aka ID Tech4) is less superior then Xreal. And like said before, Tremulous is already ported to Xreal, so there would be little gain in doing so.
Please, don't confuse the renderer with the engine. XReal renderer has more modern features than Doom3 renderer, but the engine is the whole thing, not just the renderer, and the Doom3 engine as a whole is much more powerful than XReal.
Superior is largely a matter of opinion.
No, superior comes down to technical features, reliability, and overall engine performance. XreaL _does_ excel in this field. Source does not support any form of heightmapping, nor map-side dynamic lighting (You can do it with lightstyles). The only thing going for source is a better toolchain, but that's not heart to the engine, and source still mostly relies on external tools to do so.
Same thing I said above. Source isn't the most flashy renderer in the market, but it is a wonderful engine very well featured for modern looking games that run in a wide spectrum of hardware, and even the renderer alone is usually underrated.
-
.
-
Superior is largely a matter of opinion.
No, superior comes down to technical features, reliability, and overall engine performance. XreaL _does_ excel in this field. Source does not support any form of heightmapping, nor map-side dynamic lighting (You can do it with lightstyles). The only thing going for source is a better toolchain, but that's not heart to the engine, and source still mostly relies on external tools to do so.
Same thing I said above. Source isn't the most flashy renderer in the market, but it is a wonderful engine very well featured for modern looking games that run in a wide spectrum of hardware, and even the renderer alone is usually underrated.
again doesn't run on linux and is close source so Source engine will always be -99999999999999999999. why would anyone consider removing 99pct of trems current player-base moving to a windows only engine
-
I wasn't saying Trem should be ported to Source nor Doom3. It shouldn't, just because it would not be standalone anymore.
-
again doesn't run on linux and is close source so Source engine will always be -99999999999999999999. why would anyone consider removing 99pct of trems current player-base moving to a windows only engine
Most of the gamers don't use linux. Of course, you would lose some players; probably >50% but not 99%. On the other hand, you would gain more players than you lost, if you released it as a HL2 mod... I would be some other game not Tremulous; a clone
-
again doesn't run on linux and is close source so Source engine will always be -99999999999999999999. why would anyone consider removing 99pct of trems current player-base moving to a windows only engine
Most of the gamers don't use linux. Of course, you would lose some players; probably >50% but not 99%. On the other hand, you would gain more players than you lost, if you released it as a HL2 mod... I would be some other game not Tremulous; a clone
Have you played any of the source games recently? A lot of them are full of retarded kids who just got their first microphone and are eager to whine about something or other to everyone on the server. Sure, there are some decent players here and there, but I hardly think it's worth it to lose the Linux crowd just to gain some engine improvements.
-
again doesn't run on linux and is close source so Source engine will always be -99999999999999999999. why would anyone consider removing 99pct of trems current player-base moving to a windows only engine
Most of the gamers don't use linux. Of course, you would lose some players; probably >50% but not 99%. On the other hand, you would gain more players than you lost, if you released it as a HL2 mod... I would be some other game not Tremulous; a clone
Have you played any of the source games recently? A lot of them are full of retarded kids who just got their first microphone and are eager to whine about something or other to everyone on the server. Sure, there are some decent players here and there, but I hardly think it's worth it to lose the Linux crowd just to gain some engine improvements.
Do you realize that it sounds like Trem :D
-
Tremulous compared to any other free games I played is full of love.
-
About Xreal: theres same bboxs like in tremulous engine? I mean: square and non-rotable? I asked this question in their forum, but it seems dead.
-
Vertical AABB box or cylinder or capsule.
But most likely it is AABB.
-
again doesn't run on linux and is close source so Source engine will always be -99999999999999999999. why would anyone consider removing 99pct of trems current player-base moving to a windows only engine
Most of the gamers don't use linux. Of course, you would lose some players; probably >50% but not 99%. On the other hand, you would gain more players than you lost, if you released it as a HL2 mod... I would be some other game not Tremulous; a clone
as far as i know, exactly one of trem's coders uses windows as his regular OS (and even he codes for trem on linux)
-
Vertical AABB box or cylinder or capsule.
But most likely it is AABB.
Technically the Q3 engine can only trace AABBs vs BSP-trees. For AABB vs AABB testing one of the AABBs is converted into a BSP tree and then the generic function is called. XReal has a special case for AABB vs AABB testing, which is probably smart, because the construction of the temporary BSPs consts more time than the actual tracing, but I think there's no support for more complex collision tests.
If this would be extended arbitrary oriented bounding boxes, then the players may not be able to turn around in tight tunnels, because the width of the bounding box depends on the angle of the player. A reasonable alternative would be bounding cylinders, which would be very similar to the AABBs in practice, except you don't get more hits if you shoot at the tyrant from a 45 degree angle.
-
All quakes trace AABB vs AABB just fine. XReal didn't need to add that. They were probably refering to something else. Quakes can trace AABB vs AABB, AABB vs Brush, and AABB vs unaligned BB (tho this is disabled in all of them). They can't trace brush vs brush, nor brush vs AABB, nor unaligned vs brush, nor unaligned vs AABB. In short, the object you move has to be always an AABB, and the object that receives the impact can be of any of the available types. Quake 3 also adds capsule to the mix, but also disabled, dunno if it's functional.
A fine solution for the problem you describe (without modifying the collision code) is splitting the movement box and the hit box. That way the movement box (object that moves) remains always axis aligned, while the hitbox (object that receives the impacts from weapons) can be of any type, be it AA, a cyllindrical brushmodel, unaligned, or even a bunch of unaligneds tied to the model skeleton. This is what they did in HL (1) to implement skeletal hit detection.
-
As of now, AABB's are used for both movement and hitboxes iirc.
-
again doesn't run on linux and is close source so Source engine will always be -99999999999999999999. why would anyone consider removing 99pct of trems current player-base moving to a windows only engine
Most of the gamers don't use linux. Of course, you would lose some players; probably >50% but not 99%. On the other hand, you would gain more players than you lost, if you released it as a HL2 mod... I would be some other game not Tremulous; a clone
as far as i know, exactly one of trem's coders uses windows as his regular OS (and even he codes for trem on linux)
Because the OS the dev's use influences the OSes used by the people who play it? If it would be on steam it would be on windows. ???
And @Demolution, he said you would gain users, he said nothing about said users being good. Ahh, tangenting to flame the other person. Love it.
-
Because the OS the dev's use influences the OSes used by the people who play it? If it would be on steam it would be on windows. ???
And @Demolution, he said you would gain users, he said nothing about said users being good. Ahh, tangenting to flame the other person. Love it.
because making a source mod is somewhat difficult without windows.
-
Because the OS the dev's use influences the OSes used by the people who play it? If it would be on steam it would be on windows. ???
And @Demolution, he said you would gain users, he said nothing about said users being good. Ahh, tangenting to flame the other person. Love it.
because making a source mod is somewhat difficult without windows.
They were discussing the users they would gain and lose if tremulous _was_ ported as source mod. Obviously that wouldn't happen without dev's who can do that, but it's kind of silly arguing about the realism of tremulous going to source as this is obviously never going to happen.
-
I was simply noting on the type of player-base we would gain from such a 'migration', that's all.
Also: I love flaming MitSugna, because he takes it all in stride and completely ignores negative criticism. ;)
-
Vertical AABB box or cylinder or capsule.
But most likely it is AABB.
If this would be extended arbitrary oriented bounding boxes, then the players may not be able to turn around in tight tunnels, because the width of the bounding box depends on the angle of the player. A reasonable alternative would be bounding cylinders, which would be very similar to the AABBs in practice, except you don't get more hits if you shoot at the tyrant from a 45 degree angle.
I think bounding cylinders are better solution, because that 45 degree benefit is ... strange. And if will be possible to use rotated bboxes, it will be good for new type of buildables - no more square-only buildables.
-
About Xreal: theres same bboxs like in tremulous engine? I mean: square and non-rotable? I asked this question in their forum, but it seems dead.
It's hard to answer a question worded as terribly as the one you asked on the xreal forum. It's like you typed drunk, blindfolded, and the keyboard was behind your back.
-
About Xreal: theres same bboxs like in tremulous engine? I mean: square and non-rotable? I asked this question in their forum, but it seems dead.
It's hard to answer a question worded as terribly as the one you asked on the xreal forum. It's like you typed drunk, blindfolded, and the keyboard was behind your back.
"... he wondered why he had -100 turrets despite his donor tag."
His english may not be perfect but I can understand it.
-
Source engine = steam
what does it mean? if we use Source engine all of us will have to use that f*****-up program Steam
IoQuake 3 is fine, true it would be nice if there were more cool graphics.
-
IoQuake 3 is fine, true it would be nice if there were more cool graphics.
Its bring us back to XReal =)
-
IoQuake 3 is fine, true it would be nice if there were more cool graphics.
Its bring us back to XReal =)
Xreal looks like shiny plasticy shit.
-
IoQuake 3 is fine, true it would be nice if there were more cool graphics.
Its bring us back to XReal =)
Xreal looks like shiny plasticy shit.
It can... I don't suppose you've seen many examples of XReal. When used correctly it is very nice. And if you havn't seen examples, don't insult it.
-
Xreal looks like shiny plasticy shit.
Sorry. I know im not incredible-super-pro-mapper. But. You can make pure crap on ANY engine. All depends from mapper. I think even i can make map and shaders under xreal so it gonna look GOOD. Dont judje so rapid.
-
Catha and Moose; I've seen plenty of examples of Xreal, the vast majority of which all are the same rehashed, disgustingly reflective, wet looking, sharpness-through-the-roof, low-quality texture, idTech4-esque crap.
-
Catha and Moose; I've seen plenty of examples of Xreal, the vast majority of which all are the same rehashed, disgustingly reflective, wet looking, sharpness-through-the-roof, low-quality texture, idTech4-esque crap.
Reflection/"wet looks" and quality of texture are chosen by the artist who creates those assets, it's not limited by the engine. And they can create a lot more on Xreal then ioq3... What do you mean with sharpness?
-
Catha and Moose; I've seen plenty of examples of Xreal, the vast majority of which all are the same rehashed, disgustingly reflective, wet looking, sharpness-through-the-roof, low-quality texture, idTech4-esque crap.
Reflection/"wet looks" and quality of texture are chosen by the artist who creates those assets, it's not limited by the engine. And they can create a lot more on Xreal then ioq3... What do you mean with sharpness?
^^ XReal needs more talented artists, you don't need to have any wet or shiny textures if you don't want... (Although I will admit I have seen plenty not very admirable shiny ugly textures in XReal, but that isn't XReal's "fault")
/me waits for thorn to read and flame someone in this thread
-
Moose: Last I checked, Tremulous devs used premade texture assets in their maps.
Sharpness in a nutshell:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oKkXNsi1AGY/SwsO7N6OhRI/AAAAAAAABx8/x2OqHXR07_U/s1600/Sharpness-Comparison.jpg)
Google (http://www.google.ca/search?q=image+sharpness&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) it.
-
Moose: Last I checked, Tremulous devs used premade texture assets in their maps.
Sharpness in a nutshell:
Sharpness images.
Google (http://www.google.ca/search?q=image+sharpness&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) it.
Now would be a great time to say. What the FUCK are you talking about?
First of all, I never said anything about sharpness, that was UniqPhoeniX, and I'm sure I know more about it than you.
Secondly, what the hell does the tremulous devs, and their use of premade textures in their maps have AT ALL to do with what I was talking about. ???
^^ XReal needs more talented artists, you don't need to have any wet or shiny textures if you don't want... (Although I will admit I have seen plenty not very admirable shiny ugly textures in XReal, but that isn't XReal's "fault")
/me waits for thorn to read and flame someone in this thread
I will try to explain again, in case you didn't understand. (And judging by your responce ??? WTF you really missed it)
XReal has updated capabilites over ioquake 3, if you know how to use XReal to its potential, you can get much better looking textures, etc than plain old ioquak3.
What you were thinking about when you started talking to me about sharpness, or talking about the fact that the Tremulous Dev's didn't create all of their textures, I have no idea. ???
-
Can someone link to some decent xreal screen shots.
Everything I've seen has always been "zomg it's X" style things, so OTT bloom, or cum all over the camera, or out of focus or otherwise shit looking.
Also be nice if said decent screen shots were taken at decent frame rate :)
-
Can someone link to some decent xreal screen shots.
Everything I've seen has always been "zomg it's X" style things, so OTT bloom, or cum all over the camera, or out of focus or otherwise shit looking.
Also be nice if said decent screen shots were taken at decent frame rate :)
on a sub $100 gpu.
-
Can someone link to some decent xreal screen shots.
Everything I've seen has always been "zomg it's X" style things, so OTT bloom, or cum all over the camera, or out of focus or otherwise shit looking.
Also be nice if said decent screen shots were taken at decent frame rate :)
You can try google to find some pretty nice ones.
Thorn also showed some very nice pictures on tremor from June 2009, I don't know if he has any newer ones he'd like to show off.
It shows how you can get much more detail, very 3d looking with reliefmapping enabled.
(http://ader008.titandsl.co.uk/thorn/xreal/trem/xreal-20090708-021826-000.png)
and it also has very nice lighting capabilities.
(http://ader008.titandsl.co.uk/thorn/xreal/trem/xreal-20090712-124707-000.png)
It says 25 FPS here, but Thorn claims to have photoshopped his FPS to be lower than it really was. ???
http://unvanquished.net/forum/index.php?topic=218.0 (http://unvanquished.net/forum/index.php?topic=218.0)
-
To be fair that's a pretty crap showoff of the engine ( Using lowres tremor textures with parallax = silly).
This is taken from the topic of the XreaL IRC channel, done by qualified a artist:
HD Forest Scene (http://willihammes.com/webtemp/forest_capture_05.mp4)
-
To be fair that's a pretty crap showoff of the engine ( Using lowres tremor textures with parallax = silly).
This is taken from the topic of the XreaL IRC channel, done by qualified a artist:
HD Forest Scene (http://willihammes.com/webtemp/forest_capture_05.mp4)
heh, i was about to say the same (huge amount of aliasing doesn't help either). you should ditch the bloom btw, it makes the textures look washed out.
-
I will try to explain again, in case you didn't understand. (And judging by your responce ??? WTF you really missed it)
XReal has updated capabilites over ioquake 3, if you know how to use XReal to its potential, you can get much better looking textures, etc than plain old ioquak3.
What you were thinking about when you started talking to me about sharpness, or talking about the fact that the Tremulous Dev's didn't create all of their textures, I have no idea. ???
Christsakes, Moose. Pheonix would've taken what he needed to out of that post, and you would've taken what you needed too. I'll more clearly define when I'm talking to different people next time (I thought sense wasn't extinct). Looking past the engine itself, the xreal community seems to be devoid of any decent talent. Textures and shaders are rubbish. Everything looks shiny. If you take a look through your default maps, you'll notice that most shaders are even just modified versions of other shaders. The Tremulous devs have not put that much work into mapping textures or shaders. You said that it's not the engine's fault, but the resources that the map uses. I'm saying, we won't have any better resources.
For some reason I doubt Thorn would photoshop that FPS about as much as I don't doubt that Thorn would photoshop that FPS.
David: I haven't seen any.
Kevlar: Yes, please!
Thorn: Most of us don't have supercomputers. Show something worthwhile that, as Kev said, is viable on a cheap rig. I could preach about Crytek all day and show you pretty screenshots and videos and plead with the community and the devs to port, but no one cares because only a tiny percent of us can run something on that engine. kthxbye
-
Those screenshots are taken without bloom. Bloom is pretty useless for most modern practises imo. The poor lighting from the q3->xreal map conversion is what's washing it out ( It's basically just a bunch of scattered point lights around the map, so that it can be lit at all. )
-
Christsakes, Moose. Pheonix would've taken what he needed to out of that post, and you would've taken what you needed too. I'll more clearly define when I'm talking to different people next time (I thought sense wasn't extinct). Looking past the engine itself, the xreal community seems to be devoid of any decent talent.
Yes, welcome to opensource, good artists are extremely rare, because guess what, anyone spending the time to get to that level of work is looking for a job in the industry anyway.
For some reason I doubt Thorn would photoshop that FPS about as much as I don't doubt that Thorn would photoshop that FPS.
25fps on a 7600GT at that screenmode with those settings is more than acceptable. Guess what? If your hardware can't handle the load, don't turn all the fancy features on. I'm pretty sure this solution has worked for decades now.
David: I haven't seen any.
I just posted a perfectly strong example of XreaL's capabillities if you look on the last page, oh no wait. You pretended to be ignorant to it on this paragraph then arrogant about it on the next. Let's move on then.
Thorn: Most of us don't have supercomputers. Show something worthwhile that, as Kev said, is viable on a cheap rig. I could preach about Crytek all day and show you pretty screenshots and videos and plead with the community and the devs to port, but no one cares because only a tiny percent of us can run something on that engine. kthxbye
To be fair you need to get to reality, or catch up with it. No, most people don't have 'super computers', infact, end consumers don't get to buy super computers. You can buy a GTX260 for just over ~$120, which is capable of doing that forest scene video at 50-60fps @ 1080p, full detail. There's plenty of lower end cards, for sub-$50 that can run xreal with relief mapping on.
Sure, you could go on about crytek all day and exaggerate about the number of people that can run the engine. Let's get this straight, a 6600GT can play crysis at low detail, fluently, and still look damn amazing. How much is that going to put you out of pocket? Uh, about $30. Damn gits with their super computers!!!!!
You are a fine example of the closed-mind that is trying to keep opensource in the dark ages. In your mindset there is no point looking forward to future technical enhancements, because your current hardware isn't capable of supporting it ???
If projects, sided with talented artists, and learners well on their way, don't strive for a higher level of end product, then what point is there at all? Why don't we go back to the original Quake engine? It gives me a far higher framerate.
-
This is taken from the topic of the XreaL IRC channel, done by qualified a artist:
HD Forest Scene (http://willihammes.com/webtemp/forest_capture_05.mp4)
Madness :o
-
I will try to explain again, in case you didn't understand. (And judging by your responce ??? WTF you really missed it)
XReal has updated capabilites over ioquake 3, if you know how to use XReal to its potential, you can get much better looking textures, etc than plain old ioquak3.
What you were thinking about when you started talking to me about sharpness, or talking about the fact that the Tremulous Dev's didn't create all of their textures, I have no idea. ???
Christsakes, Moose. Pheonix would've taken what he needed to out of that post, and you would've taken what you needed too. I'll more clearly define when I'm talking to different people next time (I thought sense wasn't extinct). Looking past the engine itself, the xreal community seems to be devoid of any decent talent. Textures and shaders are rubbish. Everything looks shiny. If you take a look through your default maps, you'll notice that most shaders are even just modified versions of other shaders. The Tremulous devs have not put that much work into mapping textures or shaders. You said that it's not the engine's fault, but the resources that the map uses. I'm saying, we won't have any better resources.
For some reason I doubt Thorn would photoshop that FPS about as much as I don't doubt that Thorn would photoshop that FPS.
Don't get mad because you addressed your entire post to me (when you put someones name at the top with a colon, until specified otherwise, that is who you are talking to. And you thought sense wasn't extinct. ::)) and I react as such.
As to the rest of your post,
Looking past the engine itself, the xreal community seems to be devoid of any decent talent. Textures and shaders are rubbish. Everything looks shiny. If you take a look through your default maps, you'll notice that most shaders are even just modified versions of other shaders. The Tremulous devs have not put that much work into mapping textures or shaders. You said that it's not the engine's fault, but the resources that the map uses. I'm saying, we won't have any better resources.
1. What the Tremulous devs did for Tremulous does not have anything to do with XReal
2.Wow, are you saying that the reason you dislike XReal is because there aren't (m)any talented artists using it? That's funny because,
^^ XReal needs more talented artists, you don't need to have any wet or shiny textures if you don't want...
I could have sworn that was basically exactly what I said earlier.
This was explained to you earlier (see page 2) and than you started going off about other things, and now you circle back to this.
XReal has much more potential than Ioquake3, as it has been updated with many more features. At present there isn't enough talent making use of XReal, but Thorn showed what it can look like when done well.
Thorn also explained some pretty basic reasoning about worth and who can use this.
Seems pretty obvious to me... I don't see why you are lashing out desperatly trying to insult XReal (Looks shiny, shit, people wont be able to use it, etc... which by the way, as explained are mostly wrong.) It's an update, and if you don't like it that's fine. Critizing is fine too, (I have nothing to do with XReal development so it's not like I would care about that) it's just you seem intent on insulting it for random or no reasons,
You are a fine example of the closed-mind that is trying to keep opensource in the dark ages. In your mindset there is no point looking forward to future technical enhancements, because your current hardware isn't capable of supporting it ???
EDIT: I totally forgot about that video Thorn. That is quite amazing work by whoever did it.
-
Again about rotated bbox - xreal used tremulous code for wallwalking. But how I see on screenshot below, bbox following model, not like in tremulous. That is good.
(http://xreal-project.net/wp-content/gallery/wallwalk/xreal-20090131-233343-000.jpg)
-
To be fair you need to get to reality, or catch up with it. No, most people don't have 'super computers', infact, end consumers don't get to buy super computers. You can buy a GTX260 for just over ~$120, which is capable of doing that forest scene video at 50-60fps @ 1080p, full detail. There's plenty of lower end cards, for sub-$50 that can run xreal with relief mapping on.
Sure, you could go on about crytek all day and exaggerate about the number of people that can run the engine. Let's get this straight, a 6600GT can play crysis at low detail, fluently, and still look damn amazing. How much is that going to put you out of pocket? Uh, about $30. Damn gits with their super computers!!!!!
You are a fine example of the closed-mind that is trying to keep opensource in the dark ages. In your mindset there is no point looking forward to future technical enhancements, because your current hardware isn't capable of supporting it ???
If projects, sided with talented artists, and learners well on their way, don't strive for a higher level of end product, then what point is there at all? Why don't we go back to the original Quake engine? It gives me a far higher framerate.
hum de-dum.
hmm. okay. so, i'll address your point about the graphics card by stating the obvious: some hardware is dependent on other hardware. you want a better graphics card? gotta make sure your PSU is good for the load. gotta make sure your motherboard is good for the load. gotta make sure you're not bottlenecking at your CPU or your RAM. gotta make sure everything fits. gotta make sure everything's compatible. in the end, depending on the right that you're upgrading, you might be better off just getting a new computer, which is quite a bit upwards of ~$120.
oh, and to seriously address you sarcastic comment about downgrading, the human eye can only see the difference in FPS up to.. what is it.. 100? 120? trem isn't quite a trickjumping game, so we don't benefit from having incredibly high fps, and quake 1 takes away features that are key to gameplay
-
To be fair you need to get to reality, or catch up with it. No, most people don't have 'super computers', infact, end consumers don't get to buy super computers. You can buy a GTX260 for just over ~$120, which is capable of doing that forest scene video at 50-60fps @ 1080p, full detail. There's plenty of lower end cards, for sub-$50 that can run xreal with relief mapping on.
Sure, you could go on about crytek all day and exaggerate about the number of people that can run the engine. Let's get this straight, a 6600GT can play crysis at low detail, fluently, and still look damn amazing. How much is that going to put you out of pocket? Uh, about $30. Damn gits with their super computers!!!!!
You are a fine example of the closed-mind that is trying to keep opensource in the dark ages. In your mindset there is no point looking forward to future technical enhancements, because your current hardware isn't capable of supporting it ???
If projects, sided with talented artists, and learners well on their way, don't strive for a higher level of end product, then what point is there at all? Why don't we go back to the original Quake engine? It gives me a far higher framerate.
hum de-dum.
hmm. okay. so, i'll address your point about the graphics card by stating the obvious: some hardware is dependent on other hardware. you want a better graphics card? gotta make sure your PSU is good for the load. gotta make sure your motherboard is good for the load. gotta make sure you're not bottlenecking at your CPU or your RAM. gotta make sure everything fits. gotta make sure everything's compatible. in the end, depending on the right that you're upgrading, you might be better off just getting a new computer, which is quite a bit upwards of ~$120.
oh, and to seriously address you sarcastic comment about downgrading, the human eye can only see the difference in FPS up to.. what is it.. 100? 120? trem isn't quite a trickjumping game, so we don't benefit from having incredibly high fps, and quake 1 takes away features that are key to gameplay
It really is a shame you are just proving his point more.
-
To be fair you need to get to reality, or catch up with it. No, most people don't have 'super computers', infact, end consumers don't get to buy super computers. You can buy a GTX260 for just over ~$120, which is capable of doing that forest scene video at 50-60fps @ 1080p, full detail. There's plenty of lower end cards, for sub-$50 that can run xreal with relief mapping on.
Sure, you could go on about crytek all day and exaggerate about the number of people that can run the engine. Let's get this straight, a 6600GT can play crysis at low detail, fluently, and still look damn amazing. How much is that going to put you out of pocket? Uh, about $30. Damn gits with their super computers!!!!!
You are a fine example of the closed-mind that is trying to keep opensource in the dark ages. In your mindset there is no point looking forward to future technical enhancements, because your current hardware isn't capable of supporting it ???
If projects, sided with talented artists, and learners well on their way, don't strive for a higher level of end product, then what point is there at all? Why don't we go back to the original Quake engine? It gives me a far higher framerate.
hum de-dum.
hmm. okay. so, i'll address your point about the graphics card by stating the obvious: some hardware is dependent on other hardware. you want a better graphics card? gotta make sure your PSU is good for the load. gotta make sure your motherboard is good for the load. gotta make sure you're not bottlenecking at your CPU or your RAM. gotta make sure everything fits. gotta make sure everything's compatible. in the end, depending on the right that you're upgrading, you might be better off just getting a new computer, which is quite a bit upwards of ~$120.
oh, and to seriously address you sarcastic comment about downgrading, the human eye can only see the difference in FPS up to.. what is it.. 100? 120? trem isn't quite a trickjumping game, so we don't benefit from having incredibly high fps, and quake 1 takes away features that are key to gameplay
Actually in some places I struggle to hold 90fps in trem even on this setup. Oh by the way >
You are a fine example of the closed-mind that is trying to keep opensource in the dark ages. In your mindset there is no point looking forward to future technical enhancements, because your current hardware isn't capable of supporting it ???
-
where the F*** is actually Xreal used, in which game? it looks too cool for my computer or at least my video card (Nvidia GeForce6200). but actually it doesn't give tremulous-ish look, too detailed, bright and plastic shit.
-
OMG. All depends from mapper! I dont think its 'plastic'. Here for example http://xreal-project.net/wp-content/gallery/tvy-bench/xreal-20090404-222937-000.jpg (http://xreal-project.net/wp-content/gallery/tvy-bench/xreal-20090404-222937-000.jpg). And check xreal site. Usually it working faster than ioQ3.
-
where the F*** is actually Xreal used, in which game? it looks too cool for my computer or at least my video card (Nvidia GeForce6200). but actually it doesn't give tremulous-ish look, too detailed, bright and plastic shit.
And the Q3 engine looks flat, static, dull, and lifeless. Most of the screenshots for XreaL have been done by amateur artists(such as myself) who aren't exactly adept with the extended Doom3 material system that XreaL uses. Stannum, for example, could probably create some amazing artwork with a renderer like XreaL.
-
While I'm here, I'll inform you newbies of the fact that Darkplaces > Xreal. So if you really want to have Tremulous with a different engine, better use a proper one.
-
While I'm here, I'll inform you newbies of the fact that Darkplaces > Xreal. So if you really want to have Tremulous with a different engine, better use a proper one.
Do you have screenshots to show for this? I'd heard of darkplaces, but hadn't much seen examples, so I tried googling them, and what I saw wasn't very impressive. Although, probably the best artwork wouldnt happen to turn up there anyways, which is why I'm asking you.
-
Nexiuz uses Darkplaces.
I haven't seen any extravagant displays of the Darkplaces engine; perhaps I should take a closer look at Nexiuz.
If I understand correctly though, Xreal has/will have more tools for artists than Darkplaces does.
-
Well Nexuiz sucks (atleast when I played it). So I think you had better show off pictures of how great this Darkplaces engine is before posting such bold statements.
-
Darkplaces looks a bit crappy if anything.
1 (http://www.alientrap.org/media/zymshot2.jpg)
2 (http://linux.softpedia.com/screenshots/Dark-Places_1.jpg)
3 (http://linux.softpedia.com/screenshots/Dark-Places_3.jpg)
4 (http://linux.softpedia.com/screenshots/Dark-Places_2.jpg)
-
The water is actually pretty good looking in one of those pictures. The rest of it... especially the textures (and their sizes!!!). :-X
-
4 (http://linux.softpedia.com/screenshots/Dark-Places_2.jpg)
Quake 1 with 20fps? :D
Water looks beter even with Cube2 engine.
-
Wait, what. All you kids need to be convinced that a certain 3D-engine is better than another is a few screenshots?
-
Ok, lava, give us facts. Your famous 'you all nabz, and cant understand it' only prove that XReal better and darkplaces its only your 'opinion' on this moment. So please tell us why you think one engine better than another. And yeah, i can google it. But why i must do your work?
-
Wait, what. All you kids need to be convinced that a certain 3D-engine is better than another is a few screenshots?
I liked you better when you rage quit.
-
Wait, what. All you kids need to be convinced that a certain 3D-engine is better than another is a few screenshots?
I don't care which engine is better, but I think the chance of tremulous being ported to the darkplaces engine is only marginally greater that the chance of being ported to the 3D monster maze engine. Xreal is based on the Q3 engine, so much of the infrastructure would stay the same, someone "just" has to write new shaders, provide new models, new textures would be nice too, including normal/displacement maps etc. and then recompile all the maps....
-
Wait, what. All you kids need to be convinced that a certain 3D-engine is better than another is a few screenshots?
Screenshots are worth more then words (especially yours).
-
While I'm here, I'll inform you newbies of the fact that Darkplaces > Xreal. So if you really want to have Tremulous with a different engine, better use a proper one.
Eh...not really. DP is ok, but Xreal definitely looks better, runs faster, and is more compatible with Trem. Darkplaces also uses an interpreted language for it's game code, which is a handicap right off of the bat. DP is certainly capable of nice effects, but it's also lacking alot of things too. The code is unneccessarily obfuscated and bloated with alot of hardware specific things that don't seem to accomplish much, because it still runs poorly on older hardware. Also, if Nexuiz is any kind of example, the netcode is quite lacking. DP is saddled with trying to be compatible with Q1, which had terribly designed lighting and maps(hey it was 1996, we've learned much since then right?).
Xreal makes the most sense if you're trying to improve the look of the game, but you are going to have issues with older hardware, period. IoQ3 is ok as far as being a solid engine, but it definitely looks extremely dated.
-
Eh...not really. DP is ok, but Xreal definitely looks better, runs faster, and is more compatible with Trem. Darkplaces also uses an interpreted language for it's game code, which is a handicap right off of the bat.
Actually, pretty much all games do. So eh? The XreaL has a java port of the game code too, which was 50-100% faster than QVM ( and afaik has to be interpreted too? )
-
Despite Lava not yet having defended his points, you all decide to jump on the bandwagon and flame away. ::)
-
Despite Lava not yet having defended his points, you all decide to jump on the bandwagon and flame away. ::)
Or as it's called in most cases: Discussing facts
I don't see any flaming, apart from you trying to stir some. It was quite fine in here discussing facts behind both engines
-
Probably you should check the most recent version of Nexuiz it is not bad
Eh? If you think quakeC is a handicap then so is qvm.
Note that porting to xreal is easier.
I think java is faster because of its design or JIT
Strange isn't it
?
:P
-
porting to quakeC is a lot less work than porting to java.
-
The XreaL has a java port of the game code too, which was 50-100% faster than QVM ( and afaik has to be interpreted too? )
Isn't QVM just a .dll?
-
nope, it's a bytecode.
-
Wait, what. All you kids need to be convinced that a certain 3D-engine is better than another is a few screenshots?
Hi,
You come here, insult us (calling [I assume everyone] "newbies" and "kids." Man, I miss it when you were capable of making sensible and funny insults instead), and make completely idiotic claims with no evidence and expect us to pay serious attention to you? If you're going to bring up such a bold opinion, at least make it arguable.
Goodness, what has become of you...
-
Wait, what. All you kids need to be convinced that a certain 3D-engine is better than another is a few screenshots?
Hi,
You come here, insult us (calling [I assume everyone] "newbies" and "kids." Man, I miss it when you were capable of making sensible and funny insults instead), and make completely idiotic claims with no evidence and expect us to pay serious attention to you? If you're going to bring up such a bold opinion, at least make it arguable.
Goodness, what has become of you...
A lame, old troll with nothing to give.
Dark Places used in Nexuiz looks like shit especially on outdoor maps.
-
Darkplaces is great for playing Quake 1 with(to rediscover the game), and not much else, I'm afraid. The fact that its netcode is similar to QuakeWorld's(which catered to dialup latency) wouldn't help Tremulous, and would just get in the way. Q3's netcode is much better for broadband(it was designed for it) and dialup too, for that matter.
If Tremulous used XreaL it wouldn't even need to have re-done artwork. Who says we absolutely need awesome graphics right this second? The speed that XreaL can achieve with its behind-the-scenes rendering optimizations is worth it alone. After it's ported, later updates could include graphics enhancements. Plus, using XreaL would finally fix the shadowing problem with the current crappy stencil/projected shadows in the Q3 engine.
-
I don't recall if I've ever expressed these sentiments before, but any discussion of other engines is really an academic exercise. Moving to a different engine basically entails a complete rewrite and (I hope) is obviously not something we want or have the time to do. The only realistic option for better graphics (which seems to be the main motivation for this thread) is to use something based on Q3 like XReaL or the UrT renderer.
-
(http://lcd.satgnu.net/images/pictures/q1mara1.jpg)
It begins...
-
I don't recall if I've ever expressed these sentiments before, but any discussion of other engines is really an academic exercise. Moving to a different engine basically entails a complete rewrite and (I hope) is obviously not something we want or have the time to do. The only realistic option for better graphics (which seems to be the main motivation for this thread) is to use something based on Q3 like XReaL or the UrT renderer.
isnt UrT client hence renderer just ioquake 3 so it wouldn't be an improvement. xreal on the other hand would be in the long run.
-
Darkplaces is great for playing Quake 1 with(to rediscover the game), and not much else, I'm afraid. The fact that its netcode is similar to QuakeWorld's(which catered to dialup latency) wouldn't help Tremulous, and would just get in the way. Q3's netcode is much better for broadband(it was designed for it) and dialup too, for that matter.
If Tremulous used XreaL it wouldn't even need to have re-done artwork. Who says we absolutely need awesome graphics right this second? The speed that XreaL can achieve with its behind-the-scenes rendering optimizations is worth it alone. After it's ported, later updates could include graphics enhancements. Plus, using XreaL would finally fix the shadowing problem with the current crappy stencil/projected shadows in the Q3 engine.
I may be wrong here, but I think the map compiler for Tremulous discards all light entities and keeps only the lightmaps and the lightgrid. Without the positions of the light sources you cannot compute the shadows. (You could compute shadows for dynamic lights only).
-
(http://lcd.satgnu.net/images/pictures/q1mara1.jpg)
It begins...
Quakeulous? Thats just...........awesome.
Anyways, its true that Xreal isn't the most well-rounded engine, but all things considered based on what engine Tremulous would benefit to both developers and gamers, Xreal would be the ideal engine to use. It would be easier to port and maintain then other engines (Especially since it's similar to the Q3 code), it has some of the modern rendering features people here are looking for and its a good chunk of the work has been already done.
If people found the need that its important Tremulous would be better off on another engine, work on it would have already started.
Though with prior experience, this discussion can be argued until the end of time yet nothing would be accomplished.
-
(http://i50.tinypic.com/5jxjk5.jpg)
big deal... mine looks better
( btw you missed the secret message in my previous post :P )
-
Darkplaces is great for playing Quake 1 with(to rediscover the game), and not much else, I'm afraid. The fact that its netcode is similar to QuakeWorld's(which catered to dialup latency) wouldn't help Tremulous, and would just get in the way. Q3's netcode is much better for broadband(it was designed for it) and dialup too, for that matter.
If Tremulous used XreaL it wouldn't even need to have re-done artwork. Who says we absolutely need awesome graphics right this second? The speed that XreaL can achieve with its behind-the-scenes rendering optimizations is worth it alone. After it's ported, later updates could include graphics enhancements. Plus, using XreaL would finally fix the shadowing problem with the current crappy stencil/projected shadows in the Q3 engine.
I may be wrong here, but I think the map compiler for Tremulous discards all light entities and keeps only the lightmaps and the lightgrid. Without the positions of the light sources you cannot compute the shadows. (You could compute shadows for dynamic lights only).
This is true. Xreal also discards all light entities during compile(unless they have the dynamic flag). Lights from weapons and other things would cast shadow.
-
Did anyone compiled xreal on windows?
-
Did anyone compiled xreal on windows?
of course not... they just like to mention it in every opportunity and admire the screenshots.
-
Did anyone compiled xreal on windows?
who cares about windows
i have compiled it on linux.
-
Did anyone compiled xreal on windows?
who cares about windows
Only half of the community... ::)
-
Did anyone compiled xreal on windows?
The Windows binaries are in the SVN. Some frown on this decision but it's intended for artists who don't know how to compile stuff.
-
But I saw somewhere that xreal tremulous can be compiled only for linux yet. I cant test it, I have shitty gfx card.
-
But I saw somewhere that xreal tremulous can be compiled only for linux yet. I cant test it, I have shitty gfx card.
Then why are you even trying...
-
But I saw somewhere that xreal tremulous can be compiled only for linux yet. I cant test it, I have shitty gfx card.
Then why are you even trying...
All he did was ask...
-
But I saw somewhere that xreal tremulous can be compiled only for linux yet. I cant test it, I have shitty gfx card.
Then why are you even trying...
All he did was ask...
And.. Y'know.. Kinda jump on the bandwagon of people who can't run an Xreal based game too well?
-
Then why would he attempt to compile it? That's all I asked.
-
I not attemped to compile it, but I should. It could save half of this thread. >:(
I want to know if is possible run xreal Tremulous on windows. And yes, I can't run it, that is reason, why I asking.
-
Xreal - wtf? whats that? seems very high graphics tho.
Source - fuck steam.
ioq3 - Out dated graphics, fine tho.
Cryengine(1 or 2) - can't make even a mod on it.
Come on guys! did you know that CoD2 was made on ioq3 engine? it has much better textures and other shit that trem hasn't, but you are whining about changing engine! The devs just have to work more, and thats it!
-
The devs just have to work more, and thats it!
I doubt that devs can make higher FPS on this engine with any work.
-
Come on guys! did you know that CoD2 was made on ioq3 engine?
No, it wasnt. CoD was based on q3, CoD2 based on totally new engine by Infinity Ward.
Quoting:
Unlike Call of Duty 1 the second part did not use the id Tech 3 Engine, but a self developed structure. It supported DX 7 and DX9 and delivered impressive - at the time of the Call of Duty 2 release - textures, pixel shading as well as legendary smoke effects.
-
Come on guys! did you know that CoD2 was made on ioq3 engine?
No, it wasnt. CoD was based on q3, CoD2 based on totally new engine by Infinity Ward.
Quoting:
Unlike Call of Duty 1 the second part did not use the id Tech 3 Engine, but a self developed structure. It supported DX 7 and DX9 and delivered impressive - at the time of the Call of Duty 2 release - textures, pixel shading as well as legendary smoke effects.
I bet it is still based on q3
-
http://www.moddb.com/games/call-of-duty-2
-
...thanks to the stunning visuals of the new Call of Duty 2 engine.
Call of Duty 2 provides an amazing experience with all-new enhancements, ranging from stunningly realistic graphics to seamless gameplay, a new engine...
Engine id Tech 3
Engine In-house engine by Infinity Ward
???
-
After 5 minutes of googling around
http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/396035-cod2-engine/
-
The use of an in-house engine as an excuse was probably because Quake 3 was 6 years old at the time of CoD2's release. That probably wouldn't make very good press. It's likely the code was heavily modified though. I still bet MW2 has a tiny bit of Q3 left in it somewhere.
-
Here are all games made on IdTech3 (Quake 3 engine) http://www.moddb.com/engines/id-tech-3/games
Look! there is even a game made in 2009 using Quakes engine! does it look bad? NO!!!
EDIT: the list hasn't got Medal of Honor: allied assault games in it. when those games are starting it says, this game is using IdTech3, ID Tech3 is a something owned by ID software! happy?
-
Yes the point is, that these games use HEAVILY MODIFIED, EXTENDED, IMPROVED, FIXED idTech3 while Tremulous uses fixed idTech3 with few "enchantments" like "bloom".
But hey, xreal is based on ioq3! Then why you want devs to improve current renderer instead of moving to xreal?
-
After 5 minutes of googling around
http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/396035-cod2-engine/
Its just opinion of one man. He isnt one of CoD2 devs, so his words its only words. =)
May be engine was based on some libraries of q3, but its different engine anyway. its NOT pure q3 engine.
I can say that XReal also such 'q3 engine'. But its modified so far that can be counted as new engine, based on ioq3.
And now we back to start. We need better engine (or manual upgrade for current) for "much better textures and other shit that trem hasn't"
-
Higher poly models would be more needed IMO. currently these ones look very much like many cubes just put together.
-
Here are all games made on IdTech3 (Quake 3 engine) http://www.moddb.com/engines/id-tech-3/games
Look! there is even a game made in 2009 using Quakes engine! does it look bad? NO!!!
It still has that "pre Doom III" look. No per-pixel lighting at all. Xreal would solve this issue.
-
Higher poly models would be more needed IMO. currently these ones look very much like many cubes just put together.
High poly count cant help much with quality. Without improved shaders even very high poly model gonna look not natural and ugly. But with good render engine u can make even low-poly model looks fantastic.
-
Tremulous uses fixed idTech3 with few "enchantments" like "bloom".
tremulous doesnt have bloom
those engines might be based on idtech3 but i bet 1/2 the codes been ripped-out and optimised features added etc soo much so its prob wrong to call it idtech3 not much can be done with idtech3 its kinda old and shows its age i think trem pushes it a lil much asis.
-
Tremfusion has bloom....
-
Tremfusion has bloom....
so does fsm-trem(which is where TF got its bloom)(and fsm got it from some other game i forget what)
but the default client doesnt have it
-
Maybe so, but Tremfusion is still a tremulous client, therefore its trem, therefore trem has bloom.
-
Maybe so, but Tremfusion is still a tremulous client, therefore its trem, therefore trem has bloom.
Your logic is revolutionary. We should build a computer based around this theory.
-
The poor appearence of DP (as used in Nexuiz) is laregely due the game assets than the engine - many textures used in the game are "recycled" from old sources with normal/gloss maps badly hacked on to them. The handful of well-made maps using TRaK's textures and others using DOOM3/Q4 assets out there do a far better job of showing the engine's capabilities. Many of the performance issues can be attributed to poor exploitation of modern hardware, i.e. large parts of the code being written for single-threaded uniprocessor systems.
-
I don't recall if I've ever expressed these sentiments before, but any discussion of other engines is really an academic exercise. Moving to a different engine basically entails a complete rewrite and (I hope) is obviously not something we want or have the time to do. The only realistic option for better graphics (which seems to be the main motivation for this thread) is to use something based on Q3 like XReaL or the UrT renderer.
Simply put, IF trem moves to a different engine then the only logical choice is XReal, end of story. Since there's already a port for linux then it's a lot simpler I would have thought.
I certainly would hope that any porting to a new engine would occur AFTER 1.2 is released.
-
Moving to a different engine basically entails a complete rewrite and (I hope) is obviously not something we want or have the time to do.
I certainly would hope that any porting to a new engine would occur AFTER 1.2 is released.
Why do you bother quoting him if you don't bother to read what he writes?
-
Moving to a different engine basically entails a complete rewrite and (I hope) is obviously not something we want or have the time to do.
I certainly would hope that any porting to a new engine would occur AFTER 1.2 is released.
Why do you bother quoting him if you don't bother to read what he writes?
Based on the assumption that 1.2 is the reason they can't do a port.
-
Moving to a different engine basically entails a complete rewrite and (I hope) is obviously not something we want or have the time to do.
I certainly would hope that any porting to a new engine would occur AFTER 1.2 is released.
Why do you bother quoting him if you don't bother to read what he writes?
Based on the assumption that 1.2 is the reason they can't do a port.
I don't recall asking you the question.
-
I certainly would hope that any porting to a new engine would occur AFTER 1.2 is released.
Why do you bother quoting him if you don't bother to read what he writes?
Based on the assumption that 1.2 is the reason they can't do a port.
I don't recall asking you the question.
I don't recall you thinking before typing.
-
I certainly would hope that any porting to a new engine would occur AFTER 1.2 is released.
Why do you bother quoting him if you don't bother to read what he writes?
Based on the assumption that 1.2 is the reason they can't do a port.
I don't recall asking you the question.
I don't recall you thinking before typing.
What are you talking about... Random word changing retorts are something I would expect from fifth graders. Please do not try to flame me or even get involved in this. This was obviously a personal response to FisherP, and it does not at all concern you. There is no way you can voice his opinion for him, so please do not respond to this anymore. Thank you.
-
I don't recall if I've ever expressed these sentiments before, but any discussion of other engines is really an academic exercise. Moving to a different engine basically entails a complete rewrite and (I hope) is obviously not something we want or have the time to do. The only realistic option for better graphics (which seems to be the main motivation for this thread) is to use something based on Q3 like XReaL or the UrT renderer.
Simply put, IF trem moves to a different engine then the only logical choice is XReal, end of story. Since there's already a port for linux then it's a lot simpler I would have thought.
I certainly would hope that any porting to a new engine would occur AFTER 1.2 is released.
At Mooseberry, um, read the bits in bold in the quotes above.
-
I don't recall if I've ever expressed these sentiments before, but any discussion of other engines is really an academic exercise. Moving to a different engine basically entails a complete rewrite and (I hope) is obviously not something we want or have the time to do. The only realistic option for better graphics (which seems to be the main motivation for this thread) is to use something based on Q3 like XReaL or the UrT renderer.
Simply put, IF trem moves to a different engine then the only logical choice is XReal, end of story. Since there's already a port for linux then it's a lot simpler I would have thought.
I certainly would hope that any porting to a new engine would occur AFTER 1.2 is released.
At Mooseberry, um, read the bits in bold in the quotes above.
Ok... So for the first sentance you decided to repeat exactly what he just said, "only realistic option xreal" "xreal", and than for the second sentance, you said you hope porting to new engine happens after 1.2... which basically makes it seem like you didn't understand you were speaking hypothetically. Maybe you confuse yourself?
-
(http://i50.tinypic.com/5jxjk5.jpg)
big deal... mine looks better
( btw you missed the secret message in my previous post :P )
This isn't fair, you picked an ancient warsow pic. How about this one instead:
(http://www.foopics.com/showfull/5e5817d276ed7bac15668faa5f2a999e) (http://www.foopics.com/show/5e5817d276ed7bac15668faa5f2a999e)
-
Can someone, who understand engine problems, look at this?: http://sauerbraten.sourceforge.net/screenshots.html
It is suitable for Tremulous or not? I tried Sauerbraten game and I got low FPS (but I have old PC). Gameplay reminds me old DOOM I, but graphic is really nice, especially water or even bullet marks on wall. On the other side, animations are ugly even they should be ragdoll, same with explosions. I think that can be improved but what do you think about this engine?
Engine Features
* 6 directional heightfield in octree world structure allowing for instant easy in-game geometry editing (even in multiplayer, coop edit).
* Rendering engine optimized for high geometry throughput, supporting hardware occlusion culling and software precomputed conservative PVS with occluder fusion.
* Lightmap based lighting with accurate shadows from everything including mapmodels, smooth lighting for faceted geometry, and fast compiles. Soft shadowmap based shadows for dynamic entities.
* Pixel and vertex shader support, each model and world texture can have its own shader assigned. Supports normal and parallax mapping, specular and dynamic lighting with bloom and glow, environment-mapped and planar reflections/refractions, and post-process effects.
* Robust physics written specifically for this world structure.
* Loading of md2/md3/md5/obj models for skeletal and vertex animated characters, weapons, items, and world objects. Supports animation blending, procedural pitch animation, and ragdoll physics for skeletally-animated characters.
* Network library designed for high speed games, client/server network system.
* Small but complete configuration/scripting language.
* Simple stereo positional sound system.
* Particle engine, supporting text particles, volumetric explosions, soft particles, and decals.
* 3d menu/gui system, for in-world representation of choices.
Try assualtcube it will still be slow but might have better features: "http://assault.cubers.net/"
and also you may need a decent graphics card to make it run fast because my dad's computer is DDr2 and only has 512mB ddr ram and a decent graphics card and runs smooth at 45-100fps online depending on graphics options
-
I should take this opportunity to point out your apparent lack of understanding in computer hardware but shall instead stroke my signature, thanks.
-
the second pic looks better since it looks like a TF2 Map and Tf2 is only 3 years old