What about 3D engine ?

[kevlarman]

KKrieger is a tech demo, it's not even remotely practicle for using in a game.  It's extremely slow rendering, even with levels and models that have minimal detail. 

I think Qfusion pretty much has everthing you are looking for, and would still be scalable for lower end systems.  From what I understand IOQ3 is never going to be adding any hi end rendering fx, so you're gonna be stuck in 1999 visually with that engine.

first of all ioq3 is strongly considering upgrading their graphics, and second of all qfusion doesn't look that different between my radeon 9250 and radeonhd 4670 (only differences are world outlines, bloom (which is ugly), and shadows, all 3 can be done without the fancy hardware)

[Odin]

KKrieger is a tech demo, it's not even remotely practicle for using in a game.  It's extremely slow rendering, even with levels and models that have minimal detail. 

I think Qfusion pretty much has everthing you are looking for, and would still be scalable for lower end systems.  From what I understand IOQ3 is never going to be adding any hi end rendering fx, so you're gonna be stuck in 1999 visually with that engine.

first of all ioq3 is strongly considering upgrading their graphics, and second of all qfusion doesn't look that different between my radeon 9250 and radeonhd 4670 (only differences are world outlines, bloom (which is ugly), and shadows, all 3 can be done without the fancy hardware)

I think it's because the GLSL renderer doesn't have much to offer over the older method. Shadows cannot be done without fancy hardware .

In fact I think they still use Jal's CPU bloom.

[Hendrich]

KKrieger is a tech demo, it's not even remotely practicle for using in a game.  It's extremely slow rendering, even with levels and models that have minimal detail. 

I think Qfusion pretty much has everthing you are looking for, and would still be scalable for lower end systems.  From what I understand IOQ3 is never going to be adding any hi end rendering fx, so you're gonna be stuck in 1999 visually with that engine.

first of all ioq3 is strongly considering upgrading their graphics, and second of all qfusion doesn't look that different between my radeon 9250 and radeonhd 4670 (only differences are world outlines, bloom (which is ugly), and shadows, all 3 can be done without the fancy hardware)

I think it's because the GLSL renderer doesn't have much to offer over the older method. Shadows cannot be done without fancy hardware .

In fact I think they still use Jal's CPU bloom.

So is it safe to assume that Jal's CPU Bloom is mostly/entirely rendered on the CPU? If so, why?

[Odin]

KKrieger is a tech demo, it's not even remotely practicle for using in a game.  It's extremely slow rendering, even with levels and models that have minimal detail. 

I think Qfusion pretty much has everthing you are looking for, and would still be scalable for lower end systems.  From what I understand IOQ3 is never going to be adding any hi end rendering fx, so you're gonna be stuck in 1999 visually with that engine.

first of all ioq3 is strongly considering upgrading their graphics, and second of all qfusion doesn't look that different between my radeon 9250 and radeonhd 4670 (only differences are world outlines, bloom (which is ugly), and shadows, all 3 can be done without the fancy hardware)

I think it's because the GLSL renderer doesn't have much to offer over the older method. Shadows cannot be done without fancy hardware .

In fact I think they still use Jal's CPU bloom.

So is it safe to assume that Jal's CPU Bloom is mostly/entirely rendered on the CPU? If so, why?

Because it doesn't use any OpenGL calls really. The only things it uses are OpenGL texture stretching for working with the bloom frame.

[Kaleo]

KKrieger is a tech demo, it's not even remotely practicle for using in a game.  It's extremely slow rendering, even with levels and models that have minimal detail. 

I think Qfusion pretty much has everthing you are looking for, and would still be scalable for lower end systems.  From what I understand IOQ3 is never going to be adding any hi end rendering fx, so you're gonna be stuck in 1999 visually with that engine.

ioQ3 was aimed at fixing the stuff id didn't fix in the idTech3 source when they released it. It's actually a great advancement from Vanilla Q3.

[Winnie the Pooh]

Just wondering about the md5 support..

Star Wars JK:JA used md5's am I correct?

[Kaleo]

No. It was idTech3 through and through (despite the horrible things done to it).

[jal]

JK2 (and family) use their own skeletal model format called ghoul.

[jal]

KKrieger is a tech demo, it's not even remotely practicle for using in a game.  It's extremely slow rendering, even with levels and models that have minimal detail. 

I think Qfusion pretty much has everthing you are looking for, and would still be scalable for lower end systems.  From what I understand IOQ3 is never going to be adding any hi end rendering fx, so you're gonna be stuck in 1999 visually with that engine.

first of all ioq3 is strongly considering upgrading their graphics, and second of all qfusion doesn't look that different between my radeon 9250 and radeonhd 4670 (only differences are world outlines, bloom (which is ugly), and shadows, all 3 can be done without the fancy hardware)

What about bumpmapping, specular mapping, parallax and offsetmapping, distortions, etc?

We didn't use them much at the last version cause we are still upgrading the media, but they are used at some maps. Of course QFusion will never look like XReal or those other engines. It could be said that XReal is to Doom3 what QFusion is to Source. Of course Source isn't the paradigm of rendering features, but when it comes down to making games it's a very practical choice.

I agree that the bloom is crappy. It was cool by then, but it sux compared to HDR which is the common filter now. I'm trying to convince Vic to implement it, but didn't get him convinced by now. :/

Anyway, if ioq3 implements the same thing (cause I asume they'd go with deluxemapping, not real time) plugging warsow's renderer into Trem isn't worth the work.

[Odin]

It may be best to just write a upgraded renderer by hand because XreaL has deviated from ioQuake3 far too much.

There are a couple things that can be still used from XreaL such as MD5 support and VBOs.

[Bowzer]

I think it's because the GLSL renderer doesn't have much to offer over the older method. Shadows cannot be done without fancy hardware .

Are you kidding?  GLSL has alot to offer over fixed function calls, not to mention speed.

[Odin]

I think it's because the GLSL renderer doesn't have much to offer over the older method. Shadows cannot be done without fancy hardware .

Are you kidding?  GLSL has alot to offer over fixed function calls, not to mention speed.

Note how I said "the GLSL renderer". I was referring to QFusion, not GLSL in general.

[Hendrich]

KKrieger is a tech demo, it's not even remotely practicle for using in a game.  It's extremely slow rendering, even with levels and models that have minimal detail. 

I think Qfusion pretty much has everthing you are looking for, and would still be scalable for lower end systems.  From what I understand IOQ3 is never going to be adding any hi end rendering fx, so you're gonna be stuck in 1999 visually with that engine.

first of all ioq3 is strongly considering upgrading their graphics, and second of all qfusion doesn't look that different between my radeon 9250 and radeonhd 4670 (only differences are world outlines, bloom (which is ugly), and shadows, all 3 can be done without the fancy hardware)

What about bumpmapping, specular mapping, parallax and offsetmapping, distortions, etc?

We didn't use them much at the last version cause we are still upgrading the media, but they are used at some maps. Of course QFusion will never look like XReal or those other engines. It could be said that XReal is to Doom3 what QFusion is to Source. Of course Source isn't the paradigm of rendering features, but when it comes down to making games it's a very practical choice.

I agree that the bloom is crappy. It was cool by then, but it sux compared to HDR which is the common filter now. I'm trying to convince Vic to implement it, but didn't get him convinced by now. :/

Anyway, if ioq3 implements the same thing (cause I asume they'd go with deluxemapping, not real time) plugging warsow's renderer into Trem isn't worth the work.

HDR, something like this?

[Thorn]

That's probably one of the ugliest HDR implementations I've ever seen.

Coincidentally, XreaL has in my opinion one of the best looking HDR systems there is, and it looks better than what you see in commercial games these days. The only issue is that XreaL's HDR ((CURRENTLY)) requires a dx10 card to work properly, and iirc TR3B was doing something about that.

[kevlarman]

That's probably one of the ugliest HDR implementations I've ever seen.

Coincidentally, XreaL has in my opinion one of the best looking HDR systems there is, and it looks better than what you see in commercial games these days. The only issue is that XreaL's HDR ((CURRENTLY)) requires a dx10 card to work properly, and iirc TR3B was doing something about that.

that and it requires a map format incompatible with q3bsp.

[Amanieu]

Screw q3bsp and go for the new engine.

[Odin]

Kevlarman: No, it was compatible with Q3BSP for some time before the HDR lightgrid. It can do HDR with LDR lightmaps, they just don't look as good.

[Winnie the Pooh]

So about the water graphics.. I don't know hardly anything about it except that it probably uses a vertex-deform.

Digital Paintball 2 has water graphics that look very nice.



So what do you think?

I'd like to have this in my tremulous.

[Demolution]

^ Looks oily.

[Winnie the Pooh]

whoops I didn't realize that that screenshot has the nice water features turned off. I'll post a better screenshot, just wait.

[Kaleo]

Tremulous doesn't need a graphics overhaul. idTech3 looks marvelous for a 1999 game engine. I really don't know what everyone is complaining about.

In all realism, the most likely graphical update would be a port to idTech4 when that goes open source (probably later this year).

[Urcscumug]

I tend to agree. When caught up in a Trem game I seldom stop to notice the graphics. Frankly, the only time I give it any thought is when a friend will stop over, see Trem on the screen and go "that's some really dated graphics". At which I shrug. I'm not in it for the pretty colors.

[Kaleo]

Personally I think map quality is the most important graphical element. Player models and buildables look fine when placed on a nice backdrop.

[Bowzer]

IdTech4 is already dated, and it'll play slower then hell on older hardware because it doesn't have good scaleability.

As for the DP2 water, that is horrendously slow, as is any water that does realtime reflections, because you have to render the scene twice, or more in some cases.  The fragment shaders are nice, and can be used for a nice effect minus the reflection.  You'd be better off doing faked reflections like the UT engines.

[Odin]

idTech3 can actually do that already with misc_portal_surface.

[Ivancool]

We don't need another 3D engine!!!. All we need is money to create more complex animations, maps, alien classes, human models, weapons and structures. idTech3 is a very powerful engine in the hands of a skilled professional but to support a beast like this you need a lot of money (around 500.000 USD). This is not a joke.

[Amanieu]

Ivan is right about one thing: It is not the engine that makes the game look good, but what you do with it. If we decide to use a new engine, all the media will have to be extended or redone to support the new features of the new engine.

[Winnie the Pooh]

Ivan is right about one thing: It is not the engine that makes the game look good, but what you do with it. If we decide to use a new engine, all the media will have to be extended or redone to support the new features of the new engine.

So the real question is: would people utilize said new engine? I'm absolutely positive that if people get together to work on such a project, it will happen, somehow.

[gimhael]

No the real real question is: Do you find enough people with the skills and the spare time required to port tremulous (and at least some maps) to a different engine or else upgrade the engine with modern renderer features ?

[Winnie the Pooh]

Actually, the really real realityquestion is: would it be worth the effort?