What about 3D engine ?

[Odin]

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

What kind of a question is that? Upgraded Tremulous ANYTHING would be a Godsend right now.

[Amanieu]

No the real real question is: Do you find enough people with the skills and the spare time required to upgrade the engine with modern renderer features ?

You.

[jal]

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

And that's what's been under discussion in this thread since page 1

[CreatureofHell]

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

and the really real reality answer is: no

[Amanieu]

But that doesn't stop us crazy people from doing it.

[Taiyo.uk]

and the really real reality answer is: no

Why?

But that doesn't stop us crazy people from doing it.

<3

[CreatureofHell]

and the really real reality answer is: no

Why?

Because I say so! 

[Winnie the Pooh]

Because I say so! 

XP Shut up!

[Celestial_Rage]

what's wrong with these graphics?

[Asvarox]

They are extremely bright and no parralax mapping makes it look flat.

and it's just quake 2.

[Neo]

tbh they do have a point when it comes to whether its worth the effort, as graphics don't really mean that much, especially in a game that is designed to be fast paced, basically meaning if you stop to go 'ooh look at that sweet bump mapping' you'd be dead, and not having it makes no difference what so ever apart from keeping a lower system req.

If you want graphical fidelity you might as well use a new engine and port the 3d resources over rather than using a re-twinked 15 year old engine.

[Asvarox]

if you stop to go 'ooh look at that sweet bump mapping' you'd be dead

What if I am a builder?

Trem isn't THAT fast paced. Of course if you compare it to CS or BFH, then yes, but compared to quake, trem isn't fast. Especially when you play 1.2, everything seem slow. And why improve graphics? To make game looks better which basically mean more players. When someone is thinking about downloading a game, he watches videos/screenshoots of it. When he see it's ugly 90% he won't even try it. Outdated engine = outdated game for 90% of possible trem players. As for keeping lower system req: as Amanieu stated few post earlier, everything special in xreal can be turned off so it looks like q3, why couldn't it be possible in trem?

[Urcscumug]

That's probably true; sad but true. I've had friends remark upon the dated graphics. If they stop to give the game a second look or even play on my rig for a few minutes, they enjoy it (these being people who play CS/UT/Quake usually). But Trem's learning curve is not inducive to nice first impressions. With "regular" shooters you can jump right in and start playing immediately. Not really so with Trem, there's stuff to be learned before you even understand what's going on. Perhaps nicer graphics may help mellow the first contact.

[Asvarox]

People don't continue playing Trem because once you download it, you must do a lot of other things in order to enjoy full game. And you know what exactly you need to do, most of newbies don't know. That's why I believe it would be better to release 1.1.5 which would include backport, options in main menu, more user-friendly buy menu, internet as default source and features from svn like voip. Then thinking about gameplay changing and finally about graphical improvements.

[jal]

Especially when you play 1.2, everything seem slow.

OK, this reply is going totally offtopic but I had to quote this cause I feel like this so much when playing on devservers too. But I promise I won't continue offtopic

I've had friends remark upon the dated graphics.(these being people who play CS/UT/Quake usually).

All of them games with dated graphics? Even CS:S chooses deliberately to not use "state of the art" rendering. That's in a big part why Valve is the top seller, cause they priorize the games over the tech.

I'm never saying here Trem wouldn't benefit of some rendering improvements. All I try to point out is that rendering changes have to be chosen wisely. Going for "the most" is in no way the best option for a game like this one.

[Bowzer]

Jal is right, most is not often best, but this engine could benefit visually from some pretty basic things.

If graphics didn't mean anything, we'd all still be playing Pong

[Urcscumug]

We do! It's called Wii Tennis nowadays!

[David]

Pong has no gameplay to it.
There are lots of text only games that are very good, and are still played.

[Amanieu]

Well all the rendering features are intended for artists to take advantage of, so it mainly depends on the quality of the artists you have.

[kevlarman]

Well all the rendering features are intended for artists to take advantage of, so it mainly depends on the quality of the artists you have.

in other words, this is a waste of time

[Amanieu]

But better technology attracts artists!

[Winnie the Pooh]

But better technology attracts artists!

Sometimes, but not always. It's a bit of a gamble in that sense..

[Asvarox]

c'mon Trem already has unique gameplay and it's 100% free. With an updated engine, 1.2 will be shit.

[Hendrich]

c'mon Trem already has unique gameplay and it's 100% free. With an updated engine, 1.2 will be shit.

You mean "The shit", or shitty?

[Odin]

But better technology attracts artists!

Yeah, look at Nexuiz...

Or not.

[seeeker]

EPICNESS FOLLOWS:


Thread: Tremulous Xreal [Super Huge images 50 MB post]

[Asvarox]

those screens from first post are pretty bright
http://xserverx.com/forum/download/file.php?id=553
And granger with "star" in it's eyes?
http://xserverx.com/forum/download/file.php?id=556

[Overdose]

I think that actually looks really cool. Especially this shot of a grenade.

[Winnie the Pooh]

Okay, now I'm confused.. how did they combine xreal into tremulous.. wasn't it supposed to take a long time and hard work and stuff?

[kevlarman]

Okay, now I'm confused.. how did they combine xreal into tremulous.. wasn't it supposed to take a long time and hard work and stuff?

tremulous 1.1's engine is very close to stock ioq3.