Author Topic: What about 3D engine ? (Read 208887 times)

Amanieu · « **Reply #60 on:** March 18, 2009, 06:59:59 am »

Wrong. The engine uses ~100 megs of RAM, which phones don't have. Also, good luck aiming with a phone :x

cactusfrog · « **Reply #61 on:** March 18, 2009, 07:40:33 am »

Quote from: Amanieu on March 18, 2009, 06:59:59 am

Wrong. The engine uses ~100 megs of RAM, which phones don't have. Also, good luck aiming with a phone :x

thats why i said SOON because phones will be able to play tremulous eventually and people will learn how to aim an even if they can't its still better then tetris

your face · « **Reply #62 on:** March 18, 2009, 07:49:49 pm »

What if it has a touchscreen?

CATAHA · « **Reply #63 on:** March 18, 2009, 08:11:14 pm »

Quote from: your face on March 18, 2009, 07:49:49 pm

What if it has a touchscreen?

Sounds like aimbot. Just touch possible target on screen and relax. =]

Plague Bringer · « **Reply #64 on:** March 18, 2009, 08:32:36 pm »

Quote from: CATAHA on March 18, 2009, 08:11:14 pm

Sounds like aimbot. Just touch possible target on screen and relax. =]

Generally FPS' on touchscreen (like Q3 for the iPod touch, or whatever) work like a touch pad. You press and you drag.

Asvarox · « **Reply #65 on:** March 18, 2009, 09:04:15 pm »

Quote

Wrong. The engine uses ~100 megs of RAM, which phones don't have. Also, good luck aiming with a phone :x

I was able to run trem on computer without openGL support and 64 RAM (maybe less). The lowest settings with like 480x360 resolution. I was getting like 10 fps, but mostly because i was using r_allowSoftwareGL 1.

Asche · « **Reply #66 on:** March 18, 2009, 09:25:40 pm »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F19RwAzPaZU&feature=related

Quake 3 on Ipod touch & iPhone running 30 fps...

mooseberry · « **Reply #67 on:** March 19, 2009, 12:35:24 am »

Tremulous on phones is definitely possible. Because:

jal · « **Reply #68 on:** March 19, 2009, 02:53:40 pm »

I'm surprised no one mentions QFusion's (Warsow's) renderer as an option. It would actually be the easiest one to plug-in since it would only require to replace the renderer and uses the very same data and shader formats. Maybe because it's not so flashy, but it would be a great step forward in looks for Trem with minimal (none when running the current maps) performance impact.

Demolution · « **Reply #69 on:** March 19, 2009, 11:59:50 pm »

Flashy.

Plague Bringer · « **Reply #70 on:** March 20, 2009, 12:13:36 am »

Give mappers true dynamic lighting.

rotacak · « **Reply #71 on:** March 21, 2009, 03:09:43 pm »

Tremulous will die because not work on Commodore C-64, AtariXL and my calculator! Downgrade graphic engine to text renderer and everybody can play it with high FPS.

Everyone else upgrading graphic in their games, but they all are fools.

You cannot play new game? Take down graphic details or buy new hardware. I have old shitty computer. I have 20 FPS in some situations in ATCS. I cannot play best due to my FPS. But I vote YES for new engine. "Leave Tremulous ugly because every homeless can play it" is bad argument.

I like this view:

Hendrich · « **Reply #72 on:** March 21, 2009, 08:19:06 pm »

Quote from: rotacak on March 21, 2009, 03:09:43 pm

You cannot play new game? Take down graphic details or buy new hardware. I have old shitty computer. I have 20 FPS in some situations in ATCS. I cannot play best due to my FPS. But I vote YES for new engine. "Leave Tremulous ugly because every homeless can play it" is bad argument.

You're right, people with old PCs should gtfo and play Vortex. There isn't much gain in attracting new players with old rigs on a game that can preform well on virtually anything, we should instead get a new, flashy engine requiring a better PC and leave those noobs in the dust forcing them to either buy better hardware or go to hell. I see your point of view and it totally makes alot of sense. Its a matter of quality over quantity; Performance and stability over graphics and...graphics.

I mean, look at games like BZFlag, Galaxy Online, Runescape, etc. They are idiots for not using better graphics.

Asvarox · « **Reply #73 on:** March 21, 2009, 08:40:39 pm »

Runescape was, is and will be full of idiots, just like Tibia

gimhael · « **Reply #74 on:** March 21, 2009, 10:37:55 pm »

Writing a better renderer for Tremulous doesn't mean that the old one has to be trashed. The interface between the renderer and the rest of the game engine is already designed in a way that you can compile the game with different renderers (except there is only one renderer to choose atm unless you count the null renderer).

rotacak · « **Reply #75 on:** March 22, 2009, 12:10:54 am »

Quote from: Hendrich on March 21, 2009, 08:19:06 pm

You're right, people with old PCs should gtfo

No, they should buy new hardware or take down graphic details. How many players had shitty computer? I being killed in situation with 15FPS, cannot aim anything. So I often asking "how much fps do you have, my killer?" And answer is 70 or similar. So, maybe I am only one player, who have old shitty computer

Or no? Is there big "old shitty computer" community?

I like to play old games from arcade machines. They had graphic like this:

And I really enjoy it.

Most important is playability, no graphic. But when we already have playability, why not improve graphic? Beacuse it can't be played on old computers? Oh please... Then devs should use Doom 1 engine, you can run it on 486.

Odin · « **Reply #76 on:** March 22, 2009, 01:01:28 am »

People seem to forget that stuff can be disabled for higher performance.

What would be nice would be to at least port XreaL's VBO support for getting more rendering done on the GPU. I'm tired of getting poor performance on the ioQuake3 engine because so much of it is done on the CPU.

Bissig · « **Reply #77 on:** March 22, 2009, 02:55:44 am »

Quote from: Odin on March 22, 2009, 01:01:28 am

People seem to forget that stuff can be disabled for higher performance.

What would be nice would be to at least port XreaL's VBO support for getting more rendering done on the GPU. I'm tired of getting poor performance on the ioQuake3 engine because so much of it is done on the CPU.

+1

Powerful GPUs are so cheap these days.

Odin · « **Reply #78 on:** March 22, 2009, 05:17:11 am »

I believe even the Geforce FX series supported VBOs, and they're like $20 now.

jal · « **Reply #79 on:** March 22, 2009, 01:30:44 pm »

VBOs aren't any magic stuff that always add speed. The renderer has to be designed around them to actually perform faster. Just adding VBO support to Q3 renderer generally results on it going slower, unless you really turn the actual thing upside down.

To everyone thinking Trem should go to the coolest powerful option: Some games are more suited than others to go to the latest rendering abilities. Trem is one of the worst suited. Why? Because it puts real big lots of models and gfx in screen while playing. Trem should not go for the state of the art on rendering, cause it would not perform well even in the best hardware. And if you expect everyone to play with the lowest rendering settings you are getting an uglier game.

gimhael · « **Reply #80 on:** March 22, 2009, 02:18:54 pm »

Well, I got higher FPS with VBOs on a GeForce 6600, Amanieu got worse FPS on an Intel chip (dunno which one). The renderer spends most of the time just copying the triangle data into the buffers for the OpenGL library, because it updates the complete geometry every frame. Keeping the static geometry data on the graphicscard should generally be a win when the vertex transformation is done on the graphics chip and you don't exceed the graphics memory.

Quake 3 was definitely designed for less entities than Tremulous uses, this part of the engine is not very much optimized. One easy improvement which requires no coding skills whatsoever would be simplified models for far away entities. The engine already supports LOD switching for entities, but you have to provide separate models for different LOD levels.

Odin · « **Reply #81 on:** March 22, 2009, 05:23:45 pm »

I already tried that. It proved to be way too much work because the animations had to be re-done in order for this to work. It is a lot more work than you think. What would be easy is if Tremulous models were MD5, then lod models would be possible.

Plague Bringer · « **Reply #82 on:** March 22, 2009, 05:30:37 pm »

So, how much work is it to coerce the engine into using md5 models?

Odin · « **Reply #83 on:** March 22, 2009, 05:39:37 pm »

Quote from: Plague Bringer on March 22, 2009, 05:30:37 pm

So, how much work is it to coerce the engine into using md5 models?

Well If you're a coder I have made some effort in porting XreaL's MD5 code to ioquake3. You can view the patch here. It doesn't compile at all(I am not especially good at coding in c).

Once the support is there the models would have to be converted to md5mesh, and md5anims would have to be created. Yes this means re-doing all animations. However, it would only have to be done once, whereas it would have to be re-done for each lod model level for the original md3 models.

Plague Bringer · « **Reply #84 on:** March 22, 2009, 05:54:42 pm »

So, that means that .md5 models use skeletal animation, right? (Just clearing it up for those that don't know) That would mean that it would be much easier for users to create their own content for Tremulous, meaning new, creative units. It'd be easier for the developers to animate, too. Amanieu, if you're checking up on this, you think TremFusion will feature md5 support?

Amanieu · « **Reply #85 on:** March 22, 2009, 06:13:29 pm »

MD5 support should be easy to add, just port the code over from Xreal.

Odin · « **Reply #86 on:** March 22, 2009, 06:20:03 pm »

Quote from: Plague Bringer on March 22, 2009, 05:54:42 pm

So, that means that .md5 models use skeletal animation, right? (Just clearing it up for those that don't know) That would mean that it would be much easier for users to create their own content for Tremulous, meaning new, creative units. It'd be easier for the developers to animate, too. Amanieu, if you're checking up on this, you think TremFusion will feature md5 support?

Plus there would be no more segmented models, and the head/torso/legs would connect seamlessly together(no more pacman torso for the human models). And, if alien models were md5, they could do their movement animations while taunting, attacking, etc, and not slide across the floor.

gimhael · « **Reply #87 on:** March 23, 2009, 12:03:31 pm »

Quote from: Odin on March 22, 2009, 05:39:37 pm

Quote from: Plague Bringer on March 22, 2009, 05:30:37 pm
So, how much work is it to coerce the engine into using md5 models?
Well If you're a coder I have made some effort in porting XreaL's MD5 code to ioquake3. You can view the patch here. It doesn't compile at all(I am not especially good at coding in c).

I had a quick look at that patch, and I think it doesn't compile because it's coded for the XReal dynamic lighting. The original Quake 3 dynamic lighting has been completely reworked in XReal.

Quote from: Odin on March 22, 2009, 05:39:37 pm

Once the support is there the models would have to be converted to md5mesh, and md5anims would have to be created. Yes this means re-doing all animations. However, it would only have to be done once, whereas it would have to be re-done for each lod model level for the original md3 models.

As far as I know, you wouldn't get automatic LOD with md5. You would still have to make some low-poly models.

baybal · « **Reply #88 on:** March 23, 2009, 12:11:03 pm »

Even pseudoselfshading would be awesone on dark maps. High resolution bumps on model would be awesome too.

Plague Bringer · « **Reply #89 on:** March 23, 2009, 12:19:35 pm »

Quote from: gimhael

Quote from: Odin on March 22, 2009, 05:39:37 pm
Once the support is there the models would have to be converted to md5mesh, and md5anims would have to be created. Yes this means re-doing all animations. However, it would only have to be done once, whereas it would have to be re-done for each lod model level for the original md3 models.
As far as I know, you wouldn't get automatic LoD with md5. You would still have to make some low-poly models.

Odin was referring to the animations. Getting a lower poly model is as simple as pressing a button, as I understand it, and that lower poly model can use the same skeletal animations as the higher poly one. However, with .md3, which uses vertex animation, you would have to rebuild every animation after you lower the poly count, as you're getting rid of and creating new vertexes.

News:

Author Topic: What about 3D engine ? (Read 208887 times)