Cube2 engine

[Plague Bringer]

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

[Thorn]

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. )

[Thorn]

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.

[rotacak]

This is taken from the topic of the XreaL  IRC channel, done by qualified a artist:
HD Forest Scene

Madness

[mooseberry]

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.

[rotacak]

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.

[Plague Bringer]

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

[mooseberry]

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.

[Thorn]

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  

[Haraldx]

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.

[CATAHA]

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. And check xreal site. Usually it working faster than ioQ3.

[Odin]

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.

[Lava_Croft]

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.

[mooseberry]

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.

[KillerWhale]

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.

[your face]

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.

[Demolution]

Darkplaces looks a bit crappy if anything.

1
2
3
4

[mooseberry]

The water is actually pretty good looking in one of those pictures. The rest of it... especially the textures (and their sizes!!!). 

[rotacak]

4

Quake 1 with 20fps? 

Water looks beter even with Cube2 engine.

[Lava_Croft]

Wait, what. All you kids need to be convinced that a certain 3D-engine is better than another is a few screenshots?

[CATAHA]

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?

[Silver]

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.

[gimhael]

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....

[UniqPhoeniX]

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).

[Bowzer]

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.  

[Thorn]

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? )

[Demolution]

Despite Lava not yet having defended his points, you all decide to jump on the bandwagon and flame away.  

[Thorn]

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

[MitSugna]

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
?

[kevlarman]

porting to quakeC is a lot less work than porting to java.