Creating water
Blitz3D Forums/Blitz3D Beginners Area/Creating water
| ||
| I'm getting better at making water using textures I made in adobe photoshop 7 I also took a look at the repeat until commands in the samples Hi-Toro Shooter Studing it messing with it etc now the only thing I want to do now is make water go up and down like in a storm or something like it |
| ||
| you already asked that. In your previous water thread is a link to a thread with a lot of hi tech water, the best you can get in blitzbasic right now: http://www.blitzbasic.com/Community/posts.php?topic=54556 |
| ||
| Well I'm Sorry for asking again so I playing with Rob Hutchinson's example changing water height he was using create terrain global, dim,repeat, until all of this stuff is amazing but I wonder with Rob Hutchinson's water example in mind how would you make it more smooth when it's moving up and down that's all also out of subject the guy who created the snowman and xmas screensavers is a genius My mom loved it |
| ||
| Okay to put simply. Create a plane Texture it with anything. Alpha to .8 Use MoveEntity water,0,Cos(Millisecs()*.1)*.05,0 And play around with the .1 & .05 Use that in the main loop! |
| ||
| How do I make it wavy like this http://www.freewebs.com/tokien/Wave.bmp |
| ||
| you should know, the more waves and the smoother the waves, the more polygons it's gonna eat and therefor the slower it's gonna be. You need to find a reasonable balance between the polycount of the water and the rest of your scene. The real good looking water as seen in some top games or demos can't be done with the DirectX7 command set that is used by Blitz3D. Personally I'd suggest to take fredborgs water example (see my link) and make it work for your purposes. Even when you need to learn some things about Blitz until you are able to extract the water parts from his demo and use it for your project, it's surely worth the time, especially since you, and even me can learn a lot from his code. |
| ||
| Slightly off topic, but isn't it amazing that something as simple (to our human eyes) as water can be so technically challenging? A cube or other 3d primitive is simplicity itself, but water, whoa!! Its fluidity makes moving it around very poly-intensive. |
| ||
| Slightly off topic, but isn't it amazing that something as simple (to our human eyes) as water can be so technically challenging? A cube or other 3d primitive is simplicity itself, but water, whoa!! Its fluidity makes moving it around very poly-intensive. Water? That's relatively easy to do in 3D these days... try doing real looking and behaving CLOUDS and weather system and then you know what's hard. |
| ||
| Hmm, well, you know, fluidity applies to clouds and weather systems too. |
| ||
| well clouds are looking kind of 2d when far away from the player, people won't realize very much a lack of realism, even when a simple plane is used. Water at the other hand is something very complex IMHO, because it's behaviour depends a lot on the scale of things. A tsunami wave looks completely diffrent comparent to some small waves in a pot. Also, in the macro scale of drops the surface tension of water plays an important role, while the inertia of the mass defines the appearence in big scales. Byside the physics of water, the way it affects light is also very complex. So when you're under water, other things under water look ok, but the world that is over the water level will look distorted. It's the same vica versa, when you watch some water from outside, the seaground is distorted. So Water with all it's individual depths due to waves and various ground levels is some kind of a megacomplex lense in eternal motion. you can calculate the distortion of each pixel, but it's a pretty intensive task that needs to consider the wave height, the ground level and the angle of view. Additionally this mega-lense will of course also produce dynamic caustics, that's just a further factor that makes it hard to simulate it realiticly. Using some fake fx will do the job imho. I wouldn't spend more than 5ms per frame for the water parts. |
| ||
| @jfk: I guess that, until we hit some super-incredible processors and graphics engines (beyond today's best), we'll always have to trade-off between quality and reasonable performance. That trade-off looks to fall more on the side of the time-intensive factor rather than the quality side, meaning of course that we can only allow "x" amount of time due to frame-rates, etc, and whatever quality we can sneak in there will just have to do. OPf course, this is where clever programming can "fake it" to make up the difference. When DOOM first came out, the processors were a joke compared to the computing power we have under our hoods today, so to speak. Yet, because they pre-computed just about everything, they got unbelievable (for then) performance and effects. So, maybe we of this computer gen can look back to the earlier days to see what tricks we can find to prop up the quality for today's games. |
| ||
| Yeah, I think that's the best attitude. Too many people just go and buy better hardware - 3 times every year. Doom was indeed very fast, I mean, it was fully playable on a 66 MHz machine - and absolutely amazing. In my memories it's a perfect 3D game, and when I run it these days then I'm shocked about the raw graphics, but hey once it just opened the door to a new world of computer games. |
   |