Is This A Scene From HalfLife2!!!
Community Forums/Graphic Chat/Is This A Scene From HalfLife2!!!
| ||
 --Mike |
| ||
| Nice - any demo to see in 'action' the fx? |
| ||
| Yes Mike, it is? You photoshoped it to make it look like it's in blitz;) |
| ||
| hahahahahaaa... good one MAX... waiting for a few more comments Degac... then the truth will be revealed... :) --Mike |
| ||
| Heh, did you use a third party renderer? :P |
| ||
| Is that a high res specular map or what is it called? Gimme. |
| ||
| Mmm, I don't remember that scene in HL2 So, I guess the answer is - no - unless you built it with 'Garry's mod'. |
| ||
| Does it have boxes in it? |
| ||
| clue#1... the water... you've seen this water before... was it in HL2, or somewhere else... --Mike |
| ||
| It looks alot like the sub water you adopted from the competition. And it looks like it could have been done in blitz, using a cubemap, and a normal map. The boxes that is :o) Reveal the truth! |
| ||
| I don't particulary like the water. I like the big boxes - how much are they? |
| ||
| 3 Gold Stars for Ross... clue#2... http://www.blitzbasic.com/Community/posts.php?topic=55225 and clue#3... another pic... the url should give it away...  details in a few... (a lil busy) --Mike |
| ||
| Cool. GOLD stars :D |
| ||
| Eh, I got the answer right. 'Is This A Scene From HalfLife2!!!' Mmm, I don't remember that scene in HL2 So, I guess the answer is - no - unless you built it with 'Garry's mod'. FIVE gold stars to me - methinks. |
| ||
| that isnt hl2 at all...they use bumpmapping WAY more slightly! these boxes looking too bumpy in my eyes. the textures suggesting a much more rusty (and less brighter) surface... looks like the work of someone who just discovered bumpmapping ;D take a look at this, there IS bumpmapping, but in a much more inconspicuously way. and THAT makes even this simpel scene look fantastic:  would like to see your demo anyway ^_^ |
| ||
| looks like the work of someone who just discovered bumpmapping ;D i wouldn't say that OJay... especially not around the folks at iD, or around the Raven dev team... but anyways, lets take a look at that screenshot you posted... an objective, critical look... ok... look at the green wall and wood panels on the immediate left... now does that look like a real wall to you, or does it look like a rectangular primitive with a texture, trying to make that overhang at the top of the wall look like its really there... and not quite doing it... the wood above it... not bad... but it sure doesn't look like real wood to me... no visible depressions in the wood... those bricks on the ground... hardly any realistic material presentation there either... take a look at this, there IS bumpmapping, but in a much more inconspicuously way. and THAT makes even this simpel scene look fantastic: fantastic!!! hardly... good enough... definitely... now that may be ok for your eyes... but what i'm aiming for is a more realistic presentation, albeit with a lil artistic license here and there... these boxes looking too bumpy in my eyes. i think what you mean to say is that they look a lil to shiny... the bumpmapping isn't the issue... your eyes... maybe that's where the problem lies :) (just having a lil fun... don't hit me now :) ) the question is... do you wanna have an environment that looks fake... or do ya wanna have one where the materials look like something in the real world... at least close to something in the real world... that's the point i'm trying to make here... no gold stars for you OJay... go stand in the corner... :) as far as i see it... the only things that show any semblence in that photo above, are the barrels and maybe the piping and the brick walls in the distance... a world like the one above, where everything at least looks like it has some sorta material reality to it... a scene in which rusted metal looks like rusted metal... where the grooves in the wood planks are clearly noticeable... where bricks and cement has the textured look of rocky material... don't get me wrong now... HL2 looked great... DOOM and Quake, well, a lil too much bumpy shiny plasticity... but still, some of the scenes looked fantastic... ... the scene from the shot above... a medium between the two... and a lot easier done... IT'S BLITZ... and the technique is something that i stumbled on playing around with Gile[s]... the scene is from the recent tutorial i ran up on in the DarkBASIC Pro forums... i just redid the lights, and change a few of the textures in Gile[s] adding normal maps and changing around the blending... no additional coding... there's no real demo... but i can put up the modified level so that you can explore it if you want... all you need do is load it and add some camera movement and an ambient light... no magic... actually, it's kinda simple... and the results are not bad when you stop and consider what it would take to do real bumpmapping on the level... it works because the lightmap is static... there are no moving lights... i it adds a dimension of presence to Blitz scenes... now lemme try it with some of my own stuff :) --Mike |
| ||
| Nah, great looking screenshot Red. I like the look of it, especially in blitz. The main problem with these types of graphics in an actual game in blitz, is... TEXTURE COMPRESSION!!!!!! GIVE US AN ANSWER! Anyway, nice work man. |
| ||
| Suffer large for your sins and misdeeds? |
| ||
| yeah... compression... that would be a godsend... anyways... the technique is simple... read above, i edited the post... the real credit goes to the guy who made the tutorial and constructed the level... i'm just playing around... --Mike |
| ||
| Well, how about posting another picture with a different view - move the camera halfway to the left and point it at the facing surface of the container on the right (with the left-hand container still in view). |
| ||
| just for you puk... nahhh, never mind.... :) just kidding... here's 2 more...   the last one is pretty bad... i overdid it on the normalmap... oh yeah... the water is credit of Fredborg's demo fromt he comp... and the level is the work of MegatonCat from the TGC forums... --Mike |
| ||
| They're the same image. [Edit] Nice job of fixing it before I could post.. I'll get you yet. |
| ||
| So it's just a highly detailed static lightmap in effect. Thats a "silly" joke, Red! :P Now go do something constructinve. |
| ||
| as opposed to what Lenn... that not so highly detailed static lightmap from HL2... yeah, you must be right... i'd better move on to something more constructive... --Mike |
| ||
| Nobody pulls the wool over my eyes. Forever, the Large. |
| ||
| eyes too large? --Mike |
| ||
| Plus, I noticed something else by running a video signal through it - albeit accidentally. You appear to have 'cut-out' the images of the containers - ie, they appear not to be current 3D objects - almost like you took a screenshot of them, then used a paint app to separate them from the original image, then 'placed' them in your new scene - as 2D props. Am I right here too? |
| ||
| No Red, in HL when you fire your weapon, light a torch or make an explosion the "lightmaps" (ie bump maps/normal maps/ specular maps whatever you wanna call them) are what they are, and they are definitely not static lightmaps. They shade differently depending on which lights are on and where they are. But, in many cases you could use this high detail lightmap except that you'd need a special texture space for every polygon and that is completely impractical for games so for that reason too it isnt very useful. |
| ||
| nope... wrong as usual puk.... follow the damn tutorial i posted a link to in the general forum, and you'll see how it's done... now stop asking these stoopid questions :) the wall is a spline... with the face removed for the surfaces not seen by the player... it's called optimization puk... reduce the work of the cpu/gpu... increase the frame rate... seriously... take a quick look at the tut... it's quick, and worth while... Lenn... number one, we don't have the same facilites to do the same things in Blitz... this is a legitimate option, as far as i'm concerned... and with a lil work, similar effects could be had with this... number two... they're pulling the wool over your eyes... that's not what's happening... number three... as far as it being impractical for games... it runs ok in Blitz so far... lets see... running around in 1024x768x32 with Fredborgs water flowing and 2 Browsers open i'm getting 35 fps with a Radeon 9200 in the middle of the level... go directly to jail... do not stop at GO... do not collect $200... :) --Mike |
| ||
| 35 fps with 2 crates? Bellow 40 fps is considered unplayable for FPS games (read it up) and you dont have the worst card. If you want to build anything other than levels with two crates in them you'd have to have at least 10 times as many textures for a total of 10240 x 768 (lol thats 7864320 pixels) and thats something top end cards/PCs will start to struggle with. They're not pulling the wool over my eyes, i spent at least 1 hour looking at different HL2 levels, experimenting with my torch and weapons to see how they achieved certain things. Some were "cheap" shaders seamed with normal textures (ie ceramic tiling) but most of the high detail shading was dynamic and beleivable. Stop playing games :P |
| ||
| 35 fps with 2 crates? what in the world are you talkin' about Lenn... what 2 crates??!! ... there's an entire level loading here!!! that's 35 fps with the entire level loading dear boy... (again) take the wool from over your eyes and look at the shots below...     all parts from the level, running with Fred's water and associated cubemapping routine... which, without the level in the scene, wasn't topping off at much higher a frame rate... now granted, that's not exactly what you'd do in designing a game... or better put, not exactly what i'd do if i where putting together one... i'd definitely split it up and implement some sorta pvs algorithms... and the frame rate would increase accordingly... ... and, that's how games are made son :P you read up on it. anyone with the most modest of 3d design sense would realize this, thus and not try and make that the point of their arguement... yet it seemed to escape you entirely... hhhmmmmm... If you want to build anything other than levels with two crates in them you'd have to have at least 10 times as many textures hey Lenn... i really do appreciate you taking the time to critique this and all, but it would've been better if you had even a modest bit of substance in your arguements... ... now, i'm really sorry i don't have time to educate you further on this Lenn, mainly because i think i'd be arguing with you for days, seeing as you obviously like operating on assumtive logic (aka dumb assed guesses), where i'm used to dealing with facts and reality... and never the twains shall meet... ... instead, i'm gonna tell you to take a minute or two, and go to the tutorial that the level came from... download it (csm or x file format is available)... then you can take a look at it, and you will see how wrong you are about... 1- just the two crates... 2- the number of textures involved... i count around 50... 3- your outlook on the world... and on life in general :) it's here --> www.bouncyrock.com/tutorials/scifi.htm do it... it'll be good for you... and you'll be more equipped with actual facts based on solid deduction from observation... and then you'll have a more legitimate basis for your critique here... and i'd be more inclined to take you a bit more seriously... in short, what you say will make more sense... and you'll be a better developer. as far as the HL2 stuff you alluded to... here's an excerpt from a discussion i found on it... Why are only 2 lights created in the common_vs_fxc.h file (cLightInfo[2]). Where do these lights get passed in (in the .cpp file?)? Can I have 5 render targets and render 5 passes of the world each frame (or at least to one view each frame, switching views each frame)? Can I manipulate the camera with my own transforms and remove the object (the one I want to have reflections) when I'm rendering the reflection render targets? Is there already functionality to do all or some of the features I'm trying to implement? I'm already solid with the postprocessing effects pipeline, but the material shader system seems to function a bit differently. i repeat... you are the victim of very talented people pulling the wool over your eyes... just like a stage magician does to an ususpecting audience... now i'm certainly no expert on HL2, so i'll defer to your obvious superior knowledge on the matter... (ya see how that works... when ya don't have facts on something, ya don't pretend to have facts on something)... but since you seem to know all there is to how they're doing things over at Valve, well, i'll just let you go on about it... but me thinks you are wrong about this too... either way though, it's irrelevant to what i'm doing... Stop playing games :P i really think you are the one who might benefit from not just sitting in front of your computer playing with your torch, but getting up and searching for some real information on the topic... hey... gimme a break will ya... i'm just trying to enhance the appearance of my visuals in Blitz the best way i know how, with the facilities Blitz gives me... this aint no Valve shop, and i don't have the stuff that they have to get my lil creations out... ... now if you'd be willing to spot me $100,000. --Mike |
| ||
| I know thats how games are made but HL2 makes 10 rooms with the same amount of resources used as you do for 2 rooms with special lightmaps for each object. What escapes me exactly? If you have a level with a wall and that wall has a 512x512 texture which is tiled on it, say this wall stretches enough to have this texture repeated 5 times on it. If you have a bump map you are using one texture of approximate detail (say 512x512) but if you are using a static lightmap for that whole wall you will have to have a lightmap 5 times as big to achieve the same detail. Since 5 is greater than 1, my logic is perfectly sound. "dumb assed guesses" is something i consider an insult :) and in true gentlemanly fashion i will simply ignore you for a very long time without even calling you rude names. To read something like "your outlook on the world... and on life in general :)" makes me feel like a pathetic worthless geek when somebody like you thinks he can tell me this without ever seeing/meeting me. You do it because you don't know how to insult me better. It's an insult to my intelligence (which i inflict to myself) to ever get into any discussions. But this, like all so far, is a conclusion worthless to you. I insult myself to even talk to you. Oh and (to further insult myself) i'll say you went fairly quickly from saying: (just having a lil fun... don't hit me now :) ) to plain, simple, halfwitted insults. |
| ||
| hey, hey heyyyyy... calm down... get control of yourself... no insult was meant... stop being such a whiner... :P didn't ya see all the smileys next to the statements... you really outta loosen up a bit... noone is insulting you... besides... what do you expect when you tell someone... and i quote... Stop playing games :P you're gonna get messed with :) and, i didn't take that as an insult now... did i... You do it because you don't know how to insult me better. hahahahaha.... oh don't delude yourself Lenn... i know how to insult you a whole lot better... but was not, and is not my intent... first of all... this is supposed to be a community... secondly... i see no need to insult you... hey... here's a great big hug... {{{{{Lenn}}}}} ok... all better now... now, if you want... lets get back to the topic at hand... If you have a bump map you are using one texture of approximate detail (say 512x512) but if you are using a static lightmap for that whole wall you will have to have a lightmap 5 times as big to achieve the same detail. Since 5 is greater than 1, my logic is perfectly sound. no, no, noooo... your logic is what's flawed... just like i said above, it's flawed because it is based on a false assumption... now please don't take this as an insult... but, you are operating from the assumption that the lightmap is gonna be 5 times the size of the texture... how did you come up with this rational... and i use that word generously... :) the fact is, that the lightmap, in most cases will be whatever size the lightmapping app spits out... don't believe me... do this... make your hypothetical wall with a 512x512 texture... wrap it... lightmap it (in Cshop if you have it)... then export the whole thing to .X format... you should get 2 files output... one on which the normal textures are applied, and one which is UV mapped to the light map... check the size of the lightmap texture... hahahahaaaa... can ya see that it is not 5 times 512... now please forgive me for laughing a bit... but i can't help but find this funny... how in gods name did you jump at the assumption that the lightmap would have to be 5 times the size of the texture... it is merely UV mapped differently... secondly... why would a lightmap need to achieve the same fidelty as the original texture... the ones where the detail mapp (as you call it) is blended.... i mean, its just light and shadows... having the same precise, sharp shadows would look absurd, and very unrealistic... unless you were on the moon, at the terminator where night and day occurs... weeeeeeee.... :) --Mike |
| ||
| OK i'll further insult myself by talking to you.... saying 3- your outlook on the world... and on life in general :) implies you think i'm stupid. Which i agree with once again for continuing to talk to you. dumb assed guesses saying that implies that i'm ... well... a dumb ass! Yep that must be it. Not sure if you read what you wrote or even if you wrote it yourself but i've never been "hugged" by someone at the same time being called a dumb ass. the fact is that the lightmap, in most cases will be whatever size the lightmapping app spits out... Yes, agreed, but if it spits out anything less than 5 times 512x512 then it will be lower res (and lower detail) than if you used a single 512x512 bump map tiled accross the wall. I've done a lot of work with lightmaps and know full well how they work and what can be done. When i said stop playing games i meant "stop messing around with us" ie "stop joking" or whatever. I would search on the topic but im neither interested in technical stuff of that nature (not above what i know already) nor do i have intrest in proving any points with you, because as i concluded its pointless just talking to you but i do it anyway so whatever i say defeats any purpose. |
| ||
| Yes, agreed, but if it spits out anything less than 5 times 512x512 then it will be lower res (and lower detail) than if you used a single 512x512 bump map tiled accross the wall. of course it will... read what i added above... i'll repeat it here for you... secondly... why would a lightmap need to achieve the same fidelty as the original texture... the ones where the detail mapp (as you call it) is blended.... i mean, its just light and shadows... having the same precise, sharp shadows would look absurd, and very unrealistic... unless you were on the moon, at the terminator where night and day occurs... does this make any sense at all to you... why would you want a shadow to appear as detailed as a texture map... can ya tell me... huh... look around at your immediately surroundings... do you see any shadows that are as detailed as say, the texture of the fabric on a chair... hahahahahahaaaa.... sorry... i can't help myself... i'll stop :) can ya see why i was amused at your aggressive latching on to a totally wild assed guess (wild sounds better than dumb, ok, is that better)... and then trying to pass it off as logic... and you're still not letting go of it... even now you're trying to convince yourself (and me) that you are correct :) do ya have any idea what logical deduction is... ya can't build on logic by basing it on assumptions... that's just not how it works... just ask mr. spock... spock... spock... yes captain... what seems to be the problem... this crewman spock... i think... he's in need... of a lil vulcan mind melding... captain... i don't know if even the vulcan mind meld can help this one... might i suggest we call in dr. mc coy... yes... spock... of course... that would be the logical thing to do... bones... report to the bridge... on the double... we have a medical emergency here... come on Lenn... lighten up dude... all i wanted to do here was to post a lil bit of stuff i thought was neat... and if you look at the title of the thread, you must surely see that it was in a light vein... of course that aint a half life 2 shot... noone really thought it was... no one took it as seriously as you are now... --Mike |
| ||
| Ok so now you're telling me we dont need detail because materials we are showing dont have detail. Wow, you're really something. We were talking about detail, not taste of what you feel objects should look like. As far as detail is concerened i am completely correct, a tiled bumpmap takes up less memory than a big lightmap. Only shabby artists cover up for "realism" by stretching or blurring the texture. You can have a high detail blur, a high detail soft material with a high detail bump map. Not that you'd need to but thats not what we were discussing, we were discussing that the quality of the detail would be higher with a bumpmap for the same amount of texture size. So yes, you can stretch your lightmap down to the "smoothness" you like, but then again you can stretch the bumpmap by the same emount and still take up squareroot amount of memory for it (Note specially for you: squareroot of a number is less than that number). So even in that sense i don't see how a huge lightmap could benefit you in any way. How was i aggressive? Was it when i said "i will ignore you"? I didnt know that was aggressive, sorry if i scared ya. You however sounded like a rabid peasant's dog when you insulted me there. Once again, logic sucks doesn't it. The thread may be in light vein, it's exactly the reason why i wasn't expecting an attempt at an insult, especially as i thought (tho that was a long time ago now) you weren't one of the retarded people on the forum. Ooops, there i go again, my bad for making assumptions. SORRY! |
| ||
| Ok so now you're telling me we dont need detail because materials we are showing dont have detail. noooo... that's not what i'm telling you... where above did you see me say anything even remotely close to that... read it again s l o w l y.... you'll see that i said that your assumption that the lightmap had to be of the same detailed hi resolution was wrong... and thereby anything based on that was also erroneous... hey... maybe you're confused and thinking that the detail map (as you call it) is in the lightmap... that's not the case... again, read above on how i merge the normalmap texture in Gile[s] with the original texture... all the rest of your post is the result of your own frustration, and not worth responding to... i thought you were going to take the gentleman's route... i guess you changed your mind... hey, it's alright by me... i'm not offended... as a matter of fact, i find it quite funny... but lets try and stay close to the topic at hand... huh... now go back and read what i said s l o w l y this time, so you'll at least have some idea of what i am actually trying to point out to you... --Mike |
| ||
| Jesus, i don't believe i've ever came across a discussion quite like this one before :D Very nice graphics there by the way Red :) |
| ||
| thx GW... i'm trying :) --Mike |
| ||
| Red offtopic, what is currently your engine of choice? And btw since you are not showing any subs in those screens, can I safly asume that those screens where taken from inside of a gigantic sub? ;) |
| ||
| i'll be honest max... i'm confused about which one to go with... i mean, i've been confused about which one to go with for a long time... going back and forth searching for the ideal solution... i've found that there is none.. at least none that i can afford, and after all my crap about bumpmapping and stuff, i'm retrieving the work i did with 3DRAD on the sub sim, and may release that version... i've had so much trouble trying to get the DOOM3 look... for simple stuff it's fine, but for more involved stuff like full level construction, it's a real pain... there's always something that i can't get working right... Torque is great, multiplayer wise... but there's just too much that i've got to search out in order to know the engine well enough to make something... and i still feel a lil confined as far as it's graphics are concerned... the shader version will rock though as far as graphics are concerned... it's next version release might be suitable for a game... DarkBASIC is a lot better than people think... but it's also a lot worse... the syntax can be a pain, but can be lived with if a few things that were supposed to work actually did work as they were supposed to... the dbo format in the latest release is problematic... 3Impact is really decent too... but it's funny single texture per mesh is a major frustration... and it's poor lighting, especially when using perpixel lighting for bumpmapping... well, those two are enough to put me off as far as starting a project with it... that brings us to my best overall choice... Blitz3D... seriously... and, i'm not trying to placate the guild here either :) Blitz3D appears to be my favorite... why you may ask... well, first of all, i can get as close to that bumpmapped look i want, without actually going through the coding and lighting headaches... the .b3d format is partly responsible for this... it's flexible, and a lot of indie tools accept it and export it... and i've found that you can be pretty creative with it as far as texturing and texture blending... the entity system in Blitz3D is another big plus... it's easy to work with and the command syntax is consistant... the only thing missing, for me at least, is OOP... inspite of this, i'm pursuing the sub sim in Blitz3D too... so that's it... 3DRAD (don't laff) (if i decide i can live with the retro look)... and Blitz3D, as it gives me something close to that HL2 look... (well, if you stretch your imagination a lil)... i'm working on the sim right now... in both... so it's Blitz3D and 3DRAD as i find most useful... i've also found that the ability to create the kind of graphics you want is also a major consideration that the game engine can only help you a lil bit with... and where as before i thought i could depend on the engine to make good looking games, i know better now, so the engine becomes less of a factor... i mean, it is still a factor, but being able to get good graphics into it in the first place is a prerequisite... i hope that provides some sort of answer... i should have some of the first shots from the game ready in a few days... subs will be in those... some of the best stuff i think i've come up with so far (at least i think so, others might not :) )... and some less spectacular versions of the same stuff in 3DRAD... which one i'll go with will depend on a few things which still are up in the air (networking, license security, and a few other things)... i'm getting to the point where i've gotta finish this now, or i'll never finish it... --Mike |
| ||
| You should have been writer Red, you like to write alot ;) btw if you haven't check out http://www.powerrender.com also here is bit info on it and what it can do: http://www.devmaster.net/engines/engine_details.php?id=267 comments say that it's easy to use once you get into it, support costs extra, community is not big, but screenshots are amazing, you can get it for 89$. also 50+ examples come with it doing pretty much everything you need to do. Check it out before again if you have before because this new version is one month old. |
| ||
| i've played with Power Render a year or so ago... it was ok, but i wasn't overly impressed... the new version does look a bit more developed though... but i've learned not to judge a product by the screenshots alone... the $89 license is a no support, freeware license only... a commercial license costs $1500 for distribution of one product only... if i were spending at this level, i would license the unigine engine, which i see as having much more capability and potential... http://unigine.com... hey... i've decided to stop the searching around... it'll be either 3DRAD or Blitz3D... if i can't make something in one of these, then i can't make something in any one, regardless of how much i spend :) anyway... thanks for the heads max... --Mike |
| ||
| I think it's freeware/shareware, so you can release your game as shareware ;) I'll look into this engine, Max3d won't be out fully functional in next 2 years it seems. powerrender looks interesting offering all those things that we want in max. Only problem it's c++ and probly not entity oriented. But I'll programm in c++ if needed if it's easy engine to get into... |
| ||
| shareware... does that mean i can release a version of the game, say 1 level, for free... and if the user wants more levels, they pay the $20 shareware fee... i've thought about this, but it didn't sound right... ahhh, maybe you're right... i'm gonna see if i can get a more concise definition from them on their definition of shareware as it applies to their licensing agreement... thx --Mike |
| ||
| Id started that way with wolfenstien you got 10 levels then you paid for more levels of the game, the same with doom and Quake. |
| ||
| Mike it seems that it's possible, some Red Neck guy already had asked this question, check here: http://www.powerrender.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1798 So perhaps now you have third option, oh man I shouldn't have mentioned this to you, it will only bring you more headache ;) I've installed it and now have to install directX SDK and get it to compile with Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition wich is free by the way and can be downloaded from microsoft:) |
| ||
| hahahaha... yeah, i buzzed over there to inquire :) i may look into it in a day or so... ... thanks (sarcasm) --Mike |
| ||
| The scene was made in Cartography Shop, if Megaton Cat did it. Nice high-res textures. I love 1024x1024. |
| ||
| Where can I snag that water? I remember that little competition, but I didn't follow it to the end. EDIT: found the thread http://www.blitzbasic.com/Community/posts.php?topic=53162 |
| ||
| At what point do these months and months of noodling turn into an actual game? |
| ||
| Probably never. Everyone needs a hobby! |
| ||
| the water comp thread is still lingering jH... (i think)... the links may or may not still be alive... else, write Fredborg... ... he's the artisto :) --Mike |
| ||
| Hey Mike, I was looking over your screen shots and first I want to say GOOD JOB! Secondly, the boxes look the best, while everything else looks sub-par. The rest of the entire level just doesn't do justice for such nice boxes! When can we see more updates? I'm sure you're probably working out the details on the rest of the level. |
| ||
| thx Matt... but i didn't make this level... it was done by a guy on the DarkBASIC forum as part of a tutorial he wrote up for level making with CShop/3DStudio... i just took the original level, and enhanced it... you know me, i love the idea of bumpmapping... real or faked... ... so i 'bumpmapped' a lot of the textures :) i've been playing with the level in DarkBaSIC, 3DRAD as well as Blitz3D, just to see what each engine has to offer, graphics wise, as far as presenting the level... a lil shader and bumping and fogging and that sorta stuff... just to see which gives the best graphics with the least headaches... ... i'll be honest, so far Blitz3D has given me the best results... no flag waving intended... DBPro looks nice and all with only lightmapping... but add a bit of fog... and it all falls apart... 3DRAD is doing the best it can, what with it's aging DX6 RM based graphics, and i was suprprised at what i wound up getting with it... but Blitz seems to be holding up on all ends graphics wise... i can ignore the faked bumping and still have a decent looking lightmapped level, with fog, whatever... --Mike |
   |