VividGL - Working Demo 2.
Community Forums/Showcase/VividGL - Working Demo 2.
| ||
| Hey, Please delete the first go at this mods, bit of a non-starter... - Firstly, download the original if you havn't, This has all the media. Then download this small(500)k patch, which is a new working .exe. Put it in the same dir as the exe above. http://www.amon-ra.co.uk/vivid/catched.rar -- The demo this time isn't the final demo, just a work in prog, but it shows some stuff not seen before, including radial fog, pixel shader2.0 depth of field, the scene engine(the demo isn't static, the camera moves etc),the new pack cache engine and on a proper lightmapped level this time. Also if you press lmb and rmb when the demo is running, it recompiles the shaders. So you can open up the predatorp2s.cg shader in vivid/skins, change it, then hit both mb and see the new effect. |
| ||
| ummm sorry to bring this up, but it's possibly the most incomprehensible worst demo I have ever witnessed. It's a jerky camera whizzing around really fast and I can't make out a single thing of whats going on. I really wanted to see pixel shaders too. Please fix it so humans can also run the demo. In addition, only ctrl+alt+del kills it. |
| ||
| Forgot to put in frame-limiting..not everyone has uber computers rob. Runs nice and smoothly on my set-up. I'll upload a further patch in a minute with frame-limiting. |
| ||
| lol sorry! It's just like a xmas tree whizzing around at the speed of light on a zx spectrum. |
| ||
| Yeah must be a bit of a wierd one..slow ambient music and speed freak junkie camera.. Can't say i'm annoyed though...full screen pixel shaders running very fastly can't be too shabby ;) two mins on that patch.. |
| ||
| runs nice and is looking even nicer although strange. but Memory usage is a little bit tooo high for this "nothing" ( 110 MB ) so I'll wait for a real demo of the capabilities |
| ||
| lol don't worry, the pack engine currently doesn't free any resources it creates. (I only added it a day or two ago, it's still being finalized it here and there) |
| ||
| You got a stutter stupid? |
| ||
| It's vivid. Only joking. Does it work on cards without pixel shaders? |
| ||
| Nope. Vivid does, but not this demo. (Odd...but true) Cue 'It's vivid?' The suspense... |
| ||
| Well I posted at the same time, so it's still not as stupid as saying 'it's vivid' 3 times. You're master of the domain mo fo. |
| ||
| Epic:It's vivid. Then again Micheal, a new contender has emerged. |
| ||
| So is it safe to download now? |
| ||
| Some variation, now it's "Unable to compile pixel shader" |
| ||
| What card do you have? it needs a nvidia G5-200 min or ati 9500+. It's tested and works fine on a g5-5600xt(Cheapest one you can get) and a ati-9800. |
| ||
| Mad, yeah it's safe, unless you're a hi-spec pc in which case I'd wait until I release the frame-limited demo. |
| ||
| Mmm, I must have missed the part where you warned not to attempt to download it for the "I-can't-recall-how-much"'th time if you hadn't at least a g5... Yes that is sarcasm :), but hey, I've got broadband so all is fine. From now on I'll wait a bit before I retry again. |
| ||
| I did say pixel shaders2.0, I thought it was a given ;) |
| ||
| I'd say it wasn't. Any professional engine will have some kind of fall back solution for lesser cards, rather that just failing to run. It's still a beta so it's no surprise you have none yet, but stating it couldn't hurt, don't you think? But come on, I don't care, I mean we'll see when it's finished. Until now better come back working on it rather than replying again and again. Come on, go working. No seriously go. Why are you still here...? |
| ||
| Yeah I agree about a failback. You just have pass 'failSilent' to any shader funcs and it'll just ignore any requests for the shader if it fails. i'll turn it on in the next patch. -EDIT As for going to fix it, I am..stop replying! :) |
| ||
| Would it be possible to have version numbers on the download like releasev1.1.rar which would tell us if it's a new version? Ta. |
| ||
| Yeah, i'll make it clear when a new version is uploaded.(Not a new thread...3's enough ;) ) |
| ||
| Id like to see a simple demo that says "input number of soldiers" Then you see the soldiers running about, Then the same guys rendered in blitz3d to compare the speed. |
| ||
| I've downloaded your existing version Apart from the framelimiting and no-escape key probs, the image (on my RadeonPro9800) is blurred and fuzzy Driver issue?  Athlon64, W2000, HIS RadeonPro9800 128meg |
| ||
| It's only blurry in the distance, the closer it is, the less blurry. Depth of field. Though it does look more blurry on your gpu than mine.(Might be a brightness thing..mine is pretty dark) And I will definitely improve this over time. I'm not happy with the way it blurs the pixels tbh. The shader is included in vivid/skins btw, so you can play about with it. if you see the value 0.006? That controls the blur factor based on the distance of the pixel. lower = less blur. (This will all be settable in vividFX come release. |
| ||
| Ok - I've opened the PredP2.cg skin and edited - bf=tex2D( blurMap,temp)*0.0; this has turned off the blur - but the other fx still seem to be having problems. I've updated the above screenshot (so hit refresh to see) Looks like the lighting/lightmap's not displaying correctly(?) |
| ||
| Looks the same as the screen MadJack posted... pretty friggin ugly :\. |
| ||
| hey... it's a demo of a work in progress... instead of tellin' the guys that it's ugly, or that it runs like a raped ape on steroids... ... why don't you give him some usefull info so that he might be able to fix things up. (although Mike R's vivid comments were pretty funneee :) ) --Mike |
| ||
| Red Agreed, but I don't think that Vivid's 'sposed to render as it does on my PC. If Otacon wants any other details/screenshots from me, I'm happy to oblige. |
| ||
| Definitely shouldn't look like that pic you've posted Mad. Is your desktop set to 16 or 32bit? To show the difference, he's how the that circular ship thing looks from the distance on my set up at 32bit.  |
| ||
| Tried both 16 and 32 bit - identical results unfortunately. |
| ||
| hmm, in your gl driver settings, have you set any options to enforce opengl to use16bit textures? This overrides any engine settings(And even windows setting iirc), dunno if catalyst has similar options though. |
| ||
| I don't have the very latest ATI drivers installed - V 6.14.10.6436 and I may have a fiddle with the card's OpenGl settings to see what happens. |
| ||
| Userlib missing ? |
| ||
| Otacon Not explicitly - I can set texture quality to high/low, but this doesn't seem to improve matters. Setting anisiotropic/mipmap/antialiasing to high performance or app preference doesn't improve matters. Here's a new shot - is the lightmap supposed to look as it does?  |
| ||
| and now I've got to get to bed (4am)... |
| ||
| looked pixelated... grainy... and the pixel blur was kinda annoying. Almost like it was doing the exact opposite of anti-aliasing the scene. That said... It ran. It looked ok barring the above issues. Ran at a decent speed as well (on my P-M1.7ghz / FX5650Go) setup. After a while it just locked up though. The music kept playing but the images lockedup. |
| ||
| i've the following message 'Userlib not found'! |
| ||
| You're running the exe in the wrong folder then or your setup doesn't have gl support. All the .dlls are definitely there otherwise it wouldn't have worked on any, and that's an internal blitz error, so it's not vivid messing up. Are you sure you're running patched in the folder with 'vividfx.dll, glew32.dll, cg.dll' etc? |
| ||
| Kanati, it's the shader. It takes 5 samples of a screen map texture and adds it together mutipled by the distance of the pixel. Not the best method. As for lock up, just hit rmb or space bar to restart the demo. |
| ||
| Downloading now on 56k so it may take some time, but I'm posting to ask the trolls to please just get on with their own lives instead of trying to ruin things for others. (I've removed the posts that contained no useful information whatsoever.) |
| ||
| Thanks for the clean up J. Winston wolf's got competition. ;) Btw guys, I forgot to reply about the 'quit' problem. It's just a mis-understanding. Hit the '1' key, not esc. No need to do all that alt-tab biz. |
| ||
| Can you post the downloads as zip files? |
| ||
| Looks absolutely awful on my P3.2Ghz 9800XT (32-bit mode, latest catalysts) setup, very similar to MadJack but possibly worse... a blurry, granulated mess. On the plus side, I quite enjoyed the music. 110mb memory usage and have to end task through task manager? |
| ||
| Reran it with the 0.000 in the pixel shader setup... And it looks much better. Needs SOME of that filter turned on though I think. Maybe I'll try it again with 0.001 or something. Did notice that the texture on the pillar thingies looks a bit weird though. Like it's moving with the camera or something. Maybe that's by design or maybe not, but that's what it's doing on mine. |
| ||
| I get "Userlib not found" too. Everything's where it should be. My system *DOES* have GL support. Same problem with the original EXE and the patched.exe. |
| ||
| I'm afraid I'm getting 'UserLib Not Found' on 2 different machines. Perhaps you've overlooked a very common .dll that most people have but some people don't? |
| ||
| Well it ran ok on amon's 9800 caff afaik, so it's a wierd one...I'm guessing it's a case of people having differant gamma settings. Too bright will highligh the samples a lot more. though mad's one looks 16bit, there's too much dithering for it be 32bit , whatever the settings(imo.) gfk, skitchy I'm not sure tbh. i'll rar up all my userlibs and put 'em in the next patch. - Jhock, further releases will be in zip/rar form. But 11mb is a bit much to re-upload.(considering you can get a full working version of winrar for free, without having to sign up.only around 500k iirc) |
| ||
| Besides the fact that requiring people to download additional software just to look at your demo is asinine, I can't install WinRAR on the machines here at school. Now I'm onto a bit of a rant, but I think people should just stick to zip and stop using rar. While I'm sure there are plenty of tech-head places where rar is common (I hear it's pretty common for warez,) I literally never see rar archives other than this forum. You would certainly never post a rar of your shareware download. |
| ||
| and those that don't have winzip fare any better JH? If it will make you happy... http://www.sportbikemods.com/blitzarea/antony/vivid2demo.zip That's with the patched exe replacing the original. So people won't have to download the patch too. I'll try to keep an eye open for when the next fix/patch/demo is released and nuke this one. If I forget, just email me. (Oh... and I'm NOT calling you Tony Soprano you freak.) :) Kanati |
| ||
| Now I'm onto a bit of a rant, but I think people should just stick to zip and stop using rar. And while we're at it... Stop using those new DVD things. Not everyone has a DVD reader. CD's are just fine and dandy. Well... No they aren't. I think we should just go back to 8" floppies. Those were plenty good enough and there was a whole lot of commercial software released on those. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us! And to heck with all these new video cards with their pixel shadings and transform and lighting engines. CGA!!! Stick with that. It's simple, it's easy, and it's standard! I'm sure there's a lot of techies out there using all those whiz-bang features, but not everyone can afford to upgrade their computer every ten years dammit! I don't care HOW much better it is than CGA, I'm sticking with it for the forseeable future... This bit of parody brought to you by Kanati Enterprises, specializing in ridicule for 34 years and counting. :) |
| ||
| That's just it. You don't require WinZip, just one of the many zip tools available. For example, here we have Stuffit. Besides, zip tools are very common since zip files are common for downloading. Rar is not a common file format, so comparitively few people have software to handle it. At any rate, thanks. I'll try out the demo and tell you how it looks. |
| ||
| Stuffit is a pretty sorry excuse for a compression tool unless you are on a mac. And Stuffit deluxe does include RAR format handling. A LOT of different packages handle it. Power Archiver is another... No big deal. It's definitely not worth arguing over. I agree to disagree on this one. :) |
| ||
| Huh, I didn't know Stuffit deluxe supports rar. Yeah, Stuffit does suck. You'll have to talk to our tech guy; for some reason he decided that's the archiving software he is going to install on all the machines here. EDIT: I just saw your parody post. A couple quick responses... "Stop using those new DVD things. Not everyone has a DVD reader. CD's are just fine and dandy." That's a completely different situation. DVDs hold more data than CDs; if you can't fit everything onto a CD, you have no choice. Choosing between zip and rar however, there's no specific reason to choose rar. It's not like you HAVE to use rar, it's just different. "And to heck with all these new video cards with their pixel shadings and transform and lighting engines... I'm sure there's a lot of techies out there using all those whiz-bang features, but not everyone can afford to upgrade their computer every ten years dammit!" Falling back to CGA display is rather much, but otherwise this is how I feel actually. I'll spare you the GIANT rant, but I've thought (and sermonized) a lot about how the obsession with whiz-bang features is painting the game industry into a tiny niche market. |
| ||
| Hell, ZIP support is included natively in WinXP... |
| ||
| I prefer to use self-extractors, then it doesn't matter what format it's in, but then you get people complaining that they won't download unknown .exes ( which is pretty daft, considering they're gonna have to run an unknown exe once the damn thing is unpacked anyway, but still.. ) You'll never win. |
| ||
| I got that "userlib not found" too.. :( |
| ||
| I duno about the rest of you guys but it looked crap on my machine. XP 21 - 512 ram - GF5 256 meg. |
| ||
| "then you get people complaining that they won't download unknown .exes" Or worse, people with a firewall setup such that they cannot download exe files. I can see how that makes sense in a non-computer industry office, but at home? |
| ||
| (Oh... and I'm NOT calling you Tony Soprano you freak.) :) I'm getting heat about screen-names from the guy who's named after a ancient japanese kung-fu concept, invented in the 21st century by a fictional character on a sit-com called friends!? ;) Thanks for the putting up a zip version. |
| ||
| Falling back to CGA display is rather much, but otherwise this is how I feel actually. I'll spare you the GIANT rant, but I've thought (and sermonized) a lot about how the obsession with whiz-bang features is painting the game industry into a tiny niche market. Wouldn't you like it if your next game had an engine that could re-create the art you see in your head perfectly? No cutting back, no sacrifice, but a projected based purely on design and meaning? That's the goal(Of all of us in someway using shaders, or other next-gen features before they're totally mainstream). We can't just suddenly decide to get all artistic and do it..we have to take the steps required to getting there. and that includes shaders, cube-mapping, cheap tricks like normal mapping... And can you honestly say, just for example, when sony unvail the ps3 at e3 next year(Confirmed yesterday or so btw), and they say show off metal gear solid 4, and snake looks life-like. Fire fights break out like a scene from american's most wanted. You feel like you're there. You won't be just a little be excited about the possibilities? You wouldn't wish this could be the benchmark, without a need to aim lower? |
| ||
| Otacon So where we at in terms of how this demo should run/render? |
| ||
| Yeah, the lightmap shows up correctly. that's just how it is.(If you mean it's odd placement) There's a chance I've flipped the texture.(I never designed the map) I really need a more vibrant colorful map that shows off lighting etc. Any ideas of a freeware one anyone? |
| ||
| I have an ultra cheap Radeon 9200se that supports pixel shader 2.0 - shouldn't that work? |
| ||
| Otacon 'though mad's one looks 16bit, there's too much dithering for it be 32bit , whatever the settings(imo.) ' I did a screen capture and paste into Photoshop - and this caused some dithering in the image, but otherwise the screenshot is what appears on-screen (16 & 32bit). So with the blur problem aside and with the image brightness turned way down, my screen is showing what your screen shows? (How about a larger capture from your system? ) |
| ||
| Jfk, from the ati site on the 9200. "1.4 pixel shaders support up to 22 instructions and up to 6 textures per rendering pass 1.1 vertex shaders support vertex programs up to 128 instructions - Mad, no, the coloring is way off. The image you shown above looks really grainy and almost as if it's been through through a edge filter. It's still blurry in mine at distant(intentionally, not a bug), but i'll take a shot so you can compare the two. |
| ||
Here's one from mine. It's slightly blocky here only because of the jpg-ing(done by mspaint, not control settings) |
| ||
| Ok - but what about with the blur turned off? |
| ||
| The same. Just not blurry ;) |
| ||
| Well, it looks to me that with the blur turned off, the image you've just posted would be identical to my screenshots? |
| ||
| not quite. yours have an almost stich like pattern across them, as if they're sampling random pixels. That's not evident here, whatever the shader. You can disable blurring yourself, just change the shader so it reads only the first tex2D(Texture,temp) call. (use // to comment out the rest) |
| ||
| Please, indulge me, post your above same screenshot but without the blur. I'd really like to do a direct comparison. |
| ||
 |
| ||
| Demo runs. I didn't see any depth of field however. I have no idea if pixel shader 2.0 is supported on my hardware; NVidia QuadroFX 1000 You need a prettier level for demos; that one looks pretty ass. Also, I agree with, um, whoever suggested that you should do an interactive demo. That is, one where one can control the camera and fly around to look at stuff, as opposed to just the set camera movement. |
| ||
| I'm open to suggestions on the level front. I know there's a ton of maps out there for quake freeware, but jedive's bsp converter isn't up for sale anymore so I'm pretty much screwed..and it's not worth adding quake3 bsp, can't be used commercially. Catch 22. |
| ||
| Ok. several things going on here I think The stitching is a result of the copy and paste into Photoshop - yep I tried both 16 and 32bit modes and did the screen grab in 16bit (from memory). But note that the dithering doesn't appear as the app is running. What is happening is; The blurring from your screenshot is actually pretty close to what was appearing on my screen - but it's simply not nice to look at. The textures are appearing somewhat more garishly on my card (and others). The model used for the demo is frankly awful - the lightmap appears to be all over the place and doesn't have much correspondance to light sources. The repeating texture used on the column looked like corrupted UV co-ords. Along with the non-frame limiting and the unable to escape key from the demo, the impression was that the demo was broken. Sorry to be critical - but that's how I see it. |
| ||
| I did say it was a work in prog. But as for the depth of field effect, no arguements here. It's a flawed attempt. Thankfully and most importantly, one that is totally SEPERATE from vivid. It's a shader. Changing it doesn't affect vivid. The model, again nothing much I can do. I don't have anything else to use. |
| ||
| 'I did say it was a work in prog.' Ok - fair enough. So I guess we're looking forward to the real and comprehensive Vivid demo? |
| ||
| Definitely. It's hard work coding a engine, whilst trying to find enough good free media for a demo, whilst coding the demo, whilst coding a game, all at once. A little patience is all I ask for ;) |
| ||
| uh, seems like I confused this. |
| ||
| jfk At this point Otacon probably doesn't want to know, but can you recompile the lighting for that model? |
| ||
| Hmm didn't you have betatesters for Vivid? Perhaps they should have some "use" for a real show off as well ;) |
| ||
| getting error message when trying to start it it says Error! d:\documents and settings\administrator.quantum-q42nu0p\desktop\futureculling\med2\bspfactory_lm.bmp Cache Error |
| ||
| hm Error with the patch unable to compile pixel shaders does that men my card dosen't support pixel shader 2.0 or pixel shaders at all i have a geforce4 ti 4600 |
| ||
| Yeah, g4 only has pix1.1 shaders. Vivid can do 1.1shaders thogh(I had the same card as you before this g5), so you won't miss out in the long run. It's pretty hard writing for 1.1 shaders though, they're not nearly as useful. I'll try and get as many of the fx working on it as I can though. jfk At this point Otacon probably doesn't want to know, but can you recompile the lighting for that model? huh? |
| ||
| 'jfk (Posted 2004-07-14 20:46:39) uh, seems like I confused this. ' I think jfk picked up on my comment that the level lightmapping looked broken - I was wondering if he could redo the level and get it recompiled into your demo. Doesn't matter though. |
| ||
| forget the above - I'm not making sense - thought jfk had provided the map level . |
| ||
| Nah, jedive converted it using his bsp converter tool from a bsp. I'm probably just going to do some form of bsp for vivid anyway..don't suppose anyone knows if the half-life/worldcraft version is (c)? |
| ||
| I think the Zoner BSP compiler is free. One of the editors is too (possibly Quark) - the DBPro people will know. There is only 1 known combination that is royalty-free :/ |
| ||
| havent read the thread butis this way: A) -Quark is the only free to do levels. Free for comercial I mean. getic is also, but not sure if it aoutput a bsp compliant with q3 or hl. -For q3 the only FREE for coemrcial, is http://map3bspc.sourceforge.net B) Now the hl route : -Quark, again. -the compiler, yes, the zhlt tools. check which is newer, as was mirrored in many sites, and some are dead abandoned mirrors... http://dev.valve-erc.com/index.php?go=zhlt http://collective.valve-erc.com/index.php?go=mhlt C) GETIC3d bsp map editor AND compiler. Problem is how compatible is the bsp that is exported. http://getic.njoydeco.com U can't use : Valve editors (hammer, worldcraft) , nor qeradiant, neither gtk radiant.Said clearly in their sites. (for comercial uses) that is. |
| ||
| Interesting, Bob! BTW I meant I confused the shader versions :) I have some stupid questions: This Vivid thing is thought to be used with BlitzMAX, right? But if so, are you planing to sell this, and if yes, how much is it going to cost? |
| ||
| Hmm thanks for info bob..guess I'll give bsp a miss, no real point to it if it's that much hassle to use legally. Jfk, first version is for b3d. Then BlitzPlus, then blitzMax. (One version buys all.(Of the same product, not all future products :) ) Price..not much..less than b3d. |
| ||
| The blur effect doesn't work on my machine, and I was unable to shut down the program once it was started without resorting to the Task Manager. I have Athlon 2.0 - 1GB RAM - XP - Radeon 9700 Pro |
| ||
| BSP have a lot of disadvantages... and those editors...well, maybe nice, but limited in the geometry creation. I rather prefer to just load my 2 uv channels(created/swaped these in Unwrap3d) x mesh scenery, have some tool like Giles calculate lightmaps, and hope that the engine can do LOD, or some technique for dealing with large scneries (heh, or a lot of fog... XD ) To sum it up, is rather better to model your scenery mesh in Wings, for example, as complex as u wanna make it, uv map it in Unwrap3d (or free lithunwrap those who have it) , export as X, for example, or B3d for this engine. What I don't know is how hard would be for you to do a lod thing for visibility. Neither I know how is dealt in these cases the collisions. I worked in an small company and we made just some boxes with attributes in the properties, for portals or the like,(was kindda fps game) and boxes (to make it for curved surfaces, many boxes used) for collisions. That way I could ensure even a paper bin would collide with the player... And yep, it's true one thing...most users wont be able to do the thing WELL. I mean, I am purchasing now Giles, and have since it was first released Uwnrap3d (I even helped the author (testing, sugestions, etc) in the Lithunwrap initial times) But I see not many people have this combo. Some ppl that like to have the best tools for working, like gabriel, do have both Unwrap and Giles (even though he has Max5) and Ad u know he has Unwrap3d (and he also helped there) , but most wont have it. It is that important as the non bsp way means user needs to have a way to generate 2 uv channels in the b3d or x mesh. (I dunno if Blitz will load an x file with 2 uv channels...as is dx7. And once thing I'm really sure is , if dx8 x is less powerful (for b3d engine) than b3d format, I guess dx7 would be much worse ) I am now a Blender user, and more or less know the needed stuff.While I read a lot of Blender doc, it's hard to get th elevel of say "I'm an experienced blenderer" ..but I know already it cannot yet generate a 2nd uv channel.Is something they wanna do, but...it could take a load of time, as they have other priorities and plans. Blender I am afraid wants more to be a high end tool than a realtime game tool. Blender could be another potential tool for your users, if it werent so damn hard to learn. But it gets for example th character animation job done, though here I highly doubt (even most blender users) ppl find their way to export well the x character animations, and have done well the skeleton, etc. I guess there's some point u need to hope ur users get "some" comercial tools, or are patient enough to learn the pretty hard free ones. Even so, for char anims...well, unless Bone collector really works (x boned--> b3d boned with weights (feature listed much before b3d engine supported weights)) , they'd still would need unwrap3d to make the conversion... going a bit off topic, sorry. the advantages of BSP are : - Well, not very powerful, but Quark is nice www.planetquake.com/quark (have a look) .It solves this to the user: collisions, geometry(quite simple and very limited) generation (not sure, but i think it also does some kind of automatic uvs..) , lightmaps (never the quality of giles or max5, 6) , visibility stuff. well, they'd still need to download the q3 compiler open source I mentioned...but that one is not ended, and I don't know if is already functional.On the nice side, is open source so u could adapt it to ur needs... If u plan to allow hl bsp (I never knew which one is better, maybe q3 bsp...) , the zhlt tools is complete. they will need to know how to configure in quark any of those compilers inside quark, but that's explained at quark nice site. My 2 cents. |
| ||
| Looks horrible.. Geforce 6800 Ultra. Tracer |
| ||
| That was constructive tracer...(claps, which then turns to a less pleasent hand gesture) - Thanks for the info bob. I'll definitely be implementing some form of map system/occlusion..I mean lod's already in, we're half way there. but it's 10am...can't decide a thing like this right now ;) |
| ||
| I'm getting heat about screen-names from the guy who's named after a ancient japanese kung-fu concept, invented in the 21st century by a fictional character on a sit-com called friends!? ;) Actually "Kanati" is the cherokee equivalent of "Adam", or "first man"... Hunter. It's part of my heritage. :) |
| ||
| Can I still pronounce it with a japanese accent? That's all I ask. ;) |
| ||
| Why to post demo at this quality?... do something that will look other than random, blurred and pixelized mess... Vivid might be great for all I know but this demo is garbage.. Do a single rotated object with good textures and crisp quality... with pixelshader bloom effect and bump mapping... that would bring some respect. |
| ||
| Bloom/bump-mapping are already possible in b3d, so it would be a pointless demo to persue. 'Hey kids, you can buy vivid to exactly what you can do already!' But seriously the last demo had a crap depth of field shader..it's been replaced, now it pre-blurs the entire scene, and then smoothly fades between blurred/clear pxiels based on z distance. A lot better. I still can't find any decent media though..(That I can use for free that is. Not in any position to pay) |
| ||
| Heh, I was actually on turbosquid just a few hours ago myself...;) Thanks, definitely look good enough to use. A nice city scape..throw in a airplane or two...could be a nice little test. |
| ||
| vivigl is a opengl lib for blitzplus right? ive been looking around for one. where do i download this at? |
| ||
| For blitz3D first. Blitz+ conversation will be very simple though as the only thing it uses from b3d is it's pivots(Simply so people can still use the tformfuncs etc) (b+ version will be free to b3d version owners..and vice versa) |
| ||
| nice...any demos? |
   |