TrueCombat
http://truecombatelite.com/forums/

Visual updates in GFX
http://truecombatelite.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=2197		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  varsovie [ Sun Sep 26, 2010 5:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Visual updates in GFX
What new CQB renderer will bring to players ?

I dream about specular maps for textures. I love shiny pavement during sunset :twisted:
Image
Author:  Rang3r1_v2 [ Sun Sep 26, 2010 5:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
All it needs is spec map support and normal map support. Then it would be possible to get it to look like a lot of current engines today.
Author:  RedRuM [ Sun Sep 26, 2010 7:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
i think need is such a strong word.

Tc:e doesnt have oldschool graphics you know pff. You havent even saw oldschool game :lol:

Quake 2 haves oldschool graphics :roll:

I think texturequality, Lighting and stuff looks very nice. Only problem is that models pretty much kill the feeling. CQB is going to have impressive models, new color palette (as i understood from coroners older posts) and even enhanched textures if i understood right from early sneak peak pictures. Also better effects are coming.

And you forgot most important. Dynamic lighting !
Author:  Damien [ Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, wait for for the engine (IdTech3 in this case) to become redundant before calling it old school.

RedRuM wrote:
And you forgot most important. Dynamic lighting!
Do you mean the improved player shadows? Because that is far from true dynamic lighting.

Anyway, there is no "new TC:E renderer". Here's a quote from the coroner:
coroner wrote:
Nevertheless, I will again focus on developing CQB and will not touch the engine.


Rang3r1_v2 wrote:
All it needs is spec map support and normal map support. Then it would be possible to get it to look like a lot of current engines today.
But these improvements require some other elements like better texture compression and performance improvements since the engine can't handle a lot currently.

Still, you could run the mod within ET-Xreal as you would do with classic TC under Open Arena except to see the difference you'd have to rewrite the shaders (materials) and create normal and specular maps for each texture and even then it would only be a mod running on a non supported engine without PB.
Author:  RedRuM [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:19 am ]
Post subject: 
Damien wrote:
Yeah, wait for for the engine (IdTech3 in this case) to become redundant before calling it old school.

RedRuM wrote:
And you forgot most important. Dynamic lighting!
Do you mean the improved player shadows? Because that is far from true dynamic lighting.


not at all. i mean when you shoot with the gun the muzzle will create flashhes on walls and lamps could turn on and of changing the lighting of the room (only looks like darker but not dynamic shadows).

just like in true combat 1.2



ps: dude (thread hoster) i cant vote. add choice "no. true combats original reasons are most important" which were realism and amazing use of old engine. :lol: (all cool stuff, meaning projectile penetration, theme, hdr and all the cool shit)
Author:  Alpha Red [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
RedRuM wrote:
Damien wrote:
Yeah, wait for for the engine (IdTech3 in this case) to become redundant before calling it old school.

RedRuM wrote:
And you forgot most important. Dynamic lighting!
Do you mean the improved player shadows? Because that is far from true dynamic lighting.


not at all. i mean when you shoot with the gun the muzzle will create flashhes on walls and lamps could turn on and of changing the lighting of the room (only looks like darker but not dynamic shadows).

But I'm pretty sure that's not in CQB nor ET.
Author:  RedRuM [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
i know :(
Author:  varsovie [ Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Xreal
Dear Damien,
Damien wrote:
... Still, you could run the mod within ET-Xreal as you would do with classic TC under Open Arena except to see the difference you'd have to rewrite the shaders (materials) and create normal and specular maps for each texture ...
I work on Xreal engine from over ~year regarding extend ET , before W:ET reached GPL on 2010/08/13 ;)
ImageImage
Rewrite shaders & create auxiliary maps is smallest problem during porting for some project....

Seems my term "old-school" was little not fortune, I didn't want make anybody angry.
I always wonder clean & pure TC:E graphics ( obj_delta ), but true combat in 2010 can try have little more "true" environment, without Frame Rate SFX killer. This is why we discuss here to guide our TC masters about demands :)
Author:  Pimplik [ Tue Sep 28, 2010 12:15 am ]
Post subject: 
Why are people so obsessed with stuff like seeing a shimmer of the water or having a shiny marble floor, f**k that shit, all it does is ruin the FPS. The reason why TC:E is so enjoyable because it has simple graphics, simple movements and simple gameplay........ KEEP IT SIMPLE! 8)
Author:  Piney [ Tue Sep 28, 2010 1:49 am ]
Post subject: 
bump maps is more than shiny water.
Author:  RedRuM [ Tue Sep 28, 2010 6:35 am ]
Post subject: 
Piney wrote:
bump maps is more than shiny water.

Bump maps look stupid mostly.

Shiny marble "wood" walls are stupid.

Shiny water is too shiny.

Many games overdo the graphics and many dont use them wisely and kill the fps.

Example: rainbow six lockdown. It was *i-need-a-broader-vocab* amusing first to read review "uses incredible lighting" and seeing on shiny "wood" wall a lamp. The lamp was not funny part. Funny was that lamps real designation was behind me down the hall 30 meters. That was some *i-need-a-broader-vocab* mirror wood wall. And these metal railings on stairs are dirty as shit, maybe because they didnt shine.

Good example about bumps: best bump usage i have saw is on nexuiz. You only see bumps on good lighting and if you shoot explosive projectile on the ground.

Bad bump usage: rainbow six vegas 2. Bump are not even *i-need-a-broader-vocab* visible for normal eye. And still eat gpu/cpu

Most impressive water: killzone2. Seriously maybe best graphic usage i have ever seen. Especialy water. Still too shiny i think but still good.

I think current graphical state is very "true" only that points eye is that some objects that should be shiny are not.

I bet the engine enhancment is not the anwser. Next step is totaly change the engine. Theres no point to put all the eye candy to old engine without gpu acceleration or multi threading. The next choice is W:ET 2 if it realy comes to id tech 4 and haves pb.

If WET1 loses pb support i think true combat gets adapted to ET-XREAL.

And that may be bad news for some since i dont have power cpu. 1.9ghz dual realy cant do much job with single core. Mostly now i get (60)~70~(90) fps maxed out. On xreal i get ~60 fps and it doesnt support multi threading or gpu (as i understood)

Then throw some bots in and stupid windows firewall making scans you get less than 30 fps.
Author:  Alpha Red [ Tue Sep 28, 2010 1:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
Contrary to popular belief, normal maps (bump maps) do not kill the FPS. They are actually relatively little strain on the engine itself. Hence why they are used so much and to such an extent.
Author:  sxy [ Tue Oct 05, 2010 1:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
The most basic feature that tce needs (if Herr wants to make it look "okay" for next 5 years) is native support for DXT texture format. All jpeg textures have to be decompressed and then recompressed into dxt file format at "map loading". In a few years, textures as big as 4096x4096 will be quite common. (Imagine decompressing and recompressing 1Gb of textures at first map loading)
Author:  ]Wo0[ [ Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
In any case TC:CQB needs to keep the PB support even if it doesnt allow some engine editing.
If you look at cod4 promod, a good config makes cod4 look like TCE.
Author:  gonzo|Uncle Bionic [ Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
I want the graphics that CoD use!
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/