404? 

I have used the simple glass.bmp with alpha 1.
right link 

I just noted your doom-e1m1 level there, it's funny, cause I saw someone remake e1m1 in UE4 a couple days ago, and it looks so so bad:

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-first-doom-level-has-been-recreated-in-unreal-engine-4/

I told my friend that I can make that shit in Q1 and have it look 10 times better and now I see you did just that =)

The only reason why I shun that remake so much is because it has gotten so much attention around the net and it just strengthens my belief that gen-pop don't understand quality, especially in older games, using old tech.

These Unreal-remakes get's way to much attention, it's not like that Kakariko village level looked any good either, but this guys seems to think so:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SOsQ3288SzI/maxresdefault.jpg


Sorry, 0750-hours, before heading to work in a cold Stockholm, rant =D 

100% Correct. That UE4 level looks utterly fucking awful in the shots and would still look utterly fucking awful if it had been done in UE1 18 years ago.

And yeah Scampie's pisses all over that not least because Scampie understands high map quality.

FFS. 

 

Are people really that struck over bloom lightning and cheesy shaders? There is a time and place for UE4 but not for something like this. I am fortunate that a community exists that has similar views! :) 

Signed Up And Commented Too.

Never disappoint. 

[[[CAN WE PLEASE HAVE A NEW PASSWORD FOR THIS AS THIS ONE IS UTTERLY FUCKING ANNOYING]]]

WHO DID THIS 😂😂 

Someone with moderator privileges who is a bit of a knob and abuses them, obviously. 

My favorite kind of person. 

I wasn't satisfied with the Floyd-Steinberg dithering that I had implemented in the TGA loader ages ago. Floyd-Steinberg dithering only works per-texel, which means that its color correction doesn't interpolate at the subtexel level used by the 3D rasterizer and the level of detail gets quite poor when the image is projected in 3D space:
http://www.quaketastic.com/files/screen_shots/scr_0735_fs.png

So, I've ditched it and came up with a 2-step per-texel & per-pixel approach. There's a huge amount of preprocessing involved in this method, so I'm gonna have to make the engine store the compiled data in the disk to make loading times tolerable:
http://www.quaketastic.com/files/screen_shots/scr_0735_mankrip.png

And here's how it looks with a high-res skybox from Arcane Dimensions:
http://www.quaketastic.com/files/screen_shots/scr_0755.png 

Some way of making textures look more highres, more like "detail textures"? 

No. It's about improving color definition, not texture resolution.

Detail textures adds more detail than originally existed, while per-pixel dithering prevents average color loss.

Sometimes I may get a little odd with nomenclature because I'm inventing these features from scratch and I'm not a native English speaker. 

What you are doing looks great! What engine is it that you are working on? 

Maybe this will help a little.

http://www.quaketastic.com/files/LightTest.jpg 

Texuring is hard, even if I scramble my skybox. 

#13361: I'm guessing that was meant for Specialbomb, but as someone who's still trying to learn the finer nuances of Quake lighting I find that really helpful.

By the way, what (in relatively lay terms) is the difference between wait and delay? I'm sure they're completely different and this is probably a silly question, but I've read necros's guide (before and again now), but I still don't quite grasp the difference between the two. 

 

what (in relatively lay terms) is the difference between wait and delay?

delay is just an integer id to denote what attenuation formula the light uses - read the light tool readme to see which number means what.

wait is a float scale factor that stretches or shrinks the attenuation. wait < 1 stretches it (light goes further), wait > 1 shrinks it.

If you use ericw's version of the light tool, the readme will tell you everything you need to know about using lights. 

That sort of makes sense now (I mean it's well explained on your part; it just needs to sink in on my end). It'll hopefully become clearer with time and experience, but now I don't feel quite so lost.

And thanks for the tip about ericw's readme. It really is very extensive, but your explanation helps me understand the readme a bit better too.

Sorry for the thread-inappropriate discussion. 

madfox, that looks wild! 

Yeah, I somehow managed to post the link to that screenshot in the wrong thread. 

with light, the fastest way to become completely 100% clear on everything is simply to make a test map, and just tinker with each light setting one by one, referring to ericw's readme, until everything makes sense. 

Channelling Beksinski's digital phase perhaps? 

Thanks, will do.