My favorite kind of person.
 Per-pixel Skybox Dithering
#13357 posted by mankrip on 2016/03/02 23:38:36
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
 Mankrip
#13358 posted by Hipshot on 2016/03/03 07:56:07
Some way of making textures look more highres, more like "detail textures"?
#13359 posted by mankrip on 2016/03/03 11:14:26
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.
 Mankrip
#13360 posted by Qmaster on 2016/03/03 18:41:58
What you are doing looks great! What engine is it that you are working on?
 Lights
#13361 posted by Rick on 2016/03/05 03:31:29
 Poison
#13362 posted by madfox on 2016/03/05 12:53:49
Texuring is hard, even if I scramble my skybox.
 Rick
#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.
 Oops, Probably The Wrong Thread For That Question
#13365 posted by Kinn on 2016/03/05 14:36:23
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.
 Thanks, Kinn
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.
#13367 posted by necros on 2016/03/05 15:55:56
madfox, that looks wild!
#13368 posted by Rick on 2016/03/05 15:57:29
Yeah, I somehow managed to post the link to that screenshot in the wrong thread.
 Total_newbie
#13369 posted by Kinn on 2016/03/05 15:57:56
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.
 Madfox
#13370 posted by Kinn on 2016/03/05 16:08:52
Channelling Beksinski's digital phase perhaps?
 Kinn
Thanks, will do.
#13372 posted by mankrip on 2016/03/05 23:35:32
Qmaster: The working name is Retroquad, but it should be changed upon release.
Rick: Cool guide, we need more stuff like this.
 Phongtastic!
#13373 posted by generic on 2016/03/08 14:30:51
 Yay!
#13374 posted by mankrip on 2016/03/09 00:50:58
 Need Testers
#13375 posted by digs on 2016/03/15 10:56:56
 Test Map
#13376 posted by digs on 2016/03/15 10:58:44
please, send your comments to digs[at]mail.ru
 Digs
#13377 posted by Barnak on 2016/03/15 15:48:26
I love this map., Great geometry. I like this style in Quake.
I didn't had time to make it all, but here are my crittics on a few things (so you could make it better) :
1. Not enough monsters (I tried it in nightmare mode). I felt lonely in most places.
2. Not enough atmospheric sounds (winds, water, etc). The map is too silent.
3. The trees are as ugly as my butt (too crude, the trees, not my butt !). Make them without leafs, or replace them by strange rocks formations, or some kind of out-of-this-world sculptures. Trees in quake really suck.
4. Some corridors are a bit old-school (very square), and could have more "out-of-this-world" details.
 Barnak
#13378 posted by digs on 2016/03/15 16:45:52
Thank you!
1. I may increase the number of monsters.
2. No sound, because they do not complete the assembly map. When the full - they appear
3. Trees ... I think you're right. I think that can be done
4. I tried to make more parts, but probably will not change my architecture.
 Digs
#13379 posted by mjb on 2016/03/16 11:11:13
I'll be glad to test if you still need people this weekend!
 Bloughsburgh
#13380 posted by digs on 2016/03/16 11:23:53
Thank you! I've got a lot of feedback. By the weekend I will try to resolve any issues and make another version for testing
|