 News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register |
Log in |
|
|
easily prefer the 1x lighting. But yeah could be because lighting method/other cvars unchanged.
Also, everyone disregard that pic I posted... I had forgotten to copy my
so post the fixed shot shrimptease TRIP REPORT ON 16x RESOLUTION AND -EXTRA4 AND -SOFT
After 2.5 hours, a 337mb Sorry about that, the "AllocBlock: full" is when you exceed the hardcoded lightmap limit in QS. Even if it did load, performance would be awful because dynamic lights are all rendered on the CPU. The 8x and 16x options are probably best avoided, or only used very selectively.
jam2_scampie looks pretty nice with "-extra -lmscale 0.25", though, and only takes 4 minutes to light. I really need to code the thing that automatically lowers the resolution on faces with no detail. It's jam2_scampie, so it's not excessive, but it's reasonable for a proper sized map.
4x resolution seems to be the max for this level, generating a 23mb These are comparisons with -extra and -soft between standard area1, lit, textured area1, lit, lightmap area1, lit2, textured area1, lit2, lightmap area2, lit, textured area2, lit, lightmap area2, lit2, textured area2, lit2, lightmap The gains in this map are mostly in the spotlights being a bit sharper... but it's not very noticable when set against these textures. Perhaps a less noisy/dark/ugly set would be a better test? I'll give my Jam5 a go, since 4x isn't too excessively long to compile. Yeah it really doesn't add anything to jam2_scampie in those comparisons, even the upward pointing spotlights probably look better in the vanilla version
To be fair, I also don't rely on shadows that much in my lighting. Mostly because Quake is so blurry (and I suck at lighting...)
As a bonus though, in my Jam5 map I notice I can actually get some lighting on some of the detailed faces I wasn't able to light correctly. The blue crystals and grass bits actually receive lighting on their small little faces much better... experimenting a bit now with the hanging vines to see if I can make them cast shadows, which I opted not to do because they were so blurry previously. This latest build needs the '-fence' commandline flag to do the tracing through fence textures. But without that, a func_illusionary with _shadow 1 should cast a solid shadow
no... again my bad... I kept saving jam5_scampie.map and not saving as jam5_scampie_16.map which is what I was compiling... *headdesk*
Added shadows to the func_illusionary hanging vines compared to the released version... the differences here are subtle. It's all in the details, you can get some nice crisp shadows, and in some cases that really pops and is noticeable... but often the subtle nice differences in the lightmap are lost when mixed with textures. Again, -extra and -soft, the
area1, lit, textured area1, lit, lightmap area1, lit2, textured area1, lit2, lightmap area2, lit, textured area2, lit, lightmap area2, lit2, textured area2, lit2, lightmap area3, lit, textured area3, lit, lightmap area3, lit2, textured area3, lit2, lightmap area4, lit, textured area4, lit, lightmap area4, lit2, textured area4, lit2, lightmap area5, lit, textured area5, lit, lightmap area5, lit2, textured area5, lit2, lightmap Basically... not sure it's worth an extra ~25mb of download for general use. There's some nice treats and bonuses here and there, but unless you're doing some really detailed shadow casting, it may not be worth it?
My maps and lighting style may be a bad example though, I tend to light and make bright highlights rather than cool shadows due to the low res nature of Quake's light maps Thanks for the comparisons Scampie.
It's entire possible this isn't really a useful feature for quake's visuals, or at least for most maps. I guess the main thing it gives you is the ability to have harder edge shadows without stairsteps. e.g. for sunlight casting an angled shadow, with the default resolution, you have to blur quite a lot to get rid of the stairsteps. So the problem may be, the harder edged shadows may not be desirable anyway. Regarding file size, the optimal way to use this is just enabling it on brushes that need the higher res, and this will both shrink the I will make sure that all my maps are minimum 16x res shadows...
I wont play by your rules!!!! Like I said, don't call this a bust or anything yet. I'd approach my lighting differently if every/most things had crisp shadows, because I'd want to highlight those more often rather than the ugly blobs we currently have and use a bunch of blurring to make look passable.
are there any quake maps that actually use cast shadows really well? We should test on those. I'm thinking like, dm2 and dm4 have a lot of shadows behind grates and stuff.
here's DM2, compiled with -extra4 -soft -dirty -dirtscale 1.5 -dirtgain 0.9 -lightmapscale 0.25 (4x resolution)
area1, lit, textured area1, lit, lightmap area1, lit2, textured area1, lit2, lightmap area2, lit, textured area2, lit, lightmap area2, lit2, textured area2, lit2, lightmap area3, lit, textured area3, lit, lightmap area3, lit2, textured area3, lit2, lightmap area4, lit, textured area4, lit, lightmap area4, lit2, textured area4, lit2, lightmap Obviously DM2 wasn't made with this in mind, but I think this does show were some of the higher resolution lightmaps can make a big difference. just tried to compile dm2 at 16x with all those settings...15min compile to make a 93mb
I was testing fte with a 173mb lit2 before I started messing with projected lights.
(side note: xz compessed it to 14mb, so if you can cope with the load times then its not completely impractical to distribute, just use 7z or xz instead of zip or gz - assuming lit2 was a finalized file format anyway)
|
|
| You must be logged in to post in this thread. |
|
| Website copyright © 2002-2025 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors. |