 News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register |
Log in |
|
|
this to turn into an argument who's right or wrong, I just wanted to point out that overbright lighting is no cure without shortcomings and to counteract simplified claims like GLQuake looks like "shit" in comparison.
I just used kjsp1 to make the shortcomings obvious, but it can be seen in any map if there are any overbright areas. This is also important; the areas where it's supposed to work, are the same areas where textures might be saturated. You can see this in the shots above; beneath the overbright area, there's a normal wall that looks the same (no saturation) in both cases. Using fullbright in WQ also shows how the textures are saturated where the overbright lighting is applied, so I think it's appropriate. Whether id actually intended to have the overbright lighting or fullbright pixels or were just forced to use these tricks due to technical constraints at the time, probably remains hidden in the past. But by the same logic, one might claim that the light banding or pixellation were intended, too My guess is that they wanted something better, but couldn't do it with reasonable costs or performance by the time of development. Possibly also in an attempt to counteract the then rather frequent complaints about Quake being just "dull brown and green". Why the tgas are more saturated than the 8-bits is probably caused by the total sum of brightening, I've filtered the tgas to be brighter (without saturation in my engines) together with gamma being my normal setting 0.65. This together with overbrights probably becomes too much. Without overbrights, this map looks fabulous with external tgas. The purpose of my two sets was to show that even in the original and default setup, overbrights cause saturation, while it's then worse with my normal setting and configs. This also shows how sensitive the lighting is, even minor changes to engine/driver/monitor settings may tip it over the edge and create horrible distortion. a moderate case:
http://img182.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=22977_overbrightshamb_122_12lo.jpg Not just ikwhite textures. Well I'm glad to hear the tga brightness is becuase you edited them, not becuase fitzquake loads them wrong. :)
As for the rest, it's probably a matter of opinion whether it generally looks good or bad. For me, the higher dynamic range provided by overbright gives more contrast and less flat-looking lighting. The washed-out appearance of brightly lit surfaces is true to my experience in real life, and looks good to me so long as the mapper does a decent job lighting things. (example: the pentagram room in dm3 looks bad, but that is becuase it is badly lit. It also looks bad without overbright.) Well Fitz actually loads many tgas upside down, but I'm sure you already know about that
Grahf: Yes, that's what I was trying to say before, but the issue probably gets worse if you also use idgamma (which I do). The combination is not nice to look at and alias model shading is basically ruined. Again, several engines have this problem. Well Fitz actually loads many tgas upside down, but I'm sure you already know about that
Oh yes, that problem. I actually fixed it recently thanks to browsing your code :) Grahf, that shambler has a 32 bit TGA texture that I made alot darker (+contrast, sharpen, other tweaks) but I can't tell from the shot if you had -exttex enabled?
If you did and it still looks like that then its proven what AguirRe was saying before - there's no way to account for all setups. If not then its because of a loading issue? Otherwise I'd recommend using the external skins, they look better in my opinion. It says dp next to the shot number - you were just making a point?
Not had the morning coffee yet. I was just trying to make a quick point, though I didn't consider that warp has external model textures. I'm not sure if the external skin was loaded; whatever the default is (pretty sure they were though). I did have the gamma and contrast turned up a bit to see the darker areas better. Maybe that wasn't the best example. I didn't intend to pick on your map, ijed.
But the point was, it's not just a specific texture set of an old map that looks washed out, but any shambler in a bright room. However I can't think of or find any other maps off hand that have a shambler in a bright room, so I'm going to have to back off of that point. Oh, Warp run in Darkplaces just fine. There are so many players out there each with his own system for making quake look best, and all of these different user modifications (idgamma, hardware gamma, glquake's -gamma hack, replacement textures, replacement
As someone who runs a very stock setup (fitzquake with hardware gamma correction,) I rarely experience firsthand the problems caused by various modifications interacting with some features. People can't be expected to give up their preferred mods, like idgamma, since once they get used to them the old ways may look worse to them (for example idgamma allows for contrast increases I think, which the "gamma" cvar can't replicate.) I think I'm safe from any serious criticism as long as I make everything cvar-controllable, though :) This is a really minor point, but: A while back I said overbright made kjsp1 look bad. In fact it's really only dramatically different in the two skylights shown in aguirre's screenshot.
I just ran around it today and the rest of the level looks pretty much like any other map: mostly the same as without overbright, with only a few hotspots that are moderately brighther. So, I just wanted to retract any implication that killjoy did lighting badly :) I guess the thread got a bit hijacked, sorry about that
I should have looked at the thread date - 2007. The other link worked but I probably did grab this when it was fresh. Thanks!
|
|
| You must be logged in to post in this thread. |
|
| Website copyright © 2002-2024 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors. |