Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

peter_spy

Member
  • Content Count

    2196
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    71

Everything posted by peter_spy

  1. Most beginner mappers won't make textures at all, but they will feel the limiting consequences of not optimized assets. They would have more freedom with enough preset skins and optimized assets, as they would hit performance limits later than sooner. Even now you can see the consequences of that approach: many missions look same-ish and they are unoptimized, or they limit mappers a lot. It's the same as if the assets had fewer editing options, but with all the disadvantages
  2. Not really the case of companies vs. hobbyists, as e.g. CS mappers or Skyrim mappers have to do the same, so the engines they use work as expected (i.e. maintain high framerate in competitive online play, or make the gameplay in TES engine as smooth as possible (which isn't easy from the get go). Mappers don't need high number of materials per model to have versatility, they need a decent number of skins.
  3. They use very high number of materials per model, and the material complexity is often high too. That's a textbook example of how not to make assets, for any engine really. You can easily clog the graphics pipeline this way, even in something like UE4. Since the realtime ray tracing is very young and first rtx cards are still relatively inefficient, nvidia uses older games like Quake 2.
  4. They might try it with Doom 3, although it doesn't make sense to choose tech that ultimately was a fork in a road and more of an experiment. They definitely won't choose TDM, as they need correctly made assets and as much overhead as they can get. There is a RTX-based lightmapping project in the works though (for vanilla Doom 3).
  5. IMO to make it decent, you'd need a new environment pack: modular pieces, tiling materials, single props, loot, proper sounds/music, etc. Something much harder to do would be actual characters, I think we have some basic moor AI, as Dragofer said, but not much more than that. Skeletons, zombies, and spiders would have to make do.
  6. Best solution would be to have a proper postprocess bloom for that, so the emissive texture alone would do the trick (perhaps with setting RGB to something higher than 1). Otherwise it's whatever gets the job done, without noticeable performance hit.
  7. Sorry for being blunt but glow around these lamps looks rather bad. I've been trying to find a suitable effect myself, and IMO you'd be better off with something like light that has fogs/glare2 texture and noshadows/nodiffuse/nospecular set to 1:
  8. As long as it doesn't change anything in how materials look, sure. Wouldn't go too far with HDR efforts though, such displays are still not a mainstream thing. IMO it would be great to do away with light textures for intensity at some point, switching to math formulas (locking the light resize box), and leaving texture slots only for projections.
  9. Metallic surface tests, the results are much better: There's the light hotspot issue, but again, the shading looks correct, almost the same as UE4.
  10. Okay, I did some tests for non-metallic surfaces, used UnrealEngine 4 with some stock PBR textures to have a valid reference: And in Doom3PBR: The result is very impressive, shading model looks correct. I suspect the biggest problem is idtech4 lights that may be incompatible here. This light cone/hotspot behaves strangely when you move, and when you get close to surfaces, they become too shiny: But when that gets fixed, it will look as incredible as in UE4. In the meantime I'll test some metallic surfaces too.
  11. Yeah, I agree. Even though tools like Substance have nice grayscale->channel packing options, I bet people would still use something like Gimp to tweak the textures. And working on channels in Gimp is a PITA (constant decomposing and recomposing, then exporting). Having shortcuts, e.g. pbr_Color, pbr_Roughness, and pbr_AO (just like diffusemap, specularmap, and bumpmap) might be faster for material prototyping.
  12. Since it's a vfp file, maybe you could use it the same way you use programs like HeatHaze.
  13. I'll have to verify the above, as I tried something like that in D3 vanilla, and the effect is similar. Light hotspots seem to work correctly with metallic materials, but that problem exists with non-metallic surfaces.
  14. It seems like at this point the PBR shader will be largely incompatible with TDM. I suspect it might have something to to with the vfp programs we use. I tried the 2.05 + interaction direct combo along with correct PBR textures, and the surface roughness changes way too drastically with movement, or even just standing / crouching. Edit: This is an issue in vanilla D3 as well, Icecoldduke is aware of the problem and will fix it
  15. I made that notice And it's true, the textures are incompatible both ways, although with PBR to non-PBR it can be something as simple as adding AO to base color for diffuse and inverting roughness map. Doesn't work the other way.
  16. IMO there will be no conversion at all, as most non-PBR textures are downright incompatible with this shading model. Content creators will have to make new textures, as they're based on measured real-world values. In theory, we could mix non-PBR and PBR materials by having e.g. a separate interaction_pbr.vfp that can be declared in materials. It might make the transition smoother, but I suspect the two types of materials won't look correct with the same lighting.
  17. Ok, I managed to get it working in 2.05, had to do the same thing as @VanishedOne, i.e. replace the interaction_direct.vfp instead of interaction.vfp and set the Interaction shader to "Simple" in TDM menu. For now, the red channel in "specular" texture is a Roughness, and green channel is Metallic - that works correctly. I talked with Icecoldduke, the blue channel will be the AO slot at some point. I'll redo a few of my base materials to make a test room and see how it works with TDM lighting.
  18. I have no idea how this should be organised, code-wise, but it seems we have quite a few vfp files for interaction shader: interaction, interaction_direct, interaction_102, and there's a folder called 102_interaction with file named... interaction. Aren't we asking for trouble with this setup?
  19. I don't have any problem with both respecting and understanding the legal system, and having empathy for someone who writes statement like the one in the OP. These aren't mutually exclusive or binary. I do have a problem with asking for respect while not displaying any. There is no tolerance for intolerance, etc.
  20. There would be, if, instead of basement-dweller misogyny there had been at least some tiny little respect towards the victim(s). Fortunately, it came later in the discussion.
  21. Btw. I tried to drop the vfp file into the glprogs folder in 2.07, but nothing happened. Must be doing something wrong. Edit: oh, I forgot. The PBR shader uses ARB, to support the original Doom 3, while TDM switched to GLSL with 2.06. Will need to check whether I can have r_useGLSL 0 to switch to ARB in 2.07.
  22. Yes, use blend add stage for this.
  23. Not sure what's the problem with Enhanced shader, it's been on by default for ages IIRC, and I just do all my material taking it into account (switching between postprocessing on and off to tweak it). The same goes for RGB relationship between diffuse and specular, no surprises there. An yeah, the RGB keyword for speculars is broken, but it's no biggie, since you tweak your specular maps in image software anyway. Since it's non-pbr setup, you make your materials for a particular lighting, that's how all older engines work. Some just use greyscale speculars, some use RGB. Edit: I switched to Simple shader for a second; it looks godawful. It's like all the power has been sucked up from my speculars. Never again
  24. 5.1 was a cool thing around high-school and uni for me, when I had just one small room for myself. When have an apartment or a house, these setups become rather impractical (too short cables, long cables going across the room) or too expensive (wireless setups). In the meantime both games (either PC or console) and TV manufacturers managed to introduce DSP effects passable enough, that they do give impression of spatial audio while coming from one or two TV speakers. These days, I'd trade any 5.1 setup for any pair of good stereo speakers (preferably studio monitors).
  25. Nope, it's a new way of rendering everything, all possible materials. It's easier from artist workflow perspective, as values are linear and many of them are constant for particular materials. Due to energy conservation formula, materials are largely lighting-agnostic, and with roughness/metallic model you don't have to worry about Fresnel values, as they're calculated by the shader. Also, you don't have to worry about relationship between specular and cubemap reflection, as the transition from porous to mirror surface is done seamlessly in the shader. The problem is, most of the TDM stock materials never fully embraced the "classic" non-pbr specular workflow. So switching to PBR now won't be as groundbreaking, if you're not used to making specular (or in this case, roughness) maps for everything.
×
×
  • Create New...