Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

peter_spy

Member
  • Posts

    3015
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    102

Posts posted by peter_spy

  1. In other engines, static mesh class itself already has attributes like material path, skins, LOD settings, etc., but the model has to be imported first. So instead of having a separate "LOD entity", it would be better to have these attributes either moved to func_static class already, or, requiring models to be assigned to an entity with all the proper spawnargs.

  2. I'm not sure if that's a best example, but I was trying to stress the physics system a bit. I'm using moveable ball models, all having that 16-polygon CM above. Just for fun I gave them friction 0 and bouncyness 1, to make physics work harder than usual. And I was able to get to 150 balls without going below 60fps:

    buildercompound_2021-09-07_12_04_24.jpg.818217d93d488b72d2fa813cfadb3709.jpg

    buildercompound_2021-09-07_12_04_47.jpg.d16805fe2f51bfec63f2c6d5004413ab.jpg

    Given that this is a synthetic test, and in typical situations you won't need more than, let's say, 10 objects interacting with each other simultaneously, it seems to me that those limits could be raised like ten times, and it shouldn't hurt the performance.

    • Like 4
  3. That makes sense, but going from that to 16 polygon limit seems really extreme to me. In practical terms, you can't create a shape more complex than this:

    Clipboard01.thumb.jpg.f572916a36012af7c518875fa1727da8.jpg

    Since physics is done on CPU, it should be pretty scalable too. I doubt that mappers or content creators will want to go beyond something like a bowling mini-game :D So perhaps it would be worth trying to set it at, I dunno, 1024 polygons per CM, testing it on a few objects, and going down until the game works in a stable manner?

    Btw. I was trying to find any info on any hard CM polygon limits for engines like Source or UE3, but couldn't find anything.

  4. Not DR but engine-related question: is there a reason for idMoveables collision model to have such low polygon limit?

    Quote

    "max vertices = 32"

    "max edges = 32"

    "max polygons = 16"

    "max edges per polygon = 16"

    I know the game can be wonky, but it's impossible to make even a really basic round shape with such low limits.

  5. As for the LOD confusion, it kinda seems like you created the problem yourself, moving stuff to very different folders. Typically, you don't have time for making more than one good (LOD1) version of your model, so the clutter in the model folder is usually minimal. What I've seen in TDM stock assets though, is that models can have unnecessary LOD stages, where e.g. LOD1 is 1500 tris and LOD2 is 1200 tris, for example. That makes little sense. The rule of thumb is to have around 50% vertex difference between each stage, so changing between models gives tangible performance boost.

  6. 14 hours ago, cabalistic said:

    It's one of those things that appears to be simple to do, but really isn't.

    Hmm, upon closer investigation, it's not like AAA titles handle it in a 100% consistent way either. For example, Dishonored 2 dropped the outline for doors altogether:

    03.jpg.de4a6177577417986a1fd463955fb373.jpg

    And for windows, it's often visible only after you open them:

    01.jpg.afbacc371e15acc1fdf3475104830fe8.jpg

    02.jpg.9fde1077f4213122c4db3062f2734676.jpg

     

    Edit: I guess the reason for not having super tight outline system is that they might have been relying on an interaction prompts more (which I turned off and forgot about it):

    04.jpg.6b9531c5179dc25bb5575a9e71b74735.jpg

  7. I wonder why this is such a huge issue. Such outline is being used in tons of both AAA and indie games nowadays, and it works correctly. I bet it's something you can either find for free, or buy in a Unity or Unreal Marketplace for a few bucks.

  8. 10 hours ago, SeriousToni said:

    Why would you want to alert a guard at your position?

    There was a Splinter Cell installment where Sam could whistle to attract guards to a spot and then evade them. The sound range of this whistle was pretty small, so often it felt awkward that it isn't heard in larger distance, but IMO that wasn't the main problem. As we all know, stealth games like SC or TDM these are about scanning the environment, assuming a strategy and trying to execute it. The finite aspect of player resources is important and makes for different setups mappers can create. Whether it's a whistle or a mic-based sound, you're giving the player an infinite resource to cheese through your map, and it makes the gameplay awfully boring. I bet that the number of mappers that would want that is excatly 0.

    10 hours ago, SeriousToni said:

    For this we could just use noise makers or movable objects (throwing) , right?

    Exactly. Not to mention implementing the whole idea, which can easily get complicated, like guards reacting differently to different sound levels your mic produces, etc. Good luck making predictable player tool out of that, and then teaching the player to use it effectively (long story short, that's a hell no from me :D).

    • Like 2
  9.   

    1 hour ago, SeriousToni said:

    Are you sure? You could easily skip these lines, they're even grayed out.

    In the thread view, yes, but ideally I wouldn't want to see them at all. In the Activity view though, you have ignored users displayed in the same way as others, just with post content hidden. If I did block someone, I really had a reason, and those options to unhide the content are everywhere. IMO they're not much different from "Are you sure?" prompts (and equally annoying).

    Or, in other words: when someone has me on the ignored list, every time I post something, they get an equivalent of "hey, that idiot you can't stand just posted something, are you sure you don't want to see it?" :D That's still informational noise, and I'm pretty sure people who blocked me really don't need that in their lives.

    • Like 2
  10. That said, the way the ignore function works is kinda weird. I ignore some people because they're giant time and space wasters to me, so I really don't need any info on their actions, whether in threads or in other views. E.g. I really don't want to know or see that they posted a new topic or reacted to a post somewhere, or posted in a thread. That thing with having an option to unhide every blocked post in a thread is unnecessary. And, I can see whenever they're quoted in other posts, so hiding that would be awesome too.

  11. Yup. A torch-like light might be good for a final preview, but for prototyping materials it's better to have neutral lighting without intensity changes. This way you can adjust things like specularity to avoid overblown highlights, etc. It's kinda like with photo studio lights, if it looks good there, it will look good in any lighting conditions. Thanks :)

  12. One suggestion on Material Editor: by default it uses orange pulsing light_torchflame, which is probably the least useful choice when prototyping materials. It also reverts to it every time you close the window. I suggest either switching to atdm:light_base as a default, or making the editor remember the last used light type and color.

  13. There is something in English/American manner of speaking that looks like tons of sugarcoating and beating around the bush, at least when you come from some other country. In other cultures, e.g. Polish or German, people are much more blunt. When they see shit, they call it shit, not "unfortunate bowel byproduct" :D There is such a thing as being too polite, and it's regarded as contrived or superficial. It can also be an easy way to disarm any criticism or discussion, regardless of their substance. I've seen it bumped to absurd levels on TTLG, where I saw responses like "you're not our friend, you can't criticize us", or "since you don't like it like we do, maybe Thief isn't a game for you". Fortunately TDM forums are nowhere near that level.

  14. 33 minutes ago, kingsal said:

    And this is how you choose to respond ?

    After several pages of patient discussion, posting relevant links and referring to facts, which he ignored entirely, since his subsequent responses were still the same make-believe? Yes, unfortunately.

  15. 10 hours ago, duzenko said:

    @MirceaKitsune Sorry, are you messing with @peter_spy on purpose? I sure appreciate your calm tone, but you need to understand that what you're doing here is positive reinforcement of his negativity

    It's funny that so many cultures associate speaking calmly as automatically being superior in a discussion. You can speak in calm tone and be completely clueless, while you can shout in anger and still have a point.

    That said, I don't think it's about messing on purpose, it's just his MO. You've already seen it in multiple bugtracker entries too. He barges in, usually without checking wiki or forums on certain functionality, makes up his own ad-hoc interpretation of it, automatically assumes it is canon, and then it takes several people to explain him the "historical context", or that he mistakes bugs for features, etc. Then either he lets it go, or, if he is stubborn, he'll reply with walls of misinterpretation until the other party has no more energy for it.

  16. 13 minutes ago, MirceaKitsune said:

    Yes: A limitation in the hiding code was lifted, the bug was that it was ignoring light entities entirely, now it allows the functionality of hiding those too like literally all other entity types. You aren't even making sense any more... now you're nitpicking at words to find a reason why I must be stupid because I supported a change you don't like. How much longer do we have to keep doing this? Because I'm not interested in entertaining it whenever I try to have a discussion here. Again I ask that you please let us discuss the LOD system without trying to start drama each time this comes up in some form, before this thread is gonna need to be closed over it. Thank you.

    I am not making sense anymore? :D You seem to have a peculiar cognitive disorder, where you don't see difference between common knowledge and semantics, and what you make up about it in your hopes, dreams, and intuitions on any given topic. And then you mix it up and use in whatever convenient way you find at any given moment. Why do you think you should be the one who's constantly pushing for something, in a discipline where features or changes need to be meaningful and based on data, and not on feelings?

×
×
  • Create New...