peter_spy
-
Posts
3201 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
109
Posts posted by peter_spy
-
-
I wouldn't say that the dark outline is the best solution. According to these screenshots it looks more like toon shader, like in Borderlands:
Adding fresnel won't help either; it works great for curved surfaces like spheres or models with bevelled edges, but will never do anything substantial for simple box shapes like doors.
-
In practical terms it's not that simple though. When you use omni lights to to fake light reflecting off surfaces across the room, their radii can overlap somewhere "in the air" without hitting any visible surface, and be large enough to hit the player light detection cone or whatever is used for lightgem calculation. It can look weird and erratic ingame. And having such tool isn't uncommon practice either. Even Thief Deadly Shadows had a LightWeight parameter, which was a multiplier IIRC, so you could decide how much it affects the lightgem.
-
On 12/13/2021 at 8:07 AM, stgatilov said:
r_frobOutlinePreset --- a command to switch between different preset styles of frob-highlight outlines. It modifies various outline-related cvars, setting them to predefined values. You can later adjust them individually.
r_newFrob, r_frob* --- a bunch of cvars for tweaking the new frob-highlight outline.
When you set r_newFrob to 0, the frob outline preset is still there, so you can have your custom frob set in material file, but it will always be with an outline
Perhaps there should be something like r_frobOutlinePreset 0 (no outline) as well?
-
Nice work! Ray quality looks much better than the last time we've worked on this.
-
On 12/3/2021 at 4:40 PM, HMart said:
That is really fup I hope you guys talk with a lawyer and see what can be done, because I imagine this can open a really bad can of worms and perhaps prevent others from making models for TDM, afraid their models get sold on such sites.
To be honest, I've been thinking about resuming my modeling and map work, but this is a total showstopper for me
I like neither the idea of my hard work being modified by anyone, but selling it is much much worse. Technically, I could release my stuff with low quality textures e.g. 512px to deter asset flippers, but it kinda undermines the whole effort of making high quality environments. Until there is some kind of asset package protection, a or way to binarize assets a la RBDoom3BFG, I don't see the point in continuing work that can't be safely released
-
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.
-
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:
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.
-
4
-
-
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:
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
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
And for windows, it's often visible only after you open them:
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):
-
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.
-
13 hours ago, refl3ks said:
The Unwelcome Guest - Work in Progress Vid
That bloom and fog reminds me of Deadly Shadows a bit, good old mapping times
-
Outer Wilds is definitely on my list, it's been receiving nothing but praise and I've seen gameplay videos too, it's very intriguing
-
Nope, Parvati. Currently I'm on Monarch and I wonder if there's going to be anything interesting here.
-
I've been playing The Outer Worlds a bit, but apart from a one companion that's well-written and voiceovered, the whole game is flat and lifeless. I really hoped it would be more like FNV in space.
-
That^ seems like overthinking. If water arrow + torch = light off, players will expect it to work every time, whether it's moveable or not. I'd expect that just hitting a guard with it should make him drop the torch and start investigating. IIRC Thief 3 did that with both water and moss arrows.
-
At least when it comes to objects inside containers, it was always easier for me to just set them to hide 0 and use target links from openable element. Since the problem is with ignoring geometry when tracing frob entities, adding more geometry doesn't seem like a solution to me. Making objects invisible until container is open works every time.
-
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
).
-
2
-
-
This^ is actually an awesome find.
-
1
-
-
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?"
That's still informational noise, and I'm pretty sure people who blocked me really don't need that in their lives.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
Isn't it a question of order of operations? In modeling apps you can easily achieve both results, depending on what you need. The only difference is, that in the first example the modelling modifier would be placed before UV modifier, and in the second one it's vice versa.
-
1
-
-
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
Can every1 pls update his FM with a saveroom possibility on hardmode like in the Kingsals latest FM?
in Fan Missions
Posted
That would be a huge and firm no. If you want to cheat, you already have god mode, noclip, notarget, etc.
Limiting or removing saves in FMs is not only a new way to prevent save scumming and letting the emergent systems work, but it can also allow to create missions that are more akin to roguelike games: focused on short runs and replays. Overriding that with a cvar is taking control away from mission authors just to satisfy players who don't want to change their habits or can't be bothered to understand gameplay concepts other than classic Thief gameplay.