Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Spooks

Member
  • Posts

    612
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

Posts posted by Spooks

  1. By no means do I think it's somehow a problem in the crate. Or rather, if you think the 2.05 shader is the problem, the crate's not the only thing affected. I've noticed black splotches and over-brightened specularity on cylinder patches in my map that were not there during the previous beta. Here is a cropped picture, with magnification:

     

    kTL1SiM.png

     

    The light is coming from behind, from the window, and that four-sided, cylindrical patch exhibits the bug on a face that's facing somewhat away from the light, yet is getting inordinately strong specular (and clipping to black), compared to simple interaction shader or enhanced on beta 6. Honestly, I think there's something wrong with the 2.05 shader in and of itself, because I've encountered similar stuff in 2.06, like the stair models I talked about earlier in the thread. I don't remember it being this bad though. If needs be I can make a test map, but not today, maybe on Sunday.

    • Like 1
  2. Btw. why shadowcaulk? Models are there to cast their shadows (or those cast by a dedicated shadow mesh). This looks like a very uncommon way of doing things.

     

    The wall modules won't seal the level. Why shadowcaulk over caulk then? Honestly, I don't remember why I do it now! I just remember there was a bad drawback with caulk that I discovered and it turned me to shadowcaulk, which did a better job. At any rate, one benefit is that you can freely turn off the shadow casting on any wall module in a concave room (conditionally through LOD or not), because if there is any light, it will be casting light on the wall modules, the modules themselves won't cast shadows inwards, to the room. The exception is the trim, but if it's minimal or the light is cast not too dramatically, the player won't notice. As regards to the material issue, don't worry guys i fixed it :)

     

    Should I track this one?

    • Like 3
  3. OK, I can confirm that the single pass shadow map mode now works with the alphaTested materials that I use in my WIP (we were discussing how it didn't look correctly wrt to the vines on one of the tombstones in The Warrens, but I haven't gone in to check). Regarding singlepass though, I was fortunate to turn it on and check, because I found a bad interaction with shadowcaulk by chance.

    r_shadows 1 (or r_shadows 2 with singlepass mode 0):

    VlJ6KzEm.jpg

    r_shadows 2 with singlepass 1:

    Aj4U78um.jpg

    How the scene's set up in DR:

    DjI0TRq.jpg

     

    I really don't think this is related to the noFog change. Before you rush to fixing shadowpass though, while shadowpass 0 will fix shadowcaulk, it will not fix shadow/shadow2. Here's the problem: with shadow stencils, the front faces, facing the light, don't cast shadows? I don't know if that's the right way to explain it. With shadow volumes, shadowpass on or off, they do. Here's pictures to better visualize it:

     

    Brush textured with common/shadow2 with r_shadows 1:

    8Oj76ZB.jpg

     

    Same brush with r_shadows 2:

     

    hPKtytE.jpg

     

    edit: I suppose a better way to phrase it is that with r_shadows 2, the the faces of the brush cast shadow in the gap created by the brush's volume itself, which should not happen.

    • Like 1
  4. Hey nbohr1more, sorry for not responding to the note in the bugtracker but weekend was kinda busy and at least some of that was me mapping, so hey yay for that at least. At any rate, I didn't need to package special testmaps for the fog issue, it seems the noFog update has fixed both shadowcaulk and shadow/shadow2/shadow_bak! I checked specifically before updating to beta5 and there is parity on my WIP; it looks how it's supposed to, that is.

     

    I have a comment on 4955 being fixed, and that its fixed additional graphical glitches besides the light to instant shade bug posted by STiFU on page 9 (I've experience that one as well). I had very basic stair models made, basically one face divided into two tris, and the fresnel reflection was very bad and dependant on the subdivisions of the model (which is why I suspect the low-poly models like the simple cubic crates got affected). stgatilov already explained the issue in the note to that bugtracker entry, so I don't need to really guess though.

     

    Speaking of that, though, that's probably why the pipe models look different now, Judith. I guess try turning off the advanced interaction shader?

    • Like 1
  5. Can someone who's used is_mantleable 1 check whether the behavior under this beta is consistent with the old one? I don't remember how it worked but testing it out now it doesn't do anything, any piece of furniture I set as not mantleable I can still mantle over, no matter if the fast mantles are enabled or not.

  6. To get an early look into this, what happens if you add the "translucent" keyword to your local copy of the shadow caulk material?

     

    Well luckily, you were right on the money for this one. "translucent" solves the issue when placed after "forceOpaque" in common/shadowcaulk, but it does not work with the common/shadow material. Putting "translucent" before or after "forceshadows" doesn't work, only commenting out that keyword solves it.

  7. I was shrewd enough to keep backups of previous versions of the map on my Google Drive, the most primitive way of version control. To use the same example, when I received the decal version of the map, I just had to take one of my backups and revert back to working from that, instead of the decal version. BTW, the backup wasn't that recent, so I still had to redo a fair bit of work I had already done. That's on me for not copying my map to Drive on every single change I made, but should I have been expected to paranoidly do that? It's miraculous I even kept backups to begin with. Imagine if somebody had no concept of version control, they would just have to accept Bikerdude's additions with no recourse, save for manually editing out what he did and walking the entire map back. I guarantee you it would not be easy to do so, in that case, for he had a habit of not keeping the slightest courtesies like making all of his changes on a seperate Layer in DarkRadiant. edit: for the smaller changes, I had to do just that, manual reversion, which was not very fun at all.

    • Like 1
  8. I don't know whether it's closely related, since this doesn't include the particle clipping through the wall like yours seems to, but I took this shot in The Elixir under 2.06. The overbrightness in the mirror compared to the scene it reflects is caused by a candle in the room behind, and eliminated when the candle is snuffed. (I hadn't filed a bug report because I was going to see whether I could reproduce it and didn't get around to it, but the visportalling seemed okay so I don't think it's a map bug.)

     

    attachicon.gifelixir_2018-09-26_02.32.45.jpg

     

    Yes, the visportaling in the Reluctant Benefaction looked solid too, which is the first thing I thought to cause the bug as well.

     

    I forgot about getviewpos! Thank you for reminding me, in The Night of Reluctant Benefaction (anorb2.map), the getviewpos for viewing the bug is "635.64 535.45 300.25 2.4 -84.2 0.0" . You can see the candle flame in the corner of the mirror and as you turn to the left, it's aspect will seem to skew and flip horizontally. If you set up the candle on the other side of the wall like I have in the screenshot, the candle flame will appear more or less in the center of the mirror.

     

    I tried fiddling with toggling some of the "new" cvar settings but the bug seems persistent. Now that VanishedOne has corroborated there's been at least some weird behaviour regarding candles and mirrors I've filed a tracker issue, #4946.

    • Like 1
  9. I can confirm that the ragdolls are a bit wonkier now, even still-standing AI that get blackjacked will skip about after falling. Not reproducible when loading and blackjacking the same AI. Seems random, i dunno :/ i don't want to send anyone on a goosechase.

     

    I have a case of a candleflame showing inside a mirror on the other side of a wall. It's in Night of Reluctant Benefaction, I have a savegame here but I realize that I'm playing on beta 2 and not 3 so it's probably not gonna work, so I'll just supply screenshots.

     

    The candle is in this room. It's on the table to the right, but move it like I have, so it shows better on the exact opposite side of that wall, where a mirror is. It's the place that you get up from jumping on an awning and opening a second floor window.

  10. Hey, thanks! I tried those actions and while they definitely work with some brush scribbles, I don't think you get results with a rectilinear image like the cross :/ Maybe if you were to rotate it 45° or something with nearest neighbour filtering.

     

    @judith I mean, it's certainly an available option. I'm a little hesitant on agreeing that it'd be "easier" but I've not touched GI solutions in Blender so I can't speak to it.

    • Like 1
  11. That method will still leave the edges sharp and only blur the middle, and you need the image to be way blurrier than that. Recall that any hard gradation step in the image will cause specular to crop up. You'd need each face to be touched by each adjoining face, and a diagonal cut of the adjoining faces' edges to fill out the cross at the diagonals. That's the only way to properly filter to an IEM imo. Here is a screenshot from within Lys with the "Dilate Results" option enabled to better illustrate what I mean.

     

    0L9SJjS.png

     

    I can see this working for a radiance map (considering the filtering in cmftStudio is borked, too) but not an irradiance one, since they're all smooth gradients. Median filter has a habit of keeping the edges between graphical structures too, so it can only go so far. I suspect the easiest way to make an irradiance map in an image editor is to just use the gradient tool and try fake it as best you can.

    • Like 1
  12. Parts 4 and 5 are now up! Boy, that sure was some intense typing. Please let me know if you have any questions I've not covered in these parts.

     

     

    That's a huge help, thanks. AFAIK, irradiance maps were never super popular in games or rendering, it's either HDRI panoramas or cubemap sampling entities that capture the env shots automatically. But this could be useful as a IBL solution, at least in selected places. Btw. does current implementation affect diffuse only? (as in here: https://learnopengl.com/PBR/IBL/Diffuse-irradiance ) Second thing, instead of using external software, wouldn't it be easier to just stitch all cubemap sides to a cross, blur them, and separate them into images again?

     

    Q1: The ambient cubic lights do not just affect diffuse. See the last screenshot in Part 5 for proof. An irradiance map will give you a diffuse, but a radiance map (or just the straight-up envshot cubemap) will give you the pictured specular mess. I can't tell you what's at fault here, but I hope the functionality of irradiance/radiance either gets decoupled from ambient cubic lights and into a new light type, or our materials somehow get fixed to accept radiance maps. Somewhat offtopic, originally I was going to post some screenshots of me putting radiance/specular cubemaps in the light definition and judging the results, but I cut it for time. It's peculiar but not particularly pertinent.

     

    Q2: A gaussian blur is not the correct convolution filter for irradiance map but can certainly do in a pinch. The problem's not that, though. At least in Photoshop, blurring the cross with a colored background will just bleed the color into the cross. Blurring it without a background will just bleed transparent pixels. I don't think it would be different in GIMP, I don't see a way to do it that's not faster than using an external application.

    • Like 2
  13. models/darkmod/architecture/doors/frenchdoor.ase, the glassdoor from Goldwell's missions that was included in the core, lacks the material textures/darkmod/glass/milky_lowfrob. I suggest creating it, the name implies it's just a regular milky glass without the frob highlight, but you may want to contact GW or simply go into his latest missions and see how he defined it in his .mtrs.

     

    edit: just so I don't end up triple-posting, http://bugs.thedarkmod.com/view.php?id=4687

     

    I have not forgotten about this. If there are any protests about nobody being available to test whether all the assets will integrate properly, I'll test each personally if need be.

  14. textures/darkmod/wood/panels/molding_white_painted_s does not exist. The offending material is textures/darkmod/wood/panels/molding_white_painted (e: and the _ns version!!)and no other molding has a specular map declared. Unless it's in the SVN, I suggest fixing the mtr.

     

    e, @spring, i've not made bugtracker entries, i'm usually on it when it comes to mantis but i'm both busy with mapping and hope that singular texture fix requests don't need their separate bug entry.

  15. Problem regarding shadow maps (r_shadows 2):

     

    The "Shadow Softness" slider in the GUI has a range between 0 and 5. At r_softshadowsradius = 0, the shadows will disappear. If the player turns off soft shadows completely, the lights will disappear also. This is all on a spotlight, so I actually believe this is the same bug I reported with regards to spotlights in the BFG beta thread. I still don't know what your guys' stance is on the default value for the SS radius, whether it be positive or negative. At any rate I recommend changing the minimum value for the GUI slider at the very least, because it will break projected lights when it's set to zero.

     

    SinglePass 1 still disables transparent textures from casting proper shadows.

     

    On beta two I can confirm parallel lights continue to be on stencil, I can also confirm clean snowflakes. :)

     

    e: BD reported a missing texture last page, I can confirm that too but it's not 2.07 specific, I saw it before the beta.

    • Like 3
  16. Is it true that glass surfaces will never overlap each other?

     

    2.05 and prior, in the case of two glass surfaces, one would not be visible behind the other (if that is what you're asking clarification for). It indeed looked hacky and was a limited case but I noticed it enough to remember.

×
×
  • Create New...