Xycaleth Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 So here's something that needed doing a long time ago. Without the fix, you get some interesting results: But now it looks normal again It might not look like much, but this took a fair amount of thinking/work to produce the right results So now I can tick that off the list of things to do! Next stop, fixing normal maps Circa, Tempust85, Boothand and 5 others like this
Xycaleth Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 I just noticed this happening in rend2. I don't know how it happened, but I think it's intentional 8D Sentra, Boothand, Futuza and 1 other like this
Xycaleth Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 The rim lighting, i.e. it gets lighter around the edges of the player model
Futuza Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 The rim lighting, i.e. it gets lighter around the edges of the player model Oh yes, it is muchly pretty.
Xycaleth Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 What the hell. Omicron, Stoiss, Sentra and 5 others like this
Archangel35757 Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 So here's something that needed doing a long time ago. Without the fix, you get some interesting results: But now it looks normal again It might not look like much, but this took a fair amount of thinking/work to produce the right results So now I can tick that off the list of things to do! Next stop, fixing normal maps Hmm... why is the backside of the model so dark in your fixed image? I think the lit version of the backside of the player (Jan shown) is better... (but yeah, the rim lighting in your later post/pic needs tweaking).
Futuza Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 What the hell.<img>So that is what Hyperspace looks like... Tempust85 likes this
Xycaleth Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 Hmm... why is the backside of the model so dark in your fixed image? I think the lit version of the backside of the player (Jan shown) is better... (but yeah, the rim lighting in your later post/pic needs tweaking).It's been a problem since we got rend2 working. For some reason player models aren't lit very well. DT had a look into it and possibly found the cause but I still need to double check and then find a fix.
Xycaleth Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 First attempt at dynamic glow. It doesn't look as in-your-face as the vanilla dynamic glow. Do people prefer the rend2 version or the vanilla version? I would open the images in separate tabs and switch between them to see how much of a difference each version makes. No glow: VANILLA dynamic glow: REND2 dynamic glow: Boothand likes this
Jango40 Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 I prefer the vanilla glow but I'm probably the only one ent and Grab like this
Omicron Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Could perhaps vanilla one be available as a cvar, so people can have a pic of what they like? eg, r_dynamicglow 0 = no glow, 1 = vanilla, and 2 = rend2
Guest KENNITHH Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 looks like the rend2 one lits more of the rocks then the default one, so rend2 for me and the default one kinda messes up the texture imo, with the rend2 you see more detail
Raz0r Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 I think just add cvars to tweak some parameters. I liked being able to do that in QtZ for glow + bloom.
ensiform Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 I think just add cvars to tweak some parameters. I liked being able to do that in QtZ for glow + bloom.This, but I think the defaults should be as close to vanilla looking as possible.
Tempust85 Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Vanilla shows off the 'heat' of the lava, while rend2 looks more of a blend between no glow and vanilla. Then again, the base lava texture isn't exactly what I'd call 'hot' looking either.
minilogoguy18 Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 It's probably going to depend on the textures, keeping it similar to the vanilla glow just boosting performance would be good enough since most effects like lightsaber blades look good in the vanilla renderer using dynamic glow. Tempust85 likes this
Raz0r Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 I personally hate the vanilla glow. Definitely not smooth. It's a box blur, and the displacement is annoying to tweak to look good =[ It looks especially bad when you look at a light in the distance and move toward it. The way it converges is ugly.
minilogoguy18 Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Maybe it can be played with some to get a happy middle ground between the 2, I thought that though the main reasons for redoing glow was because of the performance hit the vanilla glow has although newer machines probably don't notice it anyway.
Raz0r Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Yes, the newer glow performs much better, but I also think we should take the time to make it look better too, like the rest of the rendering =]
Xycaleth Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 A few things to report: Firstly, the dynamic glow code is pretty much done now. I'm happy with how it looks, even if it doesn't quite look like vanilla. Here's links to screenshots (instead of inline images, which made it hard to compare): Vanilla no glow: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/874909/jka/shot2014-06-02_07-45-47.jpgVanilla WITH glow: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/874909/jka/shot2014-06-02_07-45-50.jpg Rend2 no glow: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/874909/jka/shot2014-06-02_07-46-13.jpgRend2 WITH glow: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/874909/jka/shot2014-06-02_07-46-20.jpg Secondly, I've tweaked the tangent vector calculations code for Ghoul2 normal mapping to match the (new) MD3 code so hopefully that gets rid of the weird shadows. I'll upload an updated rend2 DLL at some point today if anyone's interested. Boothand, Raz0r, Stoiss and 1 other like this
Recommended Posts