Jump to content

andrewmac

Members
  • Posts

    295
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

andrewmac's Achievements

  1. Incorrect. You can't substitute specular color for roughness as roughness modifies the clarity of the reflection. Specular color can make an appearance in this workflow, but its used to modify the radiance (reflection). To save space many engines (Torque 6, UE4) substitute albedo modified by metalness as the specular color. Its a hack but its works for a large majority of materials and saves GBuffer space.
  2. The only reason I made this is because the DX9 limitation prevented light propagation volumes from being efficiently implemented in realtime. If DX9 support is dropped and DX11 is the norm someone should rewrite the injection and propagation steps to use compute shaders and you'll have realtime light propagation volumes instead of baked.
  3. As I said before TSC is an initialism, not an extension used by microsoft. If you check the page for the extension: http://filext.com/file-extension/TSC you will see its used by TINA pro, circuit simulator software. Low risk for collision among torque users. If you check the page for .t3d however: http://filext.com/file-extension/T3D its used by Swift 3D, Topaz 3D, and Unreal Engine. High risk for collision.
  4. It seems to me like these features will take drastically less time to develop than the other listed features. They also don't break backwards compatibility. In my opinion these are useful features that I think justify a 3.10 release rather than holding them back until the rest of the features are finished.
  5. That usage is an initialism not a file extension. As a file extension .tsc is said to only be used by TINA: http://filext.com/file-extension/TSC which is a circuit simulator. Obscure enough that I think we're safe to use it.
  6. There is also a group of users, yourself included, who have unrealistically positive view about T3D capabilities. It blinds you to what the rest of the gamedev community is doing and causes the engine to further fall behind. If it were up to you T3D would never drop D3D9 support and thus always limit itself in capabilities. If such fanboyism isn't met with common sense it will grow to become a disease that spread among our users. Rather than discussing integrating Area Lights into T3D we're arguing about the video. So while T6, Unity, and UE4 (and likely all the other engines) are getting real time area light support, we're sitting here arguing about it because no one here can appreciate or evaluate anything that isn't Torque. Anyway, I thought I could be the voice of reason but it looks like I'm the source of the problem at this point. I'm clearly in the minority and you would all rather be left to shit on anything that the other guys are doing. Lesson learned, if you don't have something pro-torque to say, don't say anything at all.
  7. @Dwarf King: You and the others who originally responded to this literally ruined the discussion on the video. You can say whatever you want to justify that to yourself but you helped to derail what could have been an interesting and constructive discussion. You're contributing nothing positive and this is the third post where you've patronized my responses in an attempt to insult me. Great community we've got left here, really inviting.
  8. Sure, but this is a graphics demo. They described it as a graphics demo. Its described purpose is to showcase the state of graphics in Unity in 2016. If the video was about UI or gameplay elements and I criticized it on not showcasing graphics wouldn't that be dumb? So, could we try judging the video for what it is and not what you wish it would be? If you don't like videos about graphics, don't watch them, and don't comment on them. The reason why all these commercial engines release videos about graphics and not about the other engine features is because engines have pretty much mastered those elements. GUI? Interactive Design? These things have been on lock for all the engines, T3D included, for like 10+ years. Why would anyone make a video about it? It won't get shared or get press coverage. The major recent advancements the engines are making are in performance, graphics, realistic rendering for the purpose of creating movies/short films/etc, and VR support which is tightly coupled to performance and graphics. You don't have to be a graphics enthusiast, you don't have to like the video, but could you maybe not ruin it for the rest of us?
  9. But as I mentioned before this was not the intention of the video. It's not an advertisement for Unity's gaming capabilities. It's their answer to Unreal's Kite video and the other graphical demonstrations. This is a quote from the Unity website for Adam: People are faulting it for goals it never had. The real discussion here should be what new tech did they bring to the table that T3D doesn't have, and how could T3D be improved to reach that level of quality. Instead we've just got a bunch of people trying to explain why the video is bad. It's just.. sad :(
  10. I wonder why they have not released it already. It would certainly give them a lot more advertising if they did. Could it be perhaps that not all is as it seems? :? I guess we will have to wait for that release and see lol I think it has more to do with upcoming SIGGRAPH 2016 than some kind of nefarious reasoning. Theres a huge computers graphics conference called SIGGRAPH at the end of the month and I bet they're holding off to release it as part of the presentation there. Eric Heitz and friends will be presenting the area light stuff, I imagine unity will have some kind of presentation that showcases Adam and follows it with the release. Of course this is all speculation. It's disappointing this community isn't more supportive of things going on outside of it. It seems anything that isn't pro-torque is immediately met with defensive responses, like its somehow an insult to Torque. It's a shame :( we're supposed to be computer scientists not fanboys.
  11. It was done at 1440p on a GeForce GTX980. They're releasing it soon so everyone can run it on their own machine. The video showcased a number of features combined to achieve a level of quality you would expect from something rendered offline. I don't think this is meant to be a game engine advertisement per-say. UE4 is sort of dominating the graphics category right now and has a booming arch viz and short film community (who are all switching over from offline renderers) so I think this is just Unitys response to that.
  12. It's a self described short film. Why would a short film have gameplay? That would make it a short game. This criticism would be valid if this was prerendered but its real time. High visual fidelity rendered in real time. Also its showcasing a new real time area lighting technique they developed and volumetric lighting implementation. You can read more about it here: https://eheitzresearch.wordpress.com/415-2/ If you take a close look at the video you'll realize that the majority of the impressive parts couldn't have been baked. Was the static environment in the beginning baked from the one directional light? Probably, though it didn't have to be. All those moving pieces can't be baked, so all the wires and cords coming out of him, all his motions, etc were all rendered in real time and it came out looking great. Him + the environment is also being lit by real time area lighting that was developed specifically for this project. As he walks down the hall those are real time reflections. When he gets outside theres now like 50 of him moving around, blowing grass, the guys with the guns etc. The only parts that could be baked there are the static environment. The point is that they achieved prerendered visual fidelity without having to prerender it. Having ~10% of the lighting baked for insignificant static objects doesn't take anything away from this video. I mean.. sort of? You could add the area lighting and other effects used to pretty much any engine you have source access to, but I think its inaccurate to state you could literally drop the models into any engine right now and recreate it. Not unless you allowed it to be prerended. Not trying to imply this could only ever be done in Unity or that Unity is the greatest engine ever or anything. Just saying the engine and the team that made the video both deserve some credit. It came out very well.
  13. The form allows you to cast your vote more than once so I wrote a bash script to vote for the choice I like best and I effectively ruined the poll :D edit: he fixed it :x :lol:
  14. In Torque 6 I switched the extensions to .tsc for Torque Script and .tsh for Torque Shader. So, that's where my votes at. One way or another I strongly believe .cs needs to change as it conflicts with C#.
  15. Yeah, was thinking that myself - but wasn't entirely sure. Maybe he'll chime in on it. The theory could be reused but the actual code can't. The plugin system is obviously very specific to Torque 6, but yes, it functions pretty much exactly as its being described here.
×
×
  • Create New...