View Full Version : New demo based on the graphics engine I'm working on
OK, much duped post of what I posted and Rage3d/nvnews, but anyway, the first demo based on the engine I'm working on is here. :smile:
It's a flyby demo, plus a free fly mode (read the controls.txt file for more info). The flyby path is editable too :smile: (read controls.txt)
It should run on all Radeons, GF3/4, but will look significantly better on an 8500. Performance should be quite good on Radeon 8500, around 60-80 fps, but I got only 10-20 fps on the Radeon 7500 I tested on. So I recommend editing the .ini file to use a lower resolution for the 7x00 series cards. It should work on GF3/4 too, but I keep hearing the 3d textures are broken on some (or many) drivers, so I don't know, haven't tested. Technically it should be possible though.
Oh, it got music too :grin:
Anyway, get it here:
http://hem.passagen.se/emiper/3d.html
Feedback and opinions are wanted :smile:
EgonOlsen
14-Feb-2002, 00:23
I tried to run it on a GF3-Ti500 under Win2K using the 22.40 drivers and under Win98 using the 27.20 drivers and it crashed in both environments. Too bad...i was really interested in the demo.
Oh, and if you show me yours, i'll show you mine :grin:...jpct.de...quite different from your approach, i assume :grin:
JF_Aidan_Pryde
14-Feb-2002, 00:40
Hi Humus,
I'm just taking my first step into learning OpenGL (how to draw shapes *gasp*). I am wondering how do apps like 3DMax collaborate with OpenGL code? Obviously you can draw 3D geometry in both 3DMax or OpenGL coding, how do they come together? As in which parts would idealy be done using a GUI app like Maya and which parts done with the OGL code.
Thanks for any help.
nate240
14-Feb-2002, 01:06
Nice job Humus, It ran without any problems on my 8500 at about a constant 40fps and looked pretty good with all the lights and such. I've got a couple of questions for you, what kind of framerates are you getting, why the seemingly low detail textures(look pixelated close up except for the middle texture in the big room), would higher detail textures effect the framerates much, and some of the lights cause line boundaries when more that one are on at the same time, do you know why? Anyway, looks good, keep up the good work.
On 2002-02-14 01:23, EgonOlsen wrote:
I tried to run it on a GF3-Ti500 under Win2K using the 22.40 drivers and under Win98 using the 27.20 drivers and it crashed in both environments. Too bad...i was really interested in the demo.
Oh, and if you show me yours, i'll show you mine :grin:...jpct.de...quite different from your approach, i assume :grin:
Yeah, I got more reports that it aint running on GF3's, probably not on GF4 either then I assume. I suppose it's the 3d textures, there have been some guys complaining on opengl.org that they are broken in nVidia's drivers, and this demo requires them so I supposed it's likely that. Unless something else comes up I guess I'll be shooting off an email to nVidia tomorrow about it.
On 2002-02-14 01:40, JF_Aidan_Pryde wrote:
Hi Humus,
I'm just taking my first step into learning OpenGL (how to draw shapes *gasp*). I am wondering how do apps like 3DMax collaborate with OpenGL code? Obviously you can draw 3D geometry in both 3DMax or OpenGL coding, how do they come together? As in which parts would idealy be done using a GUI app like Maya and which parts done with the OGL code.
Thanks for any help.
Well, you can create a loader for .3ds files. If you're doing an animation in 3d studio max or maya you'll only need to export the keyframes and do keyframe interpolation in your app. I haven't done a whole lot of character animation though ... the engine I'm using here loads brush files from the UT editor.
On 2002-02-14 02:06, nate240 wrote:
Nice job Humus, It ran without any problems on my 8500 at about a constant 40fps and looked pretty good with all the lights and such. I've got a couple of questions for you, what kind of framerates are you getting, why the seemingly low detail textures(look pixelated close up except for the middle texture in the big room), would higher detail textures effect the framerates much, and some of the lights cause line boundaries when more that one are on at the same time, do you know why? Anyway, looks good, keep up the good work.
I'm getting 60-80 fps, but I've heard more people getting lower framerates. I forgot to mention though, you need the 6032 driver for it to work perfectly, older driver don't handle glSetFragmentShaderConstantATI() calls correctly. I suppose that's the problem with the lines you're seeing. About the textures ... they are fairly high res, there are two 256x256 and two 512x512, but if you're going close up you may see some pixelation, at least on the pillars, I could do a slight blur on the bumpmap to get it away though.
mkillio
14-Feb-2002, 01:47
Does the Radeon support 1024x1024 textures? Is it that hard to change the resolution of a texture? (and I don't mean changing the engine to run it smoothly).
_________________
Better get a Keg and get Crunked.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mkillio on 2002-02-14 02:48 ]</font>
3D Textures work just fine on all drivers since about 16.xx.
The error I got indicated that you were calling a nonexistant function. Are you sure your code avoids calling ATI's fragment shader routines if the extension isn't detected?
Humus, WOW thats just brilliant! [applause followed by a standing ovation]. I just love all the bump mapping in that demo. I wish there were games out now that used bump mapping as frequently and as well as your demo does.
This is the sort of thing that may inspire me to finally do what I've been promising myself for the last few years.. to learn C++, inforunately as much as I want to I just don't have the patience :sad: .. I envy you Humus.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Teasy on 2002-02-14 08:18 ]</font>
Kristof
14-Feb-2002, 09:01
How about a version without the need for :
GL_EXT_texture_edge_clamp
GL_EXT_texture3D
:rollseyes:
:wink:
DemoCoder
14-Feb-2002, 09:20
anti-Kyro bias. ATI paid him to do a demo that makes Kyro look bad. :smile:
LeStoffer
14-Feb-2002, 09:57
On 2002-02-14 00:33, Humus wrote:
It should run on all Radeons, GF3/4, but will look significantly better on an 8500.
...
Feedback and opinions are wanted :smile:
Feedback: How about making it look good at GF3-class hardware? :rollseyes:
Regards, LeStoffer
Kristof
14-Feb-2002, 10:07
Actually my big message to any developer would be : make sure you game engine is flexible. Todays hardware is getting more and more flexible and I think its only fair to expect the same kind of flexiblity of the software engines. So if a certain feature is no supported don't go: "I'll just turn the effect off" or "I'll just display a box saying that this HW is not supported". Aim to have fallback modes, obviously within limits.
What do you use 3D textures for anyway ?
bystander
14-Feb-2002, 10:09
Haven't got round to trying out either but both engines look very impressive.
On 2002-02-14 02:47, mkillio wrote:
Does the Radeon support 1024x1024 textures? Is it that hard to change the resolution of a texture? (and I don't mean changing the engine to run it smoothly).
That would be very easy, just exchange the texture files with higher-res textures. No change to the engine would be neccesary. The Radeon supports up to 2048x2048 btw.
On 2002-02-14 06:42, gking wrote:
3D Textures work just fine on all drivers since about 16.xx.
The error I got indicated that you were calling a nonexistant function. Are you sure your code avoids calling ATI's fragment shader routines if the extension isn't detected?
Well, I honestly do not know, I don't have a GF3/4 card to test on, but since some guys at opengl.org complained recently about 3d textures being broken in several 2x.xx drivers I figured it might be this. I'm not calling any fragment shader routines though if it's not supported, I have tested it with a Radeon 7500 and it works there too. A GF3/4 should take the same path as the Radeon 7500.
On 2002-02-14 10:57, LeStoffer wrote:
On 2002-02-14 00:33, Humus wrote:
It should run on all Radeons, GF3/4, but will look significantly better on an 8500.
...
Feedback and opinions are wanted :smile:
Feedback: How about making it look good at GF3-class hardware? :rollseyes:
Regards, LeStoffer
Well, it should look "good", but maybe not as good as a Radeon 8500. GF3/4 are capable of doing it though AFAIK, but I don't have a GF3/4 to test on, so it can be kinda hard to add support for their GL_NV_texture_shader extension, but I'll look into that.
Anyway, did it run at all for you? If so, I'd be very interested in knowing your driver revision. Might help debug it.
On 2002-02-14 11:07, Kristof wrote:
Actually my big message to any developer would be : make sure you game engine is flexible. Todays hardware is getting more and more flexible and I think its only fair to expect the same kind of flexiblity of the software engines. So if a certain feature is no supported don't go: "I'll just turn the effect off" or "I'll just display a box saying that this HW is not supported". Aim to have fallback modes, obviously within limits.
What do you use 3D textures for anyway ?
The 3d textures are for a vector field packing attenuation and light vectors into the same texture. I could perhaps emulate 3d texture by using many 2d slices and select a slice each polygon, but that would cause lots of texture binding calls which would kill performance I guess, one per light per polygon.
Anyway, since this isn't going into any commercial software I figured I didn't want to spend time supporting everything.
nggalai
14-Feb-2002, 11:59
Humus,
would it be possible for you to post one, two screenshots?
thanks,
-Sascha.rb
________
silver surfer reviews (http://vaporizers.net/silver-surfer-vaporizer)
BirdMadBoy
14-Feb-2002, 13:21
http://hem.passagen.se/emiper/3d/GameEngine.html
nggalai
14-Feb-2002, 13:41
thanks!
ta,
.rb
________
TTR90 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Yamaha_TTR90)
The pics looks excellent. Congratulations Humus. :smile:
Joe DeFuria
14-Feb-2002, 14:48
Humus,
This might sound like a strange request, but could you provide a direct link to the file?
I can't seem to "find" the demo on the web-site...I've had some issues with IE on my work machine not properly "refreshing" certain web-sites (inclduing B3D Main page), and I don't think I'm actually seeing your latest web-site update. (And I don't feel like flushing my IE cache. :wink:)
Reverend
14-Feb-2002, 15:39
Crashed on a Win98SE (256MB)/GF3 (64MB) with official 23.11 drivers.
If it is because of the GF3 and/or its drivers, it's not a good engine... not now anyway. NO developer in their right mind would like problems with their engine due to a GF3 as the "lowest denominator".
:smile: :wink:
Joe DeFuria
14-Feb-2002, 15:52
If it is because of the GF3 and/or its drivers, it's not a good engine...
I disagree.
It's a consequence of the development platform. Most developers use GF3 as the primary development platform, so they always magically "just work" on the GF3 when released. Here's a case where this was developed on exclusively on Radeon platform, which is rarely (ever?) done by game developers.
So I wouldn't take the position to assume that a crash on a GeForce3 means the code or engine is bad...any more than I would take an engine coded exclusively on a GeForce3 that crashes on a Radeon as "bad."
Thowllly
14-Feb-2002, 16:28
Joe, try this URL:
http://hem.passagen.se/emiper/3d/GameEngine.zip
Edit: Direct linking doesn't seem to work, but if you open his (old) webpage in a window and then paste the link into the address bar of that window, it should work (at least it does for me, using IE)
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Thowllly on 2002-02-14 17:31 ]</font>
Joe DeFuria
14-Feb-2002, 16:30
Thanks for the link, but...Hmmm...I get a "file not found" error!
It's a consequence of the development platform.
Isn't it rather a consequence of the development API?
Thats the price of coding on OpenGL, you have to write separate code for every videocard.
The advantage is obviously the possibility of better supporting each card.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Hyp-X on 2002-02-14 17:34 ]</font>
Reverend
14-Feb-2002, 16:34
Joe, there's a smiley (and a winky) in my post.
Seriously though, anyone that aims to *make money* with anything (game engine, specific graphics codes, specific sound codes) would definitely want to ensure their thing runs on a GF3. If it requires a "fallback", mention it as such with explanations and so be it.
Humus may be doing something as a matter of pure "hobby" and "self interest". But the minute he shows it to any developer of publisher, he won't, IMO, get anywhere, and as nice as it may look, his hard work will be either wasted or simply a matter of self satisfaction.
You can't fight the market if you want to make money. If you don't want to make money and simply want to show, er, "the future", then that's fine.
Doomtrooper
14-Feb-2002, 16:42
On 2002-02-14 16:39, Reverend wrote:
Crashed on a Win98SE (256MB)/GF3 (64MB) with official 23.11 drivers.
If it is because of the GF3 and/or its drivers, it's not a good engine... not now anyway. NO developer in their right mind would like problems with their engine due to a GF3 as the "lowest denominator".
:smile: :wink:
Now THAT is FUNNY, so following that same line of thinking DRONEZ is also a bad engine because it wouldn't run correctly on non-G3 class hardware.
Humus I think your work and engine looks great, to do that by yourself must have many hours invested.
Some of the comments here surpise me, some of the people I respected including you REV seemed have drove down that familiar road where "I got a freebie card now their my FAV company"...too bad.
There is things this engine is doing with advanced 8500 features that no other cards have or would require a 'fallback state' :rollseyes: , that would require recoding the engine. Obviously HUMUS doesn't have a Geforce 3 to test on and IMO thats GOOD, finally someone has taken the time to optimize a engine on a Non-Nvidia based card.
We NEED more engines like this to move progression forward instead of always coding for Dx7 hardware.
If you can't run a game that requires a decent card, tough luck time to go get one then. Doom 3 will be the game that will force these upgrades, ID always forced Video Card upgrades with their engines.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Doomtrooper on 2002-02-14 17:44 ]</font>
Feedback and opinions are wanted :smile:
Tried on GF3 with 27.20 and 27.42 - crash.
Ran fine on R8500LE with the 9016 driver.
I've got about 40-50 fps.
Btw, it's a K7-1.2GHz with 133MHz SDR.
The only problem I have with the demo that I had to change the videocard :sad:
Now I'm changing it back, 'cos I want to run Windows GDI programs... (as opposed to crawl them.)
Joe DeFuria
14-Feb-2002, 16:47
Well now this is interesting....
The original link given by Humus:
http://hem.passagen.se/emiper/3d.html
Gets me to his "3D" frame page, but there's no 3D Game Demo to be found. (The first item on the list in the main frame is the hot-air / water demo...an old page.)
I tried the supplied link to get directly to the file:
http://hem.passagen.se/emiper/3d/GameEngine.zip
And I got a "file not found" error from the server.
So I tried just accessing the root directory of the 3D page:
http://hem.passagen.se/emiper/3d/
And I get the HTML page that I SHOULD be getting in the first place. (The 3D Page that has the Demo.)
From THAT page, I can access the file (same URL) directly. Odd.
Anyone know why this behaviour is occuring? Humus...do you have relative directories set up properly on the server? The default home page for directories?
I have flushed my IE cache and history BTW.
Doomtrooper
14-Feb-2002, 16:53
Hmm thats weird, download it from me..make sure you use the 6032 drivers , I got 10 fps gain with those. Hitting highs of 88 now.
Here (ftp://stuff:stuff@65.93.73.240/GameEngine.zip)
On 2002-02-14 17:47, Joe DeFuria wrote:
Well now this is interesting....
Use Mozilla, it works! :grin: :cool:
Joe DeFuria
14-Feb-2002, 16:57
Well...after directly accessing and the "index.html" file
http://hem.passagen.se/emiper/3d/index.html
and "refreshing" about 50 times...everything seems to be working normally now....
Go figure. :wink:
Maybe IE has a problem with refreshing individual panes within a framed site?
Reverend
14-Feb-2002, 17:02
Some of the comments here surpise me, some of the people I respected including you REV seemed have drove down that familiar road where "I got a freebie card now their my FAV company"...too bad.Whatever you think, Doomtrooper... I could care less if I disappear from the Internet because I never get another "freebie" card, whichever the make, and hence have nothing interesting (to me) to write about.
I said what I said, with the relevant provisos about whether Humus is doing this for self-satisfaction or if he intends to make money out of this engine of his.
Fact remains - GF2s and GF3s are what developers will target for when it comes to their work as well as money. If you disagree with that, that's your opinion. If you're saying I'm turning out to be a supporter of a company that gives me free cards (and if that company only makes cards based on only one IHV), hey, whatever you say man...
PS. Basically, I'm talking about the real world. Short of it, a "hobby" is a hobby... doing things so that you intend to make money off it is very different.
_________________
Reverend
Beyond3D (http://www.beyond3d.com)
3DPulpit (http://www.voodooextreme.com/3dpulpit)
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Reverend on 2002-02-14 18:04 ]</font>
Doomtrooper
14-Feb-2002, 17:10
So if everyone KEEPS optimizing for one card then how is the BRAND X features ever gonna get noticed if someone doesn't USE them.
His engine is using some advanced features found on one card presently, trying to show what these features look like when finally used..what a concept eh ??
Johnny Rotten
14-Feb-2002, 17:17
Doomtrooper, perhaps you should go back and read Reverends post(s) a little more carefully as you seem to be missing the point.
Doomtrooper
14-Feb-2002, 17:34
On 2002-02-14 18:17, Johnny Rotten wrote:
Doomtrooper, perhaps you should go back and read Reverends post(s) a little more carefully as you seem to be missing the point.
I read the post many times Johnny, the main part that erked me.
Crashed on a Win98SE (256MB)/GF3 (64MB) with official 23.11 drivers.
If it is because of the GF3 and/or its drivers, it's not a good engine... not now anyway
Pretty bold statement to make without even seeing it IMO. I happen to disagree GREATLY with the thinking that you need to support OLD hardware..whats the point of buying new graphic cards if game developers continue to always code for hardware that is two years old.
If you don't like having to get a new video card every year to year and a half, get a console.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Doomtrooper on 2002-02-14 18:36 ]</font>
Johnny Rotten
14-Feb-2002, 17:47
I shouldnt be getting into this but...
The distinction that Rev was trying to make is whether Humus's demo is just a hobbyist programming venture into the Radeon 8500, or whether its a general purpose 3d engine. If its the former, then cool beans! If its the latter, well, then obviously things are....not so good. Right now nvidia is the baseline platform. Add to that the fact that - all religious debates aside - the GF3/GF4 and 8500 are 90-95% similar cards and you should be able to see the problem. Again, assuming this is supposed to be more than a radeon tech demo.
EgonOlsen
14-Feb-2002, 17:51
On 2002-02-14 18:34, Doomtrooper wrote:
I happen to disagree GREATLY with the thinking that you need to support OLD hardware..whats the point of buying new graphic cards if game developers continue to always code for hardware that is two years old.
Have you ever thought about the possibility that games are being produced to earn money with them? Therefor, they have to run on the hardware people are using...not on the latest and greatest only.
Doomtrooper
14-Feb-2002, 17:54
So when is the 'baseline platform' gonna change Johnnny. Certainly when coders CONTINUE to use only one brand all the time and ignore the other features Brand X brings. ATI cards are CERTAINLY not a minority in world, this Nvidia is baseline platform is getting old real quick. There is two major players, lets start playing this game on a 50/50 basis.
LeStoffer
14-Feb-2002, 17:56
On 2002-02-14 18:34, Doomtrooper wrote:
I happen to disagree GREATLY with the thinking that you need to support OLD hardware..whats the point of buying new graphic cards if game developers continue to always code for hardware that is two years old.
Of course game developers can't target hardware that's only one year old. Too few would buy the game in the first place and how the hell are the developers going to build an engine on elusive hardware that's still one year away (given that a game takes at least two years to develop)!
Doom III is probably as close to getting an advanced engine [for its time] that you'll get. Why on Earth are you not happy that it takes advantage of your beloved PS 1.4?
I guess that I just don't get your agenda. More support for PS 1.4 is nice and all, but should gamers without a ATI 8500 suffer in this Holy Quest?
Regards, LeStoffer
Doomtrooper
14-Feb-2002, 18:00
On 2002-02-14 18:51, EgonOlsen wrote:
On 2002-02-14 18:34, Doomtrooper wrote:
I happen to disagree GREATLY with the thinking that you need to support OLD hardware..whats the point of buying new graphic cards if game developers continue to always code for hardware that is two years old.
Have you ever thought about the possibility that games are being produced to earn money with them? Therefor, they have to run on the hardware people are using...not on the latest and greatest only.
If a game developer started making a GAME right now using the latest and greatest features TODAY, following the usual 2 year development a budget card (Geforce 5 MX or Radeon 8800 LE) would run these features we consider high end today like childs play.....
Doomtrooper
14-Feb-2002, 18:03
On 2002-02-14 18:56, LeStoffer wrote:
On 2002-02-14 18:34, Doomtrooper wrote:
I happen to disagree GREATLY with the thinking that you need to support OLD hardware..whats the point of buying new graphic cards if game developers continue to always code for hardware that is two years old.
Of course game developers can't target hardware that's only one year old. Too few would buy the game in the first place and how the hell are the developers going to build an engine on elusive hardware that's still one year away (given that a game takes at least two years to develop)!
Doom III is probably as close to getting an advanced engine [for its time] that you'll get. Why on Earth are you not happy that it takes advantage of your beloved PS 1.4?
I guess that I just don't get your agenda. More support for PS 1.4 is nice and all, but should gamers without a ATI 8500 suffer in this Holy Quest?
Regards, LeStoffer
Just like GF2 owners couldn't see nature, just like Radeon owners couldn't see Dronez with bump mapping, sacrifices are made all the time to accomodate one card.
Sorry if you can't understand that people with OTHER brands of video cards would like to see some of their cards features too.
_________________
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Doomtrooper on 2002-02-14 19:05 ]</font>
Calm down DM. Wavey
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveBaumann on 2002-02-14 19:11 ]</font>
Still a commercial engine should run on a GF3, don't you think? I too want to see features of new hardware being supported by 3D engines, but not at the price of always having to buy the latest and greatest of hardware available.
Besides, it's not true that ATI features don't get supported by game developers. There are already a few games that use TruForm and more are coming.
Doomtrooper
14-Feb-2002, 18:16
On 2002-02-14 19:07, Xmas wrote:
Still a commercial engine should run on a GF3, don't you think? I too want to see features of new hardware being supported by 3D engines, but not at the price of always having to buy the latest and greatest of hardware available.
Besides, it's not true that ATI features don't get supported by game developers. There are already a few games that use TruForm and more are coming.
A commerical engine will 1st have alot more money, backing and probably more than one programmer Xmas. Humus stated some of these effects could be done with a Fallback options so sure...the idea here is the engine was built with advanced features enabled.
I do agree Xmas that commercial engines need to run on generic hardware but there should be a PENALTY for fallbacks, visually and most likely peformance too.
Consumer #1 goes out and buys Unreal 2 and a Geforce 8 at the cost of $600
Consumer #2 goes out and buys Unreal 2 and a Trident Blade Ultra 2 at the cost of $60
They bothe run the game and it looks the same, plays a little faster on the Geforce 8...I disagree with that Scenario.
LeStoffer
14-Feb-2002, 18:24
Humus: Sorry for taking this so OT...
Doomtrooper: Two wrongs doesn't make a right. IMHO John Carmack is doing the only right thing and that is to make different optimizations for different cards (PS 1.4 is great and thus should be treated with it's own code path). All I'm trying to say is this: don't favor one vendor over other!
Regards, LeStoffer
PS: Sorry Humus, I have a [stoneaged] Geforce DDR and thus can't help you out! :wink:
Doomtrooper
14-Feb-2002, 18:31
On 2002-02-14 19:24, LeStoffer wrote:
Humus: Sorry for taking this so OT...
Doomtrooper: Two wrongs doesn't make a right. IMHO John Carmack is doing the only right thing and that is to make different optimizations for different cards (PS 1.4 is great and thus should be treated with it's own code path). All I'm trying to say is this: don't favor one vendor over other!
Regards, LeStoffer
PS: Sorry Humus, I have a [stoneaged] Geforce DDR and thus can't help you out! :wink:
ALL I'm trying to say is the same thing, and reality shows its never been that WAY yet. One vendor is favored over the other, in fact mentioned here 20 times now by different people...50/50 not 90/10 would be nice.
If Humus never did this engine using advanced effects I probably would have never seen these features used on my card..for that THX Humus it looks great.
A commerical engine will 1st have alot more money, backing and probably more than one programmer Xmas.
Sure. Rev made this distinction, so why are you so upset about it?
Originally posted by Humus:
Well, I honestly do not know, I don't have a GF3/4 card to test on, but since some guys at opengl.org complained recently about 3d textures being broken in several 2x.xx drivers I figured it might be this. I'm not calling any fragment shader routines though if it's not supported, I have tested it with a Radeon 7500 and it works there too. A GF3/4 should take the same path as the Radeon 7500.
Then I'd recommend you double-check to make sure that you aren't accidentally putting the driver in an undefined state (requesting MIP mapping and not uploading all MIP levels, for example).
Sometimes drivers handle this type of application bug gracefully, and other times the application just crashes.
Doomtrooper
14-Feb-2002, 19:18
On 2002-02-14 19:45, Xmas wrote:
A commerical engine will 1st have alot more money, backing and probably more than one programmer Xmas.
Sure. Rev made this distinction, so why are you so upset about it?
On 2002-02-14 16:39, Reverend wrote:
Crashed on a Win98SE (256MB)/GF3 (64MB) with official 23.11 drivers.
If it is because of the GF3 and/or its drivers, it's not a good engine... not now anyway
Pretty hard to judge if you can't see it.
Galilee
14-Feb-2002, 19:49
On 2002-02-14 18:34, Doomtrooper wrote:
Pretty bold statement to make without even seeing it IMO. I happen to disagree GREATLY with the thinking that you need to support OLD hardware..whats the point of buying new graphic cards if game developers continue to always code for hardware that is two years old.
Since when was GF3 "old" hardware? This engine doesnt run on my GF3. That makes the engine useless for 97% of all users. But I am sure it's just a bug in the engine.
Doomtrooper
14-Feb-2002, 19:55
Try about 20%, recent survey on Counterstrike was GF MX's and GF2's and Radeons leading with 80% of the votes, the last 20% was all the high end cards.
This is based on a game that has 20,000 players a night online.
Galilee
14-Feb-2002, 19:59
So the demo works on GF2 cards?
Joe DeFuria
14-Feb-2002, 19:59
Maybe I can sum up all of the points being made in a way that doesn't offend anyone. :wink:
1) There's nothing wrong with using a Radeon 8500 as the primary development platform. In fact, it can be a good thing as Humus is likely pushing the envelope as far as technology goes, driving the industry forward.
1) If Humus' app is eventually inteded to be an actual game engine, then at some point "proper" support for GeForce3 class hardware should be implemented. "Proper" doesn't mean "dumbing" the engine down to the "common denominator". It does mean trying to implement all of the effects as the "Radeon" engine. It may or may not mean comprimises in quality or features of the "GeForce" engine need to be made for performance purposes, or for purposes of development time.
Hmmm....did that work? :smile:
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Joe DeFuria on 2002-02-14 21:10 ]</font>
This sound good for me. Humus did not developed a fallback option because he does not have a GF3 to play with.
I think we need a new fund to buy a GF3 Ti200 for him (about $150 with H&S). :lol:
Anyway, nice work Humus and when you have a tested GF3 version I will download it :wink:
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pascal on 2002-02-14 21:07 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pascal on 2002-02-14 21:09 ]</font>
Randell
14-Feb-2002, 22:37
If Humus never did this engine using advanced effects I probably would have never seen these features used on my card..for that THX Humus it looks great.
ATI Tech demo's?
On 2002-02-14 20:18, Doomtrooper wrote:
Pretty hard to judge if you can't see it.
Maybe you didn't see this
On 2002-02-14 17:34, Reverend wrote:
Joe, there's a smiley (and a winky) in my post.
Seriously though, anyone that aims to *make money* with anything (game engine, specific graphics codes, specific sound codes) would definitely want to ensure their thing runs on a GF3. If it requires a "fallback", mention it as such with explanations and so be it.
Humus may be doing something as a matter of pure "hobby" and "self interest". But the minute he shows it to any developer of publisher, he won't, IMO, get anywhere, and as nice as it may look, his hard work will be either wasted or simply a matter of self satisfaction.
You can't fight the market if you want to make money. If you don't want to make money and simply want to show, er, "the future", then that's fine.
Doomtrooper
14-Feb-2002, 23:00
On 2002-02-14 23:41, Xmas wrote:
On 2002-02-14 20:18, Doomtrooper wrote:
Pretty hard to judge if you can't see it.
Maybe you didn't see this
On 2002-02-14 17:34, Reverend wrote:
Joe, there's a smiley (and a winky) in my post.
Seriously though, anyone that aims to *make money* with anything (game engine, specific graphics codes, specific sound codes) would definitely want to ensure their thing runs on a GF3. If it requires a "fallback", mention it as such with explanations and so be it.
Humus may be doing something as a matter of pure "hobby" and "self interest". But the minute he shows it to any developer of publisher, he won't, IMO, get anywhere, and as nice as it may look, his hard work will be either wasted or simply a matter of self satisfaction.
You can't fight the market if you want to make money. If you don't want to make money and simply want to show, er, "the future", then that's fine.
It took the smilies and winkies as <sarcasm>, maybe it read it wrong. Either way I don't agree with not using advanced effects on a card because another can't do it..
So Xmas I guess we just let one company determine the future of game development, because thats what I'm feeling from this thread..I wonder what the statements would have been if this was coded on A Geforce 3 and the 8500 guys couldn't view it...
Hmmmm...
Probably "Typical ATI drivers", "Nvidia is the market leader, should have bought Nvidia" yada yada...
Doomtrooper, I agree with you, I too want developers to support all the advanced effects new hardware is able to do.
But hey, this thread (or part of it) isn't about "not using advanced effects on a card because another can't do it", it's about a demo crashing on a particular hardware, which is never a good thing.
Althornin
15-Feb-2002, 01:36
Well, you all seem to be postulating its a bug in the engine...isnt it possible that the nVidia drivers could have a bug in them? I know, i know, but still, one day you guys are gonna have to wake up and get stereotypes out of your heads.
And Rev, not that you care about my opinion, but when i read your first post, it seemed VERY harsh to me. Frankly, i was fucking astonished that you'd be such an asshole. Your later posts may have helped clear things up, but thats what the EDIT feature is for...If ya fuck up, FIX IT.
Back on Topic: As an owner of a Radeon DDR (32mb) and a GF3 (currently) i cant really comment on the demo - looks fine on my old radeon, but its rather plain-jane without all tthe cool effects i see in screenshots. I am sure its your usual great work though, Humus. Keep it up, when i get one of those 128MB r8500's, i'll send you my gf3 to dev. with.
_________________
YHWH is here.....
Use Trillian! AOL Sucks.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Althornin on 2002-02-15 02:38 ]</font>
On 2002-02-15 02:36, Althornin wrote:
Well, you all seem to be postulating its a bug in the engine...isnt it possible that the nVidia drivers could have a bug in them? I know, i know, but still, one day you guys are gonna have to wake up and get stereotypes out of your heads.
Perfectly possible. Either way, it's not a good thing having the program crash. In no way do I want to criticise Humus, I know how hard it is to make a program run on hardware you don't know. If he had a GF3 I guess he would be able to fix it or find a workaround. That's a reason why I think game developers should develop on several different hardware platforms.
Reverend
15-Feb-2002, 02:16
Doomtrooper, you are clinging to a simplistic view. You want "the best" and, really, so do I, but the reality of the situation is that we'll both never get it 99% of the time. My comments thus far is more of a question to Humus more than anything else - is he doing what he's doing more as a hobby or does he hope to impress someone enough to get a career with a company or does he hope to start out completely on his own? The first two is fine going by this engine of his but tell me if he'll be in it for the long run on his own if he keeps using this engine of his.
Let's quit with this OT diatribe. I know enough people that makes game/graphics engine that consistently tells me that "compatibility" is at the forefront of their design. Hell, read JC's plan properly... even he is making such "sacrifices". Many enthusiasts here will hate this, so do I, but facts are facts.
Of course, if Humus has two, three or four different cards to play with during his development of this engine and he plans to make money off this engine of his, this stupid discussion will not have appeared... he'd probably ensure it runs on a GF3 as well, perhaps not as pretty, but it should run and we'd all (Kyro2 owners, GF3 owners, Radeon owners, etc) be saying nice things to him. But that's just my assumption/guess about Humus.
I think you're completely missing my point, Doomtrooper. As for Humus, if he'll shoot me an email, I can put him in touch with some folks I know... I've (gladly) done such things before.
Just saw a comment you made about favoring one vendor over another... to all developers aiming to make a living, this is not the case. It's about favoring their *game*. About the only vendor (actually, cards, not vendor) most developers don't care about right now is 3dfx. One further point - I'm assuming you, Doomtrooper, don't have a website, and is actually paying for a video card... I can only imagine your reaction if you have, say, a Kyro2 or a GF2 or a GF3, and *only* those vid cards, in your machine right now, in the context of this thread. Heck, you may not even *have* a reaction, other than a post that would say something like "Bummer, crashed on my xxx machine".
_________________
Reverend
Beyond3D (http://www.beyond3d.com)
3DPulpit (http://www.voodooextreme.com/3dpulpit)
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Reverend on 2002-02-15 03:25 ]</font>
On 2002-02-14 20:04, gking wrote:
Then I'd recommend you double-check to make sure that you aren't accidentally putting the driver in an undefined state (requesting MIP mapping and not uploading all MIP levels, for example).
Sometimes drivers handle this type of application bug gracefully, and other times the application just crashes.
Yeah, I know, I had such a bug some time ago with my winamp plugin Spectragon. It didn't work with non-square textures on nVidia cards. I sent a mail to nVidia and they found a bug in my code, for square textures I'd upload all mipmap levels down to 1x1, but with a non-square texture such as 512x256 I'd upload all mipmaps down to 2x1 and forget the last 1x1 mipmap, thus i got nothing but white. However, I don't think it's that this time since I've reused the code for my latest texture handling library, but it can of course be something similar. Anyway, I have sent nVidia an email this evening, I hope to get a reply soon and see if they can help me.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Humus on 2002-02-15 04:25 ]</font>
On 2002-02-14 20:59, Galilee wrote:
So the demo works on GF2 cards?
Nope, it currently requires 3d textures.
On 2002-02-14 20:59, Joe DeFuria wrote:
Maybe I can sum up all of the points being made in a way that doesn't offend anyone. :wink:
1) There's nothing wrong with using a Radeon 8500 as the primary development platform. In fact, it can be a good thing as Humus is likely pushing the envelope as far as technology goes, driving the industry forward.
2) If Humus' app is eventually inteded to be an actual game engine, then at some point "proper" support for GeForce3 class hardware should be implemented. "Proper" doesn't mean "dumbing" the engine down to the "common denominator". It does mean trying to implement all of the effects as the "Radeon" engine. It may or may not mean comprimises in quality or features of the "GeForce" engine need to be made for performance purposes, or for purposes of development time.
Hmmm....did that work? :smile:
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Joe DeFuria on 2002-02-14 21:10 ]</font>
You said it all :smile:
I do whatever I find reasonable in order to support a wide range of cards. Sometimes for small demos I post on rage3d I don't see any need to support other cards than for instance Radeon 8500, for this one which is a little larger project I find supporting mroe cards reasonable. For my winamp plugin I wrote some time and got posted at winamp.com which can be downloaded by just about anyone I implemented dot3 bumpmapping, but had a (ugly) fallback using nothing but core OpenGL calls.
This project is mostly a hobbyist thing, not intended to get into something commercial. Now if someone out there finds it looking nice and offers me a job I'd be happy of course, nappe1 is for instance trying to marry me to Bitboys :grin:. I'm going to have to do my master thesis this fall, so I need to get some contact with the industry anyway, so perhaps showing this demo may perhaps raise some companys interest. So if I'm going to use it for something like that I'd of course try to make it work on a GF3 too, and even if I'm not going to use it for something like that I'd try to make it work on a GF3, but it's kinda hard without a card.
Anyway, I'm seriously considering making a real game of it, but it's most likely getting freeware. I'm thinking about maybe resurrecting an old classic in 3d, like Bubble Bobble so similar :smile:
On 2002-02-15 02:36, Althornin wrote:
Keep it up, when i get one of those 128MB r8500's, i'll send you my gf3 to dev. with.
Really? That would be really cool :smile:
Doomtrooper
15-Feb-2002, 03:27
On 2002-02-15 03:16, Reverend wrote:
Doomtrooper, you are clinging to a simplistic view. You want "the best" and, really, so do I, but the reality of the situation is that we'll both never get it 99% of the time. My comments thus far is more of a question to Humus more than anything else - is he doing what he's doing more as a hobby or does he hope to impress someone enough to get a career with a company or does he hope to start out completely on his own? The first two is fine going by this engine of his but tell me if he'll be in it for the long run on his own if he keeps using this engine of his.
Let's quit with this OT diatribe. I know enough people that makes game/graphics engine that consistently tells me that "compatibility" is at the forefront of their design. Hell, read JC's plan properly... even he is making such "sacrifices". Many enthusiasts here will hate this, so do I, but facts are facts.
Of course, if Humus has two, three or four different cards to play with during his development of this engine and he plans to make money off this engine of his, this stupid discussion will not have appeared... he'd probably ensure it runs on a GF3 as well, perhaps not as pretty, but it should run and we'd all (Kyro2 owners, GF3 owners, Radeon owners, etc) be saying nice things to him. But that's just my assumption/guess about Humus.
I think you're completely missing my point, Doomtrooper. As for Humus, if he'll shoot me an email, I can put him in touch with some folks I know... I've (gladly) done such things before.
Just saw a comment you made about favoring one vendor over another... to all developers aiming to make a living, this is not the case. It's about favoring their *game*. About the only vendor (actually, cards, not vendor) most developers don't care about right now is 3dfx. One further point - I'm assuming you, Doomtrooper, don't have a website, and is actually paying for a video card... I can only imagine your reaction if you have, say, a Kyro2 or a GF2 or a GF3, and *only* those vid cards, in your machine right now, in the context of this thread. Heck, you may not even *have* a reaction, other than a post that would say something like "Bummer, crashed on my xxx machine".
_________________
Reverend
Beyond3D (http://www.beyond3d.com)
3DPulpit (http://www.voodooextreme.com/3dpulpit)
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Reverend on 2002-02-15 03:25 ]</font>
I owned a computer store up until 2 months ago.
Yes I have a website but is for my old UT clan :smile:
Rev I respect you, your comments came over way to harsh IMO. I don't want to get into a dirt slinging contest with you, the progression of graphics needs to move forward. There is nobody that can Deny a game has forced a upgrade. I ran a Canopus Pure 3D on a Pentium 233 MMX when Quake 2 was released, although playable..bareley..so off I went skipping down to the local shop for a new VOODOO 2...yehaa..then Unreal was released..off I went skipping down to get another Voodoo 2...SLI..then Quake 3 came along out came the Voodoo 3500 and in went a GTS.
I see nothing stopping this same sort of progression, the reason why I upgraded..I
1) Either saw it running on a faster card and wanted the speed
2) There were features turned on in the other card that I couldn't.
Peace
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Doomtrooper on 2002-02-15 04:28 ]</font>
Martillo1
15-Feb-2002, 08:00
I'm not getting an 8500 just to see the demo :grin: so please Mr. Humus make it work on Gf3 please please please :wink:
BTW I returned an 8500 just to get a Ti200 :grin:
(Martillo ducking for cover)
Althorin is right.
Concerning Humus' app, its not about the app not supporting gf3 (that it, if they exist, uses extensions that aren't available on gf3 is another matter), it just happens to be a bug that makes it not work, be it in drivers or the app.
Concerning (the OT =) topic of hardware support for commercial apps, not supporting gf3 is objectively a bad decision. Giving *special* support for particular hardware, like nv2x or 8500 is a more complex decision, with many variables such as installed base, what benefits it gives to the particular app, development time, development platform(s) etc, so theres no simple answer.
Humus are you in the US? If you are I MIGHT be inclined to send a "package your way" . As to Geforce2/3 marketshare versus Radeon marketshare, I would point out that currently Nvidia made 500 million in revenue last quarter and the latest NPD Intellect research points to a 66% marketshare for their cards in that market segment and a 38% total marketshare (including intel integrated)
Entropy
15-Feb-2002, 11:56
Actually, Humus lives in the northernmost part of Sweden (<- lies in Europe), polar circle latitude.
But Ben, it is just as easy to mail something to Sweden. You just omit the State code, and add "Sweden" below the adress. :razz:
Postage is slightly higher, I think I have a couple of dollars lying in a drawer still that I would happily contribute to this worthy cause. :smile: Humus makes utilities and demos available to anyone for free. If such can be encouraged without too large a sacrifice, I would. I drew the line at sending him my 8500 though, before he got his own. :wink:
Entropy
Yup, that's right, I'm in northern Sweden, living in a city called Luleå. My address is:
Emil Persson
Professorsvägen 27
97751 Luleå
Sweden
Feel free to send as many cards/money/beautyful women as you like :wink:
(Guess I'll be receiving mailbombs from angry GF3 owners now ... :wink:)
...beautyful women...
Then you will not have time to develop anymore :grin:
Hey Pascal....whattabout some of Your "hot" Brazilian Beauty Queens to warm Humus up abit...it is almost always darn cold where he lives :wink:
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tompa on 2002-02-15 15:50 ]</font>
"it is almost always darn cold where he lives"
Yep, and there's polar bears running around in the streets also :smile:
Ok, for the Sweden folks who like to play soccer, click on the girls below :wink:
http://www.cidadeinternet.com.br/br/portales/esportes/fanaticas/home/
On 2002-02-15 16:10, pascal wrote:
Ok, for the Sweden folks who like to play soccer, click on the girls below :wink:
http://www.cidadeinternet.com.br/br/portales/esportes/fanaticas/home/
They will do fine.....
Just fine ??? :eek:
Look again in all these vertex, pixels with great radiosity light: http://www.cidadeinternet.com.br/br/portales/esportes/especiais/fanaticas/vasco2/imagens/foto13.jpg
I love the 3d tech & hardware forum!
btw what is soccer exactly? Isn't that some American sport, similar to football? :grin:
well in Brazil soccer is called football.
edited: You can use your foots and the head to play the spheric ball, look at this girl ability holding the ball behind the head :smile:
http://www.cidadeinternet.com.br/br/portales/esportes/especiais/fanaticas/vasco2/imagens/foto01.jpg
The American football should be called handball :rollseyes:
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pascal on 2002-02-15 17:24 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pascal on 2002-02-15 17:34 ]</font>
Rodéric
15-Feb-2002, 16:33
In the US (and other countries?) football is what we call american footbal, and soccer is the european football.
AFAIK.
Reverend
15-Feb-2002, 16:51
Now, now, calm down kids, remember what this forum is about.
Johnny Rotten
15-Feb-2002, 16:55
Humus, you live in SWEDEN, I thought all swedish women were blond bombshells who walked around in bikini's all day?
LeStoffer
15-Feb-2002, 17:55
On 2002-02-15 17:55, Johnny Rotten wrote:
Humus, you live in SWEDEN, I thought all swedish women were blond bombshells who walked around in bikini's all day?
Well, the problem is that during Winter the bikini's is hidden away here in Scandinavia. :cry:
But all this talk about Sweden put me into some found remembrance of the Swedish girls in Göteborg back in 1995 when I was covering the World Championship in Athletics there. I think that I fell in love around 15 to 20 times per day. Truly an amazing experience. It’s hard to work under such circumstances, you know! :razz:
Take Care, LeStoffer
Randell
15-Feb-2002, 21:58
I was at England v Sweden at Wembley a couple of years ago, terrible match, but great mingling with the 'opposition' afterwards. Got a few invites to come and stay in Sweden :smile: Had to turn them down as a married man and all that. Mind you a couple of my single mates did make the return leg :wink:
On 2002-02-15 15:59, Bjorn wrote:
"it is almost always darn cold where he lives"
Yep, and there's polar bears running around in the streets also :smile:
LOL :grin:
I noticed you're from Luleå too btw, you don't happend to be studying at luth too?
"I noticed you're from Luleå too btw, you don't happend to be studying at luth too?"
I used to.
System Science ("Systemvetenskapliga programmet").
Graduated 2 years ago.
Great work Humus!
I don't know if anyone tried this but I increased the texture files, from their default (either 256*256 or 512*512) to 1024*1024 and then to 2048*2048... the frame rates I was getting (about 60fps on my Radeon 8500LE) remained the same. Texture qulaity did seem to improve but I can't be sure if what I did had any impact really.
Still, very nice work Humus :smile:
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.