How long before a X800 wrapper (Ruby demo) appears?

[SubFernos]

Clourless, I'm simply amazed how fast you managed to write a wrapper.
65000 views of this thread... and counting

it all runs at 1152x864 very smooth on my comp... but only on the second run, when all the texs have been uploaded fully.

one thing I dont get: why R3x0 must run it with inferior shaders (but with great fps), while NV3x can run it with the original ones (however with crappy fps)... I would prefer droping the res to 640x480 even, if only you will make the original work on R3x0 (her face looks so dead , althogh no complaints about the rest )

 

[Bjorn]

one thing I dont get: why R3x0 must run it with inferior shaders (but with great fps), while NV3x can run it with the original ones (however with crappy fps)... I would prefer droping the res to 640x480 even, if only you will make the original work on R3x0 (her face looks so dead , althogh no complaints about the rest )

If i'm not mistaken, the reason why the R3X0 have to use inferior shaders is that some shaders were longer then 96 instructions and couldn't easily be multipassed. The NV3X doesn't have those instrution limits though.

 

[dr3amz]

colourless is also `fixing` it so you get full image quality on the r3xx - just read back and you'll see the pic showing correct colour and DOF on the r3xx.

patience

 

[Distrait_W]

hey guys, this is my first post here lol.

i was just bored waiting around for the next release.. so i made this:

i hope u enjoy it!

add me to MSN messanger distrait_wrick@hotmail.com if u want the high res version for your desktop ... i can make any res u need 1600x1200 or lower

 

[digitalwanderer]

Hey, that's pretty nice!

 

[Gold]

Colourless, just want to let you know I really appreciate your work.

I remember back in the day on Rage3d, when a few guys and me were modding the old Rage Pro card to boost performance (RageLTM, FDV3, etc)

I really appreciate your work so far.

Hell this wrapper runs the demo great. Even on my laptop (MR9600P), 800x600x4AA I still get 32-22 fps throughout.

Can't wait for the new enhancements, Dof, etc.

 

[Gold]

Edit:

Although I have a suggestion.

I don't know in what capacity this would be possible, but alot of people here have 9500-9600-9700's not 9800Pro or XT's.

I remember one of the Rage Pro 8mb tricks we used to boost fps was reducing the texture sizes from say (back in the day) 128 to 64MB.

Assuming all goes well this completed wrapper would run at decent frame rates on a 9800Pro/XT, but not really on lower hardware (9500-9700) (especially when the depth of field, etc is implemented).

Would it be possible, to include a lower quality version, perhaps with reduced textures? I don't know in what capacity that could be done in the d3d9 wrapper module, but it's a thought.

Ofcourse I too would like to see this at full detail, (and I agree that that is priority Number 1).

However if it will run at 13 fps, and a small hack or method to reduce IQ by some undistinguishable margin to the human eye, can net a result of 60 fps, than I believe that is worth thinking about.

I don't know that's a thought, but I agree (before I get roasted) that 1:1 is top priority now.


Thanks for the great work man!

 

[Colourless]

Annoucing: R300 Ruby Rap v2 Multipass!
Download: http://www.users.on.net/triforce/ruby/r300rubyrap2.zip
Readme: http://www.users.on.net/triforce/ruby/r300readme2.txt (even if it is pretty much the same as the old one)



Well, there you have it. Multipass versions of the shaders. All but one of the shaders should no produce identical output as the original, assuming I haven't fubared any of the shaders while attempting to multipass them and don't know it. The 'problem' shader is the Cornea Reflections on Ruby's Eyes. The multipass shaders that I've used should be reasonably close but it wont be the same. I doubt it's going to be something that people are likely to notice anyway but I have no idea what they are supposed to look like anyway.

Expect this to be even slower then the old versions. Some of the replacement shaders could have in total more than 4 times the amount of instructions that the original shaders had, let alone my original replacements!

I really don't think I'm going to do anything else with this, unless something is totally broken.

-Colourless, signing off

 

[mengy]

OMG Thank you c-less, someone take some screens please, i'm still at work and won't get the chance to try it out until I get home.
Thanks again, hmm i might have to get into this shader writting stuff, looks interesting

question for colorless: Would it be hard to learn if i already have decent experience with programming C/C++ mostly

 

[digitalwanderer]

Thanks Colourless, now you've given me an incentive to get me PC all fixed up! 8)

I'm gonna go post this on EB's frontpage if'n you don't mind...

 

[Mark]

Nice work Colourless
17.8fps on AXP 2700+, 1GB sys ram, 9800XT

no noticable errors

 

[digitalwanderer]

What did you get with the old wrapper Ratchet?

 

[Mark]

I honestly never thought to BM it before. I guess I could check.

Ruby Rap v2
2004-05-17 15:20:32 - SushiDX
Frames: 1806 - Time: 101438ms - Avg: 17.803 - Min: 3 - Max: 36

Ruby Rap v1
2004-05-17 15:37:53 - SushiDX
Frames: 3371 - Time: 101141ms - Avg: 33.329 - Min: 7 - Max: 81

 

[991060]

very interesting, and Colourless, will you consider writing a tutorial on how to write a wrapper, I still don't have a clue on how the wrapper works.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Can someone with a GeForceFX (or 6800 for that matter) benchmark the three versions:

1) Original, non-touched shaders
2) V1 Rap
3) V2 Rap

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I honestly never thought to BM it before. I guess I could check.

Ruby Rap v2
2004-05-17 15:20:32 - SushiDX
Frames: 1806 - Time: 101438ms - Avg: 17.803 - Min: 3 - Max: 36

Ruby Rap v1
2004-05-17 15:37:53 - SushiDX
Frames: 3371 - Time: 101141ms - Avg: 33.329 - Min: 7 - Max: 81

'

What resoultion / AA settigs?

 

[StellaArtois]

-Colourless, signing off

Go and put your feet up, and have a beer! Great work, much appreciated mate! 8)

 

[Mark]

I honestly never thought to BM it before. I guess I could check.

Ruby Rap v2
2004-05-17 15:20:32 - SushiDX
Frames: 1806 - Time: 101438ms - Avg: 17.803 - Min: 3 - Max: 36

Ruby Rap v1
2004-05-17 15:37:53 - SushiDX
Frames: 3371 - Time: 101141ms - Avg: 33.329 - Min: 7 - Max: 81

'

What resoultion / AA settigs?

default settings
resolution = 1024x768
multisampleType = 4

App pref for everything, all I can say about the drivers is they are newer than the official 4.5s.

 

[Colourless]

Just something I've noticed, due to the depth of field stuff, using Multisampling will tend to make it a lot better than you might expect, or conversely not using multisampling may make it look much worse than you'd expect

 

[Colourless]

I guess that I might decide to look at the Subsurface demo at some stage to get rid of the few errors that it gets. When I'll do this I don't know.