Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Banner advertising on our site currently available from just $5!

1. Learn about the promo. 2. Sign up for GDNet+. 3. Set up your advert!


Member Since 15 Sep 2005
Offline Last Active Jul 18 2014 05:55 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Turning on Unicode in DevC++

15 July 2010 - 09:14 AM

Thanks, youv'e all been verry helpfull.

In Topic: Turning on Unicode in DevC++

13 July 2010 - 05:03 AM

I'm suprised you both prefer the MS version. Other developers I know have said that dev-cpp is better as it is faster.

I don't mind either way so Iv'e installed VC++ Express.

The line
#include "dxsdkver.h"

Creates the following error:
fatal error C1083: Cannot open include file: 'dxsdkver.h': No such file or directory

How do I tell VC++ Express about thease files that are in "Program Files\Microsoft DirectX SDK (February 2010)". Do I need to make a copy of the includes directory from "Microsoft DirectX SDK ..." and put it with my project files?

In Topic: Looking for a coder for C++ game engine project

29 May 2010 - 01:39 AM

Thanks, I guess this thread can be deleted.

In Topic: One pass per frame light maps?

11 June 2007 - 12:29 AM

Original post by gharen2
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just a description of ray tracing?

And I disagree about the number of calculations being manageable. The key part is that many rays are being emitted by lights. Doing a calculation between each ray and each texel of each object would be prohibitive.
No, standard ray tracing traces every ray of light whereas this artifically limits the infomation being transfered every frame. The number of calculations may still be unmanegable but it is smaller than in ray tracing (I think they would be manegable for powerfull PC's and well writtain code).

Unless I'm misunderstanding. I'm not normally one to be picky about spelling and grammar, but your description is hard to read :P
Sorry :(

Anyway, if I understand you correctly, this is basically a technique known as "radiosity." It came into popular usage around the time of the original Quake games, and is still used by some games (for example, Half-Life 2, though it uses an updated variant of it).
two key diffrances are, one pass every frame instead of 40 passes on each compile of a map and rays get drawn when they enter they eyes istead of just hitting a surface (reflection and refraction made easy). This may have to be split into light maps that has a diffrent sized grid that individal texels but it cant be too big else there would be an output that is too grainy looking.[/quote]

until it reaches a stable state

some very odd effects

bouncing around light from a source that isn't even on anymore

That's pretty slow light.
It dosn't need to reach a stable state, in fact it wont do if things are moving a lot. Yes there would be some verry odd effects like light could be aranged to bounce around in a loop using (100% reflect, 0% refract) mirrors where the light could take sevral frames to get to a point in the loop each time round. The light would be pritty slow, but I think the potental for superiour rendering quality would make up for it.

In Topic: One pass per frame light maps?

10 June 2007 - 02:16 AM

You wouldn't be able to see the light source if it was let say behind something else. When the rays of light reach you then you can see them and they will be the colour and brightness of the things they have reflected off.

You could make it so that no light was alloud to enter the eyes if it had no bounces, this would make lights invisable but still able to light stuff. Point lights would be efectivly invisable anyway, only showing directly as a sigle point of light where they send however meany rays into the enviroment from that single point (probbably at random angles) each frame.