My photorealistic terrain renderer(with volumetric fog).

Started by
25 comments, last by Dmytry 20 years, 1 month ago
You should search for "post a picture of your terrain engine" nearly one year ago here. I had nearly the same details (up to 1cm for a 60 km long view) but it's 75FPS on a P3 with a TNT2. Even though it's totally bypassed by the technology I currently develop. It's not a Voxel engine (was cool on Amiga, not on a modern hardware).

[edited by - Charles B on March 23, 2004 4:39:00 AM]
"Coding math tricks in asm is more fun than Java"
Advertisement
Hey,my engine doesn''t supports 1 cm with 60 km,nowhere near .

Maybe i will try to make it so good,but nexttime (if one really-really need mm''s with 100km far,it''s not a problem to blend together several lods rendered with current renderer,that''s for offline rendering,of course).

Also,it''s works with real landscape maps too.

There''s just only good texturing (and interpolation of grid) ,it looks almost exactly like actual geometry (so there''s absolutely no visible "gap" between actual geometry and texturing), and there''s post-processing that makes you believe that resolutions are really high. Like Terragen.

(Anyway, it was not simple to make texture that looks good after sharpen filter).
Version to play are avaliable!

links from there

vwrelease_win.zip, 120kb
Note:It's so small because of "intro64k" background .
edit:hosting dislike direct linking looking for good free hosting.

...

[edited by - Dmytry on March 24, 2004 6:51:49 AM]
It works at all? or just only deleting all files from hdd? (i''m only joking,of course)
when r we going to see a game using this?
this is game dev site after all

go on, give in and work with hardware
It can be used for skybox (or dynamic skybox) in game

I''m gonna to buy cheap GeForce FX 5200 , it really supports everything i may need?
the 5200 is ok, but this generation of
cards lacks precision.... not long till the
next generation come out!

its good for a cheap card, tho i would prefer
an ATI equivilant.....

if you ask nvidia or ati nicely
and show them some of your work
I think they might be nice and send
you a card....
For ps and vs supported on both cards FX5600 is about the same speed as GF4Ti4400.

nvidia says: gotta love marketing bs
//For ps and vs supported on both cards FX5600 is about
// the same speed as GF4Ti4400.
//
//nvidia says: gotta love marketing bs

Yes but the FX supports PS/VS 2.0 which makes the difference
when you want to code something more complicated.
Nvidia''s nameing of cards has always been misleading.
Its better to go by the chip name NV20 NV30 NV40 and so on.

The new NV40 will be interesting, we hope to have samples
soon from nvidia.... then there is a transitional stage happening with all the chipsets moving to pci-express, hopefully
pci-express will improve the way the data moves around.

The good thing about writing stuff using HLSL in microsofts
.FX files , is that you can write versions for different cards
to fall back on.

like a 2.0 shader that isn''t supported, just drop back
and use a 1.1 shader.

Anyway it is an interesting time for graphics hardware
as gpu''s become more programmable.
If you absolutely can not afford more card, then do a quick compare of the ATI 9600 SE versus a 5200 before you buy.

http://www.elitebastards.com/page.php?pageid=3271&head=1&comments=1

My understanding is the 5200 is a very weak performer, but that it is vs/ps 2.0. The 9600 SE performance is above 5600 level and it is also vs/ps 2.0.

Cost on pricewatch? $47 for a 5200 with 64 meg (goes to $54 for 128 meg), ATI card is at $62 for a 9600SE with 128 meg. Do the math as to which is a better deal for you. ;-)

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement