Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
Alpha_ProgDes

OpenGL StarFox == OpenGL 1.1?

This topic is 4396 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Advertisement
Maybe picking a (very) low resolution, use flat-shading instead of smooth shading, use simple colors instead of textures(in most cases), only 1 light-source(or maybe none at all), low-poly models, low-res sprites for meteors...?
The environment is just a background texture that rotates with you somehow, and maybe you need a (flat) for rendering the ground in case you fly above the surface of a planet. The rest are just simple models with simple lighting I think.

I never knew there was a second Star Fox by the way.

Greetings,
Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so basic, regular ol' OGL 1.1 (and equivalent D3D API) would be overkill for something like Star Fox then.

[Edited by - Alpha_ProgDes on July 4, 2006 2:12:09 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
so basic, regular ol' OGL 1.1 (and equivalent D3D API)bwould be overkill for something like Star Fox then.


Pretty much anything over coding your own software renderer is going to be overkill on a PC. The SuperFX chip could only draw a few hundred polygons, and they where non-lit, non-textured, low resolution polygons at that.

Why are you so concerned about "overkill" though. You should use the tool that provides that is the most productive and best suited for the task, not the other way around. OGL 1.1 could easily reproduce StarFox, plus it's compatible with pretty much everything made in the last decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could easily do Starfox in software without any 3D API or hardware acceleration. Starfox had sub-Quake 1 graphics (non-textured flat shaded low poly), and Quake 1 was pure software that ran on a Pentium 66. Games using the same flat shaded polygons as Starfox like Spectre (though Spectre had much, much less on the screen at once) ran on 286 hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Scet
Quote:
Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
so basic, regular ol' OGL 1.1 (and equivalent D3D API)bwould be overkill for something like Star Fox then.


Pretty much anything over coding your own software renderer is going to be overkill on a PC. The SuperFX chip could only draw a few hundred polygons, and they where non-lit, non-textured, low resolution polygons at that.

Why are you so concerned about "overkill" though. You should use the tool that provides that is the most productive and best suited for the task, not the other way around. OGL 1.1 could easily reproduce StarFox, plus it's compatible with pretty much everything made in the last decade.

Ok. I didn't know the capabilities of OGL 1.1 and I was trying to figure out a game that was easy to produce and fun. Star Fox came to mind. I'm not concerned about overkill just whether or not it could do the job and what the job entailed. From what everyone is saying, it's a good fit between the two.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by spek

I never knew there was a second Star Fox by the way.



It was in development and had been publically announced, but it was cancelled shortly after the Nintendo 64 was released, and development resources were shifted to StarFox 64.

Anyway, back on topic, the SuperFX chip used in StarFox was basically a custom-built DSP optimized for 3D rendering running at 10.74 mHz; It rendered graphics at, I believe, 128x192 resolution with 8-bit color depth at about 15 fps (StarFox 2 and a handful of other titles used the upgraded SuperFX2 that ran at 21.48 mHz). Note however that many of the game's graphics weren't in fact rendered by the SuperFX; the backround image was a standard SNES background that made heavy use of the SNES's HDMA and vertical-offset-per-tile capabilities, many of the UI elements were sprite overlays, and some visual effects (such as the Nova Bomb explosion) were done entirely on the SNES PPU. In fact, the rendered image itself had to be transfered to the SNES's VRAM to be displayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I hated that adventure spinoff. Assault is awesome though, if what I hear about GC title being playable on Wii and all that, I'm getting a Wii!
(In addition to my planned PS3, of course.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!