Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Recommended Posts

Atum engine is a newcomer in a row of game engines. Most game engines focus on render
techniques in features list. The main task of Atum is to deliver the best toolset; that’s why,
as I hope, Atum will be a good light weighted alternative to Unity for indie games. Atum already
has fully workable editor that has an ability to play test edited scene. All system code has
simple ideas behind them and focuses on easy to use functionality. That’s why code is minimized
as much as possible.

Currently the engine consists from:

- Scene Editor with ability to play test edited scene;
- Powerful system for binding properties into the editor;
- Render system based on DX11 but created as multi API; so, adding support of another GAPI
  is planned;
- Controls system based on aliases;
- Font system based on stb_truetype.h;
- Support of PhysX 3.0, there are samples in repo that use physics;
- Network code which allows to create server/clinet; there is some code in repo which allows
  to create a simple network game

I plan to use this engine in multiplayer game - so, I definitely will evolve the engine. Also
I plan to add support for mobile devices. And of course, the main focus is to create a toolset
that will ease games creation.

Link to repo on source code is - https://github.com/ENgineE777/Atum

Video of work process in track based editor can be at follow link: 

 

 

Untitled-1.jpg

Edited by _Engine_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

Sounds interesting, I would rehearse a bit on spelling mistakes though, because it sems a bit unprofessional, no offense. I also recommend putting some screenshots or cool images for the readme, so people are more excited to check it out. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally I finished work at track based editor. This editor allows to create animation for objects. For example, simple cut scene can be created in the editor.

 

Video of work process in editor can be at follow link: 

 

 

Edited by _Engine_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
  • Popular Tags

  • Popular Now

  • Advertisement
  • Similar Content

    • By Gnollrunner
      Hi again,  After some looking around I have decided to base my game directly on Direct X rather than using an existing game engine.  Because of the nature of the stuff I'm doing it just didn't seem to fit very well and I kept running into road blocks.  At this point I have a big blob of code for doing fractal world generation and some collision code,  and I'm trying to put it into some form that resembles a game engine.  Since I've never used one before It's a bit alien to me ..... so can someone direct me to a book, website, article, whatever... that covers this?  I'm mainly looking for stuff that covers C++ library design. I'm not adverse to using 3rd party tools for stuff I can used them for.
    • By chiffre
      Introduction:
      In general my questions pertain to the differences between floating- and fixed-point data. Additionally I would like to understand when it can be advantageous to prefer fixed-point representation over floating-point representation in the context of vertex data and how the hardware deals with the different data-types. I believe I should be able to reduce the amount of data (bytes) necessary per vertex by choosing the most opportune representations for my vertex attributes. Thanks ahead of time if you, the reader, are considering the effort of reading this and helping me.
      I found an old topic that shows this is possible in principal, but I am not sure I understand what the pitfalls are when using fixed-point representation and whether there are any hardware-based performance advantages/disadvantages.
      (TLDR at bottom)
      The Actual Post:
      To my understanding HLSL/D3D11 offers not just the traditional floating point model in half-,single-, and double-precision, but also the fixed-point model in form of signed/unsigned normalized integers in 8-,10-,16-,24-, and 32-bit variants. Both models offer a finite sequence of "grid-points". The obvious difference between the two models is that the fixed-point model offers a constant spacing between values in the normalized range of [0,1] or [-1,1], while the floating point model allows for smaller "deltas" as you get closer to 0, and larger "deltas" the further you are away from 0.
      To add some context, let me define a struct as an example:
      struct VertexData { float[3] position; //3x32-bits float[2] texCoord; //2x32-bits float[3] normals; //3x32-bits } //Total of 32 bytes Every vertex gets a position, a coordinate on my texture, and a normal to do some light calculations. In this case we have 8x32=256bits per vertex. Since the texture coordinates lie in the interval [0,1] and the normal vector components are in the interval [-1,1] it would seem useful to use normalized representation as suggested in the topic linked at the top of the post. The texture coordinates might as well be represented in a fixed-point model, because it seems most useful to be able to sample the texture in a uniform manner, as the pixels don't get any "denser" as we get closer to 0. In other words the "delta" does not need to become any smaller as the texture coordinates approach (0,0). A similar argument can be made for the normal-vector, as a normal vector should be normalized anyway, and we want as many points as possible on the sphere around (0,0,0) with a radius of 1, and we don't care about precision around the origin. Even if we have large textures such as 4k by 4k (or the maximum allowed by D3D11, 16k by 16k) we only need as many grid-points on one axis, as there are pixels on one axis. An unsigned normalized 14 bit integer would be ideal, but because it is both unsupported and impractical, we will stick to an unsigned normalized 16 bit integer. The same type should take care of the normal vector coordinates, and might even be a bit overkill.
      struct VertexData { float[3] position; //3x32-bits uint16_t[2] texCoord; //2x16bits uint16_t[3] normals; //3x16bits } //Total of 22 bytes Seems like a good start, and we might even be able to take it further, but before we pursue that path, here is my first question: can the GPU even work with the data in this format, or is all I have accomplished minimizing CPU-side RAM usage? Does the GPU have to convert the texture coordinates back to a floating-point model when I hand them over to the sampler in my pixel shader? I have looked up the data types for HLSL and I am not sure I even comprehend how to declare the vertex input type in HLSL. Would the following work?
      struct VertexInputType { float3 pos; //this one is obvious unorm half2 tex; //half corresponds to a 16-bit float, so I assume this is wrong, but this the only 16-bit type I found on the linked MSDN site snorm half3 normal; //same as above } I assume this is possible somehow, as I have found input element formats such as: DXGI_FORMAT_R16G16B16A16_SNORM and DXGI_FORMAT_R16G16B16A16_UNORM (also available with a different number of components, as well as different component lengths). I might have to avoid 3-component vectors because there is no 3-component 16-bit input element format, but that is the least of my worries. The next question would be: what happens with my normals if I try to do lighting calculations with them in such a normalized-fixed-point format? Is there no issue as long as I take care not to mix floating- and fixed-point data? Or would that work as well? In general this gives rise to the question: how does the GPU handle fixed-point arithmetic? Is it the same as integer-arithmetic, and/or is it faster/slower than floating-point arithmetic?
      Assuming that we still have a valid and useful VertexData format, how far could I take this while remaining on the sensible side of what could be called optimization? Theoretically I could use the an input element format such as DXGI_FORMAT_R10G10B10A2_UNORM to pack my normal coordinates into a 10-bit fixed-point format, and my verticies (in object space) might even be representable in a 16-bit unsigned normalized fixed-point format. That way I could end up with something like the following struct:
      struct VertexData { uint16_t[3] pos; //3x16bits uint16_t[2] texCoord; //2x16bits uint32_t packedNormals; //10+10+10+2bits } //Total of 14 bytes Could I use a vertex structure like this without too much performance-loss on the GPU-side? If the GPU has to execute some sort of unpacking algorithm in the background I might as well let it be. In the end I have a functioning deferred renderer, but I would like to reduce the memory footprint of the huge amount of vertecies involved in rendering my landscape. 
      TLDR: I have a lot of vertices that I need to render and I want to reduce the RAM-usage without introducing crazy compression/decompression algorithms to the CPU or GPU. I am hoping to find a solution by involving fixed-point data-types, but I am not exactly sure how how that would work.
    • By babaliaris
      Well i found out Here what's the problem and how to solve it (Something about world coordinates and object coordinates) but i can't understand how ti works. Can you show me some examples in code on how you implement this???
       
      Scaling Matrix:
      m_Impl->scale = glm::mat4(1.0f); m_Impl->scale = glm::scale(m_Impl->scale, glm::vec3(width, height, 0)); Verticies:
      //Verticies. float verticies[] = { //Positions. //Texture Coordinates. 1.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f, 2.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f, 2.0f, 2.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f, 2.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f }; Rendering:
      //Projection Matrix. glm::mat4 proj = glm::ortho(0.0f, (float)window->GetWidth(), 0.0f, (float)window->GetHeight(), -1.0f, 1.0f); //Set the uniform. material->program->setUniformMat4f("u_MVP", proj * model); //model is the scale matrix from the previous code. //Draw. glDrawElements(GL_TRIANGLES, material->ibo->GetCount(), GL_UNSIGNED_INT, NULL);  
      Shader:
      #shader vertex #version 330 core layout(location = 0) in vec4 aPos; layout(location = 1) in vec2 aTexCoord; out vec2 texCoord; uniform mat4 u_MVP; void main() { gl_Position = u_MVP*aPos; texCoord = aTexCoord; } #shader fragment #version 330 core out vec4 colors; in vec2 texCoord; uniform sampler2D u_Texture; void main() { colors = texture(u_Texture, texCoord); }  
      Before Scaling (It's down there on the bottom left corner as a dot).

       
      After Scaling

       
      Problem: Why does the position also changes?? If you see my Verticies, the first position starts at 1.0f, 1.0f , so when i'm scaling it should stay at that position
    • By Bret Marisnick
      Hey guys!

      Ok so I have been developing some ideas to get to work on and I have one specifically that I need some assistance with. The App will be called “A Walk On the Beach.” It’s somewhat of a 3D representation of the Apple app “Calm.” The idea is that you can take a virtual stroll up and down a pier on the beach. Building the level of a pier seems self explanatory to me... but my question is this.... How could I make it so that players can leave notes on the pier for other users to read and or respond to? I was thinking something like a virtual “peg board” at the end of the pier where players can “pin up” pictures or post it’s.

      Any advice on how I could accomplish this would be helpful!
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

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

Participate in the game development conversation and more when you create an account on GameDev.net!

Sign me up!