Jump to content
  • Advertisement


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

174 Neutral

About J-Fox

  • Rank
  1. J-Fox

    Armored Warfare - A Touch of Realism

    First of all, thanks for a new blog entry, The major positive aspects from this posts to me: - A huge terrain is nice, I agree on this one. Writing geomipmapping for this is also nice even tho it will probably raise the minimum required spec. - A good entity management is always a plus - You fixed the normals of your meshes - You are not going to rewrite the netcode BUT I couldn't agree more with Hypnotron. And besides the problems he mentioned, I don't like the changes you plan / seem to have done already. But having the option between bullet and havok seems stupid to me. One physics engine is enough as long as its stable. Could you give any reason why both are necessary? I also don't like the fact that it's turning into another RTS. When this project started it seemed like a side project and it was cool and a rare genre: Pure Vehicle Combat. However, first you added the on-foot part which was ok to me but even than it felt like it was going in a wrong direction as there is a good chance that it would become a new priority making it a poor FPS with good vehicles. Then you added more and more on that front and just kept shifiting the focus. "Legged vehicles" (for a lack of better name) were already killing it imo but I thought I would be able to live with it if the other vehicles were fine. To this day I yet have to see a good implementation of a "legged vehicle" in a video-game. Now you have ships too as it seems and even planes. I have to say that I love planes, I love them because I love doing stunts - but I don't want them in this particular game. Also the "control over cities" will make the game more and more complex. To both, you and the end-user. Yet I can't understand how this will improve gameplay because it just makes things more complex. It takes longer to get into the game as a "newb" (Just like learning controls for on-foot, boats, planes, anything..). I also hate the fact that the game starts to become something like a "war simulator". When you first started it, it was sci-fi vehicle combat. And now its something which all the big companies do too. I'm bored of that and its not my thing neither. I don't want to feel like a soldier when playing a game. I basicly want a modern hide and seek, paired with some cool vehicle stunts and action. It looks like this game won't do it anymore and hence I won't follow it too closely anymore (at least not the updates about gameplay - its a dev-blog after all and I still care about the technical bits). It's a real sad development I think. //Edit: Forgot to mention it, but I also think that the game looks way too bright now, the first screenshot is nice, but the plane and the copter look WAY too bright imo. They either need some more details or they should be darker. Maybe a more blue-ish gray would be better? Additionally I would like to add something: - I won a free copy of Urban Empires month or years ago on this blog. First I was like: "Ah shit your PC is by far too bad for it anyway". Then, month later I switched to linux and was like: "No way that this is going to work". Month after that I switched my graphics card and I was thinking: "Now lets hope that wine supports it!" and now - again, month later - I upgraded to a new PC (in fact, its already half a year ago that I build this PC) and the game is still not here. I'm not even thinking about wine anymore because until that game is out I will probably have switched to a new system or OS again. It just feels like you don't manage your projects properly which is a shame because you seem to be a damn good developer. :(
  2. J-Fox

    Real-time Strategy & Water - Works in Progress

    The water definatly needs something to differ between water height etc. The pictures from above look way too plain. You should add some dark spots or so. It's only a matter of minutes but will probably improve the effect greatly. You should really try that in case you didn't do it already.
  3. J-Fox

    Procedural Textures [OpenGL ES]

    Just wondering as we are on the topic already. This also confused me in the nehe lesson: data = calloc((96 * 96) * 4, sizeof(unsigned int)); Wouldn't this allocate 96*96*4*4 bytes normally? If you just want a 96*96 texture you probably stick to one byte per channel meaning that 96*96*4 is enough.
  4. J-Fox

    Warbots Battle Video - Freeze Frame

    Hey, the video looks incredible! Its really nice. I think the grass could still look better but the bots hide it nicely However, are you sure that these bots are a good decision? - Do they have a good AI? - How do they behave to collisions with vehicles? (Ragdolls would be awesome!) - Wouldn't it feel weird to mow-down so many bots with such a small vehicle? - Wouldn't it suck to get blocked by any bot? - Are you sure you can get them to look good even if animated? (I could imagine that bots need a lot work on their animations alone, but you possibly use urban empires stuff here) - How do you plan to sync so many bots over the network?
  5. J-Fox

    3D picking library

    Its not that hard. You can either do it yourself or stick to any collision library which provides mesh vs ray.
  6. I haven't done this quite a while, but you seem to use an indexed buffer. This means that the number of vertices doesn't have to be the number of faces by 3. Its probably less vertices which are used for multiple faces.
  7. Looks pretty cool. I m writing a similar game which is hovercraft only and more of a race game right now to test my engine so I know how much work it is ;) I was surprised by your heavy use of imposters because I also made my renderer based on that (Using some clever technique to see if a imposter needs to be updated) after reading about the fs 2004 sky rendering system :) Couldn't notice any bugs which seem to be caused by imposters in your screens neither - so good work on that too. One thing that is bugging me is the sky which somehow is too bright again. //Edit: Woops, noticed that you mentioned it. That happens if you only look at the pictures and skip half the text Also the shadows are too low-res imo. But its probably one of the things you don't care while playing - and you can still patch that later. Oh and how about documenting your search for a good publisher? Maybe make a list with pros and cons or so. I'm interested in this myself too. Good luck with the project
  8. For FS2004 I would assume 3DS Max because according to Niniane Wangs page the clouds were done in 3DS Max too. But Maya, like you said, is also very common these days. Some articles on gamasutra tell you about selfmade tools by some companys. It always depends on what you need. Lately ZBrush and similar tools seem to get more attention because you can bake normalmaps on the models which give a better visual appearance. //Edit: shouldn't this be somewhere else? Possibly virtual arts or so?
  9. this is something which Evil Steve talked about and its exactly what you need: http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article2063.asp Shame on you for not looking through the gamedev articles or searching before posting :P
  10. chiptunes (especially 8Bit Mayhem) and rock =)
  11. J-Fox

    Job Offer

    Uhm, this sounds a bit "fishy" to me. Reverse-engineering is not what you would call "legal" in some regions and bots (the sort of bots you seem to be talking about) are forbidden in most games. Also I don't know why you would require DirectX or OpenGL knowledge to develop bots. So, any more information about what kind of bots you need and what exactly you want to do? //Edit: Wrong forum - http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/forum.asp?forum_id=8
  12. I think you should do more basic stuff before then.. Parallax Occlusion mapping is not too simple and you seem to be a beginner at this. How about trying to understand what you are actually doing instead of just mixing stuff together? However, a short - not even 30 seconds - google search gave me this: http://www.ziggyware.com/readarticle.php?article_id=47 PS: Its not "effect-scripting" but simply: "write shaders". I already see a new topic by you: "Why is my Parallax Occlusion Mapping effect so slow?" - wouldn't be too surprising after checking your topic history.
  13. J-Fox

    HLSL Assembly

    Thats highly possible. You could check if the headers define other constants which sound like tokens for shaders and try to look them up on the msdn or just contact ms directly.
  14. Oh I thought you would know what RenderMonkey is. Its just a tool to develop shaders. You can load your objects, textures etc and link them to the shader (which you will edit in RenderMonkey itself) which will then give immediate output. This is quite useful because if you have a RenderMonkey project for Parallax Occlusion Mapping you can simply load it and check the shader sourcecode - then see what RenderMonkey does pass to the shader. Its all there - no more looking through window-initialization code or other peoples vector class etc. As you don't seem to be familar with RenderMonkey yet there might be something else which works better for you, but I would highly recommend learning either fxComposer (which is too complex in my opinion) or RenderMonkey because both help a lot while working on effects like the one you are asking for.
  15. I guess you know that drawing a ray from the camera directly into the scene won't be visible? You are looking at the end of it which would be 1pixel if you are lucky. Try setting the root of the ray somewhere else - Increase every component (X,Y,Z) by a few units for example.
  • 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!