Hybrid

Members
  • Content count

    275
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

138 Neutral

About Hybrid

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Planetary engine, part IV ( volumetric fog/haze )

    Like Tamat said, consider rendering the underwater terrain patches anyway, and making the sea more transparent. The best looking seas from high altitudes are the ones where you can see the depth of the ocean change. Combine that with your blue to green colour shift at varying sea depths, you'll end up making your sea look far less repitive and much more visually stunning. The fog looks stunning btw! Nice work.
  2. Over 100,000 journal views..

    ... and the post about the 100,000th view doesn't even get a cool screenshot!?! boo! hiss! haha, j/k. Keep up the great work.
  3. Combat prototype 0.4.e

    It's nothing short of STUNNING! I had my doubts about the ships, as after reading infinity's forums I felt like it had become a free for all for the ship designs, and anyone (good or bad) could submit a design. Therefore, ending up with ships that dont suit the style or seem out of place... not to mention varying difference's in modelling quality. Needs a lead modeller sort of role for someone to guide all the contributor's work. ... but then looking at these screens, the ships so far suit the game well and are arguably better than a lot of the high budget space sims out there. Nice work!!
  4. checking depth buffer in ps

    One of the best uses I've seen for reading the depth texture in a pixel shader is for soft particles (as seen in Crysis)... As the particle's Z value gets closer to the opaque geometry that was written into the Z buffer, the particle is faded out... No more intersecting particles with the world! Woohoo!
  5. Particles - making it look good

    You need to disable depth WRITING, not depth testing for particles. If you can see the 'alpha parts' of your particles then you either haven't setup the correct alpha settings or your particle textures don't have an alpha channel done correctly. Given that the particles you mention are for space craft thrusters, you won't need to sort them as you should be using additive blending for fire/heat based effects.
  6. Verify my motion blur idea

    I agree, but this is the closest we can get which doesnt require multiple frame renders (costly), and the blur is relatively accurate to the average users eye.
  7. Verify my motion blur idea

    Correct me if I'm wrong... but isn't the best way to render motion blur like this: 1. When rendering pixels, store the velocity of that pixel (relative to camera) into a 'velocity' buffer. 2. Do a post process on the final image, whereby you blur pixels in the direction and magnitude of that pixels velocity. 3. Remove banding on the motion blur, by doing a random texture lookup on a gray scale noise texture and use that value (0-1) to offset where you take the samples from. That effectively removes the banding. 4. With access to the Z-buffer as well, you can make sure pixels in the distance do not blur over the top of pixels near the front. So a fast moving car behind a lamppost, will not blur the lamppost in the foreground.
  8. I did the exact same project for my final year at university. It was quite successful, though unfortunately it had 1 or 2 outstanding bugs when I handed it in. Still got an A though :). I've thought about doing it again as I understand it much better having been through it once. I basically broke my mesh structure down into convex faces, edges and vertices. Convex faces were used rather than triangles as they are easy to triangulate for rendering, while drastically keeping the number of edge intersection tests down during the CSG. For the destruction, you take your object mesh e.g. a building and subtract a bumpy spherical shape from it to simulate the explosion hole.
  9. Terrain integration, step 1

    Truly stunning work. I love all the shots where other planets dip behind the horizon and atmosphere of the foreground planet. Beautiful.
  10. Need to improve particle systems

    1. Use fewer particles and increase their opacity (less transparent). 2. Use fewer particles and increase their overall size (so you need less of them). The smoke in that screenshot clearly does not need 6000 particles. You could do something equivalent (and better) with a few hundred with great textures.
  11. I'm also interested in hearing more about that LABT, Yann. Cheers!
  12. Buoyancy Problem

    I can't believe you got that up and running so quick? It looks fantastic by the way, the moment is excellent! Will it work fine if the water surface is moving up and down??? I guess it will.
  13. Buoyancy Problem

    I also have the DLL problem that Charles B mentioned... MSVCP60d.dll missing. :(
  14. What slows down quadtrees?

    Yeah I have that in the recursive version, but have yet to work it into the stack based one... perhaps it could be the bottleneck. I just had visions of the stack based version with no recursive function being amazingly fast that the extra checks wouldnt even matter :)