1  2  |   Order by index

Aug 29, 2001, 11:57pm

It seems all good, until you get to the Transparant problem. I really don't
think I will use it if there are problems with rendering objects. We NEED
masks. If we can't use them, then you have to replace masked textures with
complex objects......no one has time for that.

Also, 200 meters of visiblity! Who has a computer that can render a scene
with that many objects? I don't.....I can't even go above 40. Someone with
an AMD and a GeForce card might be able to get 10 FPS from it....I don't
know, maybe not even that.......It would be cool if you could see 24FPS with
200m visiblity, but for now that ain't happening. AW Techs, don't increase
Visiblity until you make a 3d engine that has NO lose of speed and is writen
in ASM. Or until better computers come out.

Aug 30, 2001, 12:22am

um, i can stand at 60 & 120 with no problems. perhaps you are the one
who needs to get a new PC?

[View Quote] >It seems all good, until you get to the Transparant problem. I really don't
>think I will use it if there are problems with rendering objects. We NEED
>masks. If we can't use them, then you have to replace masked textures with
>complex objects......no one has time for that.
>
>Also, 200 meters of visiblity! Who has a computer that can render a scene
>with that many objects? I don't.....I can't even go above 40. Someone with
>an AMD and a GeForce card might be able to get 10 FPS from it....I don't
>know, maybe not even that.......It would be cool if you could see 24FPS with
>200m visiblity, but for now that ain't happening. AW Techs, don't increase
>Visiblity until you make a 3d engine that has NO lose of speed and is writen
>in ASM. Or until better computers come out.
>
>

Aug 30, 2001, 12:31am

And the 200 will be good for taking screen shots and the like. Although a
"render entire scene" button that processed for a min or two and took a shot
with say 1000-2000 vis would be really nice. Take a arial shot of your
entire world.

Aug 30, 2001, 12:54am

(I'm on beta)
My computer is 3 years old, and hasn't been upgraded any. While 200 isn't
fast (about 3-4 frames a second) it is almost comparable to 60m vis in 2.2.
It is great for screenshots, and when you are trying to find objects you
mass duplicated on accident.. heh. It isn't a worthless feature at all. And
the transparency is better then before, it just seems certain objects are
having problems, this is not the end of the world tho.

-Myrth

[View Quote]

Aug 30, 2001, 1:11am

Are you nuts? People have only been complaining about not enough visibility
for years now. :)

--
Chris
Eagle Scout, Philosopher, Peacemaker, and Kung Fu Master?
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html

[View Quote]

Aug 30, 2001, 2:49pm

not even 40? I usually get 44 (because for some weird, unexplicable reason I
set my vis very low... or maybe it was Chuck Party's Star Trek aliens that
did it for me? ;-)) )... and I often get 120 vis when in low density
areas...

KAH

[View Quote]

Aug 30, 2001, 3:07pm

The transparency problem you're obsessing over is almost moot, the only world that I've seen that will truly suffer from the
transparency problem its good 'ol AWTeen, center of most of AW's idiot user base (The others all have dedicated, good modelers that
can work around it) and even then, only their vegetation.

Also, get a new PC. An AMD and a Geforce are going to get those performance levels regardless. And AMD K6-2 550 and a GeForce 256
anyway. A Duron 700 and a GeForce II MX pulls 20FPS in a DENSE zone (120m out, complex lighting situations, large high poly COB
objects, refreshing textures)

A full scale Athlon and GeForce II GTS or GeForce 3 hits 30-40 EASY in the same situation.

Also, why in the hell are you using the beta and not posting to beta??? You're not even supposed to have it are you *grins at idiot*
[View Quote]

Aug 30, 2001, 4:50pm

If AW had portal rendering it would be a LOT faster. As it is now, AW just mindlessly renders everything out to the visibility distance. Plus most worldbuilders and objectmakers don't optimize their objects (remove hidden/covered polys, use textures instead of lots of intricate modelled detail, etc). Try going to Hole world and see how your frame rate is; it should be better than most, if not all, worlds with comparable detail (yea right!). ;)

[View Quote] > It seems all good, until you get to the Transparant problem. I really don't
> think I will use it if there are problems with rendering objects. We NEED
> masks. If we can't use them, then you have to replace masked textures with
> complex objects......no one has time for that.
>
> Also, 200 meters of visiblity! Who has a computer that can render a scene
> with that many objects? I don't.....I can't even go above 40. Someone with
> an AMD and a GeForce card might be able to get 10 FPS from it....I don't
> know, maybe not even that.......It would be cool if you could see 24FPS with
> 200m visiblity, but for now that ain't happening. AW Techs, don't increase
> Visiblity until you make a 3d engine that has NO lose of speed and is writen
> in ASM. Or until better computers come out.

Aug 30, 2001, 4:50pm

Transparency is BETTER in 3.2?? Transparency is SHIT in 3.2. Hell, some overlapping polys don't even show at ALL now; at least before they fragmented...but I still
have yet to play with the "opacityfix" RWX command...

[View Quote] > (I'm on beta)
> My computer is 3 years old, and hasn't been upgraded any. While 200 isn't
> fast (about 3-4 frames a second) it is almost comparable to 60m vis in 2.2.
> It is great for screenshots, and when you are trying to find objects you
> mass duplicated on accident.. heh. It isn't a worthless feature at all. And
> the transparency is better then before, it just seems certain objects are
> having problems, this is not the end of the world tho.
>
[View Quote]

Aug 30, 2001, 4:53pm

Uh, my world still suffers from a LOT of transparency fragmentation and I AM a good modeler that can work around it most of the time. However, since I haven't tried the "opacityfix" RWX command yet I can't pass complete judgement on the problem still; but without that command my stuff in 3.2 definitely looks worse than in 3.1. One thing I DID notice that was better was my spotlights, but that's it.

[View Quote] > The transparency problem you're obsessing over is almost moot, the only world that I've seen that will truly suffer from the
> transparency problem its good 'ol AWTeen, center of most of AW's idiot user base (The others all have dedicated, good modelers that
> can work around it) and even then, only their vegetation.

> Also, why in the hell are you using the beta and not posting to beta??? You're not even supposed to have it are you *grins at idiot*
[View Quote]

Aug 30, 2001, 4:58pm

[View Quote] Remember your usual phrase? PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!


<snip>

Aug 30, 2001, 5:11pm

aw 3.2 is crap there are no new commands no new
bot features its all "under the hood" and it
doesnt work well at all
i think this REALLY should have been a public beta
because there is NO WAY a few people are gonna
find all the bugs in it... just being in it in
standalone i found 10-15 bugs in it... IT IS A
PIECE OF JUNK!

PS: skyboxes and it telling how many objects it
has to donwload is cool. but i wouldnt be
surprised if when 3.2 comes out i still use 3.1 i
wouldnt be surprised if almost everyone else does
too

[View Quote]

Aug 30, 2001, 5:13pm

yeah i was surprised at how high it was even with
the sounds and detail and everything

[View Quote]

Aug 30, 2001, 5:36pm

normally you shouldn't be able to do that...

KAH

[View Quote]

Aug 30, 2001, 6:14pm

I'm really worried about 3.2 as well. Other than skyboxes most everything
seems to be a "downgrade". ENZO even sent me a screet shot of my world in
3.2... the brightness was AWFULL and any building behind a mask had huge
holes in it... terrible.

Aug 30, 2001, 6:25pm

Ok, Ok, not better, but different. For generic things like pp16, it seems
to be, but with anything complex it is wonky.

-Myrth

[View Quote]

Aug 30, 2001, 6:27pm

Gee, but I'm not even an "official" beta tester...<blink>

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Aug 30, 2001, 9:38pm

That's why the program is still in beta testing. :)

SW Chris

[View Quote]

Aug 30, 2001, 10:03pm

Roland says there is nothing he can do to fix it... so basicly my world will
have to say bye bye.

Aug 30, 2001, 10:33pm

roland says he cant do a lot of things
aw renders slow as hell go into a game like quake
which if built in aw would totally crash it and it
is twice as fast bet roland says he cant fix that
either

has awcom EVER fired anyone? it seems a lot of the
staff sit on their butts all day long whining how
hard things are and say they cant do it

[View Quote]

Aug 30, 2001, 10:39pm

The "opacityfix" command might help...but I have yet to try it. My electric meter masked front (behind glass) disappears in 3.2 too...:/

[View Quote] > Roland says there is nothing he can do to fix it... so basicly my world will
> have to say bye bye.

Aug 30, 2001, 10:51pm

Uhh... levels in Quake (at least the ones that come packaged with the game) are pre-optimized *extremely*. There's also the fact that ID designed their own engine and can tweak the way they call the 3D API. AW buys their engine from Criterion and therefor doesn't have as much control over the performance.

If you converted a Quake level into AW's "format(s)", it would likely run just as well, as most of the levels aren't extremely detailed -- what's the point if you're running around shooting each other?

-Agent1

[View Quote]

Aug 31, 2001, 12:17am

True, how true. AWCom, screw Criterion and rewrite the software from
scratch, with your own renderer. =) I'm making a huge demand, I bet. Not
to be taken lightly. But... this is just my opinion... the software itself
may be better off if the company itself could control and alter all its
features and development.


--
Chris
Eagle Scout, Philosopher, Peacemaker, and... Kung Fu Master?
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html

[View Quote]

Aug 31, 2001, 1:11am

You're lucky your world is built OUT of masks. About 60-70 of the "mass" of
my world are just big masks in front of other big masks.. all with various
transparencies.

Aug 31, 2001, 1:38am

Ugh what a waste...
Your world is amazing. :-\
--
- Syntax -
www.swcity.net

[View Quote]

Aug 31, 2001, 5:08am

Roland thinks so too... that's why he came in and spent about 30 min with me
working things out. We've worked it down to only 1 problem, my light
coronas. I can solve this by "cutting up" my single object super low poly
buildings in smaller polys. This will also give me the chance to have an
excuse to go back and make some of my buildings even better, and maybe make
things less laggy. I also didn't notice any lighting problems like eep has,
guess I just lucked out there.

And all this trouble for skyboxes and non-d3d hardware support.... would be
much less painfull if they added some more goodies like powerfull
object/movement scripting and more sound options (volume, fade or no fade,
radius, global background music).

But I guess this is important as it will let many more users enjoy aw with
hardware, and all the cheap cave-men computer owners without 3d cards to
use terrible horror kill you software mode.


[View Quote]

Aug 31, 2001, 7:30pm

Hmmm, that's quite hard, Criterion is a company, with a "guess" of mine, atleast 7-8
programmers, minimum, what do you expect from 1 ? But, maybe AW could try panardvision, I looked
over the API Docs and it looks cool, www.panardvision.com, take a look at screenshots, keep in
mind the shadows are real, not like Eep's technique, or a trick with trees and a floor ob (not
that its bad, but AW provides no other method currently).

--
Young Phalpha

[View Quote]
--
Chris
Eagle Scout, Philosopher, Peacemaker, and... Kung Fu Master?
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html

[View Quote]

Aug 31, 2001, 7:32pm

Well then wing, you'll be in good company. I'm surprised that you would
insult Gand by saying that he isn't a "dedicated" or "good" modeler.

Sorry about that - I heard about this message on the Core newsgroup and
couldn't resist making at least one post about this unsubstantiated comment.
Anyway, when 3.2 is released, I'll have to take a look at it - as far as I
know, there's only one set of trees that has these transparency problems -
what would be bad is if all of the transparent signs, textured objects such
as pp00.rwx and other transparent objects in alphaworld would need to be
changed.

[View Quote]

Aug 31, 2001, 7:47pm

shadows really are needed, it's annoying to have to make pseudo-shadows
using transparent objects, especially as they have a bad habit of
overlapping on any ground cover/whatever beneat them...

KAH

[View Quote]

Aug 31, 2001, 9:13pm

Shadows would either need super computers, or have worlds fully or semi
pre-rendered like any decent 3d game. That would be a nice feature. A
program that would take a world, then render on shadows, lighting, and
other such cpu intensive effects. Of course this would only be usefull for
normal sized worlds that are designed to look good, and not huge public
building worlds like alpha world.

1  2  |   Order by index