To drop Clertion (spelling?) (Wishlist)

To drop Clertion (spelling?) // Wishlist

1  |  

s p a r k

Jun 2, 2001, 4:54am
They take way to damn long to update, get a better rendering engine, maybe
some of you folks (wing, andras) can think of one?

agent1

Jun 2, 2001, 11:46am
Criterion and Renderware? Roland said something like he couldn't think of a better one for AW or something... check the TechTalk logs that Mauz keeps.

-Agent1

[View Quote]

wing

Jun 2, 2001, 12:37pm
It's Criterion, not Clariton. Rendering company vs. eyedrops :P


Probably can't think of a better one for his skill level, but I can think of THOUSANDS of rendering engines that are better. Theres
an old old old OLD Macintosh game which was ported to PC in one version called Marathon 2. This rendering engine is a step above
AW's. Since Bungie went bye bye and got eaten by some big company or somthing, I'm sure you could get a lic for it for like 50
cents. Not even 3d accellerated, but damn purdy compared to AW in hi-res mode and gets decent framerates on a 10MHz moterola CPU
(Which is now used in cell phones). Only limitation is that it might be a fullscreen only deal, not sure cuz I've never actually
*played* the PC version, but it was on mac.

However, while equalling AW's current state, it leaves no room for future development, cuz, well, nobody is developing it anymore.

If AWCUM is as rich as they say they are, they should be able to afford the Quake 1 or 2 engine, they're overpaying for Renderware,
it's not delivering the performance, nor the software that they promised (Software renderer).

Hell, there are some AW users that are quite capable of developing AW's OWN rendering engine if they'd just be put on the payroll. H

Roland's skill level is what's holding us back, NOT that Renderware is the only suitable engine. Renderware is the only suitable
SIMPLE engine.
[View Quote]

s p a r k

Jun 3, 2001, 2:47am
I'm not a programer (yet!) But I tend to agree with you...
I can't get shit with frame-rate becuase it doesn't like my computer...
Dunno
~S p a r K
BzzzzT!
[View Quote]

sw comit

Jun 6, 2001, 4:08am
Sorry if I sound like a newbie here, but can .rwx objects work without
renderware?

--
SW Comit
swcomit at swcity.net
Mayor of SW City
http://www.swcity.net
President of Community Linkage Commission
http://comlinkage.tripod.com


[View Quote]

tony m

Jun 6, 2001, 11:21am
theoretically, it's possible. manually processing the ".RWX" file and
calling all the engine functions to render it shouldn't be too hard....

[View Quote]

kah

Jun 6, 2001, 1:52pm
still, it wouldn't look the same, and with all consequences changing
rendering engine could be fatal for the AWCI...

KAH

[View Quote]

andras

Jun 6, 2001, 1:58pm
But this is exactly what AW 3.1 does - interpreting the RWX files since Criterion dropped the support of it :(
Andras

[View Quote]

agent1

Jun 6, 2001, 2:30pm
How wouldn't it look the same? RWX files just define geometry and maybe texture mapping... Not much propreitary info in the files themselves...

-Agent1

[View Quote]

sw comit

Jun 6, 2001, 4:03pm
I was thinking more along the lines of the "architecture" of the object's
file itself. I mean another kinda' rendering engine would need to
understand the script, right?

--
SW Comit
swcomit at swcity.net
Mayor of SW City
http://www.swcity.net
President of Community Linkage Commission
http://comlinkage.tripod.com


[View Quote]

wing

Jun 6, 2001, 5:51pm
(N00b terms) Renderware 3.1 does not understand RWX. Roland had to physically write a parser for the RWX files and turn them into
somthing the renderer understood. All that is neccessary to switch to another rendering engine is to grab the RWX and cob
interpreters and change the functions of the RW3.1 engine to those of the new engine, which is a rather simple process.
[View Quote]

captain mad mike

Jun 30, 2001, 11:45am
Then find out what the folks at madonion.com used and use that! Man that 3d
stuff (3dmark 2000 and 2k1) looks kickin
[View Quote]

wing

Jul 1, 2001, 7:42pm
Mad Onion uses a proprietary engine, and any engine, including renderware could be made to look like that, albeit at the expense of
performance. The highly efficient 3dmark engine is still bogged down like hell by the stuff they put in there, and on purpose too.
If we were to use the 3dmark engine, we'd have potential for Roland to add support for more advanced hardware features, which he
probably wouldn't, and probably more efficient rendering. However, if we were to use the engine for the types of models and scenes
rendered by 3dmark, we can ALL kiss our framerates buh-bye unless we're running Geforce III's.
[View Quote]

captain mad mike

Jul 2, 2001, 2:08pm
woohooo hehehe lets start a petition, and since good comp parts are cheap
now its pretty easy to upgrade (get a duron, a new mobo, and a video card
for about $300 I think)
[View Quote]

captain mad mike

Jul 5, 2001, 12:17am
uhm.....its not that bad on rendering, the stuff from 3dmark 2000 ran quite
fast on my radeon
[View Quote]

1  |  
Awportals.com is a privately held community resource website dedicated to Active Worlds.
Copyright (c) Mark Randall 2006 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.
Awportals.com   ·   ProLibraries Live   ·   Twitter   ·   LinkedIn