|
|
Sample image #1
About Truespace Archives
These pages are a copy of the official truespace forums prior to their removal somewhere around 2011.
They are retained here for archive purposes only.
Sample image #1 // Work in Progress
Post by Emma // Apr 18, 2006, 4:02am
|
Emma
Total Posts: 344
|
There was complaints by Beta team member that I was using my mother language. Before otheres get insulted too I rather prefere deleting my posting.
Sorry for that, I beg you pardon.
Image #1 replaced Sept. 2009 for anchestrial research: Forbestown Oliphant 1859 |
Post by splinters // Apr 18, 2006, 4:31am
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
Don't use player much but I set my player AA setting to level 3. However, the resulting rendered image did not have AA applied to it. Is this what you are experiencing too? If so, I have put it to developers....:confused: |
Post by TomG // Apr 18, 2006, 4:47am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Not tested how AA setting affects the rendered image saved from Player, but here is one possibility - use the render from Player feature to save to a large image format, and then resize in an art package. This is, after all, what anti-aliasing does (renders a large image then scales it down). So should all else fail, or you need to get a result in a hurry, that would be an option.
Another option is using the Glow settings, which smooths out the look of a scene a lot (and need not swamp the scene with glow or bloom).
HTH!
Tom |
Post by xmanflash // Apr 18, 2006, 5:59am
|
xmanflash
Total Posts: 335
|
Not tested how AA setting affects the rendered image saved from Player, but here is one possibility - use the render from Player feature to save to a large image format, and then resize in an art package. This is, after all, what anti-aliasing does (renders a large image then scales it down). So should all else fail, or you need to get a result in a hurry, that would be an option.
Another option is using the Glow settings, which smooths out the look of a scene a lot (and need not swamp the scene with glow or bloom).
HTH!
Tom
I would assume the AA depends on the graphics card doesnt it? - If its using the hardware accelaration then you may need to set the graphic driver to allow the App to set its own AA, or maybe this is not how it works.. but I cant try it - my card is not DX9 compatible - I just render a lot! |
Post by TomG // Apr 18, 2006, 6:33am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Supersampling may well help too - this tends to slow down a real-time view if you are working, but may be good for a final grab. The Glow is very much worth trying.
Here's a link to my real-time grab from the fine bucket excavator model by Gene Gunderson (thanks Gene for making that available to everyone!):
http://www.caligari.com/store/special/images/rt_GeneGunderson_01.jpg
I think I just has AA set to Level 2, and no Supersampling, but I did use Glow. I think it worked out pretty good, a lot of detail on there, and if I look close I can see some aliasing on some edges, but nothing too drastic (given that the render took 0.3 seconds or whatever to produce!).
HTH!
Tom |
Post by TomG // Apr 18, 2006, 5:25pm
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Hi Emma,
I've often found differences in vertical and horizontal AA (perhaps due to things being generated in horizontal lines? Impossible to anti-alias with a pixel beneath it, since it hasn't been rendered yet?).
My solution with offline renderers is to use large image sizes and downsample, as then the sampling can take pixels above, below, to the sides etc and get a better result.
The size restriction will most likely be video card related. Bear in mind that any video card will have a maximum resolution it can produce, and that resolution will be the largest resolution the real-time renderer can save to. So if your card can go up to 1280x1024, then I would guess the largest image size you can render to from real-time will be 1280x1024 (just a figure, I don't mean that applies to your card).
Also each card will have a limit as to how much AA it can do for a a given resolution. It is quite likely that at max resolution, it can't do any anti-aliasing (since anti-aliasing requires generating a larger image and downsampling, and it can't generate a larger image).
So I would guess that enabling supersampling etc may well affect the max size that can be rendered.
Do also note that video card memory may play a role. I certainly think these factors are more likely what you are experiencing rather than an actual lack of HD space.
Maybe a developer can comment, these are just my thoughts on how I think it works.
Thanks!
Tom |
Post by noko // Apr 18, 2006, 6:05pm
|
noko
Total Posts: 684
|
I am seeing AA in rendered images from player. First image is without AA second is with. On a Nvidia 6800GT. What card are you using? Drivers? |
Post by noko // Apr 18, 2006, 6:47pm
|
noko
Total Posts: 684
|
This is rendering at higher resolution (rendered size is double, basically 4x AA added to the video card AA), AA and downsizing in PaintShopProX plus a little more bloom then previous. To me this looks the best. |
Post by TomG // Apr 19, 2006, 1:16pm
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Unfortunately the FX5 series does not fully support Pixel Shader 2 and Direct9.0c (do a search on "FX5" to uncover threads on the subject). Basically it runs the support for Pixel Shader2.0 and such in software, as far as I know, rather than hardware, and as such does not offer all the features that the Player is capable of. eg Half Life 2 will treat an FX5 series as a DirectX 8 card as if the game tries to run with DirectX9 functionality, the result is very slow.
This may be behind what is happening with the card, as it may be more limited in what it can do with image sizes and anti-aliasing effects.
HTH!
Tom |
Post by TomG // Apr 21, 2006, 1:39am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Nothing wrong with AGP, it's what I have! The NVIDIA 6 series of cards work just fine, eg 6600 and 6800, and are very affordable, and can still easily be found in AGP versions. ATI also has cards in the same price range that work just fine in AGP too.
So only upgrade the board if you want to future proof right away - plus depends on how high level a graphics card you are purchasing (I think initial PCI-E cards - ie the more affordable ones - did not offer any great speed benefit, if any, over AGP; higher end stuff and newer stuff will take more advantage over the PCI-E; someone can correct me if I am wrong here though)
HTH!
Tom |
Post by Alien // Apr 21, 2006, 2:31am
|
Alien
Total Posts: 1231
|
Nothing wrong with AGP, it's what I have! The NVIDIA 6 series of cards work just fine, eg 6600 and 6800, and are very affordable, and can still easily be found in AGP versions. ATI also has cards in the same price range that work just fine in AGP too.
Off the top of my head X700, X8xx, & X1600 models would be suitable for consideration [AFAIK X1600 is the only X1xxx series available for AGP]. Considering that apparently the difference between DirectX9.0 & 9.0c isn't as significant as I once thought, & if you're mainly purchasing the card for tS, I'd lean toward recommending 1 of the X700 or X8xx series models, as I think they might give you more power for your money than the X1600 [not 100% sure on this unfortunately]. Having said that, the "AVIVO" technology on the X1xxx series is supposed to offer some sort of improvement in image quality, but as I don't have 1 I can't verify this, maybe someone else here has 1?
So only upgrade the board if you want to future proof right away - plus depends on how high level a graphics card you are purchasing (I think initial PCI-E cards - ie the more affordable ones - did not offer any great speed benefit, if any, over AGP; higher end stuff and newer stuff will take more advantage over the PCI-E; someone can correct me if I am wrong here though)
Last thing I heard there weren't even any apps that could use all of AGP 8x's bandwidth, nevermind PCI-E x16, though I must confess the article I'm thinking of is a bit dated now [last year I think].
Hmm... actually, now that I think of it, some reviews of a certain motherboard that offers the full 16 "lanes" to each of its 2 PCI-E slots mentioned that it gave better performance with an SLI [2 NVIDIA cards used together] setup, than other SLI boards which only had 20 lanes total [they dropped down to x8 on each slot if 2 x16 cards were put in], so... <shrug> :confused: |
Post by Cayenne // Apr 21, 2006, 2:33am
|
Cayenne
Total Posts: 144
|
the image of the women ?
this is a player texture you have used?
I would guess here that in the texture you have placed one image in the diffuse input and the other in the normal input or the whole texture has been placed in the Normal texture input and it is processing the image as though it is a Normal map with normals values, and not treating the texture as a regular image file.
I would be interested to look at the material if possible or even the scene .
thanks
Paul
I am also using agp and nvidia 6800gt ultra series and it does perform considerably better than the fx5600 card I use in the other machine, it is like night and day. :) |
Post by Cayenne // Apr 24, 2006, 9:55pm
|
Cayenne
Total Posts: 144
|
Hi, I have seen this before a long time back with the grid when there are several objects with transparencies overlapping in the player window, .
However I cannot repeat this on my machines here so I am wondering if it is hardware specific or just the way the objects have been put together.
Is it possible to send me the object or the scene to look at .?
The stretching effect is the way the uv has been affected by the sweep or modeling procedure, selective remapping of the object should give control over the way the texture is displayed for specific parts.
Thank you
Paul |
|
