I am not that up to speed on how the rendering engine works- so bear with me. I thought that BSP rendering relied on CSG gemetry (no concave blocks) Is this not so? Because the new GS will allow concave geometry, no?

If the new BSP does allow concave geometry, will models imported into WED from a 3D program be included in the solution?

A7 will have both a BSP and ABT renderer. ABT is called a "simple build" in the compiler, and it will allow for concave geometry. BSP will be moved to a Pro only feature which is baffling to me given 3DGS has been a BSP engine for most of its lifetime. If BSP is supposed to be "outdated" (which it isn't) then why the move to pro?

Ah well they have to move something to pro. In the past we had mirrors, but then with new release they give mirror to pro owners. Guess that's humor. I'm happy with ABT in Commercial otherwise I would have gone to work with other engine.

Quote:

---

If BSP is supposed to be "outdated" (which it isn't) then why the move to pro?

---

Im pretty sure the reason is that BSP is now seen as mostly irrelevant to most needs, and is kept mostly as a legacy option.

Bascially BSP is worthless for outdoor scenes, and most purposes, octree organization is fine for other types of levels as well.

The BSP and PVS method used in Quake was designed for pre-hardware accelerator computers. Hardware has changed some of the ways we handle rendering data.

I suppose there are still uses for BSP in some engines, but I think only in certain specific cases.

BSP is still alive and well in modern professional video games (Gears of War uses it). It isn't the best solution for all problems (i.e. outdoors) but when it is it's worth it.

I'm not sure exactly why JCL removed it from the other versions, but I guess the fact that many starting game developers go "Ewww...BSP?" has something to do with it.

I agree that BSP is not ideal for exteriors. However, as Doug stated it is still alive and well and used in a lot of games (GoW has sold over 3 million units). There are different flavors and hybrids, I'm sure, but it's not something that should be scoffed at or slapped around. Anyway, I think it is a bad move to make it Pro only, and perhaps, Comm and Pro would be a better compromise. I fail to believe that most users don't use BSP and are making their levels exclusively out of entities of various sorts.

I just think it's a bit unfair to the users (esp. long time users) given most of the code and helpful hints and tips on the forum are geared for BSP levels and not to mention the engine has been BSP based since A4. I'm not opposed to change and progression, however my objection is based solely on the fact that BSP has been around since the dawn of time and seems like the foundation of the entire engine when you get right down to it.

Surely, there is some other feature that could be sacraficed (keep multi-object physics pro since there is always Newton for non-pro users?? new light management? zfail stencils?). Given my limited test with the A6 beta, I have discovered that the ABT rendering is not faster on my interiors. I get a 5-10 fps drop. I get a steady 60 fps without visibility factored in on the same levels in A6. And, of course, I realize it's still a beta, and this may improve with time.

I realize I'm only one person, and this isn't going to change things, but it's something I think needs to be said. Others should chime in if they feel the same.

So does ABT include concave models imported into wed and entities into its solution?

What is exactly happening with ABT, I think I understand BSP.. Is it simply if it is not in the view cone, don't render it?

For information about BSP and ABT rendering, see:

http://manual.conitec.net/culling.htm

BSP is by far the best scene management system for hardware accelerated systems, which is why it's often used today by commercial high-end engines. Contrary to rumors, it's also good for outdoor levels when they contain buildings.

However, hardware today is so fast that you don't need a BSP renderer anymore for small or medium sized indoor levels. You can also render them with more primitive systems like ABT or even the old-fashioned Octree. For 90% of all Gamestudio games, the A6 BSP renderer is not faster than the A7 ABT renderer. That's why we moved BSP to the Pro Edition in exchange for physics.

There are also marketing reasons. Many newbies don't understand the limitations of a BSP renderer (like lengthy precalculation and convex geometry for the PVS process). Thus, we'll get rid of all those limits in the A7 lower editions. Someone who upgrades to Pro will likely understand the Pros and Cons of BSB vs. ABT, but we can not expect this from newcomers. From its very nature, BSP is a Pro feature.

Quote:

---

An Adaptive Binary Tree, or ABT in short, is the most effective way for a scene management without a precalculated tree. It works similar to an Octree, but uses various region sizes dependent on the geometry and entity distribution of the level. An ABT is calculated in real time, thus level compilation is a lot faster due to omission of the BSP/PVS process. Although less effective than a BSP tree, it can offer almost the same performance in outdoor levels. In combination with lite-C, the Acknex engine automatically uses an ABT tree for levels that don't contain a precalculated BSP tree.

---

Yeah I found this yesterday and read it before posting. I was hoping to get better info on ABT and octree rendering. I understand BSP and the precalculation, and that it is not that pertinent for outdoor levels.

How does ABT determine what to render and not render?

I did some searching on google - and didn't find very much.

The whole issue seems to be a no-brainer to me. If your game loses performance as it gets larger and more complicated, perhaps you will need to switch to pro and try the BSP to see if it helps. If not, use the cheaper method.

As far as rendering methods go I am happily ignorant, as long as my game runs good I have no need to know how the underlying renderer works. Thats probably why I bought an engine in the first place, because I have no interest in learning how to render things. Why should I reinvent the wheel?

Personally, I have tried this a7 pre-release on my level with the "build simple map" option and it out-performs the level built on bsp by 100 fps in windowed mode. Plus it compiles a lot faster. So I certainly wont complain.