The only thing that bugs me is people who haven't made games post "well the engine's totally capable of this and this" when in reality they haven't tried to do any kind of frame rate tests that involve actual gameplay.
Yes, I'm definitely guilty of that one. I'll do some next week after my exams, just don't expect nice screenshots because I'm not about to make decent assets for the sake of a stress test, but thankfully it's things like the poly-count and texture resolutions that count, and they'll be there. Then I'll write some shaders for it, which WILL be good quality but take me longer (because there's no such thing as a "place-holder" shader -- we obviously want to see SSAO
like that and shadows
like those).
For one thing: it says a lot about that guy's expectations when he began raving about how it should kill other engines when he only had one fortress and the terrain.
That's why I posted the one that I did in my last post, he didn't just run one fortress, he ran multiple ones. He had over 1,002,000 polys in fortresses alone (which is only around 8-9 fortresses, but it's more polys than most engines can handle). You also forget that he has the desert scene with multiple buildings and trees, which is in the same map.
True, but those later on are in the comments. He appeared to post the blog under the impression that the first test was ground-breaking.
In the A7 manual there's a general material defined for particles, which has "future use" written next to it. I'm going to go hound jcl for that feature so I can write soft-particles -- until we get that, I'll try write soft-sprites to prove I can do it
Jibb
EDIT: And yes, I know I'm guilty in
this post of making a post that does not relate to Torque 3D at all.
EDIT2:
We think lot more in tersm of easy to use features and workflow:
Just click on object properties to bring shadow mapping ;
just choose shaders on a list , just choose textures directly in object properties etc ... etc ...
That's the difference between artists bringing scenes and seeing problems, and programmers saying they can code all missing features and make A7 as powerfull as Unreal Engine 3
!
I don't think that's a great argument. I, as a programmer, don't prefer A7 because I get to program
missing features. I prefer it because it's an environment in which I can program innovative features without touching or looking at engine source code. By innovative, I again refer to my example of me fiddling around with SSAO before I'd even heard of it. There are other avenues (more shader stuff, but also other areas such as physics) that I can write stuff as I imagine it, or write it very soon after someone else invents it and opens it to the public, instead of waiting around for the engine developer to implement it or diving into source code.
Why haven't I released anything innovative into the 3DGS community? Quite frankly I haven't touched A7 in more than a year because of other commitments/priorities/issues. And honestly it's also because I'm lazy
