While checking one more time Desert Biom concept, i was just wondering if we can really expect to have such a beautifull rendering in the final game : http://images.wikia.com/totalannihilati ... oncept.jpg I know we're in alpha, and so far (no offense) i feel like playing in legoland :lol:
Re: Can we expect this same beautifull rendering in final ga DIDNT YOU THOGHT OF THAT BEFOR PAYING 250 DOLLARS?! and yes probly maybe
Re: Can we expect this same beautifull rendering in final ga Far from confirmed as of this moment. We can assume that visual clarity and quality will increase, but we can not guarantee that it will look exactly like the picture you linked.
Re: Can we expect this same beautifull rendering in final ga I think you can get mostly same picture right now with a terrain mod plus DoF shader. Might be some lighting shaders editing will be required too. Only problem is we can't use generated maps currently.
Re: Can we expect this same beautifull rendering in final ga I'm sure I remember a quote from garat (I think) about the very expensive (ie not doable real-time) rendering used in the gameplay visualisation. I'm going to assume more or less baselessly that the same type of rendering was used in this biome concept art. So I'd guess the whole scene done in the engine won't look quite as pretty, but all those assets will still be there in more or less the same form. Maybe there will be little animation details as well; tiny dust devils, swirling breeze trails around the tips of the rock columns, etc.
Re: Can we expect this same beautifull rendering in final ga *flaps arms* BUMP MAPS. BUMP MAAAAAAAAPS! Haven't you guys noticed any difference between this picture and the real game? Literally the only difference is the effect Bumpmaps have. I assume there will be bumpmapping once Postprocessing is done, or maybe even Tessellation if Uber has the balls to implement it.
Re: Can we expect this same beautifull rendering in final ga As long as I see game in PA assets normal mapping is already here, but I can't really say if they used or not because I not professional 3D artist. Need edit something and check what's happend. Yeah this game seems like one where tesselation can be useful, it's should be possible to make procedural tesselated rocks and plateau slopes. But I have no idea how hard is it.
Re: Can we expect this same beautifull rendering in final ga I'm not sure if OpenGL supports tessellation, last time I checked Dx11 did it pretty well. The units don't have bumpmaps because they don't need them, but terrain does need it. Give me a moment to do a side-by-side comparison... You'll notice a big difference in both contrast and saturation, as well as an increase in shadow darkness, shadow sharpness and quality, texture quality and how noticeable the bumpmaps are.
Re: Can we expect this same beautifull rendering in final ga Visualizations are usually take lot of CPU/GPU power because they are rendered with 3D editing software which is designed for quality, not for rendering speed. One good thing about visual style Uber choose it's not high-poly and not realistic. I think it's 100% possible to meet picture quality of concept from OP. I even think it's fairly possible to do that right now with current engine state. So I just go and try it. :twisted:
Re: Can we expect this same beautifull rendering in final ga OpenGL and Direct3D use same hardware possibilities, usually OpenGL get functionality before it's come to D3D. You can check beautiful Unigine benchmarks which have OpenGL 4 and tesselation support: http://unigine.com/products/heaven/ http://unigine.com/products/valley/ Both work with OpenGL 4 and tesselation even on Windows XP. Anyway proper tesselation support require lot of work and if tesselation done badly it's will make overall picture quality worse. Tesselation is more useful feature for models with complex geometry, but PA actually lack of these objects, so it's not must have feature.
Re: Can we expect this same beautifull rendering in final ga Yup. Bump maps. It's amazing how pretty bump maps make things with very little rendering effort.
Re: Can we expect this same beautifull rendering in final ga I see the difference. Probably everything except bumpmaps can be done with modified shaders and and game content.
Re: Can we expect this same beautifull rendering in final ga I think that if its made as pretty as that rendering, computers will melt down. Uber will likely do a few optimization passes before potentially dialling up the pretty.
Re: Can we expect this same beautifull rendering in final ga I don't really see anything on concept what's can be really HW-resource-intensive. More objects and poly-count isn't something like that.
Re: Can we expect this same beautifull rendering in final ga In addition to bumpmaps and tweaked shaders, to achieve that look we'll need much larger terrain features or much smaller units.
Re: Can we expect this same beautifull rendering in final ga I'd have to say, from what I have seen of the alpha, I would like smaller units, but retaining the same movement speed, as this would lend large scale elements to the game as well as making it seem more height differential, but wouldn't (hopefully) impact gameplay and other elements too much. I would like to see a concept or something that shows different unit sizes, in relation to planet sizes as this might help.
Re: Can we expect this same beautifull rendering in final ga no you will not see that quality of rendering in the final game, because it is waaaay too high detail (too many rocks, bushes, shadows too good) and uber probably have better things to do than waste time on it
Re: Can we expect this same beautifull rendering in final ga No no no. Horrible idea. Don't just change unit size without changing their speed as this is a sure way to ruin any sort of believable immersion when everything speeds fast as a motor racer on nitro. Changing stuff like this willy nilly will eventually lead to the same size problems supcom has where scale was really wacky in the end.
Re: Can we expect this same beautifull rendering in final ga It shouldn't be hard to play both ways. For small units and big features play on a huge planet with the largest features possible, otherwise play on a normal sized planet with normal sized features.
Re: Can we expect this same beautifull rendering in final ga The content (textures, normal maps, models) in those two images are the exact same source. The difference is lighting and color correction. The original 3ds max render lighting is using final gather, which gets you bounced lighting and very high quality ambient occlusion. Color correction generally gets you more contrast and more saturated colors. A lot of games these days have some version of bounced lighting, often referred to as global illumination (or "GI"). Most get it for "free" (in game wise) with static lighting using baked in light maps and light probes. Others use a hand full of methods for real time approximation that all work reasonably well, but also usually make a ton of assumptions about the world generally being flat. Most of these techniques are particularly viable or useful for our game, so it's unlikely we'll get any bounced lighting into PA. Ambient occlusion however has a much better chance of showing up, probably as soon as we get a post process system in. Ambient occlusion is often done in two passes, one high quality pass done to any pre processed baked lighting information and a second real time one to help sit dynamic objects and characters into the world. Currently we bake some of that high quality AO in to the units and some CSG brush textures, but it doesn't get the interactions between brushes or from the units. To make up for that games have been using SSAO, or Screen Space Ambient Occlusion, to approximate what the real ambient occlusion would be in a fast and decent looking way. We'll likely be implementing something along those lines.
