Author Topic: Soft shadows  (Read 87094 times)

i hate when developers do stuff like this. they show us a picture of multi-layered shading, then give us two toned shading instead. it's a blatant lie and that's that. the whole front post of the "S&S vs I&T" Main Post was a ruse. Show your shaders looking all good (not even how they look in the actual game) and present the maps in a poor fashion to try to sway the other side.wow way to post pink slopes, a bug that didn't even exist in the game until v20. I don't see how that's really "bad" considering it worked fine until you (devs) decided to change something.way to take a picture in the far corner of the map instead of showing the actual entire thing. i'm honestly not sure if this is some kind of bait/troll picture or not.

It's the same as if I did this:
"V20 has clearly better graphics and shadows and shaders look like stuff and should be removed. Look at this awesome new interior

now compare that to the old, outdated, ugly, 2001, shaders we have now
"

It's a blatant biased sample.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiGjxxytLy8
Those lightmaps look like ass still.  Working with interiors was near impossible at the scale that blockland tended to deal with.  There is no radiosity so everything just looks bland and you can't differentiate it.  It's really ugly.

2001 shaders?  Damn, I didn't know you had opengl 1.5 a few years before its release.  And cascaded shadow maps were really common practice in 2001, right?

Of course a work in progress is going to look different when it's released.  I'm not entirely sure why the lights look like they do in the first shots, maybe they used a different shading algorithm that didn't look as good (because shadows don't work in layers).  The high FPS could be explained by it being a DoF screenshot, it's not running in real time there.  Stop being a dumb manchild.  You're not exposing Blockland for what it really is, you're just looking like a brat.


This looks like garbage compared to this:

Why should the environment be the only thing that is shaded?  You're spending most of your time looking at the bricks.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 10:27:57 AM by Marcem »

Those lightmaps look like ass still.  Working with interiors was near impossible at the scale that blockland tended to deal with.  There is no radiosity so everything just looks bland and you can't differentiate it.  It's really ugly.
this is how max shaders look inside as well. i usually run shaders off or minimum inside, because at least then it's not one flat shade.
Of course a work in progress is going to look different when it's released.  I'm not entirely sure why the lights look like they do in the first shots, maybe they used a different shading algorithm that didn't look as good (because shadows don't work in layers). 
I think this picture does the original shaders more justice. The shadows blend and it isn't just a flat transition.
The high FPS could be explained by it being a DoF screenshot, it's not running in real time there. 
then why the hell are they posting DoF pictures. if it's not running real time what's the god-damn point? for a GRAPHICS update, I want to see what my game will look like when i actually play it, not after it's been passed through a bunch of filters to produce an image that looks better than the actual thing. if you're reading an article on the new graphics technology a developer is bringing for their engine/game or something, you wouldn't expect them to post pictures of some render, you'd expect them to show off what it can do in real time, because you'll be playing the god-damn game in real time. it's advertising a new REAL TIME graphical advancement, not a new rendering system to make your 3D scene render nicer.
Why should the environment be the only thing that is shaded?  You're spending most of your time looking at the bricks.
I do not think the environment should be the only thing shaded, so I do not know why you asked this question. nor do I think that the previous update's graphics look better (though i like shaders off in some situations). The whole post was against how they purposely displayed v20 graphics in a poor manner and displayed v21 graphics in a manner that showed them looking better than what they were when released.

shader update bad
no shader update good
no shader update bad
So is this gonna be a regular thing between you two? You did it in that other topic, too. Maybe next time you debate stuff related to the S/S update, one of you could kick off with a dramatic "So we meet again!"

So is this gonna be a regular thing between you two? You did it in that other topic, too. Maybe next time you debate stuff related to the S/S update, one of you could kick off with a dramatic "So we meet again!"
i do not think the update itself is bad, i think that it was worse than what they showed off, but i still think it looks better on slate than what we had on slate.  i initially posted to add on to someone else who was angered that the developers didn't release what they originally showed. i see nothing wrong with debate, but i will respond to marcem in PMs if he decides to continue trying to prove me wrong, since the official topic for discussing things like this was locked, and this topic is not really the right place, while the other topic was more suited.

i do not think the update itself is bad, i think that it was worse than what they showed off, but i still think it looks better on slate than what we had on slate.  i initially posted to add on to someone else who was angered that the developers didn't release what they originally showed. i see nothing wrong with debate, but i will respond to marcem in PMs if he decides to continue trying to prove me wrong, since the official topic for discussing things like this was locked, and this topic is not really the right place, while the other topic was more suited.
Yeah it was a massive oversimplification. Still, while this thread may not be the best place to debate the topic, I don't think the official topic being locked like all other development threads is indication that such discussion should be excluded from the forums. The official shadows and shaders announcement topic was hardly a place for debating the pros and cons of the update; kompressor shot down pretty much everything other than praise and fan art.

this is how max shaders look inside as well. i usually run shaders off or minimum inside, because at least then it's not one flat shade.I think this picture does the original shaders more justice. The shadows blend and it isn't just a flat transition.then why the hell are they posting DoF pictures. if it's not running real time what's the god-damn point? for a GRAPHICS update, I want to see what my game will look like when i actually play it, not after it's been passed through a bunch of filters to produce an image that looks better than the actual thing. if you're reading an article on the new graphics technology a developer is bringing for their engine/game or something, you wouldn't expect them to post pictures of some render, you'd expect them to show off what it can do in real time, because you'll be playing the god-damn game in real time. it's advertising a new REAL TIME graphical advancement, not a new rendering system to make your 3D scene render nicer.I do not think the environment should be the only thing shaded, so I do not know why you asked this question. nor do I think that the previous update's graphics look better (though i like shaders off in some situations). The whole post was against how they purposely displayed v20 graphics in a poor manner and displayed v21 graphics in a manner that showed them looking better than what they were when released.
Oh god not this 1,000 quote stuff again.

Yes it does do the same lightingthing, but at least when you're in the shade, everything is affected instead of nothing being affected but the environment.  Also you can't really fix it this time around, radiosity would be much too expensive to implement.

That second screenshot is the same thing we have now, it's just blurred more (which the current ones originally were, but that was too expensive so that was removed in favor of higher resolution shadowmaps).

Why is using DoF screenshots so bad?  It's a feature in the game, it's not really misleading.  Plus, it barely affects anything.  You're simply complaining because it made your FPS conspiracy theory plausible.

They really didn't do that.  They showed the bedroom as the player would when standing on the ground.  The textures are that low resolution and the bedroom was that low poly.  It looked bad.  Accept that.  And really, you thought that first screenshot of the shadowmaps looked better?  Go outside.  Shadows don't look like that.  They're way better now.

Now keep it to one quote, I'm sick of replying to the exponentially increasing number of arguments.

i do not think the update itself is bad, i think that it was worse than what they showed off, but i still think it looks better on slate than what we had on slate.  i initially posted to add on to someone else who was angered that the developers didn't release what they originally showed. i see nothing wrong with debate, but i will respond to marcem in PMs if he decides to continue trying to prove me wrong, since the official topic for discussing things like this was locked, and this topic is not really the right place, while the other topic was more suited.
Holy stuff why does no one realize that discussing things in a public space is what a loving forum is designed to do?!  Or are you just mad that I disagree with you?
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 05:05:11 PM by Marcem »

I was going to keep this to a PM because this is Port's topic about his shadow mod. I believe that discussion of things like this is good, but it's not good if it pops up and distracts from the original purpose of the topic, especially with a topic like this that isn't spam and is actually contributing to the game community. But since you insist to continue here, I shall begin.

Oh god not this 1,000 quote stuff again.
You did the same quote thing as me, except you didn't add in quotes just making it harder to pin what response was to what point. I'll respond to each point you try to make and refute it if I can, i'm not going to dumb down my argument because you want me to. If you don't want me to undermine what you say, don't say so much.

It's not just the DoF. It's the combination of DoF, blurred shadows, and multiple shadow levels that add up to being misleading. DoF is a feature of the game, but when i'm actually playing the game, I don't give a crap about DoF at all. It doesn't affect what I'm seeing when I play so why put it in the topic? Why even have the FPS counter there anyway? to show a false FPS reading? No, the FPS reading is not a hoax, that is most likely the actual FPS that it is running at. There would be no point is keeping the FPS counter up other than to show that it runs at a reasonable framerate.

I showed the shaders as they would be when standing in a corner. it looks just as bad and low poly. But of course it looks bad because you're taking a picture of a small section of what you're actually looking at. But if you go out and take a picture of the whole thing, it looks much better
The same thing applies to the bedroom. Its a biased sample. these are intentional pictures of the bad parts of interiors/terrain to make it seem like they look worse than they actually do as a whole (please note i am not saying they look good, i am saying the pictures portray them as worse). It's not a conspiracy, that's exactly what is done in those pictures, and his shader pictures aren't of a building corner, they're taken to show the shaders as a whole so you can judge them as a whole.

also note the FPS counter in the picture I took, which did not rise when taking the picture the 138ish FPS shown there is what I actually get in game. There was no random FPS spiking during the rendering. This isn't a god-damn conspiracy. I took THREE DAMN PICTURES to prove this to you. Here is a pic of blockland running real time taken with my CAMERA if that wasn't enough for you. There is no conspiracy.

here is a picture of a tree. notice how the less dense sections get a less dense shadow. this is what shadows look like "outside". isn't not just solid dark or brightly lit.

Holy stuff why does no one realize that discussing things in a public space is what a loving forum is designed to do?!  Or are you just mad that I disagree with you?
no stuff it's a place to discus this, but that doesn't mean it should be a stuff-fest all over the place. we have boards for a reason, to keep crap where it belongs. we have the drama board to keep that crap from popping up randomly. we have individual topics to keep discussion about THAT TOPIC there.
I recommend keeping this to a PM because this is not the place for this discussion. I am NOT "mad" that you disagree with me, I am trying to consider the purpose of this topic and the future direction of this topic. This topic should be about people discussing port's smooth shaders and for port to post news and updates to his modification. I suggest moving this to a PM if you'd like to continue talking to me about this.

I recommend keeping this to a PM because this is not the place for this discussion. I am NOT "mad" that you disagree with me, I am trying to consider the purpose of this topic and the future direction of this topic. This topic should be about people discussing port's smooth shaders and for port to post news and updates to his modification. I suggest moving this to a PM if you'd like to continue talking to me about this.
This. And also, what's so hard about agreeing to disagree? There are definitely things that could have been done better with the S&S update, but it's not all bad. Some people are going to like it, some won't- and understandably so. If I could have it my way, I'd just leave it at that.

Although after going over the argument, Heed makes some pretty good points
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 09:34:26 PM by Mysteroo »

wow way to post pink slopes, a bug that didn't even exist in the game until v20. I don't see how that's really "bad" considering it worked fine until you (devs) decided to change something.



"DYNAMIC PARTICLES vs SHADOWS AND SHADERS v22"

but we already have both

what we need are soft particles

bump because help

I've read through all 21 pages on this thread in search of the method for downloading this.  I found it, and saw that I needed to create a .glsl file.  I couldn't do this by default on my computer, so I looked up how to online and saw that it would require the Apple devel software.  Am I wrong in saying this, or is there another way of creating the file?