It's just about acknex and fps :P

A7 - Not out of the box if you want to use models - but with static meshes and / or blocks it works.
But at the moment (and since month) the A7 mesh Compiler is not really usable. I hope that this will change in future.

But we are combining normalmaps and static lightmaps in our actual project, so you should know it better.

At all:
It´s a really big hassle to get such nice visuals with A7. Even if you combine normalmapping and static shadowmaps, you´ll have to tweak a lot of values.
We´ve coded a small editor to solve this problem but it´s still a pain in the a**...

I also think it´s possible, but it´s not easy for an artist.
In fact, it´s quite "impossible", if you won´t go deep into HLSL.

This is possible with A7, and probably most other engines. I don't see any realtime shadows. I currently have envbumpmapping + static shadowmaps as an option for my levels in A7 so what I see there isn't a problem. A7's only problem is that a very small fraction of the users can import worlds like that because you need 3ds Max and the Max2GS and Max2Mdl exporters alongside Ventilators plugin, and you have to export all your models twice with different uvmaps for shadowing. This takes a bit of knowledge, never mind the talent and skill needed to develop the art in the first place. Hopefully the new FBX import will materialize more quickly in terms of functionality and ease of use and everyone will have the benefits of an easy scene import to WED. However, I do agree that A7 is slower than other engines in terms of similar scenes... Although I don't know if it's slower than Torque.

i wont make it dependent on 3ds max. any other package can be used to create content. its only a question of the users abilities here. a7 can show such, too

Any other package can create whatever 3ds Max can do, but it's not really that, it's the exporting your scene(80+ models ect.) into WED part that ultimately counts. As far as I know, Max is the only program that had this support for years due to the Malabar plugins. I think this is the great set back of A6-A7... but hopefully Conitec can make a the FBX importer real solid in the coming months.

"deep into HLSL" is a subjective exaggeration -- how far is deep? and with such a simple language, how deep do you have to go before it's a bad thing? but i don't want this to be a torque vs a7 thread either so i won't argue about it from an engine sense, and will just discuss the video.

now, what's in the video? nice art, yes. but there are NO dynamic shadows. the static shadows there are smooth but very low-res. it must be one of two ways: they compiled a static shadow map for it, or they use realtime shadow-mapping, but the latter is unlikely because there isn't anything dynamic about it.

what else is in it? normal-mapping. environment mapping, i guess. dynamic lights for the gun-fire, but like any well-made game they only put as much detail in as they need -- no dynamic shadows cast. people often want every light to cast shadows, but even most games on ps3/360 make as little use of that as possible for the sake of speed and putting resources into visuals that make a bigger impact.

now, not for the sake of argument but for the sake of learning: whats wrong with create_meshes and using shaders on level geometry? i know there have been some issues with tangent, but what besides that? i haven't done any block shaders myself, but the manual makes it seem very simple as to how to combine static shadow maps with shaders. and yes, i know static shadows in a7 atm don't look great. i'm asking from a technical point of view.

julz

A7 can do it? sure. but then even Notepad can do it with a lil help of gcc. yes it's exaggerated, but face it: if you have to alter value x, add feature y with dll z and spend 500 hours of coding power to get an industry-standard feature like usable real time shadow mapping into acknex, or even replace the renderer (like SPHERE for a6), you could almost as well start with notepad and gcc.

it's not a question if you could do it, it's a question of - how easily can i use it? how fast is it? what does it cost? if you are not a hobbyist, not playing around with a toolkit for fun but to realy finish a commercial game, and you are developing to a tight schedule, why would you make games based on an engine where you would have to code anything pretty yourself? how efficient would that be?

you could walk all the way to china, for sure, but if you can go there by plane, what would you decide for?

realtime shadow mapping has nothing to do with the topic of this thread -- that video.

download the shader workshop. in half an hour or so you'll be writing your own varieties of shadow mapping shaders.

julz

i do not _want_ to because i can choose from cheaper, more artist-friendly tools that bring it all along. out of the box. without coding. at incredible framerates.
coding should be for game play, game logic and customisation only. if you have to code your tools, eyecandy and even proper entity managers yourself, why should i buy it?

everyone is free to choose. that's market economy.

Supply the textures and 3D models and I'll try.



Regardless of how nice their demo looks (I agree on that), it's strikes me how fps suddenly don't really matter when it's about Torque and some kind of 'leaked' demo where basically nothing happens accept some simple animations. And yes, I know the two tech demos for GS are 'final', but then again I really don't have fps issues with either of the two demos. Both are well above 60fps all the time.



You do realize that actual games do not write themselves???