I'd like an option to allow stencil shadows to be visible on either surfaces marked none or if it's possible on invisible blocks.

I'm experimenting with using realtime levels for my basic level structure (walkways, collision, etc), and dropping in more detailed 2D sprites in front of the appropriate collision areas but still have my dynamic shadows wrap around this area as it should. This will give me the freedom of a realtime environment, but it will also allow for me to integrate decoration areas for more detailed sections. Hmm, I wonder how the shadow would react to the sprite? Would the shadow be obscured or clipped since the sprite is ultimately in front of the hidden geometry?

A commercial game that is using this specific technique is A Vampyre Story. They're using a realtime engine and are breaking up their 2D backgrounds into layers. Each layer gets mapped onto a 3D plane (all planes are parallel to one another), and the realtime characters' shadows will contour to the backgrounds as expected. Although, I personally want to still display parts of the actual 3D level, I would like this feature to allow for interaction with these special 2D areas when appropriate.

http://www.amegames.com/vs/

The Wintermute Engine's stencil shadows allow for this, however it isn't capable of true realtime levels (only objects). The screen below is from an in development Wintermute game. The backgrounds are 2D, and the player is a 3D model. The appropriate hidden geometry is in place, so the shadow appears to interact with the 2D background.

I thought you already could cast shadows on transparent sprites?

This request is in regards to surfaces set to none or invisible blocks. I mentioned sprites because I don't know if the shadow would appear on top of the sprite and blend with it or if the sprite would cover up the shadow since it's in front of the hidden geometry the shadow is supposed to appear on.

These sprites would only appear in places where the player could walk behind them. The stove in the image above is a good example. As pictured above you can only walk in front of it, but if it were placed in such a way that the player could walk behind it, I'd place a sprite in front of the hidden geometry representing the stove.

Do you actually need sprites?
The style of fixed camerapositions allows high quality textures.

Another suggestion:
Use blocks with simple grey surfaces, make the sprites transparent, this way you get the mix of shadow, surface and sprite, too.

All in all, I would use the first way, simple and fast.
(Progress is very important for one's motivation! )

That transparent sprite technique sounds like it should get around that shadow clipping problem, although I guess you could see the player through it if it walked behind it. The problem with using all geometry is it interferes with establishing a style that is unique. The go-to feature for style these days seems like "shaders, shaders, shaders." I don't want any part of that, and it has been illustrated time and time again that they aren't needed to establish a style that is appealing even in this day and age. They have their place, but not in my work (at this point in time).

If you look at A Vampyre Story, it's all in realtime but the levels are all handpainted. It doesn't feature any actual geometry other than the hidden collision hull, parallel planes for the background layers, and the interactive entities. Most of the images on that site are from an old, 2D tech demo (there are a couple with the 3D Mona...do you think one can actually do this with a 3D only level? And, don't mention Okami. ), so it takes a little bit of using your imagination to wrap your noggin around what they're trying to do. If you've ever seen the old Disney short "The Old Mill," (YouTube it) that's what they're trying to do in regards to the layering. All it is is old school parallax scrolling, but it has that extra bit of DOF-like blurring when the camera zooms in or moves away from or towards the viewer.

This is the EXACT aesthetic I've been experimenting with for years. I have old WIP levels using it but lacking the DOF blurs. This effect is not apparent in any screens I've posted, but if you're familiar with your early Disney then you know what it is. The WIP Limbo game also uses it, although that's a different genre, plus none of what's in the trailer is realtime...it's all proof of concept and prerendered/preanimated: http://www.limbogame.org/

I don't want to use any DOF shaders, but I have a theory regarding animated sprites that contain blurry and non-blurry frames that activate depending on player position relative to the sprite's parent camera. It's similar to what is accomplished with this camera code only using individual frames in an animated sprite instead of a camera. I don't know if it's even possible to manipulate an animated sprite like what I'm wanting, but it's an idea I've had but never bothered attempting. It's easy to trigger the transition if the player crosses a certain coordinate, but basing it directly to position may be tricky and even unnecessary.

Anyway, to steer this back on topic....stencils on none surfaces and/or invisible blocks is my simple request, so I can better realize an aesthetic like this. I just want this title to look different than your average 3D game and/or game period. This has been another ranty novelette brought to you by Orange Brat Shenanigans™.

Quote:

---

This is the EXACT aesthetic I've been experimenting with for years.

---

One thing is, what an artist tried to achieve, the other thing is what he gets offered by his efforts and good luck!

From the screens of your level: You already achieved a unique style! Look at the feedbacks. I don't remember anybody saying this or that is missing!
Your style is already complete!

My opinion, based on my experiences with my own game project through the last years, you have to make compromises to get a chance to come near a completing of the game. And the appearance of your levels is already fantastic, or, in other words, its not a bad compromise to keep them as they are - and concentrate on transition of the story to gameplay.

(Watching your project with big sympathy as always! )

Sorry about the length of these posts....I'm articulate...I know it can be annoying....sorry...

You're right, but the problem with showcasing only WIP screens is you don't get the full picture (no pun intended..actually it was). The visuals I've discussed in this thread are what I've been wanting all along. What has been shown in screens is mainly my talent at achieving good to semi-good results with 3DGS implementation of lightmaps and some creative ways to USE old school blocks and BSP limitations to establish a visually appealing style. I know I could setup some fantastic stuff with per pixel lighting and projectors, but I don't want to fool around with worrying about compatibility with older machines (because a lot of my target still has them).

A lot of you probably think I hate shaders and change. I don't. I just have to worry about my target, and I have to find ways to do what I want without them. I think Matt's Sphere Engine is a great tool, and if you want standard shaders in your game then go spend the $40 and get it (this is an endorsement ). However, as much as I'd love to implement it, I can't given the genre I chose. I could be a jerk and REQUIRE that anyone who wants to play my game has to upgrade their equipment, but I'm old school, and I live by the mantra that it's the developer that serves the customer and not the other way around. I work with what my target has at this moment and won't play the jackass.

You mentioned compromise. I don't do that, so if this feature never sees the light of day, I'll have to abandon this particularly visual trick and rely solely on detailed blocks and/or models and proper skins/textures.

You also mentioned feedback. I don't get a lot of feedback. Most of my comments are from the same few users. I get A LOT of hits on my main game thread, but I get very few remarks, good or bad. This is somewhat disheartening at times, but I'm a big boy, so it doesn't get under my skin like it would if I were much younger or more "needy."

Regarding lightmaps....this implementation could be a lot better. I'm suggesting to beef them up to give them all the features and capabilities they're capable of that other programs have provided for years. Don't abandon them because AAA games still use them, and they still look better than the best per pixel light shader you can find. Let's be frank....we have a really crappy lightmapper when compared with other applications; thus our collective screams over the years to beef them up. I mean, can't we get a damn static spotlight finally? A real one? Not something I have to fake using invisible blocks? There are other wants, but those are found in any number of other request threads, including two or three of my own over the years. The pending release of A7 is the PERFECT opportunity to introduce a new lightmapper complete with ALL of the features and tweaks that it's capable of. Don't worry about performance (i.e. build times)....let US the user worry about that. But, for Satan's sake give us the luxury of a full featured lightmapper so those of us who prefer this can use 3DGS to make knockout lighting. As is, it's all right, but as you can find all over this forum, it could be much better.

Sorry, for questioning your request. I'd simply thought that it is better to work with the already given features than to wait for any of them.

But, in your case, the request is actually an easy one(means: you shouldn't have to wait to long for it.): to add a flag to none blocks and/or invisible blocks shouldn't be a problem.
And, it indeed adds an important adventure feature to GameStudio!

Quote:

---

I'd like an option to allow stencil shadows to be visible on either surfaces marked none or if it's possible on invisible blocks.

---

(I don't know what you were talking about shaders, I didn't say anything about them, and I, me, myself wasted the lot time of my project with them, and won't ever recommand to use them. [exept the ffp for environement mapping, and that one for multitexturing.] )

I wasn't being harsh towards you, Pappenheimer. I was just ranting and trying to explain (overexplain) myself for the general audience. It's funny, I said I never compromise, but if you look at my latest post in my game thread, I use the word and in fact compromised on something.

I brought up shaders and lightmapping on my own. I was just going off on a tangent. I got a bit cranky (but not at you) writing that las post.

Anyway, I agree that this at least sounds like it should be easy to implement, but I don't know one way or the other. I guess we'll know when and if it pops up on a future beta list.

@jcl:

Quote:

---

- Shadows on invisible models should be possible by using nontransparent models with an FFP effect that renders only into the z buffer, but nothing to the screen buffer. I haven't tried it, though.

---

That quote came from the panels behind the view thread here; however this post belongs in this thread since that's what it's in regards to.

I PM'd the head honcho of the Wintermute Engine on how he handles this in his engine. As I've stated before, WME will allow stencil shadows to render on the invisible collision hulls used for 2.5D games. Here's his response to my question:

Quote:

---

Hi Ryan,

the hidden geometry indeed needs to be rendered into the depth buffer, so that the shadow volume is properly mapped onto it. In Direct3D the following render states should do the trick:

Code:

---

m_Device->SetRenderState(D3DRS_ALPHABLENDENABLE, TRUE);
m_Device->SetRenderState(D3DRS_SRCBLEND,  D3DBLEND_ZERO);
m_Device->SetRenderState(D3DRS_DESTBLEND, D3DBLEND_ONE);

---

This unfortunately also means the hidden geometry must closely match the 2D image, otherwise the depth buffer will mask the 3D character (like on this screenshot: http://www.dead-code.org/blog/wp-content/shadow2.png).

JN

---

I'm all for features like these being a part of the engine as some sort of option from WED (or a flag in script), so we can all use it if we find the need for it. Yeah, it's a limited feature for a certain niche, but from reading your posts, it sounds like Conitec is trying its best to include some 2.5D tools for those of us who love this genre.

Anyway, if the information Mneumonic provided is of use (or gives you an idea of how to better implement this), I would like to request that stencil shadows be able to render onto invisible surfaces. One possible solution would be to invent a new flag (similar to None, Shaded, Flat, Smooth, etc) and any surface with this flag set would be a special kind of invisible (or none...whichever is preferable) and shadows would render on these special surfaces. I'm not sure what you'd want to call the flag, but it's an idea. Please consider it because it would make life a whole helluva lot easier for 2.5D game development when it came to dealing with stencil shadows and the collision hull. Thanks.

There's also a discussion regarding this here: http://www.coniserver.net/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=769499