Very good that's what I thought.

Actually for moving objects I would propose something else. Usually you're talking about blood here. In that case you could take the vertex closest to the hit point, change a vertex color and use that to create more vertices in a geometry shader with fading vertex color. You can use that to blend between the default surface and some kind of blodd mask

Kind of off topic, but then again what isn't - May I ask what compiler you use for windows builds?

MSVC in its latest flavour.
We know that there are people who prefer GCC on Windows, but that isn't supported right now in favour of the more predominant Visual Studio crowd.

How much work would it be to port your engine to MinGW? Afaik MinGW can link MSVC-Libs as well.

Probably not much. It "should" just work, especially since for an early linux port approach most issues have been resolved already. So most of the work will be creating a build script for gcc
So it will probably come around the time we do a linux port, where we will use gcc anyway.

Also, its #ScreenshotSaturday and I implemented tangent generation for the decals:

Okay thanks for the information.

Nice screenshot, so we can have normalmapped decals?
Also some other thing: Is it possible to create "normalmap decals"? So placing a decal will only change the normalmap and no colors? Would be really cool for some damage effects and so on.

I could add a possibility to attach a decal to a specific mesh and have it copy the meshes texture coordinates or alternatively have it keep separate meshes for the different surfaces it is attached to with each having its own material, but its all kinda messy with forward rendering, so I decided not to implement it for now.

I have yet to understand why Visual Studio is so popular, I'm absolutely uncomfortable when using it. It feels bloated, the express version has limitations that I don't really understand (I mean, come on Microsoft, you COULD allow me to create a new project from an existing codebase) and the solution explorer or what they call it feels like an unnecessary abstraction layer to me. Code::Blocks on the other hand felt absolutely like home instantly when I started using it, and MinGW/GCC has yet to show me any disadvantages compared to MSVC, which, for reasons I don't quite get, started off by trying to compile every single header in its include folder when I tried to use it in Code::Blocks (admitted, it COULD have been a mistake on my side with the compiler flags, however it didn't work in MSVCs favour regarding my evaluation ). Also, GCC seems to adopt new C++ standards way early before MSVC from what I've heard, so I did actually expect you to use it as you're taking advantage of C++11 to quite some extent.
I do however understand, given the fact that MSVC is still the most popular compiler in software development, that you're concentrating on that.

@the_clown:
The thing is: Visual Studio is not only for C++, but for Software Development. In the bigger versions (Ultimate e.g.) you have a huge pile of refactorings, code analysis, debugging tools, sql server integration, web server integration. You have UI designers, UML->Code-Convertes, Collaboration toolsl, ...
GCC is just a compiler suite, Code::Blocks a lightweight IDE. Visual Studio is a heavyweight IDE. You don't really need any other tools except Visual Studio to realize a project in any size.

Also a personal preference: IntelliSense is just the best code completion...