iSuck wrote:I also thought we could try tangent-space normal maps, UT does them already. It's where the modeler uses a high-poly mest (millions of polys) and turns it into a normal map for a low-poly model (5000 polys). The end result is amazing, and it doesn't even have to be done inside the actual program, I just thought I'd bring it up that it's a really effective technique for high quality models.

Normal maps does already exist in Nexuiz as far as I can remember. Not for models but for the environments.

ai wrote:

iSuck wrote:I also thought we could try tangent-space normal maps, UT does them already. It's where the modeler uses a high-poly mest (millions of polys) and turns it into a normal map for a low-poly model (5000 polys). The end result is amazing, and it doesn't even have to be done inside the actual program, I just thought I'd bring it up that it's a really effective technique for high quality models.

Normal maps does already exist in Nexuiz as far as I can remember. Not for models but for the environments.

At least possible, and proly added from some, for models afaik.

I was talking about tangent-space (see above) but anyway, yah, only a few models have norms, and maps only have bump.

-z-, Blender is a good program if you can use it, start with "blender: noob to pro" on wikibooks, and then talk to me, there's a lot you can teach yourself, and then there are things that you must simply be told. Learn how to subdivision-model, starting with a cube, it's very easy, I wish I would have know about it earlier.

Make a cube
subdiviide it twice
manipulate verts
subdivide again.

Very simple. Just takes practice

No, maps do not only have bumps. Maps use deluxemaping, and thats it afaik tangentspace normals. Aditionally 32bit normalmaps's alphachannel (if there) can be used as a source for offsetmapping.

iSuck wrote:words

Looking into it, I'll get back to you.

tZork wrote:No, maps do not only have bumps. Maps use deluxemaping, and thats it afaik tangentspace normals. Aditionally 32bit normalmaps's alphachannel (if there) can be used as a source for offsetmapping.

And Mac's OpenGL supports none of that... ANYWAY:
alright (hah, "iSuck wrote: words") I only know one model that has every available mapping, the hook's head. It has a norm, bump, glow, gloss, and basic texture, for just that tiny little model, and I think it's the only one.

I'm making an entirely new line of weapons, all model replacements. Just to throw in some variety, I'm making them COMPLETELY different from what we have now. I've almost finished my laser (it looks like a... butt? almond? >impact hammer<[aiming for that]). I'm going to experiment with tangent-space, but maybe not... I can't see it anyway . My hagar is going to be a metalstorm (400rps grenade-capable launch system) I'll have the loose wires hanging out of the back and everything. The crylink looks like a satelite dish with electricity coming out of it (How do I animate that?) But I'm thinking of making something more like the Aperture-Science-Handheld-Portal-Device.

Also, I was thinking, could someone please script a better decal system? It looks really amature when it spawns a new plane when I hit a wall, and it can't be that hard (please tell me it's not that hard). Also, once that's figured out, hows about a normal/bump-decal system? (Bioshock pulls that off nicely, I saw it at my friend's house.)

FEAR has an awesome decal implementation. If you hit a wall with a rocket or 'nade, it makes a decal crater with a normal map, so it looks very realistic (without actually deforming the map, like dx10 can, apparently).

That's exactly what most games now do, Bioshock for sure (I've seen it) effect-nerds can spend hours gawking at the graphics every time you hit the wall with a wrench.

Ivan wrote:Nexuiz has a lot of special effects, but nobody uses them because it is too taxing on most people's computer. I think that 2.4 should focus on optimizing the code so that people won't be afraid of turning on all of the effects.

There is no point in turning on special effects because all the maps still look like they were made out of crates. The svn is a DEFINITE IMPROVEMENT IN EVERYTHING but nex still looks like an open game (lame).
I think the problem is low expectations.

ihsan wrote:

Ivan wrote:Nexuiz has a lot of special effects, but nobody uses them because it is too taxing on most people's computer. I think that 2.4 should focus on optimizing the code so that people won't be afraid of turning on all of the effects.

There is no point in turning on special effects because all the maps still look like they were made out of crates. The svn is a DEFINITE IMPROVEMENT IN EVERYTHING but nex still looks like an open game (lame).
I think the problem is low expectations.

I agree with you- however, there is a potential for improvement. Especially now that Player models are easier to create, and terrain can be modeled out of Radiant.

I seem to recall in an older thread someone saying that we were just skipping to 2.5!

Info Page wrote: Nexuiz will not require a high end system. Video cards such as a Geforce2 will be able to run Nexuiz, while highend video cards will be able to take advantage of some features such as realtime lighting and bumpmapping.

Nexuiz is not intended to be an audiovisual marvel.

Info Page wrote: The purpose of the game is to bring deathmatch back to the basics, with perfect weapon balancing and fast paced action, keeping itself away from the current trend of realistic shooters.

Nexuiz is intended to recreate Quake-like deathmatch, emphasizing playability.

Info Page wrote: The game's content and source are GPL.

However, you are granted rights to freely modify the distribution.

I think nexuiz has great graphics!

http://rapidshare.com/files/94754812/nexuiz000021.jpg.html

Lol! I made this thread some months back, played War Rock as I thought Dev in this game was dead and now when I came back, VOILA! new site, and a kick-ass awesome video!

Good job guys! Can't wait for 2.4 to finally come out.

Sci-fi shooters FTW!!!