In response to Cylindrical Billboarding
0
101 Feb 23, 2003 at 19:27

you have one axis, the vector from axis to eye, take a crossproduct and you get a “right” vector (or left), and normalize them, make them all perpendicular onto eachother, and voilà, your 3x3 matrices can get built up..

in case you know yet the vector math, next time just take a piece of paper and play:D

In response to Cylindrical Billboarding
0
101 Feb 23, 2003 at 16:28

would you please? that would be really nice.

:yes:

In response to what do you recommend?
0
101 Feb 23, 2003 at 16:20

I agree - there’s nothing faster than making your own format, granted that it’s clean and efficient. when I said “everything else is bloated”, I meant supporting [commercial] products that are old and bloated isn’t wise. not only does it make the package bigger, loading times are affected. making it an overall bad experience.

:yes:

In response to what do you recommend?
0
101 Feb 23, 2003 at 11:19

well, I’ve always thought that custom formats are better than anything else. It allows you to include ONLY what you need, and you don’t need to include anything you don’t need.

Also, you can get loading times down really low, because you can prepare the format for your program, so that it loads as fast as is possible.

In response to Cylindrical Billboarding
0
158 Feb 23, 2003 at 08:50

I’m thinking of posting a special tutorial on billboarding (spherical and cylindrical).

In response to what do you recommend?
0
158 Feb 23, 2003 at 07:36

Or you could make your own format and include in it exactly what you need for your game. That is how most games do it. Of course, then you will have to make a utility to convert between the modeler program (3dmax for example) and your own format.
But there is no problem with sticking to md2/md3 files or any other formats.

In response to what do you recommend?
0
101 Feb 23, 2003 at 03:19

Optimising everything to hell with asm is pretty stupid, but blatantly wasting space and speed is also stupid. Using the 3dmax format instead of say md3 is dumb, because the files are maybe 2x the size, the loader is 3x as complex, and you wouldnt lose anything if you used the md3 format instead.
Blatant inefficeincy is just as bad as ove optimisation and easly optimissation. i mean, you might as well go and use the ASE format instead, and all youll get is 5minute loading times…

In response to Game Theory
0
101 Feb 22, 2003 at 23:20

I fixed my problem. in one of the demos [can’t remember] the programmer used euler angles and I mistook them as vectors.

thanks for everybody’s support. I appreciate that a lot.
:yes:

In response to what do you recommend?
0
101 Feb 21, 2003 at 20:58

lol

In response to what do you recommend?
0
101 Feb 21, 2003 at 19:58

hopefully, this will be the post to end all posts [on this thread].

I carefully read this entire thread. and for your [davepermen] sake, I’d like to apologize. I stated that OpenGL is open source. THIS. IS. NOT TRUE. what I meant was that OpenGL’s API is open and you CAN implement your own GL (graphics library). and do it free of charge.
@davepermen

no, i don’t agree. opengl is not a source, so it cannot be open source. its an open spec. you can’t just call it open source because its open and something on pc.
and no, you are _NOT_ allowed to implement an own gl version on your own and call it opengl. you are NOT allowed to do this. you ARE allowed to USE opengl for free. this is the way it goes, at least it was the way a year ago when i read about it. dunno if that changed (but i think i would have seen those news).

I _never_ said you could make your own implementation of gl and call it OpenGL.
@davepermen

why people use the quake models all the time? just because they think its cool to do so. not because the formats are rather useful, but because you can copy paste and get a result. same is for .x meshes actually, so what?

that’s a little hard to understand. we don’t know what .x is. copy and paste… what do you mean?

why do people use quake models? cuz john carmack [and/or his team at Id software] create these filetypes. carmack and his team always produced clean, crisp code/formats and so I trust his creations. md2 served a great purpose but it was lacking - hence the birth of md3 and md4 formats. [from what i quickly found on the ‘net, md4 never took flight - integrated into md3, correct me if I’m wrong]. and because ‘everybody’ uses them, it wouldn’t hurt to use that popular type. games, CADs and whatever else type of application still using md2 will find itself quickly rejected. I mean exclusively using md2 only. even still, programs still supporting md2 files will be able to look back on their/others’ md2 files but if they ever made their own models, they’d export them to md3 or make it straight from md3. basically, the old will die, the young will survive if it’s robust, clean and precise. only the strong survives. everthing else is bloated.
@davepermen

and 500kb on a full cd is 1%. i don’t care about 1% efficiency in space, really not. if i copy that on harddrive, chance is big that in the actual chunks on the harddrive, it doesn’t mather, as smallest filesize on about all normal harddrives is 512kb anyways. and you don’t rewrite your code to get the last % out full in asm. be wise, and use logic.

you may not care - but the rest of us do. it’s that kind of attitude and practice that people do not tolerate. wasting resources in any form is bad and irresponsible.

if you had 10 CDs, that’s a whopping 5MB. if you had 100 CDs, that’s 50MB. do you know how much space that is? I don’t know if the smallest file on most normal HD are as big as half a MB. on a win32 box, i imagine the average file is a .ini and the smallest i’ve seen is barely 1k. but that’s not the point - the point is those files, no matter how small, are essential. not wasted bits/bytes.

the question to this post was best answered by apex on the 9th post of this thread. which api do we recommend? well, that depends on the target platform. you can see that some of us prefer OpenGL, as others prefer DirectX. the APIs today, comparatively behave the same way. in terms of deciding which to learn, you really must learn both if one is to succeed in this field.
all this is on the 9th post of this thread (by apex)

:yes:

(( keeping the original post so baldurk’s post will make sense :lol: ))

original post:

coming soon!

In response to what do you recommend?
0
101 Feb 21, 2003 at 16:29

donBerto. 2 things:
no, i don’t agree. opengl is not a source, so it cannot be open source. its an open spec. you can’t just call it open source because its open and something on pc.
and no, you are _NOT_ allowed to implement an own gl version on your own and call it opengl. you are NOT allowed to do this. you ARE allowed to USE opengl for free. this is the way it goes, at least it was the way a year ago when i read about it. dunno if that changed (but i think i would have seen those news).

about the rest: the max format is only to store, and then convert, and then to use. if you directly use a script, or save as .3ds and run a converter to the .x format, doesn’t mather. .x format is useful, and has some nice features. isn’t that bloated.

why people use the quake models all the time? just because they think its cool to do so. not because the formats are rather useful, but because you can copy paste and get a result. same is for .x meshes actually, so what?

and 500kb on a full cd is 1%. i don’t care about 1% efficiency in space, really not. if i copy that on harddrive, chance is big that in the actual chunks on the harddrive, it doesn’t mather, as smallest filesize on about all normal harddrives is 512kb anyways.

and you don’t rewrite your code to get the last % out full in asm. be wise, and use logic.

i do btw honor and support your opinions. its just, they are not the way its done in gamedev biz. simply no. its just another capitalistic biz, built up like any other capitalistic biz. dirty, evil, quick solutions. we can sell it? lets sell it. no mather if its good or not.

0
101 Feb 21, 2003 at 16:20

@CyraX

UT2003 - I havent played it dont have a GeForce here. :(
Carmack - did say that things were bad with DX. I agree. It was a huge coding effort to get DX started. DX 7 was the last of the long coding stories. Well DX8 makes things a lot better. I would say good work M$. However DX still remains one of the ‘old’ APIs. OGL is more of a C based API. It has more support (in terms of OSs) while graphix companies (card companies) love DX because it puts load on the coder and not on the card. OGL on the other hand would require the card to do more work compared to DX. However DX has been doing lotsa advanced work. OGL has been taking tooo long to incorporate the changes. OGL 1.4 itself took a lot of effort for card companies to accept. Besides DX is tightly coupled with the Windoze OS. So it performs better in most cases. If OGL 2.0 works well, OGL lives else I would say things are going to be tough for OGL for sometime. well, carmack said this till before dx8. then he changed opinion. read up the .plans of him.. dx is an ‘old’ api? gl is older. and well, so we could say windows XP is an old windows? because far far back, there was win3.0 (and even olders:D), and its (loosely) based on it? where do we get then? each new version is a revision, and you can’t compare any dx before version 8 with any version after and including 8. you can basically say, dx got a rebirth then. and the other stuff, about gl and dx, is simply untrue. most of the code is one-to-one mappable. dx is not more work for the programmer as gl is, same for drivers. gl has more features, useless for games and so not supported by gamers hardware. this is an issue for driver developers, but they can just let it fallback to software mode then if they want to. those apis are today so equal (coding style is different, and i would say dx is much more futuristic in coding style than gl, wich is only funcs and #defines.. really old style that is:D), they are so equal, bashing on one or the other is simply useless. same feature set, same power. its a mather of choise. in dx, you know that you get microsoft as support. this is great. in gl.. you get.. driver developers.. you get them in dx, too.. there is more help for professional developers on dx side (if you’re just a normal programmer. weenie and carmack get much support from everyone.. but they are exceptions).. In response to what do you recommend? 0 101 Feb 21, 2003 at 15:15 amen brother :yes: 0 101 Feb 21, 2003 at 13:38 UT2003 - I havent played it dont have a GeForce here. :( Carmack - did say that things were bad with DX. I agree. It was a huge coding effort to get DX started. DX 7 was the last of the long coding stories. Well DX8 makes things a lot better. I would say good work M$. However DX still remains one of the ‘old’ APIs. OGL is more of a C based API. It has more support (in terms of OSs) while graphix companies (card companies) love DX because it puts load on the coder and not on the card. OGL on the other hand would require the card to do more work compared to DX.
However DX has been doing lotsa advanced work. OGL has been taking tooo long to incorporate the changes. OGL 1.4 itself took a lot of effort for card companies to accept. Besides DX is tightly coupled with the Windoze OS. So it performs better in most cases.

If OGL 2.0 works well, OGL lives else I would say things are going to be tough for OGL for sometime.

0
101 Feb 21, 2003 at 06:57

@baldurk

one thing, UT2k3 has more than legacy support for OpenGL. It had a linux client out of the box, and that ran on opengl

I have just seen UT2003 & Unreal2 only on Windows platforms (2k & XP) and they don’t offer directly an option for OpenGL. As far as I know, they fall back to OpenGL rendering only if they fail to properly detect required DirectX features/version. Of course, for a Linux client there is no other option than OpenGL :-)

In response to what do you recommend?
0
101 Feb 21, 2003 at 05:12

Id just like to point out to all the people who are praising DX for having all these ‘“helper” libs that load 3DMAX meshes and stuff. This is useless in most cases, hardly any games use the 3DMAX format, why? because it is a bloated format which has features no game will ever need in its model format. Sure, the artists use max for modelling, but then a script comverts the max format to a proprietary internal format for the game, such as MD2 or MD3 for quake games.
Also, it is wrong to say that bloatedness doesnt matter for any1 unless your making a 64kb demo. That is the same kind of attitude some programmers say when rferring to efficience, “who cares if i use bubble sort instead of quick sort, the processors nowadays are so fast and getting faster it doesnt matte”, oops, WRONG. Same with bloatedness, bloatedness eventually leads to more bugs, slower execution speeds, and general shitiness.
my 2c.

In response to what do you recommend?
0
101 Feb 21, 2003 at 00:16

QUOTE (donBerto @ Feb 19 2003, 03:54 PM)
you’re right - OpenGL has no singular body of code. that doesn not mean the OpenGL API cannot be open source. uhm, yes, exactly thats what it means..

good! :yes: does that mean you agree?
@davepermen

is my toaster open source? i mean, there is no real sourcecode around, but i could write a pc implementation in c controlling my toaster, this is not forbidden. so its an open source toaster.

is your toaster open source? i don’t know. i don’t care. you can make your own toaster open source and release it and that will be cool. the good thing is, if you wanted to, you can sell it to me - instead of you just giving it to me for free.
@davepermen

actually, its simple. its exactly defined what the open of opengl means in the opengl specs. namely the specs are open, its exactly defined and available to anyone, how opengl looks like, how it behaves. and you’re free to add stuff to it, and propose it as future gl feature, etc. and its free to use opengl.

:yes: you agree again? cool.
@davepermen

its not free to implement opengl, as far as i know. mesa3d hoped that he get e special gift from sgi, means the official “this is an opengl implementation” on his project, for free. but he never got. but actually, he can call it mesa 3d, a free opengl implementation.. so they don’t really bother about it.

that’s not entirely true. [please don’t shoot the messenger]. it IS free to implement OpenGL. the initiative was started so that there was a standard on how graphics would be supported via hardware – and that it would be free, so all people will take to the standard, instead of shy away from it because there are strings attached [like certain API i know of].
@”from sgi

SGI funding and engineering advice to open source developers at Precision Insight, who integrated GLX with XFree86 and with the Mesa project (an open source software implementation of the OpenGL API) in 1998 and 1999.

Brian Paul implemented mesa3d free of charge - the only exception was that he couldn’t call it mesaGL. not because of the license, but because of a business aspect called “reputational liability”. mesaGL would confuse people who used MesaGL with openGL and since it wasn’t directly supported by SGI. anyway, it’s a business thing that i don’t know enough about.

0
101 Feb 20, 2003 at 20:29

yes, he first played with dx3, hated it, then he tested dx6, hated it, and dx7 was nothing new for him, but dx8 was a surprise for him..

0
101 Feb 20, 2003 at 18:15

davepermen, don’t start that again. I think it’s been agreed that although the initial post war was fun (:D) it pissed a lot of people off. Anyway, it’s OK to have a rivalry if you are mature enough to battle with USEFUL posts. If you don’t crap-post, then it gives people an incentive to post useful things.

On re-reading that, it comes over as very I-am-better-than-you, but I promise that’s not what I mean. Anyway, I’m not ;).

0
101 Feb 20, 2003 at 18:11

From memory, I think carmacks comments were on DirectX 3 :).

0
101 Feb 20, 2003 at 16:37

yes, carmack officially stated he likes dx8 and 9 very much, and thinks about using it as well in the next projects.

but gl is great for a start, yes. its what i started with as well.

0
101 Feb 20, 2003 at 16:36

and guess what? that whole gave me again 3 posts, and i’m equal with baldurk again now:D

0
101 Feb 20, 2003 at 16:35

no, sure.. i completely agree to darklight as well:D

0
101 Feb 20, 2003 at 16:34

@apex

I completely agree with you DarkLight. Our job is not to compete with posts but to help each other. That’s a good point you raised up.

you said that, but you don’t mean it (-ice age)

you’re just behind us, thats why you “completely agree” :D

In response to what do you recommend?
0
101 Feb 20, 2003 at 16:27

@donBerto

you’re right - OpenGL has no singular body of code. that doesn not mean the OpenGL API cannot be open source.

uhm, yes, exactly thats what it means..

is my toaster open source? i mean, there is no real sourcecode around, but i could write a pc implementation in c controlling my toaster, this is not forbidden. so its an open source toaster.

actually, its simple. its exactly defined what the open of opengl means in the opengl specs. namely the specs are open, its exactly defined and available to anyone, how opengl looks like, how it behaves. and you’re free to add stuff to it, and propose it as future gl feature, etc. and its free to use opengl.

its not free to implement opengl, as far as i know. mesa3d hoped that he get e special gift from sgi, means the official “this is an opengl implementation” on his project, for free. but he never got. but actually, he can call it mesa 3d, a free opengl implementation.. so they don’t really bother about it. :D

Welcome to DevMaster, a community-driven game development website of posts and resources!

indie × 3
ios × 2
android × 2
native × 1
macos × 1
sound × 1
music × 1
networking × 1
testing × 1
multiplayer × 1
3d-engine × 1