Originally posted by DFrey:
If it were my graphics engine, I would definately query for the extensions string and disable dot3 bump mapping if the extension is not present. That would at least make things look closer to what is normal. I don’t think bumpmapping should ever be a requisite feature. It should always only be an option.
Yes, but it’s an early prototype. I’ll make it an option later on when I have some sort of design ready. I’m currently doing more of a research work.
Your engine looks great on my Voodoo5 5500AGP 
You set big resolution without asking.
My monitor supports only 640X480 so it corrupted my screen.
BTW it crashed - I use nVidia Riva 128.
P3 600 @ 672 (112mhz bus)
Elsa Gladiac 32mb (geforce2 gts)
84 fps at startup pos
looks great
[This message has been edited by coco (edited 01-11-2001).]
Hummus:
I must point out that I find your demo good looking, but I’m not sure if it is doing bump mapping correctly. For instance, look at the tallest of the two boxes, the bricks look like illuminated red from the right (bumps look redish), when there’s no red light in the right!
As always, I might be wrong…
Another comment: zbuffer now a days is free most of the time, so use it! it will make thigs a lot easier, and in fact it can speed up rasterization (reducing a bit the overdraw, specially when rendering from front to back).
Win 2k
PIII 667 256MB RAM
Matrox G400 16MB (bottom-end)
26fps
But it looks good.
[This message has been edited by SuperFly (edited 01-12-2001).]
Originally posted by RandyU:
You set big resolution without asking.
My monitor supports only 640X480 so it corrupted my screen.
BTW it crashed - I use nVidia Riva 128.
Well, citing myself “It should work on Radeon/GeForce1/GeForce2/MX etc. On ealier cards than that it wont run and not on V5 either because of the lack of DOT3 bumpmapping.”
I don’t know if I stated it clear enough, but the engine wasn’t supposed to be run on older cards than GF1. For some strange reason people with the oldest possible cards seams to wanna try it anyway …
The same thing happend on another forum … dont know why …
23 fps average
Kinda sluggish.
One box is white.
p2 400
ati rage fury 32 megs
256 megs of ram
DELL P3/256Mb Ram/GeForce256-32Mb
Windows NT 4.0
60 FPS
Nice!
heheh … I can walk through walls
I will test at home tonight …
GeForce2/SDR/32
Win98
[This message has been edited by pleopard (edited 01-12-2001).]
Originally posted by coco:
Hummus:
I must point out that I find your demo good looking, but I’m not sure if it is doing bump mapping correctly. For instance, look at the tallest of the two boxes, the bricks look like illuminated red from the right (bumps look redish), when there’s no red light in the right!
As always, I might be wrong…
Another comment: zbuffer now a days is free most of the time, so use it! it will make thigs a lot easier, and in fact it can speed up rasterization (reducing a bit the overdraw, specially when rendering from front to back).
I don’t see this red light from right you’re seeing. Could you plz send me a screensot to emiper-8@student.luth.se ?
Also, zbuffering is not “free”. With memory bandwidth becoming more and more a bottleneck removing all the z reads significantly improves performance. The only card that can provide close to free Zbuffering is Radeon with it’s HyperZ.
Originally posted by pleopard:
[b]DELL P3/256Mb Ram/GeForce256-32Mb
Windows NT 4.0
60 FPS
Nice!
heheh … I can walk through walls
I will test at home tonight …
GeForce2/SDR/32
Win98
[/b]
Yeah, there’s no collision detection.
Hummus:
I believe zbuffering can actually help bandwidth by rejecting pixels that have been already drawn nearer. The best case would be when rendering with polygons sorted from front to back, and using zbuffering, making the card draw each pixel only once. Dont take my word, take for example Quake3, it uses zbuffering and still it is one of (if not the) fastest and also good looking engines out there.
Zbuffer helps even more when doing more complex stuff, like bump mapping, where the cost of drawing a pixel is much higher than the cost of z testing it. Of course, all this is taken from my experience and educated guesses. Maybe an actual driver writer like Matt or Cass can put light on this.
PD:
I sent you some screen shots about the bump stuff.
Hi
P3 600,
Win 98,
V5 5500,
NNNNice But, The Font to display the FPS does not work, I have a V5 so there are the other probs too, I would guess at about 90-110 ish the font jumps to 3 sections.
The exe is named BSP tree is it running a bsp al, BSP can be used for many things, one is a very!!! fast collision system.
3DG
Gateway P3/700 256 Mb Ram GeForce/32Mb
78-99 FPS
PII 350
128 MB RAM
Win98
GeForce256 DDR
I got around 70-80 fps. The bump mapping is very nice looking, although I found a bug (possibly due to Winblows 98) that when I was strafing into a wall, I went through the wall and kept moving that way even though I wasn’t pressing any keys…
PS. No laughing at my outdated CPU 
Originally posted by coco:
Hummus:
I believe zbuffering can actually help bandwidth by rejecting pixels that have been already drawn nearer. The best case would be when rendering with polygons sorted from front to back, and using zbuffering, making the card draw each pixel only once. Dont take my word, take for example Quake3, it uses zbuffering and still it is one of (if not the) fastest and also good looking engines out there.
Zbuffer helps even more when doing more complex stuff, like bump mapping, where the cost of drawing a pixel is much higher than the cost of z testing it. Of course, all this is taken from my experience and educated guesses. Maybe an actual driver writer like Matt or Cass can put light on this.
PD:
I sent you some screen shots about the bump stuff.
Thx for sending me the screenshots!
For everyone that that doesn’t have at least a GeForce, the lighting looks a little weird because the bumpmap gets modulated into the basetexture instead of a DOT3 operation.
On to the Zbuffering. Well, the problem is that the pixel is textured before Z-tested.
Anyway, I’ll need zbuffering later on as I add dynamic objects. However, when rendering the BSP tree I will have depthtesting off, but with writes to the zbuffer to get the right depth value in there.
21 FPS
p3 600, 128MB, TNT2 M64 32MB
looks good but the blue lights look like someone has splashed a pot of florescent paint on the wall, sorry. Additionly I can walk through the walls an, Is there any collision detection. Walking through the walls creates strange effects; The walls a redrwn offset- Ihink this is becuase you aren’t clearing the screen before redrawing and so when ther is nothing to draw the previous frames still show.
Originally posted by 3DG:
[b]Hi
P3 600,
Win 98,
V5 5500,
NNNNice But, The Font to display the FPS does not work, I have a V5 so there are the other probs too, I would guess at about 90-110 ish the font jumps to 3 sections.
The exe is named BSP tree is it running a bsp al, BSP can be used for many things, one is a very!!! fast collision system.
3DG
[/b]
Yeah, I’ve already written a function to find the closest point at which a line from one point to another is intersecting a polygon. But I haven’t used it yet for the collision detection, only for the lightmap generation.
Originally posted by Tim Stirling:
[b]21 FPS
p3 600, 128MB, TNT2 M64 32MB
looks good but the blue lights look like someone has splashed a pot of florescent paint on the wall, sorry. Additionly I can walk through the walls an, Is there any collision detection. Walking through the walls creates strange effects; The walls a redrwn offset- Ihink this is becuase you aren’t clearing the screen before redrawing and so when ther is nothing to draw the previous frames still show.[/b]
No, there’s no collision detection. And your card doesn’t support bumpmapping, hence the wrong lighting.
Yeah, I’ve already written a function to find the closest point at which a line from one point to another is intersecting a polygon. But I haven’t used it yet for the collision detection, only for the lightmap generation.
Nice One Mate,
3DG