Hi Guys,



We have a question for you all. We want to change the way the HIGH and HIGHEST shaders work, but it will mean a visual difference in future versions. In order to resolve this, we decided to leave the decision for the community to choose. The internal team feels we want an elegant shader system and want to proceed, but you may have a different opinion. Below is a comparison shot of the current LOWEST and HIGHEST visual from the sample level in the software. You will notice the HIGHEST (bottom one) is darker due to the detail-map multiplication effect. We want to adjust this effect and perhaps replace it with something else in the future.



We are suggesting removing the detail map multiplication effect and darkening the lush grass to compensate for the grass blending, which will produce a HIGHEST visual as can be seen in the last picture of this post.



I have set up a quick poll to find out what everyone thinks. Your choice will decide whether we proceed or not. Thanks for taking part, and sorry for the 'adverts' but we could not find a free poll site which did not use them



THE VOTE: http://vote.pollcode.com/18933616

I voted yes as long as this isn't just another way to increase the fps a little

I dont use lowest or medium settings as lets face it they look bad so as long as it is replaced with something faster and better im all for it

I would also vote that next time you use a Google drive form for your poll instead of that awful ad funded free poll site, Google forms are free and easy to use just check them out before you post your next poll. Sorry I just hate being hit with pop up ads



Edit: didn't see the sorry for the adds but yeah if you have a Google account then in drive go to create form and that create s a totally free poll that you can link to that places all the results into a spreadsheet.

I'm unsure tbh. Removing the detail map sounds like it is removing the detail.. Are you removing it entirely? Or replacing it?

Could you explain this better for us who don't know about 'shaders' and 'map multiplication effect'? Apart from 'lightning' the terrain what will it do?

I voted yes on the condition that the shader gets replaced by something that is more efficient (higher performance and FPS) and that looks a little brighter like the top screenshot. I prefer the level of detail in the lower screenshot, but I agree that it seems to be too dark and is someone unpleasant to look at.

I'm holding off voting till I have a clear idea of the change. No point saying yes and stipulating on here conditions imo. They will go by the vote, not each comment here. As soon as I can see what they mean, I will vote asap!

I provided a screen shot of what the change would look like (the second attachment).

@AuShadow : Send me a link and step by step to using Google - sounds like the way forward!

Well, from the screen shot, although the bottom image is darker, it looks better then the 3rd. The floor is too bright and shiny. It probably suits the other low levels better, but most feel the low levels look bad (personally I find them okay, but prefer the high and highest look obviously). Making the high level look worse is not a solution, although it does look radically different from the lower settings I agree. I'm all for performance gains, but am wary to say yes just for this reason. I can customize a lot of things in Reloaded, but terrains so far have defeated my efforts and always look very weird. I rely on the default terrains at the moment so want them to look as good as possible!

Could you still get a nice muddy look with the new system as in the first high res shot, if you changed the terrain texture?

If removing it lowers the gfx anymore, then DONT remove it, unless it gets added back an gfx will get upgraded in the future?

no it's too bright and shiny, dirt is dull

I say no

Not sure on this as I don't feel terrain is the penultimate feature of Reloaded, don't get me wrong, I love that it is in there but just don't feel it should be taking such a high priority at this time. I would rather see more attention going into indoor environment features such as lighting etc than this.



Of course if you all feel it is something that needs to be looked at now for future sake then sure, but I am unsure if I am voting for something that really needs done now or something which could be put aside and dealt with later.



If it is something needing done right now then I would have to say it really doesn't make a lot of difference to me as the terrain is secondary when it comes to level design for me. I don't expect the player to really notice it and if I wanted them to I would use an entity that looked the way I wanted it to in areas that mattered.



This of course is only a personal opinion and I am sure others think differently.

I agree with Rolfy to a point. The floor is a secondary concern to the main level, it is not likely to be the main focus of any scene, bar a distant landscape view that relies on the terrain for effect. However, it does make a big difference to the overall look of a scene, outdoors at least. Great models will only highlight a low quality floor. Also we need better performance, so this needs to be looked at. Considering Reloaded does not support indoor scenes yet, functionality there is not an immediate option.

I think we are certainly getting to the point where we are all looking to indoors though. Changing the light in a script is a bit abrupt and awful. I've not tried a more subtle approach yet, but even then I imagine it will still look "wrong". We need lighting to work inside as it would outside. If you have an enclosed room with no view outside it should be dark, if it has a skylight windows or any open part, light should shine through etc. I am hoping this will be possible as default, rather than having to rely on customizing scripts.

Anyway lighting is another issue in the main and has yet to be worked on. I see a few people agree the floor is way too bright and shiny! Either I'm right or I can't afford to go on hols where the floor looks like that! It could be, lol, not been on an actual holiday for 20+ years, I don't actually want to think about it Certainly never see it where I live

Personally I would again like to thank TGC at least for asking the community for their opinion again.



Clearly like every one else I have opinions.



There are numerous things that may be involved here - not in the back engine end I refer to but for the end user and or end game player which may be relevant and some things which are not so obvious or known to us.



We have shaders, we have general ambient light, we have placed lights and other things we have with which we can control the scene and the visual quality and feedback on our senses. These we have a certain level of control over to help balance what we have to suit the individuals concerned. What we have no control over to adjust further - that which is hard coded and or product/software or hardware managed we cant do anything much about. Then we have other things some may be able to do additionally to help like - painting on things and textures if users can make them successfully and apply them to their game - these may help offset with some benefit too. Its all complex stuff I guess altogether as theres more involved totally than that I guess.



We don't have things we don't have and there may be more that could help. For example we don't have I don't think a visual contrast control as such? Personally I refer to this as I personally like to be able to see some detail always in very dark areas or level if needed and wanted and at the other end of the scale like to have some detail too in very bright areas and not completely white, blinding and washed out. As game makers and with respect to TGC we both have our parts to play of course. The game makers must and can do things to help but it takes work and the software is never going to do everything of course in a magic fashion.



Again flexibility and options is the key. You wont and cant please everyone as seen here we all have different opinions, see things differently, have different hardware, monitors/devices and so on which impact visually too.



Whatever you do you cant please all - all of the time.



The point being - if you can provide more flexibility in the management to the end users and game players of adjusting visual quality and feedback on the senses to suit a game (and their preferences for it) then thats the best that can be done. The more control the end users have the better - if it provides a benefit and not the opposite. e.g. makes one thing better (for one or more person) at the expense of something which is removed or made worse for half of the others.



If we are specifically talking about a hard coded fixed change. Then in respect to the specific feature question :



Personally I generally agree with TGC about the differences in the visual look of the different Shader qualities. I personally am finding that the best visual fidelity and look is provided by the lower two shaders given that I intervene and adjust other settings to suit I can get the best overall result. That way I can get the best look for my levels. I don't have the same choice to do that with the higher level shaders as the range of control they are providing is not great enough on my own system which is not the best around here. I much prefer the quality the lower end shaders are returning on my machine at least which is all I can judge upon.



Remembering that even if I did use the higher shader settings throughout to gain the benefits they do provide my performance would prevent me from making a playable game. The performance would just not be fast enough - Yet as this moment in time.



From what I see the proposed new change would give the Higher Quality Shaders the same "Basic" visual quality as the lower (low/medium) shaders which would put the whole in balance and to me looks better anyway in general visual look as said - but would also allow those using the Higher Shaders presumably to still have the benefits they provide to boost quality still beyond anything the low end shaders provide for as now. Yes. I cant see any drawback as long as there arnt any. High End users will still have all the other controls they have now to affect the scene presumably but the base shader (default) scene management they would have will be better. All 4 shader range type users will have a similar base level of visual look and feel and this is what has been lost in the recent versions which overall at least using the lower shaders have the best scene management and visual look to date. "Apart that is for the Transition feature/function slider of which and for which I see no use or benefit at all". I am still trying to work out what that is included at all for and whats its purpose is supposed to be.



I can see some peoples concern and rightly so. No one wants something that removes any current benefit they are getting if they have one they see may be lost. From just a screen shot I cant say - but the new one looks fine to me so I take it there would be no hidden disadvantages and I disagree that saving some fps is not worth it unless you have to much performance.



If there's a benefit to both scene management and performance to boot why not have it. if not. Improved scene will go down nicely.



The current "Carpet" affect of the Terrain textures which has crept in - together with the Terrain Polygon "Outlines" in black/white colour which have again surfaced and can be clearly seen on terrains - should go and be fixed/removed. Its distracting and reduces the visual quality and professionalism of the scene and engine. I am presuming that the new shader will remove /fix those things as I understand it. Perhaps I am mistaken there.



The botttom line here is TGC are trying to improve the engine and make the engine the vision still. They are still asking for users feedback on thats great. Along with any benefits shown/spoken of they should as they are asking also point out to those with concern any drawbacks too so you can make valued judgments if you must vote.



Whatever I will run with what TGC are recommending unless theres good reason not too?. I don't want anyone to lose out and agree that though I at the moment am a low power user if you like I may buy a super computer so don't want any loss of benefit for High End users either notwithstanding the end game players who want High Quality results from us developers later on in the games you will make.



That will make the product better for all concerned. More users, more sales and more development and so on into the future. What we all want.



At the end of the day - no amount of eye candy or visual quality will make you and your end game players the best games if you and they don't have adequate performance and cant play your game or doing so is a pain.



You don't necessarily need High Quality to make the best Games though its welcome and helps sell them or get others to look and play them of course. Firstly you need Game maker and game making skills - an immerse, addictive, player enjoyable great game Idea executed well(that end users agree is so) with great Game play.



Having all that without adequate performance and fps for your end user players is still to no avail if they don't have that and cant enjoy playing your game.



I agree with the Shiny thing of course an it should be "manageable". i.e. Shiny or not as required again user control - not hard coded and fixed. If it has to be fixed then obviously a "Medium" level is always best as its nether too this or too that. Moderation if no other choice.



Personally I disagree with the outdoor thing though. If you are going to have outdoors then its the first thing to do and do it right first time. I understand the want and need to move on to other features - I want them to - right now myself but don't agree anything should be put aside until its done if it is going to need to be done. Later is a bad precedent. It wont get done later. Never does.



I also personally as with many don't see Reloaded as an internal game level, dungeon engine mainly for developing indoor level games at all where the terrain can only be seen through windows or from the top of a roof in the far distance. Personally The outdoor environment and "all of its features" are paramount to me and should be concluded to the highest possible level before moving on. That does not mean as TGC have said that other features cannot be either worked upon or included at various stages of development as they go. Whatever - cater for various users and game type needs and give all equal and treat all with loving care. Clearly its not wise to make a game engine really where you make the indoors bit first and add an "Open World Game Environment" later I presume but forgive me if that's incorrect.



TGC should stick to the plan and complete the outdoors first if commercial realities will allow or half way house will prevail. Half Baked everything is nothing. Do the best you can and you cant do better than that and no one can ask for more.



I would really love to have more of all and including more features - Yes for indoor areas or solely indoor games too so I could make a game with both environment types. I have to wait even though its not easy. Personally though I don't want to I can wait years if I have too - already waited many of those so makes little difference to me. I can't make a game if its not done and making a Pro Game Maker as everyone wants is a long job. I'm not to happy either about that buts its the way it is.



No one should really be even thinking about making a real game with Reloaded. Its in development and a long, long job and project yet. If you want a quality product that meets the future needs then unless you have more resources than TGC have currently perhaps then you just have to wait - a very long time.



The race and road is a long one and patience, staying power and a lot of stamina is needed or you will fall going over he hurdles and not win the race. I don't think TGC can go any faster given their circumstances which I know nothing of so just guessing.



Thanks again TGC and everyone involved for the latest build (making progress) and next one please with or without the new proposed Shader.

You make allot of valid points Uman and i always enjoy reading your posts they may take a while but i get there in the end

I also have an opinion and mines stands more or less on performance you can have the fastest computer in the world and it would make no difference to reloaded and i hate the idea every time we need a little more performance something gets tweaked to work that little bit lower to give us little fps.

For me performance should be number one priority in fact i think they should lock lee in a room and not let him out till reloaded can reach 60fps on max and a few thousand entity's on the map i know not everyone feels this way as they want everything but what is the use of anything if the engine runs like a sack of potatoes.

When performance is done well i say done it probably will never be done but when it reaches the point where he can run a level with lots of AI and entity's then other stuff will be able to get added without having to go back to performance over and over.

This is just my opinion on things as i know its a small team and a great team at that but it may be time to have a look at it im sure users would understand if say you were to skip a beta or two to come back with the new IDE and better performance i for one would be ok with this i cannot speak for others but perhaps if a proper poll where to be set up and let the community decide.

@Lee, sent you a pm about the forms

I don't have the knowledge to make an intelligent choice so I will have to remain neutral. Thanks Lee for giving Reloaded supporters the opportunity to choose.

LOL! Words can't describe how much I agree! Love his posts! I vote for performance for now, although I like the bottom picture the most (the detail-multi-whatever). The other two are a little too shiny and also look like plants with green spray paint underneath.

Could you please explain what I'm getting in exchange for downgrading the current high visuals.

The example you have given is too shiny and looks like plastic. If the new shader is to look like the example and I don't get any REAL benefit in performance then my vote is to leave things alone.

Can you tell me the advantage of making the change? Is this just a programming exercise for coding satisfaction or will there be future advantages for game making.

Everyone agrees that both High Quality and High Performance is needed for games and that this in levels of a pro nature where you have a lot of content for example - perhaps as well as in cases where less content is required.





You do have limitations somewhere though in any engine and currently no one knows where they will pan out eventually as its under development. Its early still in development though many users want to make a full game with it now. You are going to get problems then with all kinds of things. Its a WIP to be honest and much more to do.



A double edged sword. You cant fully test performance until everything. i.e. all features are included and full size games can be made with it and that's a long way off.



Not even what we have included is fully developed, Water and AI and for example which will yet place more strain on the engine. Then theres whats up and coming e.g. Con Kit and we don't know how that will impact though it may be a complex work and will impact somehow no doubt. Adding that and more is likely to be again a long, long job. Patience we must have.



Yes everything has to be added and everything will have to be updated and many things perhaps tweaked and or even removed or fully changed again - unfortunately as threats and impacts have to be accommodated= which at the moment are unknown.



You are correct to say that as others say more performance at High Settings "Will" be needed to accommodate modern game making. Of course no other indie engine will or can give you that now anywhere near this level of engine and its never been done so asking a lot. Much depends to on many other factors to maintain High Performance - skilled game makers and game making - not so much the domain of click together engines for those who cant get the best of of an engine. e.g. a single script error or bad entity .x file can cause serious slowdowns and engine erratic behaviours as well as the engine itself.



TGC I believe have done a great job to date considering the situation they found themself in at start of this.



To get the engine power and performance users look to there were and are not many options. A new engine (hard work) or hard work with the one being used, move to 64 bit and so on and update over time as and when anything can be added or can be updated.



TGC I believe are trying to make improvements. I would trust them to make them at this stage. If they ask the users and take their advice then thats fine not that such will be the correct decision necessarily. If you ask the majority you may not always get what is what you want or is best but you may have to live with it. To be honest its good TGC ask but if they don't know themselves what makes a good engine and what indies need to make and deploy a good game successfully by now they never will. In the final analysis they have to decide. There are a lot of user pledgers and many more in the years to come and not all are hardened game makers that attend these forums and boards and vote, far from it and they have to be pleased with their purchase too or its bad for the product and they may not vote but can and do complain and give bad publicity. Eventually the Games users make will show all how good the engine will become so we can judge for ourselves. The Showcase board of any engine and how many Real Games have been made is a good guide to how good any indie engine is.



The Terrain shaders are problematical in and of themselves. The "Shine" does need controlling and always has done. Mertal is Shiny, Dirt is not usually and so on. The engine ideally needs some management and control to end users of all kinds of Materials not ones that are hard coded. We don't have that yet. We cant for example make our own textures "and" materials so we can affect the "Shiny" and other material properties. We don't have a materials editor do we?? Thus we really on hard coded or anyone - a charitable shaders creation expert to hopefully to provide us with some more shadesr or shader options in future. No Materials management for the average user is available......



Anyone other than an expert for example who wants to add their own textures for use in painting the Terrain and alike suitable for their own game and perhaps later to apply to other objects like inside the Con Kit will have to rely on Default out of the Box shader defaults. If you like me make your own Terrain textures clearly the over "Shiny" Terrains effect is an issue. Making your own Terrain textures is not easy as there's no internal way to help or to affect the materials surfaces in reloaded in that area.



Add to this the fact that the same applies to all other things and you have little control. e.g. when it comes to any materials at all. Characters for example, weapons too. If you want to have control of your Game textures and materials you don't have it....



Thus in most cases everything looks the same as they use the same shaders. Characters all look the same - like plastic much as the terrain "Shiny" makes it look like plastic in that instance. As they saying goes - you can have any colour as long as its black! You can see this with Characters in Reloaded and the new ones that have been shown. Zombies, clowns, they all look the same - Shiny like plastic. Little difference between, skin, metal, cloth, wood and so on. You cannot really affect in editor your materials by creating your own as required. Again such is asking a lot - granted in this engine - another large undertaking if you wanted to include it. Weapons and other entities will have the same problem.



Whatever the Terrain Shader could do with being a little less Shiny agreed in the defaults. I guess if one looks to real life average on terrain that would give a good guide. Usually Terrains are not very Shiny unless its wet ground or mudflats or whatever in which rare case perhaps we would be asking for more Shiny!



Getting rid of the very High Shiny look would certainly help users to use default and make their on textures to better their games. To boot an easier way for users to actually make and or change, swop out terrain textures and also paint terrains with their own textures would be desirable as currently though I can do a reasonable job of this most average users would not be able to do it as its just to technical and difficult. No way for normal users to change, edit or add their own textures (non Shiny) easily.



TGC may make some improvements in these areas. Shiny where Shiny is required and vice versa.



Im worn out now and will leave it to others. All is little more than common sense and I need a rest.







.

I think the "what could be" picture is to shiny, I also think its a long way down the chain in priorities tbh, unless its gaining a lot of fps from redoing?. if not then I say no to this right now but will save my vote for the time being until we hear from lee on what this actually gives back. performance like tattiebojangle said is a must really, lowest is getting good returns on fps to start with but soon drops to near nothing on a medium sized but under filled map imo, this needs to change fast we are a good 7 months into dev mode now and performance is still much needed for me at least. so a no to the what could be picture possibly a yes to an over haul but not yet unless real gains in fps are made from it lee thanks for asking though

This change is not to get more performance, it's to get more consistency for artist expectations. Right now you are enjoying HIGH and HIGHEST terrain shaders which commit the crime of overlapping two textures over each other, and the artist has NO choice:

float2 texCoordDetail = IN.TexCoord/8.2f;
float4 texpartd1 = tex2D(DiffuseSampler,IN.TexCoord) * tex2D(DetailSampler,texCoordDetail) * texselectorcol1;
float4 texpartd2 = tex2D(DiffuseSampler3,IN.TexCoord) * tex2D(DetailSampler,texCoordDetail) * texselectorcol2;
float4 texpartd3 = tex2D(DiffuseSampler4,IN.TexCoord) * tex2D(DetailSampler,texCoordDetail) * texselectorcol3;
float4 texpartd4 = tex2D(DiffuseSampler5,IN.TexCoord) * tex2D(DetailSampler,texCoordDetail) * texselectorcol4;
float4 texpartd5 = tex2D(DiffuseSlopeSampler,IN.TexCoord) * tex2D(DetailSampler,texCoordDetail) * texselectorcol5;
float4 diffusemap = texpartd1+texpartd2+texpartd3+texpartd4+texpartd5;

I want to change it so that it's cleaner, like this:

float4 texpartd1 = tex2D(DiffuseSampler,IN.TexCoord) * texselectorcol1;
float4 texpartd2 = tex2D(DiffuseSampler3,IN.TexCoord) * texselectorcol2;
float4 texpartd3 = tex2D(DiffuseSampler4,IN.TexCoord) * texselectorcol3;
float4 texpartd4 = tex2D(DiffuseSampler5,IN.TexCoord) * texselectorcol4;
float4 texpartd5 = tex2D(DiffuseSlopeSampler,IN.TexCoord) * texselectorcol5;
float4 diffusemap = texpartd1+texpartd2+texpartd3+texpartd4+texpartd5;

In answer to the questions about the remedies to restore the visual you want, yes you can simply change the diffuse textures for darker, grittier or muddied up terrain floors, that is always an option for you.

This change is to help artists who want a VERY SPECIFIC RESULT, and does not want their terrain diffuse color messed about with by a detail map that wraps 8.2 times over the whole size of the terrain, resulting in pretty large splodges from even a single pixel within the detail map.

For the layman, it's like:

A = (B/500) / 2

Compared to:

A = ( (B/500) * (C/8.2) ) / 2

As you can see in the second equation, there is no way to get a pure value in A from B, as C will ALWAYS interfere with it. The good news is that I added the detailmap texture as optional, so artists can have their cake and eat it. I just don't rate the C/8.2 as the best way to enrich the terrain detail at the HIGH and HIGHEST settings, and what we decide today will HAVE TO BECOME the standard for YEARS to come!

I see so this is an artist thing, I just don't understand lol.. I will not vote 1 way or the other as I have no idea which is better for people like rolfy or piratemyke to work with lol. I assume those who do vote understand what your on about lee lol sadly for my feeble brain its way up there with rocket science

I have no idea what that all and the information presented has to do with the "Shiny" Appearance of the Textures on the Terrain if anything though I must admit and from Lee's response I seem to understand it has no bearing - nothing at all to do with it (and I may be wrong and probably am)so that would remain as a separate issue presumably? I may be able to as suggested adjust textures, not necessarily wholly to satisfaction, but many others may not and will have to accept any defaults - good or bad as to opinion, Shiny or not.



The maths don't help me much as either the resultant Shader and texture display is good or bad or somewhere in the middle.



I will deal with what we get somehow as is often the case whatever is done it may well not suit me and if it does then it wont suit someone else and you cant please everyone.

@Lee

In my previous post, it was not my intent to be critical but to ask for the logic behind the change to the shaders. I thank you for taking the time to illustrate what you are proposing and why.

After review of your outline, which I understand,

The shininess, seems to be just a specular shader; which shouldn't be there by default. There is no realistic ground in the world (bar rainy areas) that has "shiny" dirt. That goes for much of the default media that comes with ReLoaded.

I REALLY think attention needs to be given to enhancing the terrain tools, before moving away from them. As someone said, half-baked is no good. I don't think this is asking a lot, as far as time taken. There are a number of levels where outdoor scenery is up close; people need to get out of the mindset of the old FPSC, and it's "indoors only" features.

If TGC wants to compete and stay relevant (as opposed to the stiff competition), they need to approach things like this (terrain) in a holistic way. The few die-harders that we have here (and I don't mean that in a condescending way), are not going to pay the future bills of TGC. New users; especially those either using, or on the fence of using one of the existing and very much commercial-ready engines in existence...are who TGC needs to attract. Time is not on their side anymore (TGC), and I believe they know that.

Again; I do not believe that a relevant and competent Terrain creation system is optional anymore. I also don't think it's something that can wait a year or two, as it's a fundamental part of game creation.

Thanks for the info it gives me more idea of the change. It sounds like it may be the way forward. It would make the scenes more consistent through the different detail levels I agree from the shots. I was mostly going by the look of the screenies and high does look more like dirt in them. Still, if we can alter the textures ourselves easier, as you say, then I will say yes. As mentioned here, you know better than most what will improve aspects of Reloaded to make it easier to use!

Anything which leaves no choice has to go



So far I have only created a few terrain textures to get an idea of what was going on, I would have to spend some real time on it to get any real insight.

This looks like something we would likely have run into further down the line and then it's too late to do much about it. I guess it goes without saying that you want to avoid this. For those not wanting to dig too deep and simply create their game out of the box it might be something which they wouldn't even notice in the first place and as with all 'quality' issues it is something only noticed when it's changed, some may see this as a 'loss' of quality and I see where you are coming from in asking opinion on it before it becomes a problem.



I can tell you really want to make this change now and also feel you think you might get some backlash when you do, so asking community opinion at least ensures we are aware of why such a change was made.



In my opinion you want the engine to be used by new and experienced alike, I can see this being used by pro developers in future and anything which might cause them issues should be avoided.



After spending some time on my comp entry which forcde me into looking really deeply into the graphic power of Reloaded, I am incredibly impressed by the render engine and can see other ways of getting the 'wow factor' without relying too much on terrain detail to impress the gamer market.

There should be some option for the game creator to specify whether or not a detail map is applied. So instead of just removing it completely, it should be optional. That gives everyone what they want either way.

I kind of agree and am a little confused as to why the shader pipeline isn't handled by the GPU in this case, all the same if I am told it would be something set for good then I have to accept it as something I don't completely understand on the coding side and would want it changed now.



I think that is exactly what Lee is trying to offer is an option.



This makes more sense to me as a way of changing detail in the shader and an example of something easier for me to understand.



OUT.texCoordDetail = float4(IN.texCoordDiffuse.x * 20.0, IN.texCoordDiffuse.y * 20.0, IN.texCoordDiffuse.z * 20, 0.0);



Not saying it should be done this way just an example of something I can get to grips with more easily, since I am no shader guru and math is out of my comfort zone as well, consider me a layman who likes to dabble

For artists, the specular can be controlled by adjusting the alpha channel of the diffuse texture of the terrain chosen. The LUSH choice has specular set quite high so we could test specular in the shader and I agree a little too strong for a real-world effect. I have been tinkering with the idea of connecting the specular control for veg with the terrain specular as a way to provide some control over this instead of being forced to use the specular as specified by the artist. Is there a case for having a NEW slider bar under the grass specular slider? I prefer to keep sliders to a minimum as we'll be developing for years and we're going to run out of space (and you know how I loath nesting functionality). Looks like you guys are warming to my small shader improvement, and I 'could' leave the detail map effect in there with perhaps an option to adjust the 8.2 scaling to any value you wish, but really, at that level of control it may make sense for artists to replace the terrain shader with one of their own for ultimate control. Would anyone wish to see a system where if the terrain had a shader in the terrain bank folder, it would prefer that over the default one. The downside of that of course is that as we improve the default shader, artists who include their own shaders in future terrain packs in the store would get increasingly out of date. Choices choices! I think I count 'one person' from the latest comments so far who is voting to 'keep' the detail map code in the shader, and simply allow the artist to use it if they want. Given the new information, here is a revised poll, this time from Google Forms:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Z1G_bcpks8x6wSP8SuIOtF4jBrresTbfS7yqzUaraH0/viewform

It's my first Google Question Form so let's hope it works!

This is expected across the board I would imagine. Adapt or die...right?

one thing I hate about the terrain shader the most is the specular map I wish there was a slider to turn it up or down or off. specular is good for a shiny floor or a wet street. the lowest flashlight needs work and the medium flashlight does not light up the character. i think the flashlight needs to work the same on all settings.

I've voted yes. Although I am unsure if you mean to implement any of the changes you mentioned also. It might be a good idea to let a custom shader override the default as you say. I stay away from them as I have no idea what I am doing with them code wise. Nice to have the option I imagine for those who do.

I'm fine with the specular being the same one as the grass, mainly. I tend to keep grass on lowest anyway, it doesn't look that much better on the higher settings and as such I trade it in for speed. This may change of course over time, and I may want shiny grass and non shiny floors, dew may make grass shiny but not the ground for instance. Perhaps instead of adding an additional bar you could toggle the existing grass one between grass, terrain, maybe even entities instead? That would address space, but probably not nesting loops

Im with Rolfy here. I think we need to focus on functionality and characters more than this. I have several entities I COULD use but with out indoor lighting options and a particle system i just cant as they look pretty bad. And why does the suns shine still show through walls? Walls are solid, light does not pass through them and show shine on the floor, ever!

@Imchasinyou

Please remember that Reloaded is in beta and will be for awhile yet. We ask these questions because we have chosen a community lead development process, something very new to us, and so far, we feel it's working well. We are aware of the n

Given the overwhelming support for the change to a cleaner terrain shader, this will be done for the next build. I will however leave in the detail map override in case artists want to retain the two-layer UV mapping to remove the 'tiling artifact' you can see from a high orbit. Thanks again for your opinions and live voting! Be assured it won't be the last time I try out Google Forms