Jumped back on the forums to check the recent progress on Max, as I do every few months, and noticed in one of the March updates, Lee stated;



This was such disheartening news to read, and it wasn't really explained, so I just wanted to stop by and ask if this decision since been reconsidered, or if not, why GameGuru Max, with it's "improved rendering engine", will be excluding graphical tech that is currently implemented into Classic (and has been in pretty much every modern game, AAA or indie, for the past decade)?

With Max only having dynamic lighting to create it's shadow details, I assumed that when used together properly with SSAO, we would finally be able to create some visually stunning scenes, but to find out that SSAO is not a part of the roadmap at all to fill in the additional shading details that dynamic lighting can't quite achieve on it's own, it really disappointed me, having been a bit underwhelmed by most of the graphics shown in the weekly update videos and user-generated content thus far.

No offense intended, of course, as this is on the (WIP) engine and not the end user, I still just haven't really seen any scenes put together with GameGuru Max yet that really gave me a "wow" moment, visually speaking. Many of the scenes, outdoor in particular, still look sort of "flat", and I'm thinking it's due to lack of any fine shadows getting into all of the little nooks and crannies to really marry the scene together.

Was just wondering if this is at all a concern for anyone else? Maybe it's just me.

Take care, all

Yes. So far everything I've seen was underwhelming as well. There are classic projects out there that currently look better than what is being made in max right now.

I think most outdoor levels have way too high ambient settings making everything look so flat. I'm not sure if its really an issue regarding shadows.

As to why they don't intend to implement SSAO? No clue, your guess is as good as mine.

I'm baffled why many of the Wicked rendering features (DX11) are not included with Max as options.

Here's an example of what "SSAO" can add (in this case it's HBAO, but same rendering principles):





Cheers.

Its ridiculous they have an engine and not actually use its features to make it work

Im having stupid issues with texturing let alone the physics.

This engine is way off for importing your own models and the textures and the graphics are half arsed and not finished.

In a few of the live broadcasts, Lee stated that they are considering adding in SSAO after they get a few more things done with MAX. So, it's not off the table. Hold out hope. It may make it in yet.





Not sure what you're talking about here. I import my own custom made models with my own textures/materials all the time. I have no issues getting them into MAX at all. They come in fully textured with proper material settings. What issues are you having?

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_space_ambient_occlusion

Screen Space Ambient Occlusion (SSAO) in Crysis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifdAILHTcZk

SSAO changes a lot of the scene, and contributes to bringing life to the scene, definitely, we need it.

Hi agent monkey.
I have the albido and normals hit correct and metal but it seems the gloss or roughness amd no ao it seems the settings are not working very well at present. I will further try and establish my issues butnit is mainly on brick and masonry in the outside that makes it shine no matter what its like i have a varnish over them no matter my settings. Although all the objects are multi textured it jus never sits right.

I have had it working great before i will investigate for a day on it.


But the physics just keeps having a laugh i import from wave i will attempt to use fbx from blender but it has issues also the pieced i have a large castle walls and the physics just goes out of synch with the models.

Im using poly amd static due to the issues with convex Hull updated amd its all gone iffy again i know its ea but i was stating at present the system is hard to import and when you do it may change from update to update

I've not had any of these issues. I import models constantly (or was). I work with modular pieces, import them and they come in with all textures/materials in place and correct, and the physics are as I set them and they stay that way for me. They have not changed from update to update. Not sure what's going on on your end.

ye i am quite dissapointed with how gg max looks, especially the outdoor levels, despite the better lighting there is no real progress to see.If you cant get something close to far cry 3, which was released over 10 years ago its just wasting of time.

@agent/monkey

Do you add the models by just importing or do you use the max importer.
Thats what i use their add model

So what isnyour method if you dont mind me askimg amd what programs you use to import amd export from

Cheerz

Sb

Are you naming them all correctly
my_ao.dds
my_color.dds
my_normal.dds
my_metalness.dds
my_gloss.dds

If you doing that they should auto assign on import and create the correct surface at the same time.

What do you mean by:



The way you're supposed to import new models into MAX (not models from GameGuru Classic, but new models in FBX, OBJ, GLB, etc., format) is to use the ADD>Import Your Own or by pressing CTRL+I (which does the same thing).

https://gameguru-max.document360.io/docs/importing-3d-objects

That is the only way you're supposed to import new models into MAX. Again, by "new" models, I am referring to models that are not the old models from GameGuru Classic that are already in their .dbo format.

I create my own models using Blender. Textures are created primarily in Substance Painter, but can also be created in Clip Studio Paint, Affinity Painter, etc.

It's not just naming them correctly. It's also making sure they are in the same folder as the model and that they are "attached" to the model. What I do is create a material in Blender and assign that material an image texture. Then I point that image texture at the albedo/color texture before I export as FBX. That way, when I import into MAX, the FBX file has a material that's associated with the image file. And since the other files (normal, AO, etc.) have the same names, they all come in.

BTW - they don't have to be DDS files. They can be PNG files, too. I've never made a DDS file. MAX will take care of all that for you. It's sort of a waste of time to make a DDS file since it's going to take several of these and make a surface file out of them anyway.

In fact, MAX is not looking for a "gloss" map, but a "roughness" map (which does define the "gloss" (or lack thereof) of an object):

https://gameguru-max.document360.io/docs/importing-3d-objects

Scroll down to Step 5 where they define this for us.

Mine come in fine the "last names" of the textures being:

_color.png
_metallic.png
_ao.png
_normal.png
_roughness.png

Ye i know what im doing mate including the fact i use png's not dds myself.
I create most of my own textures and follow the Max workflow as its recommended. Then create my own surface from those.
It would seem that the tool Graphix made does require the gloss to pack them.
Im no expert its true so has Graphix got it wrong ?

Well, I was quoting from the actual MAX manual, was I not (see the link I provided)? So, who are you going to go with? As I said, roughness does determine how glossy something is, so Graphix is not incorrect. However, Graphix is not giving you a naming convention in his app. When creating your individual textures, whether PNGs or DDS or whatever, and not using Graphix fine app to create a surface material, you need to have a _roughness texture, not something called _gloss. We were talking about naming conventions (_roughness, in this case), not function (how "glossy" something is). You had asked the OP if they had their naming correct, after all.

The reason this was misquoted is because the roughness map was named "_gloss" in classic. It seems they changed that to more conventional nomenclature in max.

I would recommend only using png textures for testing, max will use png but you will lose some fps the GPU will not use png in an effective way DDS is a format that the gpu can use more effectively
As far as gloss texture is concerned a roughness map is a gloss map inverted so the loading of texture names is done by the coder not the engine the coder could say name it reflective texture and tell the engine it is the gloss so the naming convention does not matter as long as we know what the developers have allowed I always rename my gloss to roughness but assumed the word gloss would work too some developers call it smoothness and this would be what the engine would use.
For shine and reflection the key is your surface map if that is wrong then you will get results you were not expecting. If things look wet the gloss map may not be inverted before the surface map was made.

I will create a video on how ao metalness and gloss is combined to make a surface map remember max now only uses 3 textures color normal and surface these are dds so that the gpu can use them effectively

Good point!



You're correct. CryEngine, for example, uses _smoothness. However, the vast number of engines and PRB development tools in the industry use _roughness for this channel. It appears that MAX does to, according to it's own documentation (see the link I posted above) and it's own software (according to it's own importer) and according to my own test (the models I've imported with textures named with _roughness coming in perfectly). So, if we're going to tell people the proper naming convention for PBR in MAX, then it's _roughness for this particular PBR channel. It's _gloss in Classic, _roughness in MAX, regardless of what other developers have or could do elsewhere. And that's a good thing because it brings MAX in line with the more standard way of working for people who create their own materials using tools like Substance Painter, ArmorPaint, Quixel Painter, and any of the other tools that help artists and non-artists to create PBR materials.



Awesome!

That is indeed good news.

Well i been importing my own models. Through wavefront obj
And have also done blender fbx exporting.
And then i go into max and use the add object importing as you do size it up and positioning as well
I don't however click centre model or find floor as i found before it gave me issues

So i do this and its hit and miss with each import if the invisible walls or displaced physics allows me to walk up invisible stairs next to the actual stairs or the no physics even though poly and static. But i will take a look at the actual model and the physics side.

I have got the normal and colour no issues its the surface map is obviously my issues so thanks guys for the input i seem to be just having a bit of brain freeze this year

I fired off a PM to Lee, not sure if he reads through all of the ones he gets due to how busy he is, so I may send him an email in a few days to follow up (I remember they said they always reply to emails). I can't jump in on the weekly broadcasts anymore to ask due to my work schedule.




Yeah, it's actually pretty incredible how much of a difference it can make.


EDIT: Found the Github link & just posted the question there.

Unity and Hero Engine uses smoothness too.

With regards to naming conventions, GraphiX is right when doing it manually, you can name them what you like when you're combining them yourself, as long as the final texture is labelled _surface.

However when using the Max importer you need to use the correct names because it uses them to find and allocate the textures, if you don't you may find a textures slot empty and have to search and add it manually yourself.

With Classic the _Gloss map was actually a _roughness map renamed to _gloss, with Max's ASSIMP importer it actually looks for _roughness map.

...

"So GG Max is NOT getting SSAO"
Please don't say that, I don't want to hear it...no....please stop...no...
I bought game guru because it uses the Wicked Engine.
I went to the Wicked Engine, saw this:
https://wickedengine.net/downloads/

And I was like..."wiTH aN EaSy tO uSe" program for idiots like me ? I want it !
No...no please don't take away my hope for Screen Space Ambient Occlusion, Screen Space Reflection, and Ultimately...Screen Space Global Illumination.

I exported my VR Architecture Model to Godot and export to the web to see how well Godot export to the web.
To enable Screen Space Reflection [among other things], all I need to do is check a checkbox that say "Screen Space Reflection" and I am done, I didn't even do anything !
https://www.bracerjack.com/godot/NDE_Symposium/

I will now cross my fingers and pray that what you say isn't true....GameGuru Max will get Screen Space Ambient Occlusion/Reflection/Refraction/GI...


Oh lord LeeBamber, we know you hear our prayers and hope you will accept our offerings...

Lee has stated that he may consider SSAO later, once MAX is further along. They want to concentrate on getting other core features in and optimizations working first. So, it's not totally off the table. At least this is what he's stated in the some of the live broadcasts where this has been asked.

lol , just wait for another 6 month then MAYBE you have it.

Everyone heard Lee's response regarging SSAO on this week stream right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvnGZdunLvo?=t926

Lee's response "If you are talking about firm answers, NO. Nothing on the roadmap"

Yep. I asked it and was ... a bit shocked at the answer. Not too happy about it ... even though he did leave the door open for it.

Whats the actual reason?

Is it framerate?

I think the reason is just that one:


The fact that there is Nothing on the roadmap doesn't mean it can't be in the future, is just that there is nothing discussed at a team level, yet, so, there is nothing to give firm answers , at least, no yet. (just my thought)

Of course that's why. We know that. Duh. Even so, it's SSAO. It's important. It's part of The WickedEngine. It's been repeatedly asked for by people using MAX and those who want to get MAX. It can be a tick box to turn on/off just like FXAA and other advanced features that could potentially eat frame rates. And, as Lee himself said, it's like a switch that they can simply turn on in MAX (due to it being part of WickedEngine). So, what's the actual harm in activating it in MAX?

Thanks for asking on stream, Monkey Frog. I can't catch them live anymore due to my work schedule, and I couldn't get an official word on the forums or the github.

Is there a deadline on being issued a refund for GGM, and where/how would I submit a ticket? Wish TGC all the best, but it doesn't appear as though Max is heading in the same direction as my expectations for it.

If you got it on Steam, then you have to have used it less than 2 hrs and had it less than a month (I think that last part is correct).

I pre-ordered it through the forums, but I think I ordered it over a year ago so I may have missed the deadline to request a refund. Had I known essential graphical features from the Wicked Engine (and GG Classic LOL!) were going to be excluded from Max, I would not have pre-ordered it. That was never disclosed anywhere, as far I can remember; Max is taking a significant step backwards, graphically, and I do not understand why.

Oh well, it was only $30-ish dollars. Not too bad for a lesson learned, I suppose. "GameGuru Super Max+ Pro Edition" will not be getting my support.

Take care all

Another great artist lost to the stupidity of the tgc random excluding of a very needed part

Do they actually realise that ambient occlusion is a very much essential part of pbr.

This is exactly what i dont understand, classic itself excluded some nice and important features that were available in FPSC, and MAX goes another step backwards, i just dont get the logic behind that, i dont believe that the creators seek for fast money with MAX by including only a fresher looking rendering engine and some new character animations but everything ive seen so far brings me to the conclusion that this is exactly the case.And with the "nothing on the road" about the SSAO......Well, we have been wating for stuff like PBR and the Draw call optimizer 4 years after GG classic was released, and another one year till operation "bug free" was announced, something that should be done immidiately and not right after another TGC product was announced.The onlyone fair solution would be if the creators concider what to do and what to add next to the product with the community, like they done it with the 64 bit question.I have been using FPSC and Classic, but this time, after what ive seen, i decided not to buy GG MAX.
cheers

I'm sorry, but if you believe that TGC is after making a fast buck with MAX, then you're not paying attention. If that were the case, they could have released an extremely buggy GameGuru MAX almost two years ago. Instead, they delayed it's release ... not once ... but at least twice! The delay meant the product was not being sold at full-price for over two years and not being sold to the masses on a platform like Steam. So, no, whatever reasons TGC has for not including X or Y, I don't think it has anything to do with making a fast buck.

Now, back on the SSAO thing - Lee had been cautioned, due to trouble he had gotten into with Classic, to NOT commit to things that were not guaranteed. SSAO is not guaranteed. And I had specifically asked, during the live broadcast, for a FIRM yes or no answer concerning the addition of SSAO. I admit, I didn't like his answer. But he also didn't say that MAX will never get SSAO. He didn't permanently close the door on it. It's still possible. It's just that the "drawing board" is currently full of other things that need getting done first (RPG, Puzzle, VR, multiplayer, etc.). It may well be that they've simply made an internal agreement to NOT add anything new into the mix until all the current stuff has been implemented and working. If that's the case, then I am okay with that. Recently, Dave (with TGC) was chatting with us on Discord and mentioned that they are now at a place where we should no longer be waiting months for features to appear, that they should be appearing fairly quickly. Here's his quote, actually:



So, while the "firm" answer is there are no "plans" for SSAO in MAX, this does not mean that MAX will never get SSAO. If you listen to what Lee has said, it means that it's not in the plans, but it's not crossed off the list as a definite no, either. So, at this stage, we can still hope. I was joking with Dave on Discord and said this:



His replay back to me was:

What you forgetting is that SSAO is a 15 years old technology, first time used in 2007 in crysis, and since MAX is positioning itself as a modern game engine it should be out of question to implement such stuff into it.Thats like releasing a new electric car in 2022 but without stuff like air conditioning and navigation, sorry but this is just stupid....

https://www.game-guru.com/devblog/?p=356

When SSAO came about carries no real weight to this conversation. It's not about when the technology was invented. It's about whether or not it will be included in MAX at some point. I don't know why it's not currently. Neither do you. The only ones who do are the ones working on MAX. They have their reasons, whether we like them or not. But that's neither here nor there. The point still stands - they are not out for a fast buck (and I think it's unfair to suggest that they are) and SSAO is not completely off the table.

Modern engines make use of SSAO - so must be classed as worth using by modern tech standards.

UE4 uses it, Flax uses it, Wicked uses it - MAX should use it too - tis a no-brainer

ON/OFF switch tis all that is needed

OldFlak...

So, here's a question - what if, in the grand scheme of all things MAX, there's a reason that SSAO is NOT in the plans for MAX. What if this reason is they actually have plans for something ... better? Such as HBAO/HDBA or even VXAO or ... something other than SSAO?

When I stop and think about MAX's intended purpose and who is being designed for - Ultimately who the majority of users are going to be, I am not sure SSAO is really such a big deal. To be able to build a game without having to code is the draw - and I feel the graphics are fine for that purpose as they are...

Perhaps they even build a rocket and fly to the moon.
I know, Max is "early access". But it is not hard to add SSAO. Other things can build in even with it. It is in the engine. To give it MAX they would need 5 minutes.

And I'm sure they exactly know that it is essential part of PBR. PBR is the thing they are proud of. With good reasons. But then don't let PBR work as it should? That is not logic.
When they have other (better?) plans, they should not have releast it to public. I'm disappointed from many things. This is one of the bigger. You can defend them and their no-actions, I can use other engines. Win<->win. At the moment.
I liked to support TGC. But know I ask myself more often: why? They can do so much brilliant things. Even with DarkBasic. But the brilliance is history. That's a shame.

Perhaps you've not caught some of the talk on the MAX Discord channel. Here's something that Dave, from TGC, has said:





Lee, himself, has stated this. So, they know it's easy to implement. Lee described it similar to flipping a switch to turn it on in MAX. That means there are other reasons they are not planning to implement SSAO. We just are not privy to what those reasons are. My pure speculation (and that's all it is) is that they could possibly have something better planned? Most likely it simply because the engine is so poorly optimized at the moment and SSAO hits the frame rates pretty hard.

No. The Engine itself is no problem. I tested it.
If they coded it to break, then this is a real problem. But I don't think so.

I don't expect a full game maker in EarlyAccess. But I expext more than this. There are still many bugs. It is not shaped. The details don't belong here in this thread. It belongs to GitHub. But beeing serious.... I gave up. It is like every last product. Releast way to early and to much bugs. They wanted to be at a state, they don't have to focus the bugs. They wanted to add new things.

Lee is a brilliant coder. No doubt. But the way they are going, again and again and again, is wrong. At least for me, after many years.

Hmm, passable at best.

@Monkey Frog,

At the end of the day, I have no influence over what the developers here choose to do (or not do) with their own product, so I am not going to continue harping on the subject. So I'll say my last words;

I voiced my concerns because, in my eyes, I'm watching Max go down the same rabbit hole as Classic. Not sure if you've been around for that long, but several features that should have been in GameGuru Classic from the beginning were not, and then added to some "user poll" which prioritized things such as drivable vehicles and jetpacks or some other nonsense (I can't remember exactly, there were like 50 things on that list) over essential engine tech such as lightmapping improvements, crucial bug fixes, and other things that should have just been a priority from the very beginning that would have benefited every user despite what genera of game they were working on.

"No plans on the roadmap" and "maybe, you never know your luck" in the FPS-Creator/GameGuru metaverse basically translates to, "not gonna happen.", or, if you're an old fart around here like I am now, something more classier, like, "you need to install x mod to do that, cause we ain't givin' it to ya!". As osiem80 pointed out, older members have been through this before (3 times, actually), which is why those responses don't make me feel any better; I know what they really mean.


The graphics still look like a work in progress, at best, and you said they're going to move onto what next? Puzzle games, VR and multiplayer? Was that right? It's jetpacks and airplanes all over again.

I brought up the age of the tech because it does not make sense for TGC to say they wanted to birth yet another rendition of FPS Creator (rather than just fulfill the promises they made for Classic), stating one of the main reasons in doing so to be to give us a better graphics renderer, but then exclude such an ancient technology so imperative to video game visuals that it somehow even ended up finding it's way into Classic (and is absolutely NECESSARY, for the reasons Sanguis explained and my thread title was implying).


My guess was it slowed the engine down to a crawl, so they just planned on keeping it out altogether and mums was the word on it until someone brought it up. It never having been on the "roadmap" in the first place means there most likely wasn't anything "better" ever planned.

Well, so much not harping on it. Sorry, everyone.


I'll end with this; I would not still be here after 14 years, lurking quietly in the shadows, if I did not have faith in FPS Creator's legacy and Lee's ability to do it right. I am sharing my concerns because I want GGM to be successful, and everything we were supposed to get out of Classic.

I could just as easily have walked away (as others did) when Lee announced he wanted us to throw more money at him to create a new version of GameGuru instead of just implementing what we were promised into Classic. I did not. I trusted Lee AGAIN, and gave him my money...AGAIN.

So my expectations are still high, despite the graphics still being incomplete. (Yes, they are incomplete.) I really hope Lee does not let me down this time (like he really cares about disappointing some random guy on the internet ).

@Kraven W

I was not exactly around for all of what happened with GameGuru (now referred to as Classic), but I have heard about it and researched it and have read a lot about it. I do fear that it's possible for a repeat of that with MAX. However, I also hope that a lot was learned from mistakes made with Classic that will prevent a repeat with MAX. One case in point - the several delayed releases for MAX. MAX could have been released two+ years ago. Instead, the decision was made to not release, but to keep working on it. Another release date was set and, again, it was deemed it was not a good idea to release it, even as Early Access software. I think most who were using MAX as early adaptors at the time would agree these were all good decisions and a step in the right direction compared to the GGClassic days.

I see a lot of potential with MAX. I really enjoy working with it. And I like the direction (I believe) it's heading in. I could well be wrong, but I think that TGC wants to avoid the fiasco that surrounded Classic and do something much better with MAX. However, I, too, have my concerns. We shall see if they are justified or not. I, for one, hope they are not.