I found this while looking at various lighting methods and wondered if it would work for light/shadow issues in GG. I am not a coder so I have no clue about such things or if GG is using something similar or not or if it even CAN use something like this. But the theory looks good to me and I was just curious.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi9ipfgsKfMAhWHeSYKHbBoD_gQFghNMAk&url=http%3A%2F%2Fima.udg.es%2Fiiia%2FGGG%2FUsersDocs%2Fmateu%2Fobscurances.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEOMarENTBnYltzX3A94bMIArYVPw

Yes. See links:

LINK I

LINK II



-Wolf

REALLY ?
Are you serious?
Did you even bother to read the posts you pointed this to? I am part of the how to make better thread and I really don't see how you think DX 9 to DX 11 comparision has anything whatsoever to do with the lighting issues that are in GG RIGHT NOW!! The lights in GG are horrible and no DX 11 or PBR is going to fix that.
I also don't recall saying anything about new bells or whistles, or DX 11 or PBR. I was asking if the process used in the pdf could be adapted/modified to help GG in the "Realistic Light" area. But don't worry I will not be making anymore suggestions or asking anymore questions. That's it! I am done with GG. I have been with tgc since BEFORE fpsc classic let alone reloaded and GG.(original Darkbasic) I have always tried my best to be helpful on those forums and here on this one. But here and now on these forums if you are not one of the so called professionals or you are giving everything away, you are either ignored or treated like you're an idiot. So i'm finished.
I truly hope that someday GG will be more than the TOY it is now. But i don't see how when even a mod will not read your post correctly or immediately shuts you down by saying it will be fixed when we get to it. Voting list voting list voting list. I personally thing that the only thing that should be voted on is features not CORE stuff. The graphics pipeline is about as core as it gets people. It should have already been fixed.

I think you may have taken things the wrong way Spotaru, very unlikely Wolf was patronising you or any offense meant.

Maybe he is pointing you to threads that show many folks have ideas for improving the lighting in GG, it really isn't all that bad and you need to increase some of the settings in setup.ini to achieve a better effect as default is pretty low. The lightmap render may take some time but you can expect that with any engine,. yes, it can be improved by Lee maybe taking more time on it, but as with all things they tend to set low by default since most new users would be frustrated by long render times, which are entirely normal. I am not saying it cant be better and any ideas thrown into the debate can only be helpful.

But users can already improve it themselves so it isn't exactly horrible, all the same some info that artists should have been given long ago now seems to be popping out of nowhere and that means an overhaul on the modeling front for a lot of folks.

@ wolf

I apologize to you for being rude. I was angry when I first saw the posts you linked to. Not angry at you in particular but Mods in general. Lets just say I have had some unpleasant experiences with some mods before saying pretty much exactly what I said. It will be fixed when it gets fixed, etc. And the voting list I won't even comment on. So I am sorry if It seemed I was angry at you.

@ rolfy


Thank you for pointing this out to me. You are correct on the part about wolf but not so much on GG.



I didn't actually mean horrible. Yes you can get things to look pretty good. And yes I know about the ini settings and such. But there is something broken in the underlying light system. Light areas that should be dark and dark areas that should be light. Something seems to be getting messed up in the calculations. I have been a photographer for nearly 50 years and and have been 3D modeling for at least 25. So I am sorry. I SEE the light problem every time I use GG. I don't know a lot about programming but I know that simply passing every mesh to the GPU one at a time to do the light calcs is fast but it does NOT include nor have an effect on the nearby meshes, hence the light and shadows are wrong and there is no indirect lighting at all. I don't know how GG actually renders but that's the way it seems to me. So i thought maybe a hybrid combined solution to get the indirect light in there. If not, At least have the light and dark areas show up in the correct place on the model. The light mapper should fill in the gap but does not do it for me because the mapper either messed up too or a roof will simply have to be 6 units thick cube from now on to bake a decent map. That's just silly.

I see.

Yes, I have browsed through the 2003 document you posted which was, as I believe, mostly about a light-baking technique and just pointed you to threads discussing just that as its similar. My rants on PBR and DX where not directed at you at all but at people who want these features before a reliable core has been implemented. I just assumed you didn't know about the baking feature in GG. (which does indeed need work as does everything else.)

On a side note, you mention GG being a toy...of course it is.So is any other game engine as long as it is used for that purpose. I can't take anyone seriously who thinks making games is in any way serious business no matter the money that can be made doing it. Just my opinion.


-Wolf

And there you have it. Another example of why I got mad in the 1st place. Another mod, no matter what games he may have made, being condescending towards a fellow user and assuming things about them. I know what the pdf is about, thankyou. Excuse me for trying to help. No offense intended towards you wolf, but you can't even accept my formal apology you just turn around and insult me and tell me I can't be taken seriously. As you said that was your opinion. This is mine.

@ EVERYONE

Look up indirect lighting in modern game engines and read some of the techniques and theories. There are people here in 2016 using hybrid methods made from techniques dating back to the 50s and 60s. So please stop "assuming" and educate yourselves.

? Spacewar?

Agree 100%

this forum among other things, is like an encyclopedia of reference for all, so that all stored information can be very useful, not only for the person doing the question, but also to anyone who comes looking for specific information.
For this reason any info directly or indirectly related to the question, never hurts.

Myself on occasion, I benefited from the information links, pointed by wolf.

For this reason and in my humble opinion I think a simple ... interesting information, but unfortunately it is not exactly what I want, I look for something like ....

3com

You may have been misreading my posts. I did accept your apology and don't see how believing you may not yet know about a feature that is not that obvious to find in the engine is somehow condescending. You keep being hostile toward me and I have never intended to nor done anything to you other than trying to help. Well, it appears you knew about the baking feature.



How? You never stated that you think videogames are a serious matter...if you really believe that they are, I might have insulted you by stating my opinion but you gotta admit that you have been way more aggressive towards me before.

I take you just as seriously as I take any other member on here and do in no way believe to be superior towards any member on here, if that is what you are getting at, as you said: No matter the games I made. I am also not locking this thread because I do think that this is a misunderstanding rather than an open attack.



-Wolf

That was one of the 1st computer games ever, but the methods I'm referring to are not really game specific. You have to keep in mind that there simply wasn't enough processing power back then but they were already figuring out HOW to theoretically make things work. The methods developed in the 40s and 50s and 60s gave you the games you could play in the 70s and 80s and are STILL in use today in the AAA games of today. I don't remember exactly where I read it or who was using the hybrid solution, but it was very recently and I DO remember them saying they used a technique that dated back to the 50s and combined it with their direct lighting to achieve fast realtime indirect light in their 2016 engine. I am not 3D school educated so I don't use the correct terminology or make my self clear sometimes and the last time I coded anything other than simple scripts or minor shader tweaks, we were using pascal and basic. dos had just come out ok. So No i am not a coder either, so my terminology is probably wrong in that area too. But I have been modeling forever it seems. I still remember the 1st model I loaded in DBclassic.

Bottom line: Light worked the same way back then (40s and 50s and 60s) as it does now and they had the same issues with rendering. The tech they figured out back then led to the hardware and we have now and those same techniques are still being used. And combined method to achieve things in game engines are used all the time.

What this post should be about:

I was simply asking if something of this nature ( a combined lighting solution) could be added to GG ? Look at the indirect light solution for unity 5 for instance. I am not comparing nor suggesting anything with the reference to unity. Look at Geomerics Enlighten or something similar. Here again I am not comparing or suggesting anything. I should have made myself clearer in the first place to avoid the above issues.
I am simply asking once and for all:

Can something of this nature be added to GG to solve the lighting issues ?

If you stay with DX 9 go to DX 11 or PBR it matters not to me. I'm am quite able and prepared to do that as well. I am simply asking a question.

It could be integrated by the coding team working on game guru but not by the individual user. However, seeing how the devs are working with the voting board I don't see any improvment on lighting, however they choose to improve it, for a long time

(All the individual user can do is either working with the dynamic lighting system, thus not using that much lighting at all or using the baking system and thus having large restrictions on content and shaders they can use efficiently. A third option is to prebake your models in external software.)

Lol, i thought you were referring to the lighting in 50s and 60s video games! That's why I mentioned spacewar! The lighting in that game was horrible, even by guru standards.

Wow I somehow missed all the posts between my last one and and Jerry's. So nothing I said was in response to any other post. I was just explaining myself better.

@ wolf

Again I apologize to you. I seems i have misread what you intended to say. I thought you said I couldn't be taken seriously. And I did get angry. I understand you are just doing your job. But all mods, ease off on the assuming the level of knowledge people have. And yes I am guilty of assuming you said something that you did not say. No hard feelings and Thank You for your patients and understanding.

@ 3com

No offense intended but you are also guilty as charged. You are assuming my level of knowledge as well. No hard feelings to you either.

@ Spotaru
I do not really agree, since I never give anything of course, in the end, reality rarely fits assumptions.

I must admit that I have not read the information linked by you, since I have not had time, information like that is not to be taken lightly, in the end, I must be sure I understood what I have read, and my case is double work (English is not my first language), so I must first understand what it says, and then try to guess what the hell are they talking about.

The plan is to read the document to next week, I am a devourer of information, I like to understand first, then then perhaps be prepared to use this information to determine if in my view, may or may not be used in GG.
I'm no expert, but a curious user like you.

3com

Hmm .... We cannot assume everyone is an expert no matter how long they have been a member ....
If I thought information was useful or related then I also would provide links ....
There are only 6 of us ... Perhaps you could PM the Mod or Mods you feel have insulted you rather than vent it here ..

*cough*

This is a hard truth. No matter how high you walk through the ranks at AAA studios or publishers, you have always the slight feeling of a immature business if you worked in other fields before.

Regarding the lighting, I guess I wrote all my opinions in the other thread already, no need to repeat myself.

I figured as much! Watching studio heads announce or praise their products on conventions like E3 always has an awkward vibe to it. Interesting to hear how you feel about it!! Its still a career where you create something that has meaning to some people rather than do someones paperwork, so there is that.



-Wolf