It's a variation on the existing shadows + ambient lighting system. Still using vertices and splitting triangles to create shadows, but as it splits them a different way, it can go deeper, splitting the already split triangles, without them becoming pointy shards like broken glass. Also there is a process of test-splitting them to see if there is a shadow between two vertices, then backing out again if there is not. So it's better at detecting shadows and reducing the size of excessive shadows on large triangles. There's still more to be done. I need to store in pairs of triangles the info that they are part of a rectangle, so it can be split more sensibly. For example, a long thin rectangle that is part of an armco barrier. If one end is in shadow and the other is not, then it is split 'along' as required, but also 'across' which is very wasteful. It's worth finishing this because the shadows are improved (to some extent, although still flawed) without going deep into some alternative shadow system.
Yes there is progress. I have received updates from Eric, tested them, found things that could be improved with some code support. Also some editor requests from Eric to help with things. So he's been on the case and I have continued to support it.
Basically we are working together and it's one big graphical push. To our way of thinking it's worth carrying on with that, so we get to a level we are happy with for now. For once, Eric has had a long session with my coding support and hasn't been rushed to a deadline. So that's a good thing. The functions and features I have been working on will help with updates on other tracks and the ones we have not yet released.
Unfortunately if I look at the date and look at my lists of things to do, Westhill will not be out by Christmas. Maybe I can get the new paths system test patch released. I'll see if I can prioritise those tasks. Though it's good I didn't rush that out, as I just came across a change that needed to be made to the TV camera selection system.
by Scawen : spam / reply to spam
by Scawen : spam / reply to spam
I post this here because it has a vague link to progress reports and i see Scawen follows this thread.
I was wondering, why doesn't LFS use a third party engine like Unity3D? I see the price is $1500 or $76/month if i understand correctly. Also, I remember reading somewhere there are older engines that have become free. Can't the physics engine be added to such game engine? Are there other limitations?
I'm not a programmer per se, but i guess development would proceed with fewer headaches and progress (here's the link with the thread ) would be faster.
Searching the forum for similar questions i found this thread https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/86262 where someone posted a interactive rendering of a LFS car made in unity3d, it looks really nice.
I wish LFS an even bigger community in 2015, some new content... and a physics system.
I was talking about the engine in context of the new progress report. I see Scawen is working a lot lately trying to fix different graphics problems. Using a separate engine would free the developer from having to "reinvent the graphics wheel" and increase time allocated for the innovative physics engine.
To be honest, the use of third-party engine as Unity3d can inhibit the development of even more than the further development of the existing engine. The use of such engines seems very easy at first, but when it comes to rewriting some built-in stuff or adding new, you may encounter a bunch of restrictions that can not be avoided because of the lack of access to the source code.
For example, for a demo with the car from LFS I had to rewrite part of the rendering pipeline, and many times to step on a rake, before I was able to achieve results.
If the only problem is the outdated graphics, this problem is not in whole engine, but only part of the rendering, which can be modified and rewritten. Scawen just need some time to fully explore the graphics programming and choose the right direction. A recent move to DirectX 9 allows to make a lot of things.
My personal opinion is that LFS devs should give us the source code of the graphical engine, so that experienced people can work on improving it (or share it to trusted people).
Then, people can send their work to the devs, and so Scawen can choose to implement it (a bit like the translation process).
The only restriction will be to not overload devs with "new super cool feature that need to create super high 8K textures with normal maps and specular maps and 4000h to implement it" and respect requirments from the devs.
LFS has a wonderful and powerful community, I think it could ne great to give us the opportunity to improve our favorite game that made us live on someway.
Nonono everything can be done by one or two guys, its only going to take fiftheenthousandmoreXmasses but in the end the biggest baddest race simulator is going to be released with the most amazing real life race tracks and cars. You will see!