[Synergy]

As quite a few people seemed quite fond of the idea in principle, I took a brief detour into seeing how transparency would look if it were to be applied. This also shows the previously-discussed opacity fade at the end to mask the draw distance, along with the suggestion of setting the default draw distance to the "far" setting from the prototype; new pieces at the end fade gradually into view, so no more unexpected popping into existance.



Transparency test aside, it also still uses the distance scaling on the blobs as you can see, though I'll convert the blobs and decorations to just stay a constant size and fade in along with the tube as it looks more natural. However, I think the scaler should be kept (and set to an appropriate distance) for rings and mines because with the added draw distance, you can see them coming on a straight stretch from miles off. On a similar note about ease of seeing distant items or not, with transparency you can see even more such as roughly were items are around an oncoming bend, which may or may not be considered a good thing: just things to mull over.

[Gambit]

Damn, I dunno about the whole transparency stuff yet, but I think I kinda like seeing how the tube curves around in the background.

[HeartAttack]

I'm really loving the way that looks, transparency and all.

[W.A.C.]

Not sure if transparency is a good idea, but I like being able to see the tubes in the background.

[MaximusDM]

I'm not sure how this would look with the actual background. And seeing it as a screen looks really cool. But seeing all these tubes in the background while in motion could leave things looking cluttered and frantic. So judging it now is a bit premature, because it really needs to be seen in motion to be judge.

But at the same time whether it was game limitations or not, the special stage give an abrupt feel to curves and seeing what is ahead could completely change that for better or worse.

[zemulii]

It looks beautiful to me. The long draw distance seems like a great way to bring it up to date visually at least. The transparency is nice when it's very subtle like that. So I really hope it doesn't end up affecting the challenge all that much...

[DigitalDuck]

Being able to see the track ahead isn't a problem, especially if you can't see rings/mines - after all, the game negotiates the track for you. I think it's a much-needed update that should stay in the HD version.

Also, the screenshot kinda reminds me of Rollcage:

[lotharstar]

Love the transparency and fading, but I'm not big on the elongated draw distance. I'm trying to work out in my brain a good way to make those turn into uphill slopes appear as surprising as in the original (one of the things that made collecting the rings on them hard) without them popping into view. Draw distance doesn't even really fix this problem since you can still see an uphill section coming at a turn.

Then again, it looks like I'm in the minority with the opinion on the "surprise" element. I'm just worried the special stages as they were designed in S2 will be a snooze fest if you can see all the obstacles that far ahead of time.

[Synergy]

Quite a difference of opinion then. You can solve the "seeing the track in the distance" problem by narrowing the field-of-view and raising the height of the up/down pieces just a tad. For instance, below is the same point on the stage as the above, but with a 30 degree field-of-view as opposed to the original 40 (probably a bit too narrow, but it's just to illustrate a point).



This field-of-view more closely matches the original, but using a narrow field-of-view with real 3D doesn't feel particularly fast-moving because of how field-of-view affects perception of movement (in the prototype, pressing the "1" key to switch between narrow (35), normal (40) and wider angle (45) views shows how the same movement speed is affected, and this is exaggerated the more wide/narrow you go).

[steveswede]

However, I think the scaler should be kept (and set to an appropriate distance) for rings and mines because with the added draw distance, you can see them coming on a straight stretch from miles off. On a similar note about ease of seeing distant items or not, with transparency you can see even more such as roughly were items are around an oncoming bend, which may or may not be considered a good thing: just things to mull over.

I'm kinda in agreement with what you say and do take your word for it about the rings and bombs affecting gameplay difficultly. But I really want to pass judgement when I get to see it in action when playing it. The transparency might not become an issue when playing because people might be more focused on getting rings and not losing them by avoiding bombs. Not only that but when the final art is put in it might make things more busy and distract the player better from far coming objects. I'm not against scaling in the objects. I just don't want to see the visuals crippled before seeing if it does affect the final version.


Also just had an idea. It would be neat to see shooting stars coming down the tube towards the screen for added flare.

[ICEknight]

Quite a difference of opinion then. You can solve the "seeing the track in the distance" problem by narrowing the field-of-view and raising the height of the up/down pieces just a tad. For instance, below is the same point on the stage as the above, but with a 30 degree field-of-view as opposed to the original 40 (probably a bit too narrow, but it's just to illustrate a point).



This field-of-view more closely matches the original, but using a narrow field-of-view with real 3D doesn't feel particularly fast-moving because of how field-of-view affects perception of movement (in the prototype, pressing the "1" key to switch between narrow (35), normal (40) and wider angle (45) views shows how the same movement speed is affected, and this is exaggerated the more wide/narrow you go).

I think the best idea would be to actually keep that ability of changing views, starting with the one depicted in that last screen. After all, it was SEGA who did such a thing first, with Virtua Racing (which makes me wonder how a Micro Machines-style view would look like in here).

[Canned Karma]

For reference Synergy, does your engine have any limitations on the subdivisions generated? I'd like to see how smooth things can look, and have those higher settings tested as widely as possible for the best platform optimization. I know the build you put out can increase them, but it'd be good to find out the limits as well.

This post has been edited by Canned Karma: 02 July 2010 - 02:49 PM

[Synergy]

No limits imposed by the subdivision method itself; the end result has to fit in a single dynamic vertex/index buffer which although as you say will be card dependent, is no way near reaching any limits right now. That said, the more polygons you expend in building the tube, the less you'll have to spare for the character models, higher-resolution sky mesh, a large volume of rings and mines etc. - not forgetting that extruding or making the tube more 3D and less flat will require more polygons in itself, before worrying about how many subdivisions are used in a corner and so on - so it might be best to wait til the visuals on the whole are a little more complete before judging the best subdivision count to use by default, and which can be set for a "higher" option setting.

This post has been edited by Synergy: 02 July 2010 - 02:58 PM

[Canned Karma]

Sounds good. I didn't think you'd hamstring the engine by imposing limits this early on, but it never hurts to make certain. Do you have any estimates on how long it'll be until we can start to import some of the other assets you just listed?

[Synergy]

I would prefer to get the actual gameplay complete, including proper interface/menu, before spending time on the visuals.