[Polygon Jim]

1000! wooo...
hnmmm... Why not use lighting to brighten up some of the shadows, a sort of a faked radosity effect.

I'd keep the main lighting which is in there now, and add a secondary directional light from opposite direction.
(this light wouldn't need to be so bright, perhaps change its color a little bit,
also don't have to get rid of the ambient lighting. that could stay.
other than that id leave the graphics alone.

This image was done in a similar manor,
Now look at how soft on the eyes the shadowing is here.
*pic*

edit: oops not 1000th post... lol

Please listen to this man. He's one of the few people in this thread that understands what he's talking about.

This post has been edited by Polygon Jim: 02 November 2010 - 04:09 PM

[CriticalMass]

1000! wooo...
hnmmm... Why not use lighting to brighten up some of the shadows, a sort of a faked radosity effect.

I'd keep the main lighting which is in there now, and add a secondary directional light from opposite direction.
(this light wouldn't need to be so bright, perhaps change its color a little bit,
also don't have to get rid of the ambient lighting. that could stay.
other than that id leave the graphics alone.

This image was done in a similar manor,
Now look at how soft on the eyes the shadowing is here.


edit: oops not 1000th post... lol

There's already a directional light from opposite direction. It's cyan though... which is the opposite of the radiosity light you'd be getting from (yellow from the earth or the sand... the backlight instead is set high to emulate the sky refraction). You probably mean only in the x axis, but then you'd have 3 directional lights and an ambient in a daylight scene. It's not as cost-effective in real-time as it is in a pre-render like the one you showed, though. If you need to use 3 directional lights and an ambient in a real-time daylight, there are more viable choices out there that will result in better (or similar) result while under a better performance. Or if you want to go overkill, there's always Sony Spherical Harmonics haha.

Alternatively everything could just be set using the existing lights in scene, but I don't think Pelikan would like to miss the backlights.

This post has been edited by CriticalMass: 03 November 2010 - 02:17 AM

[Andrew75]

There's already a directional light from opposite direction. It's cyan though... which is the opposite of the radiosity light you'd be getting from (yellow from the earth or the sand... the backlight instead is set high to emulate the sky refraction). You probably mean only in the x axis, but then you'd have 3 directional lights and an ambient in a daylight scene. It's not as cost-effective in real-time as it is in a pre-render like the one you showed, though. If you need to use 3 directional lights and an ambient in a real-time daylight, there are more viable choices out there that will result in better (or similar) result while under a better performance. Or if you want to go overkill, there's always Sony Spherical Harmonics haha.

Alternatively everything could just be set using the existing lights in scene, but I don't think Pelikan would like to miss the backlights.

Runs demo again,
When I wrote that post, I didn't study the demo at that point, I just know that a good lighting rig is key.
and was tired of seeing all the re-contrast posts.
No, the x axis's would just brighten up the front of the model. ( if x is back and forward in unity that is) that wouldn't look right,

Anyhow,looking again at the demo and seeing As Pelikan has got a decent lighting rig set up. the only thing to do is tweak the lighting a bit more to brighten up the scene,
Perhaps just add a bit to the ambient light and subtract from the other lights. ( I'm looking at how the shadows are not so easy on the eyes )
(there are plenty of other combinations he could try out besides the above mentioned.)

I've already set up some lighting tests for Sonic CD Remix using C4 game engine about a year back.
performance cost seems non existent with multiple lights and it looks fantastic.
(even better than the pre render since the pre render was something quick I tossed together as an un-tweaked physics test level.)

This post has been edited by Andrew75: 03 November 2010 - 12:48 PM

[Nomad]

Also, I don't see how anyone is getting any slowdown on this. I just enabled SoftTH and played this at 5760x2104 (3x 1080p vs 3x 1280x1024) and still ran 60fps.

[Relick]

Also, I don't see how anyone is getting any slowdown on this. I just enabled SoftTH and played this at 5760x2104 (3x 1080p vs 3x 1280x1024) and still ran 60fps.

It's because not everyone has a beastly computer like you.

[Nomad]

Also, I don't see how anyone is getting any slowdown on this. I just enabled SoftTH and played this at 5760x2104 (3x 1080p vs 3x 1280x1024) and still ran 60fps.

It's because not everyone has a beastly computer like you.

I dunno man, my 9500GT has no issues with this either and that's an extremely weak and outdated card.

[CriticalMass]

Runs demo again,
When I wrote that post, I didn't study the demo at that point, I just know that a good lighting rig is key.
and was tired of seeing all the re-contrast posts.
No, the x axis's would just brighten up the front of the model. ( if x is back and forward in unity that is) that wouldn't look right,

Anyhow,looking again at the demo and seeing As Pelikan has got a decent lighting rig set up. the only thing to do is tweak the lighting a bit more to brighten up the scene,
Perhaps just add a bit to the ambient light and subtract from the other lights. ( I'm looking at how the shadows are not so easy on the eyes )
(there are plenty of other combinations he could try out besides the above mentioned.)

I've already set up some lighting tests for Sonic CD Remix using C4 game engine about a year back.
performance cost seems non existent with multiple lights and it looks fantastic.
(even better than the pre render since the pre render was something quick I tossed together as an un-tweaked physics test level.)

My mistake on the axis. I wasn't thinking of a true cartesian plane guideline, so it ended up as a moot point

Regardless all these posts kinda make me wish we had a thread just for 3D technical talk.

[Photon]

Hiya. I want to pay my respects to this project. It seems quite a lot of people are putting forth their vision of the game and there does seem to be plenty of contructive criticism so I'll spare mine. I wanted to say this game looks absolutely fantastic and I was quite ecstatic to give it a play through. I felt the movement was quite natural, the collision detection flawless, and overall was heartened by the amount of love put into the game. I expect more great things to come. Just for the record, I have tried playing it on two older machines and had to turn down the graphics settings to the lowest possible for smooth gameplay. The machines are running Windows XP, ~2.3GHz single core processors, and Radeon 9800 or so graphics processors so they aren't going to win benchmark contests any time soon. I hope to see more and wouldn't mind providing any support I can (including paypal donations for *cough* expenses unrelated to the development of this copyright materal).

EDIT: I also wanted to state I really loved the art direction. The scenery captures the essence of the old sonic games and provides an interesting story-telling element.

This post has been edited by Photon: 07 November 2010 - 12:11 AM

[angelXwind]

This is a really good fangame, and I can see a lot of effort has been put in it, so far it's looking good.
One thing I don't quite understand is why the ring-collecting sound distorts when moving at high speeds, or was that intentional?

Another thing is how this game felt a lot more..."stiff" than the originals. I can understand that it's not a 1:1 copy of the original game, but I'm just curious as to why it feels like this. (it could be the animations though)

And what's "trial version" doing down there? When I compile my fangame (Sonic Turbine) under Unity 3, I...don't get that there...

Anyway, keep up the good work.

[Ritz]

I dunno man, my 9500GT has no issues with this either and that's an extremely weak and outdated card.

The fuck are you talking about? Voodoo 5 is an extremely weak and outdated card. If you can run Crysis on the highest settings at 60FPS (my 8800GT can do that just fine, mind), I'd say you're still well within the loop!

This post has been edited by Ritz: 07 November 2010 - 02:22 AM

[Covarr]

I dunno man, my 9500GT has no issues with this either and that's an extremely weak and outdated card.

The fuck are you talking about? Voodoo 5 is an extremely weak and outdated card. If you can run Crysis on the highest settings at 60FPS (my 8800GT can do that just fine, mind), I'd say you're still well within the loop!

Are you implying that the 9500GT is a better card than the 8800GT? Because it's not. 9500 = rebranded 8500. That's pretty much all the 9 series was. Your 8800GT is easily better than Nomad's 9500GT.

[Ell678]

I dunno man, my 9500GT has no issues with this either and that's an extremely weak and outdated card.

The fuck are you talking about? Voodoo 5 is an extremely weak and outdated card. If you can run Crysis on the highest settings at 60FPS (my 8800GT can do that just fine, mind), I'd say you're still well within the loop!

Are you implying that the 9500GT is a better card than the 8800GT? Because it's not. 9500 = rebranded 8500. That's pretty much all the 9 series was. Your 8800GT is easily better than Nomad's 9500GT.

This. I remember when I bought the 8800GT and was using it for a while, and it was still performing at an exceptional performance. Excellent card for it's price, even at launch.

[Aerosol]

Take it from someone who's still stuck with an 8500GT....

It ain't worth a damn thing.

[steveswede]

If anyone wants to know what performance a CPU, GPU is. I look on this site.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

And the ratings of those graphics cards are...

GeForce 8500 GT 258 Mid range graphics card
GeForce 9500 GT 356 High range graphics card
GeForce 8800 GT 944 High range graphics card

[Lobotomy]

On the highest graphics settings, My Core i7 + GTX 470 combo obviously runs it without problems. On my P4 Laptop with a mobility Radeon 9600 series GPU, it runs it with some minor button lag.