VeTaL

So, you are criticizing Microsoft's support but you're doing in the same way: you give no support for middle-end hardware. This means the losses 30% of gamers (for 2008 year), who would play a game. Now it may be 10%(maybe, even higher in west-Europe countries like Ukraine and Russia), but i dont think that even 5% is good. I was going to code on my notebook (msi gx 600, with GeForce 8600M GT, 512MB), but i got No instances, low FPS... Then i tried to move on my PC (ATI x1950 Pro) and got It even dont run, crashes when compile shader... Looking like its time to upgrade my hardware. Its not a large problem for me, but i'm afraid that it can be a large problem for final users. PS: Answering your question on the top of this post, i can say: yes, i want users with powerful machines see the great picture that Leadwerks provide, but also i want users with middle-end hardware see middle-quality picture.

Maybe it depends on the country, but i perhaps (and see) that less

Yes, so i'm interested, if its possible (or if its actual) to make "weak" configuration, wich would at least run on the old computers. For example, with auto-detection: if videocard supports SM 3.0, then Leadwerks loads as usual, if lower - then load version for SM 2.0 shaders. Another variant is to add function, that would disable differed shading or shaders, that used for terrain render... I'm just interesting in nearest plans.

In my first post i noted, that i like Leadwerks, and have nothing against OpenGL. I didnt want to make this thread a bug-reports with screenshots, full configurations of tested computers and so on. I just wanted to know, why Josh use OpenGL, because i have some capability problems on tested videocards. PS: question to Josh is still actual: would you add support of some old videocards(if it isnt hard... for my point of view, its only adding another shaders, but i'm not the creator of this engine, so i dont know)? Or you think that its step back? Again, i have nothing against Josh's beautiful engine or his desigions, just interested.

Yes-yes... in my last post i talked about that I just wondered if its possible to increase compatibility of Leadwerks with old computers, so they would get better picture, but engine would work.

No-no, i created this thread not because of bugs or i have something against OpenGL, but i wanted to know, why you chose it... and looking like i understand now.

I'm speaking about Windows users. I see that it supports many other platforms, but the most powerful engines( CryEngine, Unreal ) is written on DirectX... Well, IDTech use OpenGl. Also, i was surprised: there are 142 engines at devmasters database, wich support OpenGL or OpenGl + DirectX and 151 engines , wich support DirectX or DirectX + OpenGL

Great recommendations, i'll save this page. But i'm talking about those users, who have not too old videocards GeForce Go 7300 is higher then I noted that all geforce 7 line have troubles with launching. Also, what about artifacts wich was found on ati x1950 (screenshot needed?), would you at least try to fix it? PS: also, i can add to your great table that drivers update is also very important PSS: maybe moderators would pin this tread or add to wiki? Its very useful for everyone, i think.

Thanks for your answer, high compatibility of the other platforms is a very large plus. But what about those users, who havent enough powered computers(or maybe its a driver bug, or something like that)? For example, for launching Leadwerks on that machine (notebook GeForce Go 7300), i needed to shut down lights at all, looking like this is because of differed shading. Cant you increase Leadwerks's compatibility by adding some poor lights or something like that?

This is general question, so i ask it in the general forum. First of all, the picture of Leadwerks is really great. I saw a lot of great videos on YouTube, and here are our videos. Maybe, some of you saw this videos, but i want to say, whats impress me: First touch: Texturing: On the other hand, Leadwerks doesn't start on some machines (notebook GeForce Go 7300), give some artifacts(on ati x1950 and 7950gt), and grass gave 3 FPS (on 7600 gt): Third one is great optimization. I read Josh's blog and watch appearing new features, so i can say that this engine is very potential. So, the question: why OpenGL? Why not DirectX, wich is tested, used and supported widely? Don't you afraid that user would have artifacts like that on their machines?

//The other reason to do this is that most 3rd person games allow you to rotate the camera freely from the player rotating. By having a player pivot that follows the player, you can just rotate that and the camera will follow since it's parented to that player pivot. This will rotate the camera independently from the player very easily. Of course, i just wanted to handle camera to something like player

Okay... I was thinking about capsule body for collision.. But you're right, i may not move camera closer because of some small items, that can intersect line.

//Physics body can get stuck No-no... without physic, just for collision detection. //I would however move the camera closer only when all picks can't see the player, and not when only 1 can not see. Why? Then, its better to send only 1 pick, from the camera point.

And... what about collision detection for camera? What is faster: - to send 4 rays from every corner of the camera to player, if something intersect ray, then move camera closer - create pseudo-physic body(capsule, maybe) without mass, and place it between camera and player?

Wow, very useful link.

Excellent solution, but i'm interested if its possible to work with "parent" method.

I want to continue this thread about camera. I'm programing on Lite-c about 6 years, so usually i place 3rd person camera with converting sphere coordinates to XYZ coordinates, something like // moving camera around center camera.x = center.x - camera_distance * cos(entity.pan) * cos(camera.tilt); camera.y = center.y - camera_distance * sin(entity.pan) * cos(camera.tilt); camera.z = center.z - camera_distance * sin(camera.tilt); Now i'm interested in "parent" variant. // 1) So, now i place camera camera = GetLayerCamera(layer); // 2) Then i move it on the offset to pivot PositionEntity(cam,Vec3(0,4,-2)); // 3) And last one i set pivot to camera's parent, so it would follow pivot with offset. if (!pivot) {FreeEntity(pivot); } pivot = CreatePivot(target); EntityParent(camera, pivot); Now the question: how can i control offset? For example, i want change distance to pivot as player rolls mouse wheel... Do i may to re-position camera as on 2nd step and then assign it to the pivot like in 3rd step?

Thanks

I need to place one entity(pivot) at another entity's position. I found http://leadwerks.com/wiki/index.php?title=Entities#PositionEntity But there is only one C-function C: void PositionEntity( TEntity entity, TVec3 &position, int global ) Isn't it a good idea to add to C-format some overloaded functions like in C++ format (it would be nice to PositionEntity(pivot,player))?

Mmm... okay, i'll reopen old model in Model editor and in game (looking like, they both are working with 4-sided polygons).

Ahh, wow, this is great. Waiting for outdoor shadows optimization

Exactly what i need, thank you.

Em... well, i need shadows on the model If setting static casting shadows, there is no shadows, btw. But as the light is static(for now), its supposed to be 0 shadows polygons, due to using the new feature... Well... then, maybe its a little offtopic, but what is the difference between static and dynamic shadow casting?

No, there is no terrain at all... I'll rebuild a new level by myself to be sure. Looking like Leadwerks works good with 4-sided polys, so no needs in triangulation... Okay, thanks to both of you: as we would rebuild level, i thing we would be able to find, where is a problem. PS: i rebuilded level by myself (with old models, still without instancing) and get 99K... Looking like there was designer fault. Anyway, shadow polys are still non-zero even as i played with light's properties: Active and Enabled, Shadow casting, Culling, Distances.

Wow, screenshots on the right are not bad.