![[de]](/mwf/flags/de.png "Germany")
Hi,
an other idea of mine:
Lava could look more like lava when we would have two surfaces of the landscapes where two different textures of the lava are applied:
one texture that is normal and one texture where the gaps in the lava rocks are glowing.
The two surfaces are then faded between each other in a sine-curve so that it looks like real glowing lava.
You could also use this technique to animate water and make gold glittering.
an other idea of mine:
Lava could look more like lava when we would have two surfaces of the landscapes where two different textures of the lava are applied:
one texture that is normal and one texture where the gaps in the lava rocks are glowing.
The two surfaces are then faded between each other in a sine-curve so that it looks like real glowing lava.
You could also use this technique to animate water and make gold glittering.
![[ua]](/mwf/flags/ua.png "Ukraine")
Hm.. Nice ideas...Though I keep wondering how will all of this stuff affect game productivity?
I am already upset a bit by the fact that I can not play OpenClonk anymore on neither of my computers due to the increased system requirements and just want to know how far is this going to go.
I think it is a nice idea, but i am wondering weither we need there multiple textures instead of just two.
Was that suggestion targeted at me? Then you need to explain it better, I don't understand it. Also doubling the amount of texture data just for a glow effect doesn't seem very attractive.
Animated water, for example, can be implemented without it by using something similar to Günther's solution.
Animated water, for example, can be implemented without it by using something similar to Günther's solution.
>Then you need to explain it better, I don't understand it.
you have a time factor. from this, you calculate the interpolation factor:
float interpolationFactor = 0.5+0.5*sin(timeFactor)with this interpolation Factor, you can calculate the color:
vec4 color = interpolationFactor*Texture2D(tex1) + (1-interpolationFactor)*Texture2D(tex2)
Well, with my shader, obviously neither texture1 nor texture2 will just be simple lookups. But the more interesting question is: What should texture1 and texture2 contain?
the two landscape surfaces that are blended into each other.
one with glowing things and one without.
one with glowing things and one without.
You still haven't answered how you intend to calculate the "glowing" part. Do you mean:
* local lightening on surrounding materials (realistic, but I guess it wouldn't really show)
* have some sort of "fog" over surrounding materials, representing either real fog or some sort of "overglow"
* just have the lava itself get lighter and darker over time
Each would need a different solution.
* local lightening on surrounding materials (realistic, but I guess it wouldn't really show)
* have some sort of "fog" over surrounding materials, representing either real fog or some sort of "overglow"
* just have the lava itself get lighter and darker over time
Each would need a different solution.
some materials would have two textures.
i'll show it in an example:
i'll show it in an example:
So your idea is to have some kind of material texture animation? Hm, that's something where we could actually use the fact that the material textures are stored as one 3D texture now...
We could even have an animated bump-map! Living slime material anyone? ;)
We could even have an animated bump-map! Living slime material anyone? ;)
![[ca]](/mwf/flags/ca.png "Canada")
Ech... I hope not.
zomg
![[at]](/mwf/flags/at.png "Austria")
<3
![[pl]](/mwf/flags/pl.png "Poland")
You love MMOs, don't you?
Not really, but I played Maple Story some time ago (and I liked it). ;)
I was thinking of sharing my "friendly little opinions" on maplestory... but I'd rather keep flamewars down.
Thats quite nice though I suppose to have a good-looking animation effect we have to do either of:1) Have more than 2 textures;
2) Change not entire texture but different parts of it;
Or are there any techniques that can simplify this?
Oh btw since a link to this popped up:A glowing effect in this manner
>* just have the lava itself get lighter and darker over time
would be reached if the two textures (e.g. those in carli's post) are not just blended into each other but blended additively. Both textures are then constantly moved against each other.
![[gb]](/mwf/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
What do you mean by additively? 3D textures would allow me to pretty cheaply blend together textures. Everything more complicated would at minimum require another branch and possibly another texture lookup. What additional functionality would you like to see?
Yes@cheaplyIIRC there are different blend-modes to choose from. You can select to blend them together additively (add the color values instead of using the average of the two).
Sum is only average times two. Applying some kind of factor should be the least problem. I mean, if you just want to change around brightness, I can include a variable for that and we wouldn't have to add additional textures at all? But I still fail to see why this should be useful.
Constantly moving two different textures against each other (while blending them additively) has a different effect than adjusting the brightness of one texture. Most importantly, it can create the illusion of an animation of the liquid if the two+ textures are chosen wisely.
Uhm, I think I have seriously lost track of what we are discussing here. What I am talking about:
Brightness stays the same. Now doing it the way what I thought you meant by "additively":
Brightness doubles between animation phases. Actually same effect as above, with multiplicators of 1, 3/2, 2, 3/2, 1. I have no idea why this would be a good idea in any way, so I guess you meant something else. Can you explain?
---------- <- color = tex1
<- color = (3 tex1 + tex2) / 4
<- color = (2 tex1 + 2 tex2) / 4
<- color = (tex1 + 3 tex2) / 4
---------- <- color = tex2Brightness stays the same. Now doing it the way what I thought you meant by "additively":
---------- <- color = tex1
<- color = tex1 + tex2 / 2
<- color = tex1 + tex2
<- color = tex1 / 2 + tex2
---------- <- color = tex2Brightness doubles between animation phases. Actually same effect as above, with multiplicators of 1, 3/2, 2, 3/2, 1. I have no idea why this would be a good idea in any way, so I guess you meant something else. Can you explain?
>---------- <- color = tex1
> <- color = (3 tex1 + tex2) / 4
> <- color = (2 tex1 + 2 tex2) / 4
> <- color = (tex1 + 3 tex2) / 4
>---------- <- color = tex2
Err, what? (What are those lines?)
The 2D textures. That's how 3D textures work: You bind a few layers to 2D textures, then access coordinates between them, and the GPU interpolates the color as I described.
Here's a picture, for example.
Here's a picture, for example.
Cool technology. However, that was not what I was talking about. I was talking about keeping this> <- color = tex1 + tex2
constant but moving the textures against each other. So, the animation doesn't happen by blending one texture into another and back but by, well, moving the textures against each other.
E.g. you have two layers in GIMP, the first has the mode "additive". Then you move the first around slowly. That is what I was talking about.
Like fog moving over Lava? I feel that it would be a better idea doing that by just using particles. Most animations I can think of aren't of the "one texture moving relative to the other" variety. What do you have in mind?
Yes, pretty much. But I gather that it might only look good for 3+ textures which move each into different directions (or non-linear, in circles or something). If you take enough textures, and 2-3 might be enough, the player won't see any more that the animation is actually just moving different textures against each other.This is just a suggestion though. I have not tested whether this can actually look good
Well, that's three times the texture lookup per pixel, that's bound to be costly in terms of rendering performance. I like the texture phase approach more, I'm afraid.
I don't have the conception on how costly or not costly different methods of animation are. I just built a simple example in HTML. I just used one image for all three layers, it would look better if I made the effort to tinker different ones for each layer (Unfortunately, HTML does neither support additive blending nor sub-pixel movement of images ).http://www.westnordost.de/misc/test.html
Hm, bubbles going up or something might be worthwhile. Could also work for acid, not sure about water. Still, I'm not that happy with adding multi-texturing just for such a feature. If GPUs really don't branch-predict, that would increase the complexity of all pixel draws, even if no animated texture is visible.
they could be used for water, magma and other liquids, animated of course
I suppose blending two different textures together as Carli suggested can be considered as a procedural texture...We can make material texture change from time to time but hardly need something more than that.
Well, so can normal textures. What's your point? The only possible upside I see is that procedural textures take up less space on the disk - which isn't exactly a problem right now.
I think he meant procedural textures rendered at drawing time in shader? They'd use less texture mem; dunno if that's an issue.
They can have an endless level of detail - if you are willing to program details for all levels of detail. Or use some sort of fractal.
Either way, this is actually less important for Clonk - no matter how much we zoom in or out, we will never have as much variety in texture scalings as a typical 3D scene. Procedural textures are a solution for a problem we just don't have.
Either way, this is actually less important for Clonk - no matter how much we zoom in or out, we will never have as much variety in texture scalings as a typical 3D scene. Procedural textures are a solution for a problem we just don't have.
why should we limit on letting the texture glowing only on itself? i would find "real" glowing textures much cooler, like, lightening the materials around them.i made a small photomanipulation to show what i mean: Glowing Lava
i think that looks really nice.
what do the engine developers say to this? would something like this be possible?
I'm not a dev, but it definitely would be possible, either using shaders or an overlay map.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill
