Journal #5419

I want more details D:

You made this?

Volumetric water?

It's a model.

Of course it's a model, what else??? Billions of water particles???? LOL

It's a model of a wave with a especial material, well it's not veryspecial you just have to find the correct commands.

I made this, what else do you want to know cow?

Pretty cool looking.

Needs white-caps.

Its nice looking!

It looks a little weird though especially where the wave meets the water of the ocean, and the transparency of the wave.

Edit: Luke is right, white caps are needed

Looks nice, but the water itself in general is WAY to clear. It DOES need white caps, and possibly a SLIGHTLY different shade from the water.

Also, not sure how much you can change this, but the water is too calm for a wave like that, or a wave in general. Rest of the water should be affected.

youtube. i want to see it move.

It's only an alpha!

I have to add all the stuff, make it move, particle effects, and a collision model to surf it.

Video when i'll finish it

Looks like realtime refraction, not reflection, which would be impossible on a non-flat surface without extensive coding anyway.

Also, a textured model is not volumetric.

well I wondered what the purpose of it was and what it could do and why it outpwns regular water (you didn't say that but I guess if it doesn't then there is no real use for it now is there? ;O)

Still hard to tell its a wave, especially from the tube. Make it less transparent, add white caps, etc.

Textured model != volumetric water.

Fail.

Go fuck yourself PB.

Of course it's not volumetric, you all fail for thinking I was talking about real physics.

And yes it's realtime reflection because scout isn't touching the wave, and you can see it reflected on the surface.

I don't know why it doesn't cast shadow, that's why the tube is transparent.

So I've changed the description of it, then the babies won't cry saying it's not volumetric water.

Madcow, the use of it is decorative or "to surf it". I can make it move like a real wave and If I add a collision model similar to a surf_ map ramp yyou will be able to do it.

"And yes it's realtime reflection because scout isn't touching the wave, and you can see it reflected on the surface."

That's the way the Source engine renders certain refractions. Realtime relfection is IMPOSSIBLE on something that shape without coding. Ever wonder why Valve didn't use the 3D wavey water from HL in conjunction with their new water shaders? Because it's impossible. The surface is required to be flat, and reflection can only occur on one level in the map, try creating several water sources at different height levels, or at angles, and see what happens.

Valve only recently introduced reflections on the verticle plane with the OB update, previously it was limited to water shaders and water shaders only.

It is NOT relfection, it is refraction, which is pretty much standard affair in the Source engine. Heck, I created this: http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/2961/snowtest0078do1.jpg months ago with displacements, took about 10 minutes.

Now, volumetrics. For something to be volumetric, it must have VOLUME. Models do not have volume. The closest thing most game engines (at least ones getting on in age, like Source) can do regarding volumetric objects is physical particles. What you have there is, plain and simple, a 3D wave with a shader texture.

Then why I'm seeing scout reflected on it?

It's refraction. The model is close to the surface and his hence being refracted. It's just the way Source renders refraction outside of the water shader.

Strider knows his texture stuff. Believe me. That switch texture he made years back convinced me so.

That old thing? Haha. I've done a lot more.. much improved things since then.

Spike, stop telling people to go fuck themselves.

"Of course it's not volumetric, you all fail for thinking I was talking about real physics."

You said it was volumetric, we knew it wasnt. You're the one that fails here.

well if you say it I should have to belive it even if I'm seeing reflections on it

Why sin't the model shadowing itself? You can't see the real shape from far distances.

Livewire: Not my problem if you take things that serious. And why can't I say it when everybody is bothering me?

PB: yeah at least I do something constructive instead of criticize everyone. Your last work is from 2006, and is Goldsource. Maybe look at yourself?

"even if I'm seeing reflections on it"

_<

You're not, you're seeing REFRACTION. Unless of course you somehow snagged a super-deluxe copy of the Source Engine that even Valve don't have.

"Why sin't the model shadowing itself? You can't see the real shape from far distances."

Refractive textures don't shadow the same way as a VertexLitGeneric, I'm fairly sure it won't shadow itself - it will just go off the world lighting of what's rendered behind it, all it does is distort the world and tint it. There might be a way to get around this when compiling the model, but I wouldn't know about that.

EDIT: If you tell someone else to go fuck themselves again because you simply got corrected, then I will lose my patience and give you another strike.

"You're not, you're seeing REFRACTION. Unless of course you somehow snagged a super-deluxe copy of the Source Engine that even Valve don't have."

Ok I understand that, but I'm saying Source engine is doing a bad refraction, because things in front of the surface shouldn't refract.

"Your last work is from 2006, and is Goldsource."
um. TWHL3?

"why can't I say it when everybody is bothering me?"
Because there's no need to be an ass when you've been put in your place.

1)I meant mapping? + talking to PB not you.

2)?????? You mean the place of a mapper who shows his work and gets FAIL as an answer when the person who says it hasn't even tried to make something like it?

And I'm not talking just about me, I'm talking about all the mappers who really map.

He wasn't denying your mapping, he was denying your terminology. It simply isn't volumetric. Now, moving on?

I say it needs a scrolling texture of somekind and some splashy particles and you have yourself a pretty nice source-wave!

You guys suck, I think it is good.

It looks kinda good, but it is not in fact what he said it was, and could indeed use work.

Sigh, get over yourself, Spike.

You said: "Look, I somehow recoded the Source engine to use something that no other game engine has ever done before.", when you really meant: "I made a model of a wave.".

Words are a powerful thing, so stop trying to see a personal attack in a simple terminology correction. I never said anything about the quality of the work.

I said Volumetric Water, isn't it volumetric water? It's a water wave...

So if I make model of a tree I do have to say "it's a MODEL of a tree" because there're people who would it's a REAL tree? Or I managed to take all the tree propieties, and I codded them so the tree grows, makes the photosynthesis, etc etc

Because 'volumetric' is a real term used in computer graphics. You didn't say "real water", that would be silly, but you said "volumetric water", which many game engine programmers would absolutely love to have, it's just not a realistic option. Strider already explained the difference between the two.

I knew it, but obviously I was not talking about water physics which everybody know it doesn't exist on Source

Well if you knew it wasn't, then why'd you say it?
Anyway, back on topic.

Some people...

Aha like you can talk Axel. Scratching peoples cars.

Hey now, I was drunk. Shh.

spike is the kind of guy who uses IE and thinks it's the best.