Journal #5419

Posted 11 years ago2008-10-17 18:15:14 UTC
Volumetric wave
User posted image
Real time reflections:
User posted image
User posted image
Inside the tube:
User posted image


Commented 11 years ago2008-10-17 18:21:07 UTC Comment #58773
I want more details D:

You made this?
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-17 18:21:11 UTC Comment #58782
Volumetric water?

It's a model.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-17 18:24:09 UTC Comment #58787
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?
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-17 19:06:10 UTC Comment #58766
Pretty cool looking.

Needs white-caps.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-17 19:06:32 UTC Comment #58786
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
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-17 19:44:02 UTC Comment #58780
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.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-17 19:49:40 UTC Comment #58771
youtube. i want to see it move.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-17 20:08:08 UTC Comment #58788
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
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 00:58:55 UTC Comment #58760
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.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 05:21:24 UTC Comment #58774
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)
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 05:58:00 UTC Comment #58779
Still hard to tell its a wave, especially from the tube. Make it less transparent, add white caps, etc.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 06:27:18 UTC Comment #58775
Textured model != volumetric water.

Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 08:08:27 UTC Comment #58789
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.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 08:16:14 UTC Comment #58761
"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: 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.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 08:18:39 UTC Comment #58790
Then why I'm seeing scout reflected on it?
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 08:19:32 UTC Comment #58762
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.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 08:29:14 UTC Comment #58768
Strider knows his texture stuff. Believe me. That switch texture he made years back convinced me so.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 08:35:16 UTC Comment #58763
That old thing? Haha. I've done a lot more.. much improved things since then.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 10:25:09 UTC Comment #58783
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.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 10:25:35 UTC Comment #58791
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?
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 11:04:28 UTC Comment #58764
"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.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 11:08:59 UTC Comment #58792
"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.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 11:48:20 UTC Comment #58772
"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.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 11:56:14 UTC Comment #58793
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.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 12:39:38 UTC Comment #58765
He wasn't denying your mapping, he was denying your terminology. It simply isn't volumetric. Now, moving on?
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 16:48:33 UTC Comment #58767
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.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 17:43:13 UTC Comment #58781
It looks kinda good, but it is not in fact what he said it was, and could indeed use work.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 17:55:29 UTC Comment #58776
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.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 18:36:52 UTC Comment #58794
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
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 18:40:58 UTC Comment #58777
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.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 19:00:11 UTC Comment #58795
I knew it, but obviously I was not talking about water physics which everybody know it doesn't exist on Source
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-18 19:14:08 UTC Comment #58778
Well if you knew it wasn't, then why'd you say it? ;)
Anyway, back on topic.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-19 10:36:01 UTC Comment #58784
Some people...
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-19 12:13:12 UTC Comment #58769
Aha like you can talk Axel. Scratching peoples cars.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-20 16:03:59 UTC Comment #58785
Hey now, I was drunk. Shh.
Commented 11 years ago2008-10-27 07:12:57 UTC Comment #58770
spike is the kind of guy who uses IE and thinks it's the best.

You must log in to post a comment. You can login or register a new account.