per pixel rendering engine
by akbar A.
date: march 24, 2001

not sure if this is robust enough to be considered an engine, but here it is..

per pixel lighting...

each surface is defined by a normal map.
the rendering technique makes use of the alpha channels on the diffuse map.
clever way of masking...

the framerate could have been much better... I'm not using VAR or any fancy extensions for drawing geometry...

it's times like this i wish i was developing an AAA title for the gamecube (i'm unemployed btw ;), it's really capable of some cool stuff.
i'm pretty sure it can do dot3 lighting... and the controller doesn't look like crap (see xbox).

btw, for the textures; i took a screenshot of the gamecube PR movie and used that :)

this is release 1 of this thing, expect shadow volumes to be in the next release.

anyways, here are the obligatory screen shots

btw, feel free to totally screw with the map file..
it's in ascii and _VERY_ straight forward..
try playing around with the material_color for starters....


bbtw, the way you'll see it..
i changed up the alpha channel on the diffuse map just now though


now, we are going to pick a "color" for the lighting ;)


well, the more lights you add in your scene that are being applied to visible objects..
the odder the look starts to get..
this should be less apparent once the shadow volume code is put int..


sometimes i wonder, is all this really worth it?
i mean better graphics doesn't relate to better games, if a game relies on graphics to be better, it' really is screwed IMHO.

just look at all (majority) the XBOX titles, most of them still look like ass (they shouldn't be) right now (and they have _dedicated_ art teams, go figure).

I think if you have a game, and in the reviews, all they rave about is the "graphics", you got a problem ( anyone :(...
they should rave about the "game" and "gameplay", then the "graphics", or side by side.

i think id software is the only one that doesn't have to worry about that.. there games are usually used as benchmarks anyways, there company as i know it, is still pretty small, and they have a pretty solid licensing scheme which i'm sure a lot of there money comes from...

like honestly, how does a game company like Silicon Knights stay in business.
i mean they have around 60 people working on a game that hasn't shipped in _YEARS_, like 4 i think..
i mean how does that work?

60 people, each one getting paid 50,000 dollars (very conservative average i think?).
i mean if you do the math... that's a good chunk of money. my guess is, the investors have tons of money to spare and they just
want to see there games get completed..

like does blizzard "make any money" of there games?
yes, i understand they sell millions of copies, but when you take into consideration that running a system like battle net doesn't come cheap, and there games are made by _tons_ of people... the numbers start to add up. and i'm sure it's not cheap...

for example, i read somewhere that some servers (websites, game stuff) cost _millions_ to run every day.., comes to mind.

so is this _VISUAL_ _CLUTTER_? (personally, i think moving to per pixel lighting is the right direction, i just don't think
bump mapping is what everyone thinks it will be to the gaming industry.. like this isn't anywhere near as big as like texture mapping..)

btw, i'm almost done with the new and improved edge tracking code.. probably going to get stenciled shadow volumes in pretty soon.


here are two screenshots with the lights using point attenutation :-)
IMHO, it'd be really cool to work for nintendo, way cool art teams over there.
but then again, i'm just a nasty gaijan to them. hehe



since you've read so far, your entitled to the code ;) plus, it's rotting away on my hard-drive. link

crap| Copyright by Akbar A. 2000
go home