Hyrule Conquest

[Stan`]

2 minutes ago, Imarok said:

Iirc arrows have some particles along there whole flying trajectory. That could be a possibility for your beam

Yeah, you can make fire arrows. You cannot have rigged animations though. Also note that if you set anything to be on fire, it will also be on fire in the hands of the things that's throwing it.

[The Undying Nephalim]

2 hours ago, Imarok said:

arrows have some particles along there whole flying trajectory. That could be a possibility for your beam

As I mentioned this really only works if the projectile is moving slow enough. If the projectile moves too fast, there are huge gaps in between where the particles spawn from the projectile. I guess I could just make the beam slow moving, but that kind of defeats the purpose of creating a fast moving, nearly instantaneous laser.

[Stan`]

You can play with emission rate and the lifetime. Big emission rate means constant flow longer lifetime means that the ray will stay visible longer.

[The Undying Nephalim]

On 5/23/2018 at 3:25 AM, stanislas69 said:

You can play with emission rate and the lifetime. Big emission rate means constant flow longer lifetime means that the ray will stay visible longer.

No matter how high the emission rate is there's always big gaps between the spawned particles, the gaps are larger the faster the projectile moves:

I need a solid, unbroken stream of particles for very fast moving projectile to create a "laser beam" looking effect:

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Try making an elongated particle texture so that it bridges the gap.

[Stan`]

Ah also repeat time might not help.

[The Undying Nephalim]

I guess a more important issue, on walls of mine that specifically only have Long segments and not Short or Medium. I'm spammed with a continuous string of errors until the sizing while dragging out a wall is just right:

<p class="error">ERROR: No placement possible for distance=18.094, minOverlap=0.1, maxOverlap=0.8</p>
<p class="error">ERROR: No placement possible for distance=44.231, minOverlap=0.1, maxOverlap=0.8</p>
<p class="error">ERROR: No placement possible for distance=59.025, minOverlap=0.1, maxOverlap=0.8</p>

This seems to happen even on normal walls with short and medium segments in 0AD once in awhile. It doesn't seem to have any negative effects on gameplay, but visually it's a bit jarring to see a massive wall of red errors when trying to lay down a wall. Is there's a way to solve this problem with walls?

[Imarok]

On 5/4/2018 at 12:43 PM, aeonios said:

Ugh. Well, I can do that but it'll require cannibalizing the specular texture. Currently the specular texture is spec.rgb with alpha being the specular intensity and specular power being an engine global setting. If I do it you'll need to specify how you want to use the specular texture, with at least one channel left available for emit. I can implement specular in 3 channels with one for specular intensity, one for specular power, and one for metallicity (ie how much the specular color matches the diffuse color) with the alpha channel left over for glows, if that works for your particular art. If you're already using the specular tex you'll basically have to redo it for all your textures that use it.

For me it's not even a 5 minute job to modify the shader though.

Have you already done it? ;P

(Some days ago someone on IRC requested it...)

 

[aeonios]

3 hours ago, Imarok said:

Have you already done it? ;P

(Some days ago someone on IRC requested it...)

 

Apparently the shader already supports it, through the USE_SELF_LIGHT define. It uses the alpha channel of the specular texture, so it also requires that USE_SPECULAR_MAP be enabled, and AFAIK it's inverted so that 0 alpha = full glow and 1.0 alpha = no glow.

[The Undying Nephalim]

10 hours ago, aeonios said:

Apparently the shader already supports it, through the USE_SELF_LIGHT define. It uses the alpha channel of the specular texture, so it also requires that USE_SPECULAR_MAP be enabled, and AFAIK it's inverted so that 0 alpha = full glow and 1.0 alpha = no glow.

This is the result of using that, it's not quite the effect I'm going for:

Spoiler

Using photoshop, this is the effect I'm trying to go for that doesn't seem to work in 0AD:

Spoiler

This can sort of be replicated by setting to the bloom to be really high, except even then it only works when there's light. I really want noticeable glow in the dark effects on the Gohma like this.

[aeonios]

I'm afraid that'd require a lot more than just a shader. You'd have to specially copy the glowy bits into their own bloom buffer and then use a special extra bloom pass just for glows. At the moment there's no way to get an effect like that without modifying the engine itself, which would not be easy to say the least, and people wouldn't be able to run your mod using the vanilla engine like they could with any other mod.

What you could do instead possibly though:

A: Make the blue parts brighter colored. The glow effect only replaces the lit color with the raw surface color, so if you use a dark surface color that's all you get.

B: Emulate the bloom using a sort of particle effect that follows the unit's face around. I don't know anything about pyrogenesis particles so I can't be much help there, and you might be able to do it using some other similar method without particles (ie similar to tree foliage, with glow enabled), but that's the basic gist.

[vladislavbelov]

3 hours ago, aeonios said:

At the moment there's no way to get an effect like that without modifying the engine itself

I'll be a little boring: it's actually possible, but with hacks

Example (radioactive barrels), no engine modifies here, only shaders and material changes:

But it's hacky, so I do not recommend to use it and recommend to wait until we add a clear way for the glow effect 

[aeonios]

16 minutes ago, vladislavbelov said:

I'll be a little boring: it's actually possible, but with hacks

Example (radioactive barrels), no engine modifies here, only shaders and material changes:

But it's hacky, so I do not recommend to use it and recommend to wait until we add a clear way for the glow effect 

How did you do that?

Full support for a glow effect would be relatively expensive (you'd basically have to apply bloom twice, with extra full-screen buffers, plus extra hacky and also expensive shader magic) so even a hacky solution would be preferable. Also vanilla 0ad has no real use for glow effects like that, except maybe for a few rare odd things.

[The Undying Nephalim]

Does skirmishes, scenario, and random.DELETE still work to get rid of all stock maps from mods? It used to work but it seems ever since 0.23 all the stock maps are showing up as options despite the fact I have those three DELETE files there. 

3 hours ago, vladislavbelov said:

Example (radioactive barrels), no engine modifies here, only shaders and material changes

What material did you use?

Edited May 28, 2018 by The Undying Nephalim

[Lion.Kanzen]

3 hours ago, vladislavbelov said:

I'll be a little boring: it's actually possible, but with hacks

Example (radioactive barrels), no engine modifies here, only shaders and material changes:

But it's hacky, so I do not recommend to use it and recommend to wait until we add a clear way for the glow effect 

That can be nice cheat.

[Stan`]

1 hour ago, The Undying Nephalim said:

Does skirmishes, scenario, and random.DELETE still work to get rid of all stock maps from mods? It used to work but it seems ever since 0.23 all the stock maps are showing up as options despite the fact I have those three DELETE files there. 

Well that's interesting. @Itms @elexis did we change something to the way we process those files ? 

[Stan`]

3 hours ago, vladislavbelov said:

I'll be a little boring: it's actually possible, but with hacks

Example (radioactive barrels), no engine modifies here, only shaders and material changes:

But it's hacky, so I do not recommend to use it and recommend to wait until we add a clear way for the glow effect 

Could we make that depend on the sun position ? Also source ?

[elexis]

I never worked with .DELETE but it sounds like a hot topic in at least two ways.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

4 hours ago, elexis said:

I never worked with .DELETE but it sounds like a hot topic in at least two ways.

That would definitely need fixed for major mods like this to be successfully packaged.

[elexis]

You're saying that ought to be fixed before a re-release even if it delays by another 3-7 days?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

21 minutes ago, elexis said:

You're saying that ought to be fixed before a re-release even if it delays by another 3-7 days?

Not necessarily. I assume most of the known modders use SVN? 

[Nescio]

Did you try if the .DELETED (rather than .DELETE) suffix still works?

[The Undying Nephalim]

42 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Did you try if the .DELETED (rather than .DELETE) suffix still works?

Oh silly me, it is DELETED and not DELETE. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

It's DELETED indeed, but my point is there is either a bug in the archiver or the engine which doesn't apply .DELETED files correctly from the newly created mod archive.

[vladislavbelov]

On 5/28/2018 at 5:50 AM, aeonios said:

How did you do that?

I store glow bit in the alpha channel, so glow = length(rgb) > 0.0 && a == 0.0. And then just blur it on the bloom stage.

On 5/28/2018 at 5:50 AM, aeonios said:

Full support for a glow effect would be relatively expensive (you'd basically have to apply bloom twice, with extra full-screen buffers, plus extra hacky and also expensive shader magic) so even a hacky solution would be preferable.

The keyword is relatively. It's not more expensive than the DOF. So if make it as an option, then we wouldn't have a problem.

On 5/28/2018 at 5:50 AM, aeonios said:

Also vanilla 0ad has no real use for glow effects like that, except maybe for a few rare odd things.

As the DOF. But they all are nice addition.

On 5/28/2018 at 9:26 AM, stanislas69 said:

Could we make that depend on the sun position ?

Sure, it's flexible.