Lighting Model

[montana05]

Agreed, but to this I'd argue that the ships do look well at close distances, when they comply to the new lighting model. I think that most of the material I am posting here at the screenshots thread looks good enough and I'm using even higher light intensities than the defaults. It's just a matter of correctly using the light model and I'm afraid that in this regard there are many OXP ships that have not been brought up to date. Those would most likely look weird. Note that the default core ship set is not excluded from this. For ships that comply to the current model (and without trying to plug my OXP, it's just the only example I know of), refer to the normal+specular+gloss maps OXP for 1.88 and later.

We could consider updating the core shipset to be what it really should be, with proper normal, specular and gloss maps, in which case we would require artists' help and would be moving a bit further away from the low-end systems support.

I am fighting an endless war against broken OXP's and, no offense meant, nobody would know before that the light model change like that. My personal opinion is that you expect every developer of a OXP ( a lot not available anymore) to update their work to the new model. Bluntly speaking, it's not gonna happen, last time I checked I had 50+ textures not working well nowadays, even with lockdown it will require a lot of time.

Regarding core, I do agree that it would be about time to include normal maps and gloss.

[another_commander]

We could consider updating the core shipset to be what it really should be, with proper normal, specular and gloss maps, in which case we would require artists' help and would be moving a bit further away from the low-end systems support.

That's understood, and not likely to happen. A pity, but so it goes! Shadows? I'd love shadows!


If my GTX 770 (old but has grunt) is taking a heavy hit, how are low-end systems handling it?

I am still able to run the game in comfortably playable framerates when loaded up with 8k planets and norm/spec/gloss maps accross the board on my laptop's Intel HD 610. Where I see notable delays is when graphics are loaded (e.g. F7 screen, shipyard, witchspace etc.), which is understandable, since my card in built-in and shares its memory with the laptop's RAM. I've also tested on GTX 960 and Quadro and it is fine as far as I can tell (esp. the Quadro, it can easily take much heavier load than what Oolite has to throw at it). That's about it as far as I can tell.

[another_commander]

I am fighting an endless war against broken OXP's and, no offense meant, nobody would know before that the light model change like that. My personal opinion is that you expect every developer of a OXP ( a lot not available anymore) to update their work to the new model. Bluntly speaking, it's not gonna happen, last time I checked I had 50+ textures not working well nowadays, even with lockdown it will require a lot of time.

The new lighting model was described in great detail in Sep/Oct 2018 (https://bb.oolite.space/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=19881). Still, more than two years later, very little has been done to update old OXPs. Maybe I was too optimistic, but the alternative was to remain with an old, inaccurate (and sometimes plain wrong) lighting model with no option for improvement.

The problem here is not that the lighting model was changed, but that the OXPs that were left unupdated had already been abandoned by their authors. If one persnn now maintains twenty or thrity old OXPs, it is all good and commendable but it also points to an underlying lost contributors problem. As we've said before, OXPs need to follow the developments of the core, otherwise (and knowing that many OXPs are orphaned already) might as well halt development in the core and remain with what we have, waiting for OXPs to catch up with the changes. Normally we try to keep backwards compatibility, but in the case of gfx engine upgrades this may not always be possible.

[Cholmondely]

I am fighting an endless war against broken OXP's and, no offense meant, nobody would know before that the light model change like that. My personal opinion is that you expect every developer of a OXP ( a lot not available anymore) to update their work to the new model. Bluntly speaking, it's not gonna happen, last time I checked I had 50+ textures not working well nowadays, even with lockdown it will require a lot of time.

The new lighting model was described in great detail in Sep/Oct 2018 (https://bb.oolite.space/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=19881). Still, more than two years later, very little has been done to update old OXPs. Maybe I was too optimistic, but the alternative was to remain with an old, inaccurate (and sometimes plain wrong) lighting model with no option for improvement.

The problem here is not that the lighting model was changed, but that the OXPs that were left unupdated had already been abandoned by their authors. If one person now maintains twenty or thirty old OXPs, it is all good and commendable but it also points to an underlying lost contributors problem. As we've said before, OXPs need to follow the developments of the core, otherwise (and knowing that many OXPs are orphaned already) might as well halt development in the core and remain with what we have, waiting for OXPs to catch up with the changes. Normally we try to keep backwards compatibility, but in the case of gfx engine upgrades this may not always be possible.

* If I want to enjoy all the old oxps in their full glory, I can easily download older versions through the wiki.
* But if we want to attract new players, I would have thought that we need to keep up to date with the way the game looks. And most new players will not want to download old versions of the game (or be bothered to work out how to) unless they become fanatics.
* It would do no harm to (1) attract new players (how?) and (2) bring back some of our old-timers (how?). Has much brainstorming been done on this in the past? Did anything along these lines happen during Cim's day (cusp of the release of E:D)?
* Given the need to bridge the gap between 8bit Elite and modern gaming, the OXPs are the only sensible route. And so much of the work has already been done. To update the entire game would take far too much effort for our volunteer developers.
* I wonder if there would be point in including a handful of starting oxps with the initial game to help bridge the gap between the two. Say Random Ship Names, BGS, Communications Pack A, Traffic Lights, Redspear's new Paddling Pool.oxz etc...

[Cody]

... open up the oolite-default-planet.fragment and oolite-default-shader.fragment and play with the MULTIPLIER_LIGHTSRCRADIANCE and NULTIPLIER_EXPOSURE values.

That improves things - thanks.

I wonder if there would be point in including a handful of starting oxps with the initial game to help bridge the gap between the two. Say Random Ship Names, BGS, Communications Pack A, Traffic Lights, Redspear's new Paddling Pool.oxz etc...

Even if that was desirable, it'd lead to a long 'discussion' over which OXPs to include.

[Rxke]

Even if that was desirable, it'd lead to a long 'discussion' over which OXPs to include.

put it to a temporary vote?

(hi from the lurkingspace )

[Cody]

Hey Rxke - good to see you!

[cbr]

Regarding 'starting oxp' why not include profiles ( in one form/shape or another ), a profile installs the required oxzs.
an eyecandy profile, stronger opponents profile, etc. I believe the idea already exists in the manager.

Regarding the lighting model, if used correctly, it adds a kind of (extra) depth, advantageous.
When not used, bland...

[Rxke]

Hi Cody! Cool to see you still strutting around with the ole sniperrifle

I have an opinion about the startup eye- and functionalcandy, but I've been too long out of the loop so I'm not going to interfere.


...Only to say Oolite still rocks!

[another_commander]

Hi Rxke, good to have you with us again!

[Cody]

Cool to see you still strutting around with the ole sniperrifle

My trusty Winchester!

I have an opinion about...

Come on, out with it - you know you want to!

[Rxke]

Come on, out with it - you know you want to!

Nah.

Seriously: no, I'm too far out of the loop. I shouldn't even have said I have an opinion.


Uninformed opinions are the bane of modern society.

[Cody]

Uninformed opinions are the bane of modern society.

As are social media!

[Rxke]

okay, let me rephrase that: uninformed opinions on social media are the bane of modern civilization !

(okay enough banter sorry for the noise)

[Cholmondely]

Come on, out with it - you know you want to!

Nah.

Seriously: no, I'm too far out of the loop. I shouldn't even have said I have an opinion.


Uninformed opinions are the bane of modern society.

The fact that you might have been out of the loop does not mean that you cannot have relevant opinions, views etc. I'm interested in how to make Oolite more popular. Do you really think that you have nothing worthwhile to contribute?