Update #49: Water, Trees, Day/Night, Lighting... All That Jazz

[AwesomeOcelot]

Well, I was just thinking, at the very least, about shadows on the environment that follow the day/night lighting. I mean, those things in the environment are all 2D, so they're never going to rotate or anything, so all you have to do is take a 2D vector shadow, starting at the sunrise position, and skew it across to the sunrise position (and redo it for moonstages). You wouldn't really need 3D model info, since you don't have a 3D dynamic object making the shadow in the first place.

Someone else suggested this, and yes you could do it, but it wouldn't look anywhere near as realistic as the shadows there now as what's happening with the 3D shadow casts is not a vector being skewed, light is coming from a different angle. Shadows should be in line with the quality of the rest of the graphics or they stick out, and "wrong" shadows are probably going to disturb people even more than shadows that don't move with the time of day.

But, weren't the "taller" rocks that were protruding from the low level of water a part of the same 2D image as the rest of the rocky streambed? Seems like getting 3D water to appear to flow above AND below certain bits of a 2D image would be more trouble than simply using 2D water along with masking and such (I don't know what the technical terms would be in a game engine like that) to create the illusion of the water being higher or lower. But, again, what seems to me to be the case isn't necessarily the case.

That's what I'm suggesting, the rocks are 2D as you can see from the level in Unity's editor, the water is 3D. As I said, you could render that out to 2D, but then you lose some flexibility with what you can do with objects and light dynamically because it's baked, for example having the 3D character step in it, having dynamic refraction and reflection. Edited April 16, 2013 by AwesomeOcelot

[Lephys]

I see. I think I understand the 3D water, now. And I have a greater understanding of how difficult it would be to do any kind of dynamic shadows that actually reacted to the lightsources with the 2D approach.

 

I appreciate the lesson.

[rjshae]

I will probably maintain this erection until release.

 

I hope that assembly involves glue and lots of tooth picks. Otherwise you should probably go visit a doctor.

[Hormalakh]

I will probably maintain this erection until release.

please see a doctor.

[jlibster]

This is a promising beginning. Looking forward to seeing more.

[ilves]

Looks great, signed onto the forums for the first time. Really like the glowing light and how dynamically it lights up the environment. The characters did look very blurry while moving, but since this was an environment demo I'm going to guess that the characters, movement, etc are still work in progress so I'm not worried in any way. Happy I backed so far.

[Tsuga C]

I will probably maintain this erection until release.

Rent yourself out as a Hippity Hop for bachelorette parties. It'll put that thing to good use and toughen up your abs like you wouldn't believe.

[Ieo]

In revisiting this video, at 2:20-ish onwards, there was one thing that bothered me: the legs. Stance and gait, specifically. Mechanically, bipedal humanoids don't stand with their legs that far apart--the center of gravity stress on certain joints would be all wrong. It looks and feels awkward to me. I couldn't really tell from the small avatars moving, but I wonder if that too-wide stance translates into the actual gait as well (our feet in a proper gait are not very far apart but nearly a straight line). Could you guys tighten that up a bit, maybe?

[jamoecw]

In revisiting this video, at 2:20-ish onwards, there was one thing that bothered me: the legs. Stance and gait, specifically. Mechanically, bipedal humanoids don't stand with their legs that far apart--the center of gravity stress on certain joints would be all wrong. It looks and feels awkward to me. I couldn't really tell from the small avatars moving, but I wonder if that too-wide stance translates into the actual gait as well (our feet in a proper gait are not very far apart but nearly a straight line). Could you guys tighten that up a bit, maybe?

now that you point it out their stance is a bit off.  they stand on one leg, using the other more for balance than load bearing, like they are at the ready to charge maybe?  as for stride, i tend to take wide steps, and end up with a stride like theirs, but it is not normal, and i do tend to move a little faster.

 

there have been studies on stride length and efficiency, and when you walk with a longer stride you tend to be more efficient in your motion, but this tends to have to do with momentum helping to overcome the extra energy of walking with a longer stride.  thus a slow long stride isn't as efficient than a slow short stride, but a fast long stride is more efficient than either.

 

as they walk everywhere i can see them having a longer stride, even when moving slowly.  being in a constant state danger i can see them always being ready to charge or run away.  so i can see their stance and gait fitting adventurers, but i do have to agree that it seems strange and awkward.  that being said i play dwarf fortress, and knowing that their stance and gait is just a graphical feature that has no impact on gameplay, i wouldn't object to a static image moving over landscape, as long as the graphics don't interfere with getting info from the screen then i'm happy.  i'm also totally understanding that such things result in a disconnect for most people with the immersion.

[mudd1]

@ Frenetic Pony

If I read "shouldn't be hard" from you one more time, I swear I'm gonna freak. If it's not hard, do a fricking tech demo already instead of throwing around 3D CG lingo and trying to apply it to this 2D demo we've seen but not thoroughly understood. Also, stop extending your wishlist of "but I wanna, but I wanna" effects and techniques. These guys know what they are doing and it's groundbreaking. If something can be done within the limited budget, I'm sure they will. If it can't then I won't throw a tantrum. And anyways, I'd go for beautifully painted backgrounds in favor of fancy 2.5D effects that force the artists to make compromises any time.

[Lephys]

Easy there, Mudd1. He's simply making suggestions, based on his limited knowledge, that he hopes are helpful. He's interested in the processes at hand, and has know way of knowing what the devs already do or do not know. What's the harm in that, hmm?

[mudd1]

Easy there, Mudd1. He's simply making suggestions, based on his limited knowledge, that he hopes are helpful. He's interested in the processes at hand, and has know way of knowing what the devs already do or do not know. What's the harm in that, hmm?

 

He could just be more humble instead of saying stuff like "shouldn't be hard" and "should be easy enough", and maybe get into less technical detail but instead trust in the developers' professionalism.

 

And regardless of the technical feasibility of his suggestions, as I said, I'd vote for more story and a more painterly quality of the graphics instead of state-of-the-art gadgetry any time.

[Lephys]

He could just be more humble instead of saying stuff like "shouldn't be hard" and "should be easy enough", and maybe get into less technical detail but instead trust in the developers' professionalism.

 

And regardless of the technical feasibility of his suggestions, as I said, I'd vote for more story and a more painterly quality of the graphics instead of state-of-the-art gadgetry any time.

 

 

I'm not seeing how phrases such as "it shouldn't be hard" are inherently making him un-humble. He's simply stating that, as far as he knows, he's not suggesting things that are understood throughout the industry to be ludicrously tricky or time-consuming. Simply for what it's worth.

 

Until he says something like "even YOU guys should be able to do it, LOLZ!", there is absolutely no reason to assume a more specific meaning than "to my knowledge, this shouldn't be very difficult to do, which I'm telling you in the event that you didn't already know that."

 

And regardless of how much non-technical stuff you'd vote for, the entire game is built out of "technical stuff," The art team can create their painterly quality all day long, and the "technical stuff" has to make sure it maintains integrity throughout things like lighting and other dynamic factors. Not to mention that I'm sure the dev team is more than capable of deciding what is and isn't detrimental to the integrity of their art team's work, regarding game engine techniques.

 

It's not as if Frenetic Pony is urging thousands of backers to sign a petition to be sent directly to Obsidian that demands that all the resources from the art team be redirected to the technical team. So, again... no need to assume things and get upset over sheer speculation. I encourage you not to be so concerned about harmless suggestions, for what they're worth.

[mudd1]

 

And regardless of how much non-technical stuff you'd vote for, the entire game is built out of "technical stuff," The art team can create their painterly quality all day long, and the "technical stuff" has to make sure it maintains integrity throughout things like lighting and other dynamic factors. Not to mention that I'm sure the dev team is more than capable of deciding what is and isn't detrimental to the integrity of their art team's work, regarding game engine techniques.

 

 

Well, the more lighting you do automatically, the less the artists do it.

 

And his suggestions were very extensive and detailed. They went far beyond "why don't you make the shadows follow the sun" or something. And some phrases like "correct me if I'm wrong" or "I'm no expert on the matter but maybe you can ..." would also have gone a long way.

 

But to be honest, his behaviour annoyed me enough to register an account and write an angry post but it's not important enough to discuss this to no end. So let's just say that it annoyed me but didn't bother you. That's ok.

[Lephys]

But to be honest, his behaviour annoyed me enough to register an account and write an angry post but it's not important enough to discuss this to no end. So let's just say that it annoyed me but didn't bother you. That's ok.

Well, to be honest, your behavior was enough to cause me to use my already-created account and write an inquisitive post as to the nature of your behavior, as it seemed (and still seems) quite unwarranted.

 

A lack of assumption as to the tone of his simple, text-only suggestions based upon his limited knowledge would also have gone a long way.

 

*shrug*

[Hassat Hunter]

Well, I was waaay back on Kickstarter, but the whole item-debacle made me catch up (also having time helps )

 

And I have to say, it looks beatiful. Certainly takes me back to when games look good. And not fake-good like The Witcher II where everything's super-high definition but it all feels stale due to it's art direction being lack-luster and generic. Hope it keeps up throughout the game and we get the beatiful areas we all know and love from BG2, PS:T or IWD.

[Dark_Ansem]

This is an old thread, but I have to ask: why were all those nice interactive, alive-feel, animated features like the animated grass, removed from the beta?

Edited November 2, 2014 by Dark_Ansem

[samm]

Maybe because they were actually neither interactive nor alive-feel: Too much negative feedback about rotating leaf patch textures and grass animations, that don't seem motivated by wind (they just randomly swayed) and that also don't react to characters walking through.

[Dark_Ansem]

so instead of improving them they were deleted?

[Quantics]

They probably realised that they couldn't be improved with the current system and/or would take up too much time to implement.

[Dark_Ansem]

perhaps with Unity 5 then?

[Naurgalen]

And how is foliage "not moving at all" while other things are being moved by the wind (fallen leafs, water etc...) more immersive? It has no sense.

[Lephys]

Fallen leafs are totally foliage. 8P

 

But I get what you're saying,

[John Forseti]

And how is foliage "not moving at all" while other things are being moved by the wind (fallen leafs, water etc...) more immersive? It has no sense.

 

I havent seen anything from the beta so I cant comment on that specifically but sometimes moving closer to the thing in a simulation of the thing actually spoils the effect more than the abstraction that was there before hand, the uncanny valley doesn't just apply to faces.

[Dark_Ansem]

what do you mean?