Update #79: Graphics and Rendering

[Silent Winter]

^that's exactly it - more shadow around feet = non-floaty.  Unfortunate shadow angle, not around feet, especially with light background = more floaty.

It may well be the same tech at work, just the angle and lack of AO with the 'floor' makes it look too light round the feet.

 

I need to look for it to see it though - not sure I'd notice in-game, I guess it depends how it looks in proper res and animated.

[Bryy]

One of the MAIN Inns in Defiance Bay is the NEOGaf Inn, the "Goose and Fox" Inn.

Oh God, we are going to lord that one over everyone for years.

 

"NeoGAF influences the industry".

 

 

 

... I have so many issues with how DFA was handled, but this is by far not one of them.

Yeah, I think most people were fine with the restriction. The problem is that you only need very few individuals out of the tens of thousands of backers to let the whole idea go to **** with people being pissed, the press being pissed and everything just turning into a huge PR nightmare.

 

And since the chance of having such a critical mass of idiots is exactly 1 for any group of people larger than 1000, it's just not even worth trying. I mean it's good Doublefine did try because now nobody ever has to try it again and they will just keep backers in the dark about things they absolutely don't want to see leaked. Entitled idiots is why we can't have nice things, as always.

 

I'm talking about how the project was mismanaged from the start.

 

I could care less about what is and is not in the doc. They blew all the money and I highly doubt we'll see Act 2 until late 2016/early 2017. Hopefully Costume Quest 2 sells well, because Broken Age has a long way to go. Has it even broken even or made a profit yet?

Edited May 31, 2014 by Bryy

[Justinian]

A couple of things that stand out as particularly jarring to me still is the lack of nuance when characters turn. Aloth snaps into another direction while he's running as if he's a sprite.

 

Another issue is that the shadow map doesn't adhere to parallax. This can be seen when Aloth runs into the shadowed area, and his character darkens immediately when his head reaches the shadow, rather than remaining lit until his entire body is behind the building which casts the shadow.

 

That said, the game is looking great, and really gives off the feeling of an infinite engine game as opposed to a 3D one.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Justinian

[Frenetic Pony]

 

 

Great update! Technical question though: going by this old cookie

 

 

the high res maps are looking to be ~15,000x10,000 pixels. With two layers of 24 bit colour and one at 8 bit monochrome, that works out to ~600MB of raw data a map. Are you using lossy or lossless compression or no compression? If you're compressing it, does the decompression take a notable amount of time during level load? Or do you stream it in a tile at a time?

 

Also if you've got dozens of maps like this, just how big of a download is the game probably gonna be?

 

There's actually four layers - final, depth, albedo, and normals - all 32 or 24 bit. They are all compressed, but in a way to preserve as much detail as possible. Decompression is quick, and most of the load time is spent loading the textures off of disk. I don't have the exact size, but the game is going to be average download for today's standards.

 

I honestly wouldn't mind if it took 500GB to have the game uncompressed. so long as the graphics are better. I really hope the compression doesn't take away any really noticeable details.

 

I also noticed in the video, the characters look like they're out of place, they have no realistic shadow at all. Its like they're not really standing on the ground...   one guy said it was as if they were floating. I agree then. hope this gets addressed, it literally made me second guess how excited I was for this game.

 

 

Full sized normal and spec, 4k background render, 32bit BC7 for albedo, Normals in DXT5_NM, compressed losslessly using something like X-Zips.

 

Regardless, drop shadows for low end and SSAO for the high end might be good. Now I understand SSAO will effect other things like the environment, so maybe instead you could do a shape based AO? The Order: 1886 of all things *yes that brilliant looking game, just uses a capsule based ambient occlusion to supplement SSAO. So if SSAO would overdarken things just do something like that.

 

Or better yet. Something like this: http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1015320/Ambient-Occlusion-Fields-and-Decals

 

Attach voxel fields to character limbs via the scene graph to animate, and you've got per character ambient oclussion

Edited May 31, 2014 by Frenetic Pony

[rjshae]

Another issue is that the shadow map doesn't adhere to parallax. This can be seen when Aloth runs into the shadowed area, and his character darkens immediately when his head reaches the shadow, rather than remaining lit until his entire body is behind the building which casts the shadow.

 

Yes, I noticed that too. But to me it's a minor thing; a result of the 3D emulation process. We'll probably not even notice it when we're busy playing the game.

[Failion]

Good thing obsidian realized how off the pcs looked in the original artwork they revealed and made efforts to make it look better. Very important to make it look like pcs are part of the artwork or otherwise you have games like fallout 3 where it just looks off. Your guy in fallout 3 like he is rollerblading everywhere around the world while everyone else some nub that does rollerblade.

[Sensuki]

A couple of things that stand out as particularly jarring to me still is the lack of nuance when characters turn. Aloth snaps into another direction while he's running as if he's a sprite.

Could be fixed by giving characters a 'turn-rate'. They use it in quite a few RTS games to control the speed that a unit can change directions.

[AndreaColombo]

Full sized normal and spec, 4k background render, 32bit BC7 for albedo, Normals in DXT5_NM, compressed losslessly using something like X-Zips.

 

It was my understanding they were going for 2560x1440 native resolution for background art (as opposed to 4K)?

[Azmodiuz]

Im wondering the same thing, if I will be able to mod the textures/maps.

I also hope we're going past 2560x1440... thats like soo old...  even 6-7 years ago I was using 2560x1600, and now its been a year i've been using 4k.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Azmodiuz

[Sensuki]

 

Full sized normal and spec, 4k background render, 32bit BC7 for albedo, Normals in DXT5_NM, compressed losslessly using something like X-Zips.

 

It was my understanding they were going for 2560x1440 native resolution for background art (as opposed to 4K)?

 

I think that's actually been dropped. They seem to be mentioning a "screen" as 1080p. Looks like there's no longer two art assets of 720 and 1440p.

[mstark]

 

A couple of things that stand out as particularly jarring to me still is the lack of nuance when characters turn. Aloth snaps into another direction while he's running as if he's a sprite.

Could be fixed by giving characters a 'turn-rate'. They use it in quite a few RTS games to control the speed that a unit can change directions.

 

I personally would prefer it to be instant, or "jarring". It makes game controls feel so much more responsive. Less annoying, if you will. If I ask a character to walk somewhere, I want them to start walking, not take 1 second to turn around and then start to walk. Especially if you're like me, who will keep changing direction of my party all the time.

Edited June 2, 2014 by mstark

[Zwiebelchen]

Nice to get technically details!

 

It basicly confirmed the assumptions made by the community about how the engine works (and which maps are involved). Which is great! Now all we need are the developer tools to convert maps into the game's format and a tool to build and script content and the modding cumminity will thrive.

 

It's also nice to know what modelling software the developers used. This would technically allow everyone that has access to this software (in this case it's Maya, which is available for free as a students licence!) to use the plugins that obsidian used to convert their maya renders without any compatibility issues.

 

 

Let's just hope the management at obsidian will do the right decision and ship out their home-made tools for free, to support modding. You can't deny the impact modding had on the IE games and it wasn't even officially supported there! Now imagine how big modding could have been WITH the proper tools available!

 

I have never seen a single game where extended modability actually hurted sales. If anything, modability keeps a product alive long after it's expected lifespan. Two of the most mod-heavy games in gaming history, Warcraft III and Neverwinter Nights still have an alive community even 15 years after release!

 

And let's not forget what modding did to gaming in general:

Team Fortress, Counterstrike, League of Legends (aka DOTA) ... those games all derived from mods and changed the history of gaming completely!

Edited June 2, 2014 by Zwiebelchen

[mstark]

 

 

Full sized normal and spec, 4k background render, 32bit BC7 for albedo, Normals in DXT5_NM, compressed losslessly using something like X-Zips.

 

It was my understanding they were going for 2560x1440 native resolution for background art (as opposed to 4K)?

 

I think that's actually been dropped. They seem to be mentioning a "screen" as 1080p. Looks like there's no longer two art assets of 720 and 1440p.

 

I'm not so sure. A "screen" of 1080p was always their base reference, that "screen" will show different amounts of area depending on if you've chosen to run the game with the renders made with reference to 720p screens (which will make the game look more like an ant farm. IE games were made with 480p monitors as the reference), or with the 1440p reference renders, which will make characters and areas appear larger on screen, without up-scaling.

[rjshae]

 

 

A couple of things that stand out as particularly jarring to me still is the lack of nuance when characters turn. Aloth snaps into another direction while he's running as if he's a sprite.

Could be fixed by giving characters a 'turn-rate'. They use it in quite a few RTS games to control the speed that a unit can change directions.

 

I personally would prefer it to be instant, or "jarring". It makes game controls feel so much more responsive. Less annoying, if you will. If I ask a character to walk somewhere, I want them to start walking, not take 1 second to turn around and then start to walk. Especially if you're like me, who will keep changing direction of my party all the time.

 

I think it would need just enough frames for your eye to perceive the motion. But larger creatures like a dragon should take noticeably longer.

Edited June 2, 2014 by rjshae

[Sensuki]

I'm not so sure. A "screen" of 1080p was always their base reference, that "screen" will show different amounts of area depending on if you've chosen to run the game with the renders made with reference to 720p screens (which will make the game look more like an ant farm. IE games were made with 480p monitors as the reference), or with the 1440p reference renders, which will make characters and areas appear larger on screen, without up-scaling.

We haven't heard mention of two sets of assets for a LONG time, I'm pretty sure they're just using one - 1080p per screen assets. That's what I gathered from reading Update 67.

 

I personally would prefer it to be instant, or "jarring". It makes game controls feel so much more responsive. Less annoying, if you will. If I ask a character to walk somewhere, I want them to start walking, not take 1 second to turn around and then start to walk. Especially if you're like me, who will keep changing direction of my party all the time.

Whatever is closest to the IE games suits me (which was instant/responsive) but like rjshae said, something like a turn-rate would be good for controlling longer units such as dragons - which is what it's used for in RTS style games, for Tanks, Huntresses in WC3 etc

[AndreaColombo]

We haven't heard mention of two sets of assets for a LONG time, I'm pretty sure they're just using one - 1080p per screen assets. That's what I gathered from reading Update 67.

 

To be honest, I hope not.

 

Perhaps Adam could chime in to clarify the matter?

[Lephys]

^that's exactly it - more shadow around feet = non-floaty.  Unfortunate shadow angle, not around feet, especially with light background = more floaty.

It may well be the same tech at work, just the angle and lack of AO with the 'floor' makes it look too light round the feet.

 

I need to look for it to see it though - not sure I'd notice in-game, I guess it depends how it looks in proper res and animated.

*nod nod*. It seems to just be the contrast, at this point. Earlier, they had the Scooby Doo effect going on, where the whole character didn't seem to fit. Now, it seems that, as long as the feet match the ground (as long as it looks like the same lighting is hitting the feet AND the ground plane at that location), everything's coo.

 

For instance, if that sentry standing beside the building had really light edges around his feet (because they were apparently being lit from all around, which is why there's no hard shadow near his feet? Doesn't really matter), to match the light, shadow-lacking ground plane, he wouldn't look floaty. In the red-hooded-guy screenshot, those characters don't so much look grounded because they have heavier shadows, but because their feet are darker AND the ground is shaded (dark).

 

So, yeah, again, they may already know about that. The dark-feet-edge-versus-light-ground effect on that sentry might be completely not intended to be the final aesthetic. *shrug*

 

But, yeah, as long as they pay attention to contrast-matching with feetses, I think there will be balance in the universe.

[SKull]

I`m glad I just found out about this game, otherwise I would have developed anticipation ulcers already. The infinity games were just the best ever and I`ll be happy if this is half as good as Toemrnt and BG.

[mudd1]

Im wondering the same thing, if I will be able to mod the textures/maps.

 

I also hope we're going past 2560x1440... thats like soo old...  even 6-7 years ago I was using 2560x1600, and now its been a year i've been using 4k.

Want a cookie?

[AwesomeOcelot]

 

Full sized normal and spec, 4k background render, 32bit BC7 for albedo, Normals in DXT5_NM, compressed losslessly using something like X-Zips.

 

It was my understanding they were going for 2560x1440 native resolution for background art (as opposed to 4K)?

 

 

Yes, they're going to tile the background beyond 2560x1440 as you can see by the image in coffeetable's post, which is from a post by Josh Sawyer a while ago.

Edited June 4, 2014 by AwesomeOcelot

[SirBlackjack]

Weee so excited :D

[AndreaColombo]

 

 

Full sized normal and spec, 4k background render, 32bit BC7 for albedo, Normals in DXT5_NM, compressed losslessly using something like X-Zips.

 

It was my understanding they were going for 2560x1440 native resolution for background art (as opposed to 4K)?

 

 

Yes, they're going to tile the background beyond 2560x1440 as you can see by the image in coffeetable's post, which is from a post by Josh Sawyer a while ago.

 

 

Hi AwesomeOcelot,

 

I'm afraid I missed Josh's post. You wouldn't happen to have a handy link to the thread where he made it, would you?

 

I would like to learn more about this tiling of the backdrops—does that mean there will be not need for upscaling beyond 2560x1440 (i.e. the picture won't shrink and/or become more blurry)?

[AwesomeOcelot]

 

 

 

Full sized normal and spec, 4k background render, 32bit BC7 for albedo, Normals in DXT5_NM, compressed losslessly using something like X-Zips.

 

It was my understanding they were going for 2560x1440 native resolution for background art (as opposed to 4K)?

 

 

Yes, they're going to tile the background beyond 2560x1440 as you can see by the image in coffeetable's post, which is from a post by Josh Sawyer a while ago.

 

 

Hi AwesomeOcelot,

 

I'm afraid I missed Josh's post. You wouldn't happen to have a handy link to the thread where he made it, would you?

 

I would like to learn more about this tiling of the backdrops—does that mean there will be not need for upscaling beyond 2560x1440 (i.e. the picture won't shrink and/or become more blurry)?

 

You are correct, there won't be upscaling beyond 2560x1440, you'll just see more background. Josh posted the image and explained what will happen, it was an extension of the main update 36 that went into great length about this.

 

Important parts: People who play 1920x1080 get to choose to downsample 2560x1440 or to use the 1280x720 backgrounds tiled so they see 1/3 more of the area. People playing from 1280x720 to 1920x1080 get the 1280x720 backgrounds tiled. People playing from the 2560x1440 to 4096x2304 will get the 2560x1440 backgrounds tiled.

 

Upscaling when working correctly shouldn't make things more blurry than they would be on a lower resolution monitor. A 21" 2560x1440 monitor should be able to display the same 1280x720 image as a 21" 1280x720 monitor. So anything beyond 2560x1440 shouldn't look any worse than playing at 2560x1440, which by today's standard, with most people playing below that, is great.

 

If you have a high PPI monitor the image will shrink if the game is run at native resolution. People using high PPI displays like the 13.3" 2560x1600 MacBook Pro may want to upscale from a 1440x900 resolution because the image will be tiny at native resolutions, people with a Dell UltraSharp 23.8" 3840x2160 monitor may want to upscale from 2560x1440, people with a 32" 3840x2160 would want to play the game at 3840x2160. I think this solution is fine and I wouldn't expect Obsidian, or any other developer, to support very high PPI screens because a) it would cost a lot, take way more time, and the backgrounds for the game would be 3 times the size in bits, and b) very few gamers have them.

[Sensuki]

My point was though that we do not know if that information is now relevant. They may have changed the 720p and 1440p assets to a single 1080p asset size.

 

Theoretically doing two asset sizes means double the paint over work and also perhaps some disk size issues for the 1440p version.

 

A 3x3 interior is the equivalent of a 5760x3240 render. An easier way to think about it is that a 3x3 area is nine 1920x1080 screens worth of content. You can imagine that making an area even a tiny bit larger can actually lead to enormous amounts of work. As an example, a 3x3 is nine screens of work, where a 4x4 is 16 screens of work... almost double the number of screens.

Josh also mentions the render size of 13440x7560 in his GDC as a standard exterior area size, which is a 7x7 of 1920x1080

 

I'd love to have 1440p assets myself, but I think they're doing 1080p now.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Sensuki

[Zwiebelchen]

My point was though that we do not know if that information is now relevant. They may have changed the 720p and 1440p assets to a single 1080p asset size.

 

Theoretically doing two asset sizes means double the paint over work and also perhaps some disk size issues for the 1440p version.

 

 

Why would it mean doubled paint-over work? You work with the higher scale image and then just resize the final result.

 

Making an image smaller does not result in a loss of (perceived) quality. Only making it bigger does.

 

 

With modern games scoring 30+ GB of disc space nowadays, I don't see any issues with filesize by maintaining two image bases.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Zwiebelchen