Not logged in, Join Here! or Log In Below:  
 
News Articles Search    
 

 Home / 3D Theory & Graphics / general compositing architecture for vertexes Account Manager
 
Archive Notice: This thread is old and no longer active. It is here for reference purposes. This thread was created on an older version of the flipcode forums, before the site closed in 2005. Please keep that in mind as you view this thread, as many of the topics and opinions may be outdated.
 
Victor Ho

August 30, 1999, 12:46 PM

Hi read this page http://www.alchemyzone.com/quakearena/edge/8.htm

and now I'm wondering what this general compositing architecture for vertexes that John Carmack talks might be.

Anyone?

 
Raven

August 30, 1999, 08:12 PM

>>and now I'm wondering what this general compositing architecture for vertexes that John >>Carmack talks might be.
As such products as the NV10, which are supposed to have Transform&Lighting on board come out, Carmack is afraid that all "personality" will be taken out of the 3D engines. With the current raster-only hardware you have all the freedom in the world. You can choose what you want for lightmaps, there is a myriad of ways to do fogging, and curved surfaces are a nice addition to any engine. With T&L the lightmaps will be done by the card, fogging is done by the card(not sure about this, but probably i'm right or it could be easily simulated), curved surfaces are not possible because all the optimisations with transforming and lighting them are gone and anyone who ever wrote a bezier/b-spline renderer knows how important those become. I'm sure its pretty obvious that this takes out all need for a 3D engine, or at least makes it minimal. There are still a few tricks left for the clever ones like Carmack(fog is one) but the personality of an engine is gone. All creativity is much limited. This is VERY bad. So he wants the hardware to support compositions of transforms and lighting and plugging in user code(callback functions) for things like curved surfaces. Its very similar to applying multiple texture passes(as he explains in the article). This will still allow for creativity. This is his main idea, though he also talks about the evolution of the triangle into the voxel. I have to disagree here, i personally think it should evolve into splines as the basic engine primitive, with voxels for detail. Or some other combination. But not purely voxel for sure

Hope this helps,
- Raven

 
Victor Ho

August 30, 1999, 11:25 PM


Ok now I think understand. So basically this compositing Carmack talks about is an API that allow for the T&L pipeline to be picked apart and replaced, with the basic interface as the vertex?

I guess this basically solve that debate about which exisitng API will with the 3D wars. Answer: neither.


So he wants the hardware to support compositions of transforms and lighting and plugging in user code(callback functions) for things like curved surfaces. Its very similar to applying multiple texture passes(as he explains in the article). This will still allow for creativity. This is his main idea, though he also talks about the evolution of the triangle into the voxel. I have to disagree here, i personally think it should evolve into splines as the basic engine primitive, with voxels for detail. Or some other combination. But not purely voxel for sure

>>
>> Hope this helps,
>> - Raven

 
Conor Stokes

September 11, 1999, 11:23 AM


Although, the card does not generate lightmaps, rather per linear or per pixel calculated lighting. For the OGL lighting engine, this is phong. You still need to do shadows. IMHO the lighting COULD be useful, except that you can't do things like area emmiters, or shadows, or soft shadows. I think lightmaps will stay with us for a while yet.

And, you can do curves with a Transform and Lighting pipeline, without letting the accelerator touch them.

Conor "DirtyPunk" Stokes

3d Programmer, Crytek Studios

 
This thread contains 4 messages.
 
 
Hosting by Solid Eight Studios, maker of PhotoTangler Collage Maker.