Let's push some polies in AGK.
Simple custom particle system setup, aimed at high speed and nothing else. Wanted to see how high we can get before the GPU gives up. Turns out, pretty high.
Very straightforward circle, box and sphere emitters into an animated noise field.
Particles use a simple dot as texture and are additive blended. They also use a gradient for lifetime-coloring and scale in and out smoothly.
edit:
To be perfectly clear: To do this you have to be able to write a shader. There. I said the evil S-word.
GTX 1070
1 million particles:
(https://www.syntaxbomb.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8EKKWDQl.jpg&hash=74bc7dd5d1791c2de3126c5f8fc4d5e2761f3900) (https://imgur.com/8EKKWDQ)
4 million particles:
(https://www.syntaxbomb.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYTryBdhl.jpg&hash=acb16f7cb94a65f321007f0afa09ec666541f1ab) (https://imgur.com/YTryBdh)
16 million particles. Just because we can.
(https://www.syntaxbomb.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAHRj941l.jpg&hash=eff61cae8e1e352f2ecff3ee3212e79a2684f310) (https://imgur.com/AHRj941)
1 million particles:
(https://www.syntaxbomb.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8dlbkoUl.jpg&hash=31e3e512092781c7d133b31c2f35f42552111272) (https://imgur.com/8dlbkoU)
256 thousand particles:
(https://www.syntaxbomb.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fow0gVr3l.jpg&hash=9247564fdb77ef3df114d53b6963de600df84bd9) (https://imgur.com/ow0gVr3)
Speed holds up really well unless going total bananas with particle counts. I mean.. 16 million is a tad much.
Hiya GaborD,
Particles always make for impressive effects, and these screenies don't fail to impress. It would be awesome to see it in motion ;)
To give further justice to AGK I think it would be a good idea to also share the source code used? Oh and don't forget your hardware specs too - they play a huge factor in performance stats.
Very impressive stuff and looks spectacular :)
Not to take away from your work and I hate to bring this up as I love your work and AGK but this is shaders at work and nothing to do with the power of AGK. Sure you tell AGK what the shader code is and off it goes but the runtime of AGK has a tiny job to do compared to the shaders / GPU.
QuoteIf anyone tells me AGK can't render a lot of polies, I'll smack them with a dead fish.
Then smack me as AGK can't do this without shaders. Sure AGK has shader support but AGK does not have the speed to do this and this output is really nothing to do with AGK's engine as the shader code is GPU driven. For example you couldn't interact with these particles via AGK without a super huge frame rate drop to practically zero. Say, have a character walk through the fire and have an effect on it ( coded in AGK script and not all shader based )
QuoteAnd, just to be crazy, 16 Million particles. Try that in Unity
Are you saying that Unity ( or others ) can't run shaders faster than AGK. Are you saying that AGK has some magic that makes direct access to the GPU faster via AGK?
QuoteDing dong, 4 million particles. Well, not really fast enough for action games, but usable for demo stuff or cinematic experiences, lol.
Can you imagine when we get to the point where 4 million particles per effect in realtime are possible in games :o. We're just seeing the birth of real time raytracing and even though it's not the whole scene being raytraced it's great to see that tech has finally reached a point to bring that side into realtime.
Sorry for the whinge and not to take away from your work which is highly impressive but this isn't AGK's ability but more your personal skill with shaders. To put the praise on AGK is just wrong and injustice to yourself as I bet with your skill you could achieve this in any shader enabled language.
I agree Cube. And it will have the same effect like the art that he produced at first. Inexperienced devs believe that their will be able to achieve the same visuals like Unity and Inreal. Easily and out of the box. And that is simply not true.
Quote from: MikeHart on June 09, 2019, 06:38:18
I agree Cube. And it will have the same effect like the art that he produced at first. Inexperienced devs believe that their will be able to achieve the same visuals like Unity and Inreal. Easily and out of the box. And that is simply not true.
The AGK Studio showcase video was superb, really top notch AAA stuff. I have no gripe with GaborD and his talent in achieving that. For that side it was that AGK can't produce that with its built in command set, it's misleading. Sure AGK has shaders but that's no different to using inline C++ or assembler and for me thats not AGK specific.
I can't stress enough that the work that GaborD does is awe inspiring and way beyond anything I can do. It's just that saying your highly skilled shader work is specific to a language does my nut in :P - Sorry, but I'm anal in that regard. If there is something with AGK shaders that others can't do then let me know and I'll hang my head in shame but from what I can see so far it's all down to your shader talent rather than AGK specific.
Quote from: Qube on June 09, 2019, 06:57:38
Quote from: MikeHart on June 09, 2019, 06:38:18
I agree Cube. And it will have the same effect like the art that he produced at first. Inexperienced devs believe that their will be able to achieve the same visuals like Unity and Inreal. Easily and out of the box. And that is simply not true.
The AGK Studio showcase video was superb, really top notch AAA stuff. I have no gripe with GaborD and his talent in achieving that. For that side it was that AGK can't produce that with its built in command set, it's misleading. Sure AGK has shaders but that's no different to using inline C++ or assembler and for me thats not AGK specific.
I can't stress enough that the work that GaborD does is awe inspiring and way beyond anything I can do. It's just that saying your highly skilled shader work is specific to a language does my nut in :P - Sorry, but I'm anal in that regard. If there is something with AGK shaders that others can't do then let me know and I'll hang my head in shame but from what I can see so far it's all down to your shader talent rather than AGK specific.
No critics of his skillset from my side either. Top notch definitely!
Quote from: MikeHart on June 09, 2019, 06:38:18
I agree Cube. And it will have the same effect like the art that he produced at first. Inexperienced devs believe that their will be able to achieve the same visuals like Unity and Inreal. Easily and out of the box. And that is simply not true.
Yeah, but what's the solution?
We can't post any cool screens anymore because some "I don't want to put any effort into game dev" guys could misinterpret it?
The thread I posted those PBR ones in said quite clearly what they were and further down even what they were originally developed for. So not only would they have to be uninformed but also too lazy to read. Why should we even care what someone like that thinks about any engine?
In any case I made it more clear in the OP of this thread.
Maybe I am just too old, but I don't get this new 0skill 0effort gamedev thing. I just don't get it.
When has putting some effort in become a negative thing we have to hide?
Quote
Yeah, but what's the solution?
..i sense, gimme da codez.. hehehe
Quote from: col on June 09, 2019, 04:54:23
Particles always make for impressive effects, and these screenies don't fail to impress. It would be awesome to see it in motion ;)
Sure, no problem:
Thats awesome 8)
Are the particles updated using compute or a pixel shader?
Quote from: col on June 09, 2019, 09:41:30
Thats awesome 8)
Are the particles updated using compute or a pixel shader?
Standard pixel shader (don't think you can access compute shaders in AGK), which makes this even more fun to do.
Here is another vid with a sphere emitter:
Quote from: GaborD on June 09, 2019, 08:51:34
When has putting some effort in become a negative thing we have to hide?
Noooo, do whatever you like. My critics are towards TGC and how they presents AGKS. There are people on Steam thinking that AGKS is the next Unity and with the new editor and how it is displayed, they think it is a non coding solution.
Quote
When has putting some effort in become a negative thing we have to hide?
..i think you misunderstood what people saying.. far as i can tell, your work is well respected and more than welcome..what was portrayed actually is situation, where such work is used for, so called, false advertising, where, army of Unity refugees, sees AGK as a holly grail of next gen game development, based on impression that, work you have been done, is trivial to achieve, which is obviously not..so it has nothing to do with your effort or skills, which are really really wonderful...thats the way i see it anyway..
Yep, definitely waves of respect coming your way. ;D
I do think that these examples are (in some ways) what can be done with shaders, rather than what can be done with AGK.
Also people might criticise because these are more 'tech' demo's and not things you would really do with a game or 'working' code. <- more than likely as you would need to know the shaders inside out, to get anywhere with them?
There is always a huge disconnect form what the technology and do, and what 'I' can do. GPU's are racing ahead and most of use are still wondering how to put a triangle onscreen - hehehehe
Personally I love the particles. There is something very organic about having millions of particles on screen at a time :)
QuoteYeah, but what's the solution?
We can't post any cool screens anymore because some "I don't want to put any effort into game dev" guys could misinterpret it?
Nah, no one is saying that and you are misunderstanding. What you have done is superb and very impressive work, definitely not easy with zero work.
All I'm saying is that this is really nothing to do with AGK as you posted but more to do with your shader skill set. From my point when someone says "done with AGK" I automatically assume done with the commands of AGK. I bet 99% of the source is shader code?.
Again I can't stress how great this is and perhaps we just have different thoughts when it comes to saying what "done in AGK" means. Sorry if I offended you.
Can I have this as a screen saver or will the GPU scream for mercy after a few minutes :P
Hey Gabor,
Cool stuff as always. I think the only thing is missing is to share your machine's specs. And some numbers about how much other engines like Unity etc. are slower with the same amount particles in comparison. Because if Unity cannot render the same amount of particles with the same speed on the same machine that is definitely a meaningful information. I'm guessing you're using AGK Studio for these tests?
I was gonna say 'cool' 8) but that word isn't sufficient. It's *HOT* like solar flares!
Top notch stuff GaborD, as always.
Quote from: iWasAdam on June 09, 2019, 11:40:50
I do think that these examples are (in some ways) what can be done with shaders, rather than what can be done with AGK.
But that is one and the same.
Even stock AGK rendering is fully shader based. Everything is nowadays. In every engine.
And the engine used still matters a lot, because they all have different amounts of bloat or in some cases are basically a blackbox and don't give you enough direct access to do it right. You can't take a shader an slap it into another engine and suddenly have PBR or GPU particles. You still have to do a lot of the work engine/CPU side. The shaders are pretty simple, developing the whole system isn't.
In any case, if someone chooses not to use one of the most powerful tools at their disposal, that's fine by me, do whatever you want or don't. But that decision is yours and has nothing to do with my stuff.
Just to be clear, yes I will use custom shaders for everything where it makes sense and in any engine I use. Why would I not. It's part of the toolset.
Honestly, anyone who truly wants to do higher end modern 3D has to learn and use shaders. It's an integral part of the job now.
Quote from: iWasAdam on June 09, 2019, 11:40:50
Also people might criticise because these are more 'tech' demo's and not things you would really do with a game or 'working' code.
There is no difference between running it as a solo demo or in a game. It's just an include file.
I wanted to keep it simple, to purely test the particles. But I should make a cooler demo, agree to that :)
Quote from: iWasAdam on June 09, 2019, 11:40:50more than likely as you would need to know the shaders inside out, to get anywhere with them?
Not once the system up and running. Fully data driven.
Once something like this is developed I generally don't have to touch the code anymore. Was the same for the PBR stuff, can switch out the entire scene without touching a shader.
I agree otherwise it would be very cumbersome to use hehe.
Quote from: Qube on June 09, 2019, 12:22:16
All I'm saying is that this is really nothing to do with AGK as you posted but more to do with your shader skill set. From my point when someone says "done with AGK" I automatically assume done with the commands of AGK. I bet 99% of the source is shader code?.
I get your point, but as I pointed out above to me it's a moot point. Shaders are an integral part of every engine workflow when doing stuff like this.
You can't do higher end 3D without shaders.
We can agree to disagree, I respect your opinion and do get what you mean. I just don't agree on looking at it that way.
Think of shaders just as two additional functions for each surface that get added to your main code.
One function gets called once for every vertex, one function runs once for every pixel drawn. That's it.
It's not some separate magical system, it's just a simple to use additional place to add some (mostly really simple) code that runs on a powerful aditional processor in a highly parallelized fashion (which can be a big strength, especially for things like particles, where you have to execute some very simple code a ton of times).
Why not leverage them? It doesn't make sense not to.
Quote from: Qube on June 09, 2019, 12:22:16
Sorry if I offended you.
You did not. Your points are valid. That response wasn't aimed at you at all.
I am just posting stuff I find fun and interesting and hopefully motivating some others to look into using shaders.
I have nothing to do with any of that other drama, nor do I want to quite frankly. All I ask is to please keep it out of my totally unrelated showcase threads. Seems it's a futile request, but hey, I'll keep asking.
Quote from: Qube on June 09, 2019, 12:22:16
or will the GPU scream for mercy after a few minutes :P
Depends on the settings I suppose :))
Up to a million or so it runs comfortably above 60FPS, so if I would limit it to that it wouldn't even push the GTX1070 hard. And that's hardly a high end card nowadays.
Quote from: Kris on June 09, 2019, 14:55:31
Cool stuff as always. I think the only thing is missing is to share your machine's specs. And some numbers about how much other engines like Unity etc. are slower with the same amount particles in comparison. Because if Unity cannot render the same amount of particles with the same speed on the same machine that is definitely a meaningful information. I'm guessing you're using AGK Studio for these tests?
:)
GTX1070.
The CPU is kinda irrelevant (midrange i7-7700, no OC), it twiddles thumbs at around 10% when running 1 million particles at 500FPS.
I don't have numbers for other engines, because I barely use them. (Unity for some work stuff). For own projects I prefer the smaller code based engines. I can get it to run similarly in NB (my original implementation was in NB) and I guess in C3D, but those are unfortunately both dead. Leaves us with AGK :)
At this point Studio and Classic are the same, I can open and run it in both.
@Rick Nasher
Thanks man. I am having fun playing with this stuff.
Quote
And the engine used still matters a lot, because they all have different amounts of bloat or in some cases are basically a blackbox and don't give you enough direct access to do it right.
I think this is what people were asking, and you've now explained what advantage you get with AGK. Great work.
Yeah, I think people see the main engines and the shaders as two separate things, which in my opinion is not applicable nowadays.
I'd rather try to push people towards seeing shaders as an integral part of each engine's toolset. And the implementation will ofcourse be different in each engine.
In this case the rendertex implementation is actually just as important, that may vary too based on engine.
AGK is very flexible and open in this regard and has basically no bloat. That's a HUGE plus in my book and should not be underestimated.
QuoteI think people see the main engines and the shaders as two separate things, which in my opinion is not applicable nowadays.
I'm one of those people ;D ( in a way ). On one hand I see AGK as a BASIC variant, just like I see Unity and Unreal as visual designer + C# / C++ for the code. When it comes to the shader side I see that as a separate part as the language used for shaders is neither BASIC ( AGK ) or C# ( Unity ) or C++ ( Unreal ).
I know we've been through this a zillion times but just for context... When TGC showed that fantastic demo you came up with they were pushing it as what AGK Studio can do. On one hand it can but if someone was to buy AGK Studio, learn all the commands / language and then ask how that demo was created they'd be told that 99% of what they've learned of AGK is inapplicable as they'd need to use a totally different language for the most part.
That's why silly old me thinks of the languages of AGK / Unity / Unreal etc separate from the shader side as it's a different language to the native ones used by those dev environments. Hope that makes sense?
I can see your point too as strictly speaking you are using AGK's commands to create these wonderful visual treats and behind the scenes there is more shader work going on than most AGK users are aware of.
Talking of shaders and AGK... GarborD, would you be interested in doing some AGK tutorials for the forum?. Paid of course at a proper hourly rate. If your interested in such a thing then PM me and we'll work out all the details.
Quote from: Qube on June 09, 2019, 23:40:27
QuoteI think people see the main engines and the shaders as two separate things, which in my opinion is not applicable nowadays.
I'm one of those people ;D ( in a way ). On one hand I see AGK as a BASIC variant, just like I see Unity and Unreal as visual designer + C# / C++ for the code. When it comes to the shader side I see that as a separate part as the language used for shaders is neither BASIC ( AGK ) or C# ( Unity ) or C++ ( Unreal ).
...
That's why silly old me thinks of the languages of AGK / Unity / Unreal etc separate from the shader side as it's a different language to the native ones used by those dev environments. Hope that makes sense?
Yeah it's something additional people have to deal with, I fully agree to that. My point is that this is the case in any engine and it is to be expected by users.
By your metric none of the Unity demos are really in Unity, because they all use custom shaders and other outside stuff no newbie can dream of doing (fluid dynamic created wind flowfields baked to volumetric textures anyone?) and none of the UE4 demos are really UE4, because they all use custom shaders, extremely expensive media or source changes a newbie can not do. (at least in UE4 you have Blueprints to ease you in, so that's a start)
It's just how things are now and in my opinion any newbies wanting to join game dev should think about at least learning shader basics, because it will help them a lot along the way.
Especially in the current extremely heavily oversaturated market you gotta use every advantage that can set you apart from the flood of low quality asset flips.
QuoteBy your metric none of the Unity demos are really in Unity, because they all use custom shaders and other outside stuff no newbie can dream of doing
Not really as with those you can load in the scenes and they are not blank with mainly shader code. Sure they are heavily shader based but you can see a lot more "Unity" at work than just pure shaders alone.
You have your views and I have mine :D
Quote
It's just how things are now and in my opinion any newbies wanting to join game dev should think about at least learning shader basics, because it will help them a lot along the way.
..this is exactly where folks like AGK guys, makes money,by making things simple enough that person(newbies) do not need to bother with things 'taking away' their 'precious time' as they just want to code a game with gameplay instead of VFX 90% of time..same goes for cross platform deployment, which is quite painless in AGK...for example, if cross platform deployment of AGK is process in terms of complexity, similar to writing shader to get some effects, nobody will buy it..Unity become an industry standard built on the top of such concept...AGK does literally same(in terms of concept), except its not always what it seems (im still waiting to see how to load 3d(format AGK support) object with lightmap as advertised, with default commands)...if one wants to make a money, then 'newbies' are very good to have around..
QuoteIt's just how things are now and in my opinion any newbies wanting to join game dev should think about at least learning shader basics, because it will help them a lot along the way.
I can see we are at polar opposites on this as I think learning the logic of various techniques comes way beyond learning shaders. Shaders don't make a game good and neither are they key to making a game. Shaders are great when it comes to pure grunt of creating and manipulating data but absolutely pointless in regards to creating a good game.
Saying that newbies should learn shaders is just throwing them in the deep end big time. There is just too much tech side to understand in one go. Learning how to display and move a sprite is way more important than how to manipulate each pixel of its texture.
I would agree that it should be on their learn list as ( keeping it simple ) colouring a sprite one colour is faster / easier via shaders than it is via code in a gaming language. However there are many many things to learn first in regards to making games than learning shaders.
While we are at polar opposites in regards to this I think it's great to air both perspectives. I do agree with many of your points and I totally get where you are coming from but I do think that any newbie should have shaders last on their list to learn as there is so much more logic wise to learn first.
*edit* for you kids.... #InterestingThread
@GaborD - In case you missed my earlier post :
"Talking of shaders and AGK... GarborD, would you be interested in doing some AGK tutorials for the forum?. Paid of course at a proper hourly rate. If your interested in such a thing then PM me and we'll work out all the details."
This is a serious offer as I think some quality tutorials in this area would be great for many users both old and new.
QuoteAnd, just to be crazy, 16 Million particles. Try that in Unity
How about 80 million parties at 20 FPS?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0deXRHX9C08
:)
Untextured pointsprites in a small window is a smart trick for pure performance stresstesting. Saves a lot of geometry and fillrate. Will have to try that, I like it.
Very cool.
Quote
"Talking of shaders and AGK... GarborD, would you be interested in doing some AGK tutorials for the forum?. Paid of course at a proper hourly rate. If your interested in such a thing then PM me and we'll work out all the details."
This is a serious offer as I think some quality tutorials in this area would be great for many users both old and new.
Great idea.
@GaborD.
QuoteThanks man. I am having fun playing with this stuff.
Can certainly see that. Awesome stuff.
QuoteGTX1070. The CPU is kinda irrelevant (midrange i7-7700, no OC)
Ghe-ghe-ghe, you're still topping my new Asus laptop though:
GPU: GTX1050 - 4GB, CPU: i7-7700HQ @ 2.80GHz - 8GB.
On my old system I found Unity practically unusable; the FPS were making it come to a standstill, even at the very basic demo it came with, so I don't think it's very useful for the majority of players, probably only mid to high end gamers
With AGK on the other hand I at least could achieve something, even on an old low specced system, and even use shaders a bit and still would run ok apart from the average glitch: Wasn't really build to run shaders, but still could do janbo's water-for-all shader and dynamic shadows at the same time. The water had some black glitches here, but hey what can you expect from a 12 year old, non-gaming laptop. ;D
Ow, and +1 for that tutorial idea..
You just have too much skill not to write a tutorial! 8)
Yeah, I used to have tons of issues on my old machine with some engines too. Not too bad, but annoying enough to make working a pain.
That's why I like AGK, you can just strip stuff down as far as you need to.
I was just testing a million particles on the old GTX950 haha. Only 200ish FPS :p. The good news is if I load the effect with 256K, I am back up to 700 to 800. Not too bad on that old card. Surely 4 years old or so.
In a game I would prolly only run 64K or so, that has almost no impact even on the old card.
Anyway, back to the new machine :)
I like this effect, not sure why. Nothing fancy, just a small emitter and an outer sphere shell that pulls particles onto the sphere surface. As usual, add about 70 FPS due to recording. I really should get a capture card.
Re: tutorials
I could rewrite all the old NB tutorials for AGK I guess. I had everything from the anatomy of a shader to explanations of things like linear space and basic PBR, vertex manipulatulations in shaders, etc.
But those threads never got much traction back in the day, I assumed people don't care to learn shaders :)
Right now I have no free time, swamped with work stuff, lost too much time due to sickness and other crap, but once it calms down I'll look into it. Should be fun.
@Qube No payments necessary haha, we could put it into your prize pools I guess.
Not strictly for AGK - but maybe a good introduction to shaders:
https://github.com/lettier/3d-game-shaders-for-beginners
bye
Ron
Really nice looking plasma particles. :o 8)
And a great resource from Derron about the shaders too ::)
Almost one of those high voltage plasma balls. 8)
Love the growth of the particles at the beginning of the video (https://www.syntaxbomb.com/index.php/topic,5780.msg27141.html#msg27141)
Why do the Tris stay the same between the scenes?
Quote from: Qube on June 13, 2019, 05:49:44
Why do the Tris stay the same between the scenes?
It's the available budget, because the underlying geometry is not being altered. Would kill performance to constantly shovel that much geometry between CPU and GPU.
Some more game-ish tests, just for fun. I want to make a shooter with laser beams :)
Just a simple line emitter with realtime controllable end points (click to view big)
(https://www.syntaxbomb.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwuuLi1gl.png&hash=56baafee130b9b5f093bd19d5c5e3a0c568255f5) (https://imgur.com/wuuLi1g)
Burst laser with turbulence:
(https://www.syntaxbomb.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdFpePgNl.png&hash=fa372b49fab638c290413728c35dcd4390b9adc1) (https://imgur.com/dFpePgN)
(https://www.syntaxbomb.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3WgLkkQl.png&hash=dfe79c62af5150b0de1afe36a5cea742ff9d4d66) (https://imgur.com/3WgLkkQ)
Videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9GUOj3IELY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9GUOj3IELY)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dGhGWpQyvY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dGhGWpQyvY)
This is fun to play around with.
A kind of "pulse wave" (circle after circle after circle ...) following a line might look interesting too.
Like in cheap "mind control"-effects or if a 60s pulsar-weapon was fired.
How would you handle lighting (particles emit light)? Dynamic lights could be costly so would surely be faked (only some lights along the path) - but this might be interesting too.
bye
Ron
Yep that's a good idea. Wanted to try more game like things anyway.
Also a good test for my "I usually don't touch code once the system is done claim." :p
Here is my first stab at it, just with settings, same code as the laser, the orbs and all of the stuff. Could be tweaked further ofcourse with better sprite images and whatnot.
I should also add a tube attractor for effects like this, only have a sphere. Would be more precise. Or maybe a speed offset based on where the particle spawns on the emitter ring. Haha you gave some good ideas for additional features :)
Low game-like settings (definitely fast enough for a game):
(https://www.syntaxbomb.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTsYmjlpl.png&hash=7ee304b5b8037cfe35b90569fb6ee050b416c54e) (https://imgur.com/TsYmjlp)
Maxed settings, still kinda fast-ish
(https://www.syntaxbomb.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F31uR3sPl.png&hash=0d838b00bc0269dbf4a1ab85d36d4edaf82e8018) (https://imgur.com/31uR3sP)
(https://www.syntaxbomb.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8IjFeGBl.png&hash=ca320fe2018e505c203ba4e7fe28b3c1e531e29d) (https://imgur.com/8IjFeGB)
Quick vid of low-ish settings
As to how to handle light, that's a very game or engine side thing, I guess it would depend on how the game is built and what lighting system it uses.
I have some ideas how to fake it for something like a top down shooter, could be fun to try.
The first ring should not "pop out of nothing" it should somehow come into "existence" (grow or fade in or "built up").
Else it looks similar to what I had in mind :-)
bye
Ron
True. But that's an easy fix, coloring is based on a small gradient image, fading can be easily done in the image. Also have size fading built in, that would work too. :)
You can use this effect (with in/decreasing ring speed) for space ships using worm holes / warp tunnels / ....
Do not forget to build shaders for fuse flames of spacecraft vehicles.
Also planets could benefit from some auora thingies.
While it uses a lot of gpu horse power at the end...it at least saves on required assets (small apps)
Bye
Ron
A nice set of effects !
Looking forward to see what else you come up with next :)
Imagination is something I lack unfortunately :P
Quote from: Derron on June 13, 2019, 19:03:26
Do not forget to build shaders for fuse flames of spacecraft vehicles.
A simple disc emitter with some directional spawn-speed and a cylinder with falloff that applies a push (so that the center has faster exhaust than the edges) should do it.
Really fast too because we can use low particle counts and some rotated blob images to get a nice varied effect. The particle budget set in the example is high enough to have about 8 exhausts running simultaniously. Depending on use, one could dial per-exhaust count up for a more detailed effect, kinda like an effect LOD.
Could ofcourse also be done with less turbulent blue-ish flames for a more sci-fi-ish effect. Obviously, if someone wants a very straight cylindric effect, then it's better to not only use particles. Maybe have an outer modeled cylinder with a texture effect and particles in the center or such, that could look great. Anyways, here are some very simple purely particle based examples.
(https://www.syntaxbomb.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGAbpCJml.png&hash=102776bf706dc6058309776ffab60dcdcec55d6c) (https://imgur.com/GAbpCJm)
(https://www.syntaxbomb.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiTQLXkHl.png&hash=b51d0c93cadb51542b88f30000ad6ff3cde4db10) (https://imgur.com/iTQLXkH)
(https://www.syntaxbomb.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNK5NwxQl.png&hash=7e34b11effd84a6beb56e8b4842cb276ae861774) (https://imgur.com/NK5NwxQ)
While it looks mesmerizing for a "fuse flame" it should be way way faster (the gas is "bursting" out). The current effect suits more for some kind of "torch".
particle count could of course be way way lower - for "Maze Raider" (toonish fire effect) I had 10-20 particles per flame (textured then of course) ;-)
bye
Ron
People can set it as fast as they want :)
The system is quite flexible, you could do anything. Manually make it thinner by reducing the emitter radius before it gets turned off, play with lifespan variance, whatever. Here is one with faster speed, less and bigger particles. Has almost no performance impact. The effect's set particle budget supports 16 of them simultaniously at these settings (having more than one would not increase particle handling time, only the rendering would be a tad slower with more on screen)
(https://www.syntaxbomb.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8HoXRmUh.png&hash=b95fdff1230dde5abd6e53020261032482f5f67f) (https://imgur.com/8HoXRmU)
If you look at it zoomed in, it produces nice shapes without the individual particles being too obvious. So far so good. Let the further tweaking commence!
(https://www.syntaxbomb.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhEwfTvV.png&hash=270cc7a8a7c3403ffb9a02682e8d798eeec4f088) (https://imgur.com/hEwfTvV)
absolutely SWEET 8)
Quote from: iWasAdam on June 14, 2019, 14:05:00
absolutely SWEET 8)
And I'll finish that with...
AS A NUT 8)
Dabz
That looks like me going to the toilet in the morning :))
I expect more from you with shader work so how about some extra effects outside of the main thrust to give it that more realistic look, especially with the classic 32768 tris? ;D - Just messing of course. How many pixels is that pushing as it look like a lot :o
Qube is right...the end effect needs to mix stuff...
So some sparkles here and there for extra realism.
Bye
Ron
Put a nice shiny SpaceX Starship on top of it. 8)
:) Yep I should start doing real demos, just need more free time.
I did however improve some things, added more advanced options and improved performance for mid to relatively high particle counts so that those effects can be used for games (even if sparingly).
(https://www.syntaxbomb.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAb0vzvZl.png&hash=1d599cd4375ca5bdef9836d7bfb2f788df282f57) (https://imgur.com/Ab0vzvZ)
(https://www.syntaxbomb.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxYdukNxl.png&hash=99b3cba65b2e2bf2add28ecadfdc6d37f7c6052a) (https://imgur.com/xYdukNx)
(https://www.syntaxbomb.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FObltITRl.png&hash=f2523533f5462c6e1efc5cfdf9637b5f6eb47312) (https://imgur.com/ObltITR)
(https://www.syntaxbomb.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FtMbdqa6l.png&hash=9ef521d8558ca42b9a14eaa3f88f6e9e00a296d6) (https://imgur.com/tMbdqa6)
Very nice!
8)
Looks really cool and detailed :)
QuoteI did however improve some things, added more advanced options and improved performance for mid to relatively high particle counts so that those effects can be used for games (even if sparingly).
I may be way behind the times but can effects with tri's of 524000+ be used in games real-time these days? :o
The actual triangle count is kinda misleading considering tricks like instancing, supersmall tris and very leightweight shaders. It all depends.
That said, I am not advocating for people to be wasteful and spam every area full of high poly effects. ;D
very nice ! 8) congrats
i have tried to achieve the same "symbol emitting fire" effect using particles, in blitz3d, and then using "rectangle meshes" + animated textures
i am so old school lol