Jump to content




General Purpose 3D Renderer


50 replies to this topic

#41 Bomb Bloke

    Hobbyist Coder

  • Moderators
  • 7,099 posts
  • LocationTasmania (AU)

Posted 09 February 2016 - 01:08 AM

Heh, if I had time, I might've actually worked on that script this year. ;)

#42 Yevano

  • Members
  • 376 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 25 May 2016 - 06:24 PM

Did some more playing around with this.



#43 LDDestroier

  • Members
  • 1,095 posts
  • LocationACDC Town

Posted 25 May 2016 - 07:42 PM

I hate to shout this again whenever someone makes a 3-D engine...but...


Posted Image

#44 SquidDev

    Frickin' laser beams | Resident Necromancer

  • Members
  • 1,427 posts
  • LocationDoes anyone put something serious here?

Posted 25 May 2016 - 07:46 PM

I wondered this when you first posted this and I'm still wondering it: How is it so smooth? I tried to make my renderer as efficient as possible and it still lags a lot. This still amazes me almost half a year later.

Edited by SquidDev, 25 May 2016 - 07:46 PM.


#45 ReBraLaCC

  • Members
  • 100 posts
  • LocationSublime Text 2

Posted 26 May 2016 - 03:49 PM

 SquidDev, on 25 May 2016 - 07:46 PM, said:

I wondered this when you first posted this and I'm still wondering it: How is it so smooth? I tried to make my renderer as efficient as possible and it still lags a lot. This still amazes me almost half a year later.

I know right! It's so hard to do it fast enough..... Well maybe..... there is a way because he can do it, why can't we?

#46 jv110

  • Members
  • 108 posts
  • LocationIn front of my PC

Posted 28 May 2016 - 07:33 PM

 LDDestroier, on 25 May 2016 - 07:42 PM, said:

I hate to shout this again whenever someone makes a 3-D engine...but...


Posted Image

Why didn't you post that in VertexGL then?

#47 RatcheT2497

  • Members
  • 72 posts
  • LocationSlovakia

Posted 01 June 2016 - 02:00 PM

This looks absolutely astonishing.

Do you think it'd be possible to make a game similar to Crash Bandicoot, although heavily simplified (atleast on the graphics side)?
You don't really have control over the camera, and you just have two buttons, excluding movement.

Can't wait to when you release it :)

#48 jv110

  • Members
  • 108 posts
  • LocationIn front of my PC

Posted 06 June 2016 - 03:47 PM

 RatcheT2497, on 01 June 2016 - 02:00 PM, said:

This looks absolutely astonishing.

Do you think it'd be possible to make a game similar to Crash Bandicoot, although heavily simplified (atleast on the graphics side)?
You don't really have control over the camera, and you just have two buttons, excluding movement.

Can't wait to when you release it :)

You guys seeeriously need to stop that. Of course it's possible! May be hard, may be laggy, may be buggy, may be against the law, may explode, whatever. It's still possible.

Speaking of Crash Bandicoot, it's a full triple-A game. Its controls'n'stuff are pretty simple, but we're still talking about !BLINDLY! remaking a full game.

Also, why simplify the graphics at all? A PlayStation's CPU is about 30MHz, and the GPU is obviously much slower, plus it had only 2MB RAM.

Today's computers though, have ~2-4GHz CPUs, GPUs capable of rendering photorealistic 3D images and 4-16GB RAM.

The only problem here is that this runs purely on the CPU, so you have to split power with even Minecraft itself (very CPU intensive [cuz java]), plus Lua is running from Java which is extremely slow and CPU intensive.

CCEmuRedux doesn't fix it, it just makes it worse! It's also made in Java, and it's slower than Minecraft itself for some reason. Maybe the original ccemu works?

Edited by Bomb Bloke, 07 June 2016 - 01:26 AM.


#49 Bomb Bloke

    Hobbyist Coder

  • Moderators
  • 7,099 posts
  • LocationTasmania (AU)

Posted 07 June 2016 - 01:41 AM

 jv110, on 06 June 2016 - 03:47 PM, said:

Speaking of Crash Bandicoot, it's a full triple-A game. Its controls'n'stuff are pretty simple, but we're still talking about !BLINDLY! remaking a full game.

Similar ~= the same.

 jv110, on 06 June 2016 - 03:47 PM, said:

Also, why simplify the graphics at all? A PlayStation's CPU is about 30MHz, and the GPU is obviously much slower, plus it had only 2MB RAM.

The Playstation can handle 640x480 output frames utilising 24bit colour. The average ComputerCraft display can handle 51x19 frames with 4bit colour (or 102x57 frames, with colour depth effectively reduced further). They're not even in the same ballpark.

Then there's the overhead you get for trying to run an interpreted language through another interpreted language alongside Minecraft and via a client/server mash-up. It's huge.

But still, yeah, anything's "possible". It's more a question as to whether it's "practical".

#50 jv110

  • Members
  • 108 posts
  • LocationIn front of my PC

Posted 17 June 2016 - 10:43 PM

 Bomb Bloke, on 07 June 2016 - 01:41 AM, said:

Playstation can handle 640x480 output frames utilising 24bit colour. The average ComputerCraft display can handle 51x19 frames with 4bit colour (or 102x57 frames, with colour depth effectively reduced further). They're not even in the same ballpark.
Not talking about displaying the graphics, but about the polygons, textures 'n stuff themselves. I'm quite sure Crash Bandicoot level of polygons is fine. If you doubt it, I'll load 'em on VertexGL, just wait a little. Crash 1 is really low-poly.

 Bomb Bloke, on 07 June 2016 - 01:41 AM, said:

Then there's the overhead you get for trying to run an interpreted language through another interpreted language alongside Minecraft and via a client/server mash-up. It's huge.

But still, yeah, anything's "possible". It's more a question as to whether it's "practical".

I thought I said that?

EDIT:
It takes constant 42 ticks (2.1 seconds) to render a single Crash Bandicoot model (loaded from an .obj), at X 0 Y -2 Z 0 (best pos), without texture. That should be because of the extremely low optimization of VertexGL. Again, my computer isn't very good (i3 2.1GHz/HD GFX 3000, can barely run Minecraft at 60FPS).

Spoiler

Would be great if Yevano saw this and ran it on his renderer!

EDIT2:
With the update, rendering at 328x243 takes 94 ticks, 4.7 seconds.

Edited by jv110, 20 June 2016 - 04:10 PM.


#51 bobasrty

  • Members
  • 24 posts

Posted 09 July 2017 - 05:33 AM

My mind has been blown reading this whole thread. So much possibilities.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users