RF, RF2, and Terra Trooper

Agentarrow · Post by **Agentarrow** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:46 am

but my fifth question was never answered, would it be a smart idea to do part of a game in RF1 and part in RF2? or would it be a better idea to do the whole game in one or the other.

vrageprogrammer · Post by **vrageprogrammer** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:34 am

Well, although RF1 and RF2 are almost the same, they ARE going to have many differences.
It's like making part game in Rf and part in some other engone...

Agentarrow · Post by **Agentarrow** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:23 pm

true... I'm hoping that the placement of the menus and stuff will be similar to RF1 though

Post by **paradoxnj** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:01 am

Actually, RF2 has a full GUI. Menus will be very different.

Agentarrow · Post by **Agentarrow** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:24 am

Spyrewolf · Post by **Spyrewolf** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:43 am

yeah agentarrow, Hate to burst the bubble,

please take my word of advice, i'm not snapping or putting down here. just trying to give you a reality check that's all

also this is not an presumption of your abilities, I just don't want to see you get ahead of yourself thats all

ok with that said...

Because an engine IS capable of creating Huge landscapes and has a faster renderer than RF, doesn't meant you can go putting you 2 trillion poly actor in the game and expecting miracles.

optimization is still key, majority of real time models these days are around 5-6k in poly's.....which is not a huge step above where we are at, but
the trick is in the materials and shaders you create, [occlusion, parallax, defuse, normal map, height maps, this sort of stuff] - the prettier uppers! materials and shaders are the biggest driving factor in game engines for Eye candy ....not polys

you see the 30,000 poly UT models, ....used for baking only

they'll never see a game for about 10-20 years from now, engines just can't handle it.

ALOT of users fall in to the trap your walking towards,

because an engine is capable of great things, doesn't alway mean it will produce the kind of result you may invisage,
if you can have an engine that is Great and you can have a great model that is 2-3k in poly's and it handles more, you can cram in the detail and produce an amazing game. and you can have 5-10 of those great models on screen rather that 2-3

I hope this helps you understand what i'm trying to say, optimization should always play apart in your games no matter which engine or technologies you use

(seriously dude, I'm trying to say this in the nicest way possible!)

Agentarrow · Post by **Agentarrow** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:58 am

Thx spyre, but I don't have any models above 8K polys. and that's a huge boss that's like 50 feet tall. Most models have 2-3K possibly 5-6. The Terra Troopers only have about 1k because they will show up a LOT. and in massive numbers.

vrageprogrammer · Post by **vrageprogrammer** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:06 pm

Spyrewolf wrote: give you a reality check that's all

you mean a Reality Factory check!

steven8 · Post by **steven8** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:34 pm

vrageprogrammer wrote:
Spyrewolf wrote: give you a reality check that's all
you mean a Reality Factory check!

Doh!

Agentarrow · Post by **Agentarrow** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:35 pm

~wdoh! if you type that in the game Starsiege: Tribes, it actually does a vocal command that says Doh!

vrageprogrammer · Post by **vrageprogrammer** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:00 pm

Agentarrow wrote:~wdoh! if you type that in the game Starsiege: Tribes, it actually does a vocal command that says Doh!

Doh....!

fps · Post by **fps** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:53 pm

how difficult is it going to be to bring the physics and such into the new engine?

Post by **paradoxnj** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:54 pm

Ogre has physics bindings to many physics engines. It will be very easy to add that stuff in.