Reality Factory

Here are some screenhsots of Free Vector showing off some old RF models. THe text is just test script stuff and the image in the corner is part of the hud/menu system. Right now I'm using it to buld a "space racing game" which I'll be releasing soon. Anyways, here are the pics...

What's that thing on the left? I like the third screen with robot but others look like really old space racing games

Free Vector is the game engine you're working on right?

I admire your programming work, but you really could use better artwork to show the abilities of your engine. It's not like i want to critizize you like a real gamer would (the real hard crititics), but if somebody wants to use your engine and then sees those pics they will think it's a stupid thing and move on to the next engine.

If you're going to replace them soon i all take it back.

However i like the robot (athough a bit lowres) and the sky. The foliage and the trees may be a bit low res in my opinion.

Is that a stencil shadow beneath the robot?

As stated above, the artwork used to showcase the engine could be a lot better, but the underlying technology looks excellent!

Let me say it again...

"Here are some screenshots of Free Vector showing off some old RF models"

These had to be low res because of the limitations of RF. Meanwhile, I haven't been able to "choke" this engine to less then 40 fps with even 200,000 polys visible.

In any case, while everybody "talked" about an RF2, here is an RF2. Way easier to use and way more versatile and powerful. It isn't a "wrapper" to other peoples work and uses no third party libraries whatsoever, btw.

But after finally completing it, it isn't going to be for sale to any wanna be game makers. This is real engine, that can make modern commercial games. And that's what it's gonna be used for because that's where the money is. The market is with game players, not with game makers.

However, after all my ranting, my point is this... After all the talk from this guy and that guy and the next guy who comes along talking about making an engine ( you know who you are )... Here is an RF2 made in about a year and I did it just to shut all those people up.

hey pickles,

i totally agree, don't judge an engine by it's assets, we all should know that by now take RF for example, if we came here fresh i'd bet, we'd not be super impressed by the graphics, but the proof is in the puding so to speak, it's what the engine is capable of,

I can see, what either a shadow volume, or stencil, but i'm going with volumetric lighting as the stencil is not on the model, i can see HDR, or bloom?

and skydome and foliage entity,

so i can see the engine is actually up and running, are you still working on it, or is it complete now and fully fuctional, either way it is impressive that you have it up and running in a year,

Are you referring to me, by chance?

Congratulations on your engine!

Very impressive indeed for a years work.
Can't wait to get my hands on it and see how far I can take it.

I've seen alot of people over the years saying they are building a new gaming engine with good intentions and high hopes, only to have it drag on for years, then finally wither away.

Unfortunately, people can't see all your hard work thats gone into this engine and what its trully capable of by a few pictures.
To have it working and running with impressive frame rates is an amazing feat in itself.

Again, congratulations and good luck.

Pickles wrote:Let me say it again...

"Here are some screenshots of Free Vector showing off some old RF models"

These had to be low res because of the limitations of RF. Meanwhile, I haven't been able to "choke" this engine to less then 40 fps with even 200,000 polys visible.

In any case, while everybody "talked" about an RF2, here is an RF2. Way easier to use and way more versatile and powerful. It isn't a "wrapper" to other peoples work and uses no third party libraries whatsoever, btw.

But after finally completing it, it isn't going to be for sale to any wanna be game makers. This is real engine, that can make modern commercial games. And that's what it's gonna be used for because that's where the money is. The market is with game players, not with game makers.

However, after all my ranting, my point is this... After all the talk from this guy and that guy and the next guy who comes along talking about making an engine ( you know who you are )... Here is an RF2 made in about a year and I did it just to shut all those people up.

Am I mistaking, or are you trying to say something bad about dev of RF2? I haven't seen your engine, but I know guys are working really hard and you should think twice before insult such hard work

just an idea, if you havnt got time to make models and such to show of your engines capabilities, how about sites like turbo squid, you can pick up some free models of there, some really good free ones, just cant publish them, but it might be a quick and simple way around that issue

Pickles wrote:Let me say it again...

"Here are some screenshots of Free Vector showing off some old RF models"

These had to be low res because of the limitations of RF. Meanwhile, I haven't been able to "choke" this engine to less then 40 fps with even 200,000 polys visible.

I know you've been talking about Rf models but that was not the point. It is never good to first release some low res screenshots and then when all the poeple are scared away you release the cool ones. It's always the first impression that makes the real impression.

So, after that said, i congratulate you about your engine. One year is a really good time, a game engine can be done in one year, but still it's a good time. And it seems your engine has a good amount of speed.
However i think this numbers will certainly fall when using thinghs like dynamic cubemapping for cool water effects or stencil shadows(also cause more rendering cycles). As an example, with dynamic cubemapping you have 7 rendering cycles instead of 1, meaning you've only got 1/7 of the speed.

Could you give us a bit more specific infos about the features of your engine?

Well, first off yeah I dont think its a great idea to showcase ur engien with models made for RF1, but thats just because well, ANY engien made today can render that kind of archaic stuff since it WAS made for an engien that is quite dated. Also along the lines of shutting up the people working on "another RF2" well your screenshots dont really make me feel any less confident in AndyCR and his RF2 project and im still going to be holding out for that, good work for getting your engien done in a year, but I think your being a bit of a cynical arse putting down other peoples work just cause its taking longer

Yes, I'm sure RF2 will be a great engine, but how long do you expect me to hear about it without any real results?

>> As an example, with dynamic cubemapping you have 7 rendering cycles instead of 1<<

The screenshots you are looking at use bloom, dynamic cube lighting, (all defined by a single texture) dynamic shadowmapping and projective mapping, plus over 16 rendering cycles of different items. (You couldn't imagine what it takes to combine glowing with transparency.) This engine is complete (well sort of) and does what evey modern engine does. The terrains are HUGE and any model can be used for the world with per poly collision. With all that, the engine runs at above 40 fps no problem on a 1.8 Ghz system using an ATI 9500.

The features are:
ragdoll charaters that do not need a contraint model
inverse/forward kinematics and full bone control
bone level collision for pawns
dynamic cube lighting
shadow depth mapping
projective mapping
shadow maps
glow, bloom, glare or streaking
parralax mapping
toon and hatching (through different effect files)
mp3 and avi playback
ingame menus
automatic exposure control
scriptable everything

what still needs to be done is:
whether or not to antialias the projected shadow or use the card mipmapping (you may notice that the mech shadow is "choppy")

Anyways, that's enough of my gloating. Have fun.

Yes, I'm sure RF2 will be a great engine, but how long do you expect me to hear about it without any real results?

I wouldn't quite call over 24,000 lines of running code (more than the first version of the Linux kernel) "no real results".

AndyCR wrote:

Yes, I'm sure RF2 will be a great engine, but how long do you expect me to hear about it without any real results?

I wouldn't quite call over 24,000 lines of running code (more than the first version of the Linux kernel) "no real results".

Agreed!