Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Thief^]

Oh hey, it's another render.
I also checked exactly what the polycount of these are. The last was 1.3 million polys, and this one is 5.2 million polys (just to give nbonaparte a heart attack, I thought I'd optimise a bit and subdivide a 9th time).

Test 14, starting with an isocahedron but subdividing once before seeding heights. Seems to have turned out better still than test 13.

[lagging savant]

In response to render engines... Panda3d or ogre3d may be the way to go. My general observation is that Ogre3d seems a better renderer and has a lot of professional looking projects utilizing it. Yet it isn't a full suite (sound/controls/scripting/etc...) . Panda3d out of the virtual box can make a game.

both are free.

Nice planets, btw.

[SolarShado]

This looks very cool

[Thief^]

I finished my rewrite of my software 3d renderer (from scratch!) so I can now present you guys with this:

(it's animated if you have a supporting browser)

[Virex]

Maybe Blender would do. I've haven't done much with it due to it being terribly complex, but it looks pretty good.

If all you need is a render, you don't need blender as it's a whole modeling package and then some. Luckily, there exist independent render packages such as POV-ray or YafaRay

[burningpet]

I finished my rewrite of my software 3d renderer (from scratch!) so I can now present you guys with this:

(it's animated if you have a supporting browser)

Weird that i cant see it in Chrome. any one knows of a plug in i could install to make this work?

[Svampapa]

1min of Google gave this: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ehkepjiconegkhpodgoaeamnpckdbblp
Don't use chrome myself so I don't know if it works etc.

OT: Snazzy! Ofc, being one of the evil gameindustry people you will no doubt use it to make yet another FPS remake of some oldschool classic. 

[Alexhans]

Added to the convenient reasons you have, Graphic Processors work faster/better with triangles.  They can only be in one plane, as opposed to quads.  In 3d Art.  Artists will work with Quads because those definitely look better than triangles.

And I concur with other posters, pretty neat stuff. 

What are you using to communicate with the graphics card?  OpenGl?  Other?  What version of whatever you're using supports the target console?  Could you potentially use shaders?  I'm concerned about the millions of vertices you mentioned for speed reasons (although as an exercise is just really cool)

[Thief^]

Added to the convenient reasons you have, Graphic Processors work faster/better with triangles.  They can only be in one plane, as opposed to quads.  In 3d Art.  Artists will work with Quads because those definitely look better than triangles.

It's not just graphics cards, any rasteriser (including software renderers like mine) work ideally with triangles. Although due to clipping, my rasteriser actually works with screen-space convex polys at the lowest level.

And I concur with other posters, pretty neat stuff. 

What are you using to communicate with the graphics card?  OpenGl?  Other?  What version of whatever you're using supports the target console?  Could you potentially use shaders?  I'm concerned about the millions of vertices you mentioned for speed reasons (although as an exercise is just really cool)

At the moment, it's not communicating with a graphics card to do the renders, it's being rendered entirely on the cpu with my own renderer. The planet in the spinning animation is 1.3 million triangles, and it gets renderered, compressed to png and saved to disk in approximately 1 second. I plan to convert it to realtime shortly to let you guys play with making planets yourselves. I have previously used my renderer to render the inside of a box (wow!) in realtime at 50fps using GDI to blit the resulting image to a window.