Spring RTS Engine

Split from viewtopic.php?f=81&t=33570. (Silentwings)

Would be more sexy if the water rendering doesn't look shit.( I know that's something that generally you couldn't do a thing about it, but still).

@SuperMario, The map has a fair amount of control over it, and the user also chooses between 4 water rendering modes which tend to all look completely different. Since this map was just a personal project, I only bothered with one of the modes. But ofc I can't do anything with the info you gave.

Silentwings wrote:@SuperMario, The map has a fair amount of control over it, and the user also chooses between 4 water rendering modes which tend to all look completely different. Since this map was just a personal project, I only bothered with one of the modes. But ofc I can't do anything with the info you gave.

@qray, sorry if its broken, it worked for me but could be rapid cache issues, I'll look at it at some point...

It's more of a comment in general, I haven't seen any improvements that make spring look more "pretty" in therms of maps and rendering. You can only work so much of what is been given to you.

Actually, I've made almost no attempt there (or in any of my other maps) to use the functionality offered by Spring for really pretty rendering, because I was too lazy.

Silentwings wrote:Actually, I've made almost no attempt there (or in any of my other maps) to use the functionality offered by Spring for really pretty rendering, because I was too lazy.

Never hurts to up the sexyness.

Super Mario wrote: It's more of a comment in general, I haven't seen any improvements that make spring look more "pretty" in therms of maps and rendering. You can only work so much of what is been given to you.

depends on the MAPPER, the defaults for bumpwater ARE ugly though. You could be more specific as spring has several water rendering methods and as usual your post is as detailed as "give me that thing, inside of the closed box, in that other room."

Maybe it's me and I am missing some obvious trick, but I found it hard to impossible to set water parameters so it looks good for all rendering options (Reflective and Refractive, Dynamic water, Bumpmapped).
If it looks good with one it looks "sub optimal" with the other and vice versa...

E.g., I like Reflective and Refractive on Meltwater, but Bumpmapped looks kind of dull.

I was happy with what i had in gunmetal harbor.

smoth wrote:I was happy with what i had in gunmetal harbor.

Agreed: Reflective and Refractive and Bumpmapped look both good!

dynamic is ok, but reflective is IMHO not (too dark)
(I ignore basic since it never looks good ).

Which is what I meant: how the colour settings turn out is just too different for the different water rendering options to get them all at least OKish.
Given that probably everyone with a halfway decent GPU will use Bumpmapped or Reflective and Refractive, maybe those two are the ones one should concentrate on?! It's difficult enough to find a compromise that works for both of them if one has some specific look in mind.

I usually use reflective/refractive as my go-to. If water 3 looks good, the others generally look pretty decent.

I agree though, the fact that there are 5 water render-ers, none of which act consistently with one another, in spring is pretty dumb