Yeah, I didn't say anything about graphics in the email, but chose not to correct him, since he's not wrong. We have improved the graphics. Just doesn't show in those screens.
Printable View
Yeah, I didn't say anything about graphics in the email, but chose not to correct him, since he's not wrong. We have improved the graphics. Just doesn't show in those screens.
The "after" shadows look worse to me. I actually prefer the soft shadows in the "before" picture.
That's basically a work in progress, the plan is to soften the shadows where appropriate(i.e when the caster is further away from the shadowed surface).
I mean in the linked google+ screenshot, not in the article screenshots.
Right, I was talking about the google+ shots.Quote:
Originally Posted by curaga
You edited your post after I posted, so now it looks all weird :(
Doh! Sorry :pQuote:
Originally Posted by curaga
Fact is, those old shadows weren't "soft." They were horrifyingly pixelated (1/16 the resolution on each axis, or 1/256 the total pixels,) and when OpenGL rendered them, it would sort of blur them a bit to make it look less horrifying. But in the process you lost loads of detail, and in places the pixels were still easily visible. This was one of the last pieces of graphics tech left untouched since the Quake II engine, and desperately needed an update. Now it's the same basic code, but at a higher resolution.
Why, then we need that comparison shot at a higher resolution than the 960xsomething. I can't discern any pixelation in that small pic, maybe post a full-HD one?
That's a limitation of Google Plus-- it won't let you zoom in on photos properly. This is an example of the sort of pixelation I'm talking about:
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/9...enarena249.jpg
The shadows are blurred, but you can still make out each pixel.
My laptop monitor isn't big enough to do full 1080p.