PDA

View Full Version : proper OpenGL transparency



stephen2002
09-05-2003, 09:18 AM
I'm not so sure if this is just a funky thing with my graphics setup or an actual thing that could be improved. The way Lightwave renders transparent objects in OpenGL is kinda ugly; it just makes the object into dots, not really making it "transparent". I know real transparency in OpenGL is possible becauase I have seen it in plenty of games.

http://www.solarflarestudios.com/transparent.gif

I should hope this can be improved. I am running a QuadroFX1000 so I don't think it is a limitation of my graphics card.

Dodgy
09-05-2003, 09:31 AM
I second this big time, it's a big let down after the nice reflections etc you can get in opengl...

Matt
09-05-2003, 09:50 AM
yeah me too!

the whole OpenGL implementation needs speeding up also, it's desperate on large scenes, in fact it's desperate on medium scenes!

don't believe me? open a large scene in layout and using the camera 'adjust region' tool drag a new region size . . . . HOW slow is that!!!

and that's just a wire box! I get the impression all the on-screen feedback in LightWave is using OGL, if it is, stop! it's too slow! or speed the whole thing up if you do!

Ztreem
09-07-2003, 07:48 AM
I agree on that!!! I think it should be great if those nice reflections could appear in modeler too. :D

labuzz
09-07-2003, 04:34 PM
...Very important for 3d RealTime too...For Games...

TSpyrison
09-08-2003, 12:09 PM
I dont know anything about what im gonna say..

But It would be nice to be able to take advantage of some of the newer graphics cards.. all that pixel shading stuff and so on..

you know, the cool stuff that the GeForce FX cards and the new ATI cards can do..

Can't lightwave take advantage of that?

Matt
09-08-2003, 12:22 PM
it could if it was written to, but it ain't :(

stephen2002
09-08-2003, 01:03 PM
Yes, more shader feedback would be excellent as well, espeically for those that use LW for in-game art. Right now some of the other packages do support viewport feedback of the new Pixel Shaders and they are being eaten up by game designers.

Unfortunatly from the looks of the screenshots of LW8 it's OpenGL implementation looks about identical to what we have now, which is rather outdated.

ACross
09-08-2003, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by stephen2002
Yes, more shader feedback would be excellent as well, espeically for those that use LW for in-game art. Right now some of the other packages do support viewport feedback of the new Pixel Shaders and they are being eaten up by game designers.

Unfortunatly from the looks of the screenshots of LW8 it's OpenGL implementation looks about identical to what we have now, which is rather outdated.

Actually, OpenGL is an area of Lightwave that HAS been updated for Lightwave 8.0. Our demos and screenshots have not reflected these changes yet.

Andrew

TSpyrison
09-08-2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by ACross
Actually, OpenGL is an area of Lightwave that HAS been updated for Lightwave 8.0. Our demos and screenshots have not reflected these changes yet.

Andrew

Woo Hoo!
:D

Dodgy
09-08-2003, 03:12 PM
Cooooooool :)

I look forward to seeing the changes :)

stephen2002
09-08-2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by ACross
Actually, OpenGL is an area of Lightwave that HAS been updated for Lightwave 8.0. Our demos and screenshots have not reflected these changes yet.

Andrew

ohhhhh :D

TSpyrison
09-08-2003, 07:25 PM
I dont suppose anyone who knows, could hint at the kind of OpenGL improvments have been made..

Huh? Huh? Could ya???

simonbrewer
09-09-2003, 06:30 AM
It would be nice to see transparency and clip maps working in the OpenGL view, as well as display of procedural textures, like you can in 3DS max.

Simon

Elmar Moelzer
09-09-2003, 07:06 AM
Well, procedural textures are not that easy to do in OpenGL. They take quite a bit of computation- power.
If I remember correctly it was only the 2d- procedurals that could be displayed in MAX. Nearly all of LWs procedurals are 3d- procedurals (like a 3d- volume).
CU
Elmar

Red_Oddity
09-09-2003, 07:42 AM
Actually, since June this year, OpenGL shading language has been approved as official ARB extention, so it shouldn't be too difficult to implement (and crossplatform)...

Here's a nice link to what is possible with OpenGL now (comes pretty close to DirectX these days...)

http://www.3dlabs.com/support/developer/ogl2/index.htm

Karmacop
09-09-2003, 08:26 AM
Do current opengl card support the opengl 2 shader language though?

Mylenium
09-09-2003, 01:35 PM
Nope. They all should be able to deliver OpenGL in theory, but since the haven't even managed to come to terms with v1.5 in the OpenGL-Forum (hence there are no drivers because the feature set isn't even defined). I wouldn't expect to see anything soon. As of now for more fancy stuff like Vertex and Pixel shaders DirectX seems the way to go. It's a shame, though.

Mylenium

simonbrewer
09-09-2003, 02:16 PM
Well, procedural textures are not that easy to do in OpenGL. They take quite a bit of computation- power.

Well, I use Max5 every day at work, and I have just fired up Max 4 here, and every Max procedural texture works just great in the viewport. It would be extremely useful to have this feature in LightWave, particually when setting up textures such as marble, wood, underwater and noise etc.

Hmmm Max 4 just crashed on me when I tried to mix two procedurals in the opengl view... hehehehe. I will have to try that in 5 tomorrow!


Simon

Elmar Moelzer
09-09-2003, 10:01 PM
Hello Simon!
Are this 2d or 3d- procedurals?
I remember most of the procedurals in MAX to be 2d- procedurals (but I might be wrong).
3d- procedurals are like volumes and basically they appear where they intersect with the geometry. If this has to be calculated in software it takes some time (and then you still have to generate an imagemap from them so they can be understood by OpenGL).
2d- procedurals are a lot easier in this regard as they are just projected onto the geometry (i.e like a planar map) after they have been calculated.
There are a few 2d- procedurals in LW too (like Honeycomb ), but the majority are 3d- procedurals (some are even though they require the user to specify an axis).
I cant really recall the quality of the procedurals in MAX- OpenGL (it cant have been that great or I would remember it better) so I would be interested in seeing a few screenshots.
I may have an idea of how this can be done, it is just a question of how precise you want it to be...
CU
Elmar

Exper
09-10-2003, 04:42 AM
ACross... good news!

At least an SHIFT+F9 could display Textures in the OpenGL window (quite good compromise)!

Bye.

simonbrewer
09-10-2003, 06:42 AM
Hello Elmar!

I have a screenshot for you. This is from Max 5, and as you can see I booleaned a cube out of a sphere, with procedural textures applied. The textures were applied before the Boolean operation.

It is obvious that Max is converting the procedurals to bitmaps before applying them to the objects in the viewport (you can see the jaggies), but its fast and pretty good quality for a realtime display.

What good is that you can mix the procdurals and view the result in the viewport in realtime too, as I show on the sphere, which has bricks and marble procedural layers applied with a mix of 50%.

Something like this in LightWave would be great.

As to whether they are 3D or 2D I'm not sure. There is no "choose your XYZ axis" option as in LightWave, just options for tiling and size.

Hope this helps!

Simon

Karmacop
09-10-2003, 06:50 AM
What about an object that's not using a standard mapping type?

simonbrewer
09-10-2003, 07:02 AM
Hi,

Same object, same textures, but I just applied a UVW modifer set to Spherical. Brick part has gone a bit screwy!



Simon

Elmar Moelzer
09-10-2003, 07:31 AM
Hmm, the Marble- texture clearly looks like a spherical projection to me. This is a bit weird and not that precise for 3d- procedurals are not projected onto an object. On the cut out- box- part it looks a bit like a planar or cubic projection of the procedural.

If I remember correctly MAX does automatically create UV- maps for primitives.
I would therefore love to ask you for another screenshot with a more organic object (not just made from some primitives) to see what it looks like with that one. Only if it is not that much of a problem.
CU
Elmar

Elmar Moelzer
09-10-2003, 07:36 AM
Hmm, so these procedurals are UV- mapped?
Can you please render an image of the first screenshot, so we can see what it looks like compared to the rendering?
If the rendering looks the same, then these are IMHO 2d- procedurals that are more or less treated like imagemaps (that are just procedurally generated). Which would be a huge difference to the way LW handles procedurals.
Very confusing this all is Obi Wan...
CU
Elmar

simonbrewer
09-10-2003, 12:00 PM
Hi,

Sure, I'll render those objects out when I get back to work tomorrow...

Yes, you can UV procedurals in Max.

For the first screenshot, I did not apply any UVs, mapping types (like spherical or cubic) or texture axis at all. I just made a sphere and cube and added the procedurals on to them. Max decided how to map them without my intervention.

Simon

Elmar Moelzer
09-10-2003, 12:20 PM
Yes, but the marble- texture and the bricks- texture look (obviously) like a spherical map. So I wonder whether they look the same in the rendering.
If I remember correctly MAX does UV- maps for primitives automatically and uses them for the mapping too. But its been a long time so I might be wrong.
If this is indeed the case then, this is nothing more but a 2d- procedural, not a 3d- procedural.
CU
Elmar

simonbrewer
09-10-2003, 12:23 PM
Hi,

Decided to try it out now :-)

As you can see, the marble texture in the viewport doesn't match up with the rendering. (The brick procedural texture does though, so I suppose its a 2D procedural and the marble is 3D one then?).

I suppose that Max is doing something like the TextureImage plugin and mapping the procedural onto a temporary bitmap applied to the viewport model, and then switching to real procedurals for the render. It does do this transparently to the user though, without the need to add a plugin, as in LightWave.

I understand that there is probably a great deal of difficulty in getting 3D procedurals to work with this method, but even so, seeing some sort of representation of procedurals in LightWave's viewports would be nice and useful.

Cheers,

Simon

Elmar Moelzer
09-10-2003, 12:47 PM
Yupp, thats the way I imagined it to work.
So basically as you already found out MAX does the same as the texture- filter does. The question I have ask now is of course. Does that make sense? I mean there is a vast difference between the render and the OpenGL- preview, which does not make this a realyable method for positioning procedural textures on objects IMHO. In fact it might be missleading to most people, especially newbies.

Please dont get me wrong, I am absolutely with you in this reagrd and I indeed think that an OpenGL- preview of procedurals would be usefull. I just think that it should be somehow representative of the final rendering (or it would make little sense IMHO).

I have got an idea though that might work better as a visual reference for texture- placement (there still would be differences to the rendering, but more in quality than in placement).
CU
Elmar

Earl
09-10-2003, 01:15 PM
I think I would have to agree with Elmar. If there is to be a procedural texture preview in OpenGL, it should reflect the same mapping/look as it would when rendered. Ultimately I think what LW needs is to have all texture layers and alpha's properly flattened into one final OpenGL texture. That way you knew exactly what your render would look like (aside from any low-quality sacrifices for speed reasons).

simonbrewer
09-11-2003, 06:18 AM
Exactly. I find that Max's display of procedurals is best used to judge the scale of the texture, rather than the positioning, which as we can all see is very inaccurate.

As Earl has suggested, a way to flatten all LightWave texture layers and then apply them to the OpenGL view would be a good solution.

Cheers,

Simon

Elmar Moelzer
09-11-2003, 09:37 AM
Well, this would be basically the way we do with "Baker" now.
However as we all know this has some limitations to it (those Atlas- maps tend to show seams etc).
Also it might take some time to do the "baking"- process.
Which will slow down things. It might be the only solution to show everything in the end though.
CU
Elmar