Jump to content

Monkey Frog Studio

Members
  • Posts

    165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Monkey Frog Studio

  1. Yes, this behavior continues if I unplug the HDMI cable of the second monitor. The scaling factor of my primary display is 125%, but this also happens if I have it set to 100% (thus, both monitors 1 and 2 are set to the same scaling). I have the pro edition of Leadwerks, despite not being a programmer. Can you tell me where to add the SetProcessDPIAware() and if there are any parameters I need to set? Running your testscreen app via Troubleshoot Compatibility did not turn up anything and I tried several different parameters.
  2. Here's a screen shot: It looks like the screen has been resized, but app is shoved off to the left and top. Notice how the game controls to the left are off screen.
  3. I have a GeForce GTX 1070 (Founders Edition). I've running the latest Nvidia drivers, too.
  4. I'm not sure what to tell you. The screen test file you'd sent me previously and any of my own will not run full screen. This is not the case with any other game (modern like Prey or old like System Shock 2) or game creation system (like Unreal, Unity, or Godot).
  5. Just wanted to update this thread. I did a complete uninstall of all Nvidia drivers using DDU (Display Driver Uninstaller), which basically boots you into Safe Mode and totally cleans out any remnants of your graphics driver. Then I did a reinstall of the latest Nvidia drivers. This, unfortunately, did not solve the full screen window issue for me. When I run Josh's screen test app or a Leadwerk's game at full screen, the game is not full screen and is partially off screen to the top and left. So, this does not appear to be a driver issue.
  6. Jorn Theunissen has a few Leadwerks tutorials on terrain creation on YouTube. Of particular interest to you might be:
  7. I don't think they model it that way. In most games the rifle moves smoothly into position from it being held to right in front of your eyes. I think what they do (and I could well be wrong) is use another camera view for inside the scope that is zoomed in.
  8. Thanks for responding, Ma-Shell. But what I am really wanting to find out is if there is an advantage to using brushes to build level geometry vs. models, as far as performance in the game engine. There is an advantage when creating the geometry in the editor because you don't have to UV map brushes, textures instantly tile, and any CSG brush can be manipulated at any time (made longer, taller, etc.). So, let's say I build a simple room out of CSG brushes. This room consists of four walls, a floor, and a ceiling. In another level, I build the same sized room out of three models - one for the floor, one for the ceiling, and one for the wall (duplicated to make the four walls). Both the CSG room and the model use the same materials. So, would both have about the same performance? If, for example, CSG brushes had a significant speed advantage over models, then I would create most of the simple, flat stuff (floors, walls, etc.) out of them so I could take advantage of that and then create the more complex stuff (pipes, chairs, etc.) out of models. If, on the other hand, it's a toss up (i.e. similar brushes and models affect performance about the same), then I can do whatever I please ... models for walls or brushes ... whatever is best at the time. If models are easier on the engine, then I can build my entire interior level out of only models if I want. So, I am just looking at this from the perspective of performance, if that makes sense.
  9. So, does know one have any idea about this? Josh? Anyone?
  10. Funny thing is, I hear you and agree with you. Still, there are issues. FBX has become a universal exchange format, but it keeps changing and it's difficult for developers to keep up with (let alone a few other Autodesk related issues developers have to put up with). And in some cases, open-source software, like Godot (a game engine) will never support FBX due to licensing conflicts. Collada has turned out to be problematic, OBJ is limited, etc. So, for many, glTF is the way to go. As far as "It's the job of your 3D modelling application to save your assets in a preserving, non-destructive way", that's why each 3D app has it's own format - 3DSMax has .max, MODO has .lxo, etc. But these formats do more than save your assets in a non-destructive way, they also store GUI info (how the viewport was, for example, when saved) and a few dozen other program specific things that are not needed outside of that particular app. These internal file formats do a great job at what they were supposed to do, but are (obviously) not intended to be used anywhere but within the app for which they were created. FBX is an industry standard to exchange 3D assets. However, it's a huge pain in the you-know-what for most developers to support. So, what are we left with? I do thank you for the info about data being truncated as a result of being exported to ASCII. It makes sense.
  11. Sigh. glTF is not just for game engines. It is intended as a means to get 3D information into a 3D application (be it a game, a 3D modeling program, or an HTML5 website, etc.) and to get 3D information out of a 3D application. According to FileInfo.com: So, two purposes - save (export) and share (import) 3D digital assets and optimization for download and load at run time.
  12. They may not have used the word "exchange", but they use the word "interoperable". That implicitly implies "exchange" as it is a part of it's definition. So, they used a better word, because Khronos described BOTH export and import by using it (i.e. going both ways). glTF's primary purpose may well be an "end-of-the-pipeline" format, but it's not the only purpose. It is a 3D format, like DAE, like .X, etc. It's intention is to carry 3D information (geometry, materials, lights, animations, etc.) so you can get it into another application (yes, especially game engines). Since it does this, it can be used to both import and export as well. As far as game engines - I know a few that are adding it for import as well as for exchange (i.e. to take the glTF info convert it into their own, internal file format). So, not quite "end-of-the-pipeline" there ... though pretty close, right? What it comes down to is it's a better format than Collada (.dae), supports more than DirectX (.x), is free from the burden (and cost) of Autodesk's constantly changing FBX format, is not limited like OBJ, and is modern (i.e. supports PBR, etc.), unlike .3ds and others. Frankly, who the frell cares what it's intended purpose is? glTF is catching on and just about everyone is able to use it. Model in Max, Maya, C4D, MODO, or Blender? You can export to it. Want to get it in Godot, Unity, Unreal? No problem.
  13. Perhaps I used the incorrect words. However, the fact is that glTF is being used to both export and import models, materials, and more, into more than just games. There is an importer for Blender and Sketchup, for example. I'm sure that more will be added. According to Khronos, the developers of glTF 2.0: So, according to Khronos, this is not just about games, but about applications. This includes everything from Facebook to games to 3D modeling programs. Notice the last sentence and the use of the word "interoperable": The base idea for glTF, according to Khronos, is the EXCHANGE and USE of information. That's a two-way street - both EXPORT and IMPORT. At least that is the intention of Khronos. Whether it gets used that way or not is up to developers.
  14. Actually, I found a dark Windows 10 theme (Penumbra 10) and installed it (with the few hacks it requires). The screen shot below is the final result: Of course, this changes all of Windows, but I am quite happy with that.
  15. Hello! Is there a way to change the UI of the Leadwerks editor at all? I prefer working with the darker UIs. Just curious if this is possible in any way. Thanks!
  16. Hello. I am curious if there is a difference, as far as performance is concerned, between using brushes (CSG) and models? For example, if I were to build a level with a room (walls, floor, and ceiling) built from brushes and another level with a room (walls, floor, and ceiling) built from geometry, would the level with brushes perform better than the level using only models? Or would they perform about the same. This is assuming the models use the simplest geometry (i.e 12 tri faces for a cube and not 10,000, for example). I realize the advantages of CSG for quickly laying out walls, floors, etc., and how well they work with textures/materials (especially when tiling), but are they, overall, more efficient in Leadwerks? If a level had 100 CSG cubes vs another level with 100 model cubes, both with the same material, would they perform the same or would one be more efficient? Thanks.
  17. Ah! That simple answer was just what I needed. I was looking at the materials in Leadwerks and not at the models! So, make my model with several surfaces, each with their own material, export to FBX, bring the model into Leadwerks (and all materials), open the model in the Model Editor, select each "part" and apply the material to each one. Thanks!
  18. Hello. How, in Leadwerks, would you apply multiple materials to a single model? For example, let's say I have an axe model and have a material for the metal bits (axe head, for example), a material for the wood part of the handle, and another for the leather that is covering it. By material, I am not talking about texture (as in diffuse information), but actual material information that controls individual AO, specularity, normal maps, etc., per "part" of the model. Is this even possible in Leadwerks at the moment?
  19. I don't believe so. It had said 4.6 once and then Josh said he had rolled it back to 4.5 because of issues. So, from what I remember, 4.6 has not been re-released as beta ... yet.
  20. Ah, darn. I was hoping to see if 4.6 had fixed a few things.
  21. I am not a programmer and don't play one on TV , so I don't know if there actually is a way or not. From what I've seen, the only thing you can do with this shader is determine the color. It appears that all this does is ensure the area is not affected by light at all (no shadows, no being overpowered by bright lights, etc.), so the color shows at 100%. This means it does not glow, so there would be no radius or intensity. The only way I can think of to affect intensity would be by the color you use. You could paint the area to look brighter toward the center, for example. Again, I am not a programmer, so I can (so far) only approach this as an artist.
  22. How do you have 4.6 beta? I only have 4.5 and I've got Steam set to Beta - Latest Build for Testing.
  23. Emission is pretty easy to use. It is set up to use texture slot #4. The texture you create should be all black for the areas you don't want to emit. You can use any color for the areas you do want emission and they will glow that color. Well, they don't really "glow", but instead do not receive any shadows and are full-bright in those areas (i.e. not affected by your lighting or lack thereof). But you can make some cool effects with it.
  24. Added an anvil to the group ... All these models are low-poly - around 1000 polys for close-up and about 500 for far away.
×
×
  • Create New...