Page 1 of 1

OGRE: Between new shiny features and a solid engine

Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2003 3:35 pm
by void_of_null
in another words: what do you want for next version of OGRE (0.14 maybe)
This is from this thread:
http://ogre.sourceforge.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2589

Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2003 10:48 pm
by fifty1
I voted for all features implemented. My vote is a little selfish because I am nearing release of a commercial project so I can't take advantage of the new features anyways.

It may be best for the Ogre team to stay focused on the big issues and maintaining the clean design and architecture of Ogre. The rest of us can pitch in and clean up the little things that were left behind. (Sinbad's time is better spent on the cutting edge than searching for typos and memory leaks).

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:13 am
by sinbad
One of the key considerations here is he best allocation of effort. Fleshing out of existing features and bugfixing can be done by many members in the community, but (and I hope this doesn't sound arrogant) extending the engine and setting the groundwork for new core features is best done by me I think. Ogre is a community driven engine, and I think the community contributes a lot of good feature enhancements and bugfixes based on the existing codebase, because there are plenty of opportunities for people to jump in and do this. There are far fewer opportunities for people outside of the core team to add brand new features.

That's not to say we don't finish what we start or that we don't bugfix, but it's an acknowledgement that trying to do absolutely everything ourselves is not a recipe for efficient development. I try to blend the two, but my primary focus is to provide design leadership for new feature areas and to encourage the many talented coders in the community to find and contribute to areas which are incomplete in some dimensions or have bugs. Open-source development is a 2-way street, and the best way for users to contribute is to submit bugfixes.

Remember also that we're not at v1.0 yet. I wish to stabilise v1.0 including a full programmable pipeline (which you'll see in the current CVS version) and various shadow techniques, both of which are prerequisites in my view to a stable codebase.

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:15 am
by Antiarc
Hey, welcome back, Sinbad! Good vacation?

</derail>

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 10:27 am
by Pablo
Well, I really would love to see some dinamic shadows in ogre...

new features

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 7:23 pm
by butelo
well i need some camera features, like focus, zoom, lens flare and other features of a real camera

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:37 pm
by Antiarc
Focus (depth) is an aftereffect, best achieved with on-board pixel/vertex shader programs.

Zooming is a simple matter of moving the camera.

Lens flares are just a few billboards that are set and moved when the camera looks at certain areas without obstruction.

Dynamic shadows can be done with shaders, as well - if you look at nVidia's NVEffectBrowser, you'll see they have an example of dynamic shadows done completely in vs/ps. One example uses shadow mapping, and the other uses shadow volumes and stencil shadows (I'm not sure what the differences are, but they use different techniques, so I guess they both deserve a mention.)

My biggest "want" for Ogre is support for pixel/vertex shaders and friends. That will do more to extend Ogre's "eye candy" factor more than any other single improvement, IMO.

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:45 pm
by sinbad
Antiarc wrote: Zooming is a simple matter of moving the camera.
.. or just narrowing the field of view.
Dynamic shadows can be done with shaders, as well - if you look at nVidia's NVEffectBrowser, you'll see they have an example of dynamic shadows done completely in vs/ps.
I want shadows too, but I think it's best we wait for the material upgrades because after much reflection, I think stencil shadows are not a great solution. They're artificial looking (no shadow in the world is that clean), they prevent you from using vertex programs to modify your geometry while still maintaining the correct look of the shadow, and they're CPU intensive. I personally think projected texture shadows and shadow maps look much nicer, although point light shadows are hard to do using them. They're also much more GPU friendly. I think we should offer a range of options, including the simpler projected texture shadows and decals for lower end cards, and shadow maps for higher end cards. I'm all for putting stencil shadows last on the priority list.

Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2003 10:49 am
by srek
a 64-bit version of ogre :D

Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2003 4:02 pm
by sinbad
Well, since _mental_ has just bought an Athlon 64 you may get your wish ;)

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 8:02 pm
by _mental_
Yep I went out and bought it yesterday, so as soon as I get the onboard realtek 8011 working I'll be all set to go.

:twisted:

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 8:14 pm
by zen
Envy :evil:

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 8:35 am
by bad_camel
Please, please post some performance stats on it once you get it. And don't even pretend you won't be testing it's power ;)