Portalized (GUI update)

Chaster · Post by **Chaster** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:18 am

Gotta add my kudos to this project - awesome stuff. The self-collision is particularly impressive.

Chaster

nullsquared · Post by **nullsquared** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:24 am

Thanks

Wait for the 0.5 public release, guys... will include parts of the story, lots of scripting, lighting through portals (only for high-end machines, though), an integrated WYSIWYG editor, and so on.

(currently on ~0.35, lost track :S)

Spyd · Post by **Spyd** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:02 pm

Portal is my current favorite game.
I loved this game... and yours is looking even better!
I'll be waiting for the 0.5 version.

nullsquared · Post by **nullsquared** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:58 am

Hey, guys, remember that "The Room" video (from GDC 2005, IIRC)? Remember its portals that resized stuff?

Well, too bad they never released that

. Because soon (in the 0.5 release) there'll not only be movable portals, but resizing portals

. I can't wait to finish this, I want to play my own portals just as much as anyone else

Post by **Praetor** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:05 am

Given that I'm gonna have to see a Willy Wonka level.

nullsquared · Post by **nullsquared** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:04 am

Willy Wonka? Isn't that with the candy and stuff? What's that got to due with physics and resizing portals

?

Post by **Kojack** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:05 am

I'm guessing the Willy Wonka reference is for this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbUEJbpPCaI

Here's the "The Room" video. Hmm, by Peter Molyneux. This is the first time I've seen it, but it's exactly what I had in mind when I suggested resizing portals back on page one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGiPUx9Zgi0

I was disappointed that they talked about stuff like books being made of individual pages, and being able to zoom in to play around with individual grains of wood in the floor, but never showed it.

Chrispin · Post by **Chrispin** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:21 am

Hey, this might be a crazy question, but do you plan on making a multiplayer client at some point? We could just rely on listen servers really.

nullsquared · Post by **nullsquared** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 2:52 pm

No. All of the physics are currently client-sided, and I'd have to move _everything_ server-side. It's kind of impossible to do any standard prediction by the clients since it's just just simplistic physics that don't matter much, but it's complex physics that are the main focus of the game - anything and everything could change in real time, and getting "requests" from the server would break this.

Chrispin · Post by **Chrispin** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:30 am

Yeah, I guess you would pretty much have to rewrite almost all of the engine for the dynamic stuff (if I'm correct). Plus, a multiplayer version would turn out less efficient, requiring even more complex scripting than it already has. Not to mention, there will be lots of FPS drop.

beaugard · Post by **beaugard** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:18 pm

You don't have to do prediction, even if all physics are server-side. You can let the clients lag instead, and check "instant hit" collisions (shotgun, etc) against cached positions (on the server). AFAIK this is how valve are doing it.

nullsquared · Post by **nullsquared** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:45 pm

beaugard wrote:You don't have to do prediction, even if all physics are server-side. You can let the clients lag instead, and check "instant hit" collisions (shotgun, etc) against cached positions (on the server). AFAIK this is how valve are doing it.

That'd suck. A lot. Simply playing some GMod Zombie Survival or Sandbox shows horrible physics performance.

Best situation would be a LAN game. Still, it'd require me to rewrite a LOT of the physics code (read: all), which I can spend towards 0.5 development.

beaugard · Post by **beaugard** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:56 pm

That'd suck. A lot. Simply playing some GMod Zombie Survival or Sandbox shows horrible physics performance.

What do you mean? Source multiplayer works pretty well, doesn't it? Or are you throwing around more objects than usual games - I thought it was the nature of the physics calculations you were concerned with and not the transferred data.

...for anyone who hasn't read it, I think this is the "source multiplayer" link. There's some input prediction, but all other physical objects are lagged.
http://www.valve-erc.com/srcsdk/general ... rking.html

btw, a bit of praise would be in order since it's my fist postings on the thread. Really cool stuff! Can't wait to try it out. And the fact that you can pull this off on a closed-source physics engine is a real plus for Julio...

nullsquared · Post by **nullsquared** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:09 pm

beaugard wrote:
That'd suck. A lot. Simply playing some GMod Zombie Survival or Sandbox shows horrible physics performance.
What do you mean? Source multiplayer works pretty well, doesn't it? Or are you throwing around more objects than usual games - I thought it was the nature of the physics calculations you were concerned with and not the transferred data.

...for anyone who hasn't read it, I think this is the "source multiplayer" link. There's some input prediction, but all other physical objects are lagged.
http://www.valve-erc.com/srcsdk/general ... rking.html

btw, a bit of praise would be in order since it's my fist postings on the thread. Really cool stuff! Can't wait to try it out. And the fact that you can pull this off on a closed-source physics engine is a real plus for Julio...

Go to GMod sandbox and get multiple people building multiple things. Soon you'll realize what I'm talking about

.

There'll be a crap-load of physics objects, so lag is a big issue as well. The thing here is that the game focuses on physics, so lag is unacceptable with the physics. It's sort of like an online FPS having perfect physics, yet lagging with the bullets

.

Also, resizing portals work pretty well now. All I have left to do is to get the rendering of them right. But they are completely lag-less - you can literally just point at them and call d_setScale() in real time (from Lua), they Just Work. Look:

Code: Select all

function getObjUnderMouse()
    local mpx, mpy, mpz, mdx, mdy, mdz = d_getMouseRay()

    d_wakeRadius(mpx, mpy, mpz, 15)

    local obj = --, gpx, gpy, gpz, gnx, gny, gnz, lpx, lpy, lpz, lnx, lny, lnz, dist =
        d_rayCast(mpx, mpy, mpz, mdx, mdy, mdz, 15)
    return obj
end

function growObjUnderMouse()
    local obj = getObjUnderMouse()

    if obj == nil then
        return
    end

    local ts = d_getGlobalTimeStep()

    local sx, sy, sz = d_getScale(obj)
    sx = sx + ts
    sy = sy + ts
    sz = sz + ts
    d_setScale(obj, sx, sy, sz)
end

function shrinkObjUnderMouse()
    local obj = getObjUnderMouse()

    if obj == nil then
        return
    end

    local ts = d_getGlobalTimeStep()

    local sx, sy, sz = d_getScale(obj)
    sx = sx - ts
    sy = sy - ts
    sz = sz - ts
    d_setScale(obj, sx, sy, sz)
end

bind("R", [[ growObjUnderMouse() ]])
bind("F", [[ shrinkObjUnderMouse() ]])

Point at something, press R, and it grows. Heh. This also shows how flexible the Lua scripting can be.

beaugard · Post by **beaugard** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:24 pm

Go to GMod sandbox and get multiple people building multiple things.

hm. I could equally well imagine that it's just a (lack of) optimization issue since these mods stretch the engine in directions it wasn't made to stretch

. Of course I have not looked into this any deeper so I really wouldn't know. Guess I'm just trying to say you shouldn't give up before you started...

btw, I read the gamedev discussion and had quite a laugh. Where do these people come from? Good to see you don't let it bother you.

twilight17 · Post by **twilight17** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:27 pm

Any news on this? Like what version you are on I can't wait

nullsquared · Post by **nullsquared** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:32 pm

twilight17 wrote:Any news on this? Like what version you are on I can't wait

Dynamically scaled portals are working 100%. They can be scaled in real time:

Code: Select all

somePortal->setScale(2, 1, 1); // BTW, Z shouldn't be scaled

Stuff gets dynamically resized as it goes through them...

And since my portals are so flexible... you can throw a dynamic portal through a portal and it will scale accordingly, just like a normal object. And it's kind of scary how extremely well it works, and I honestly wasn't planning for this type of thing.

I was going to make a video, but... Hm. This builds up the suspense

Version ~0.39. Can't be 0.4 yet since I promised 0.4 will have dynamic lighting and shadowing through portals

It's just that this stuff is currently more interesting than lighting, heh.

On another note, Ogre SDK v1.46 came out for Code::Blocks just now it seems, which means I get to write shader model 3 lighting/shadowing

. Yes, I fit all of those pretty soft shadows into shader model 2

.

twilight17 · Post by **twilight17** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:27 pm

Does this use straight up Newton Game Dynamics, or OgreNewt - the wrapper?

nullsquared · Post by **nullsquared** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:37 pm

Pure NewtonGD with my own wrapper. I need completely integrated portals with all of my physics, as well as several other things like integrated cloning, dynamic scaling of physics objects, and so on.

Post by **Kencho** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:12 am

OT: twilight17, could you reduce the size of the Google logo in your sig? It's invasive.

twilight17 · Post by **twilight17** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:48 am

Kencho wrote:OT: twilight17, could you reduce the size of the Google logo in your sig? It's invasive.

Better?

hpesoj · Post by **hpesoj** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:48 pm

The two latest videos are most impressive. However, how does self-collision through dynamically sizeable portals work?

Joe

nullsquared · Post by **nullsquared** » Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:57 am

hpesoj wrote:The two latest videos are most impressive. However, how does self-collision through dynamically sizeable portals work?

Joe

I haven't implemented it yet. In fact, I took it out because it caused some bugs, and I just wanted scalable portals to work right. No worries, that's what I'm working on now. The approach I'm taking is completely dynamic, so it should work without a problem with some smart placement.

CaseyB · Post by **CaseyB** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:45 am

Forgive me for being late to the party, but I just played Portal and I have to say, your portals seem to be MUCH more flexible than Portal's portals!

DEvil HUnter · Post by **DEvil HUnter** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:36 pm

so awesome!
keep up

round portals also possible?
or in general other shapes?

Ogre Forums

Portalized (GUI update)

Awesome