Re: The hidden beauty of GP3 graphics

"Gregor Veble" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Actually, as I see it the texture map is only adjusted according to the > rotation of the wheel around the hub, and not to the steering or the > viewing angle. This can be accomplished in both Direct3D or a software > engine, it doesn't really matter, as you just need to modify the texture > mapping coordinates for the vertices at each frame, then the hardware or > software renderer does the, well, rendering. > > The benefit is that you do not see the rough edges of the polygons > rotating (think F1 2000 in replay mode when the cars are far away), it's > only the texture that flows around the wheel according to the angle of > the wheel rotation. It doesn't shatter the illusion of the rendered > wheel being round as quickly as the shape is not rotated, that's all. > > -Gregor

You're right. I finally poked through the .jam files, and GP3 is using proper textures mapped onto polygon wheels. Too bad they are such bad looking textures for the wheels (in comparison to the other textures). Perhaps someone will fix them up a little.

"Jo Helsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 08:59:52 +0200, "Stephen Ferguson" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Yes, I have ranted about the inefficiency of the GP3 hardware code, but I > >also think it looks pretty damn good. Last night I took my notebook toour > >lecture hall and ran it through the projection beamer at 800x600 (my > >notebook won't do XGA in hardware mode). My jaw dropped. The truebeauty > >of GP3's graphics shone through. I don't know if it's the palette, orthe > >oft-maligned selective filtering, but it looked like a race broadcast. I > >ran MGPRS2 through the projector, and it looked like a computer game. > >Others walked in while I was running a GP3 race from the "director'schair" > >and they had to look twice before they realised it was a game; one askedme

Quoted text (19 lines)

> >which race I had "taped". > > > >Try it... you might be surprised. Something about the combination of a > >television and GP3 and the transformation is sweet. > > Strange it took you so long to realize. Some still haven't realized it > :-) > > I agree completely: in "concept", GP3 graphics are truely awesome. > They capture the colours and atmosphere absolutely perfectly. I played > F12000 a few days ago and sure, the graphics look clean and smooth. > But it is a virtual world; it doesn't look ANYTHING like the real > world. I wonder in what kind of universe people live who think F12000 > graphics are what F1 graphics should be :-) > > I'm even wondering whether the "poor" 3D implementation isn't entirely > on purpose. Maybe, if you add "proper" 3D support, everything > inevitably becomes "virtualised"? >

If you mean "poor" as in selective filtering of textures, then I agree wholeheartedly. The un-filtered tire barriers look perfect from the racetrack, with nice "depth", whereas the filtered barriers in MGPRS2 look bland and flat. I don't care if I can see the pixels when I am up close, because I don't plan to ever be that close, and if I am, you can bet I will be in a hurry to press the escape key and start over. If you mean "poor" as in running slower in hardware mode than software in some cases, or bogging down hopelessly in the first corner or in the rain, when the software renderer hardly loses any speed in a similar situation, then I hope it wasn't on purpose. As it is, I hotlap in hardware mode, high resolution, all the goodies on, but race in software mode, lower resolution, for the consistent framerate. But I'm squeezing everything out of a notebook, so my case is the exception, rather than the rule in a world of fast desktop 3D cards. Stephen

"Gregor Veble" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Stephen Ferguson wrote: > > > > Yes, I have ranted about the inefficiency of the GP3 hardware code, butI > > also think it looks pretty damn good. Last night I took my notebook toour > > lecture hall and ran it through the projection beamer at 800x600 (my > > notebook won't do XGA in hardware mode). My jaw dropped. The truebeauty > > of GP3's graphics shone through. I don't know if it's the palette, orthe > > oft-maligned selective filtering, but it looked like a race broadcast.I > > ran MGPRS2 through the projector, and it looked like a computer game. > > Others walked in while I was running a GP3 race from the "director'schair" > > and they had to look twice before they realised it was a game; one askedme

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > which race I had "taped". > > > > Try it... you might be surprised. Something about the combination of a > > television and GP3 and the transformation is sweet. > > > > Stephen > > I agree completely. The graphics engine doesn't matter, it's what you do > with it that does ;). > > F1 2000 probably has a technically superior graphics engine, but it > lacks the artistic perfection that shines through in GP3. GP3 just looks > real (especially from a car when it rains!), other F1 sims have a > cartoony feel to them, perhaps because they tried to accentuate > techicalities in favour of careful tuning towards real life. > > -Gregor

And the "director's" chair is just that much more interesting now with the nice visuals. I might not bother to watch Hungary next weekend... I've already seen the race :-) Love the GP3 AI. Your comment about the rain is spot on... once I ran a few races in "monsoon" conditions, there was no going back to other modern F1 games, even if they are technically superior. How the real drivers handle Monaco in the rain is beyond me. Or at least, now I understand why so many of them end up missing a wheel or two. By the way, Gregor, w.r.t. the GP3 graphics engine, did you see my followup note in the "Geoff's ultra-efficient graphics engine" thread? I had a few more questions for you about how GP3 draws wheels. Do you really think it's more efficient to only rotate the wheel polys about the steering axis, then figure out the proper texture map to use based on: 1. viewing angle 2. wheel angle about steering axis 3. wheel rotation about the hub and map that onto the polys. I still think it would be quicker to fix the textures onto the polys, rotate them all about both axes and let the 3D card figure out the rest for getting the image onto the screen. I guess it's a legacy of his software rendering. I'm sure there are all sorts of other crafty "tricks" which are redundant with proper 3D card support. Stephen

Yes, I have ranted about the inefficiency of the GP3 hardware code, but I also think it looks pretty damn good. Last night I took my notebook to our lecture hall and ran it through the projection beamer at 800x600 (my notebook won't do XGA in hardware mode). My jaw dropped. The true beauty of GP3's graphics shone through. I don't know if it's the palette, or the oft-maligned selective filtering, but it looked like a race broadcast. I ran MGPRS2 through the projector, and it looked like a computer game. Others walked in while I was running a GP3 race from the "director's chair" and they had to look twice before they realised it was a game; one asked me which race I had "taped". Try it... you might be surprised. Something about the combination of a television and GP3 and the transformation is sweet. Stephen

Stephen Ferguson wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > Yes, I have ranted about the inefficiency of the GP3 hardware code, but I > also think it looks pretty damn good. Last night I took my notebook to our > lecture hall and ran it through the projection beamer at 800x600 (my > notebook won't do XGA in hardware mode). My jaw dropped. The true beauty > of GP3's graphics shone through. I don't know if it's the palette, or the > oft-maligned selective filtering, but it looked like a race broadcast. I > ran MGPRS2 through the projector, and it looked like a computer game. > Others walked in while I was running a GP3 race from the "director's chair" > and they had to look twice before they realised it was a game; one asked me > which race I had "taped". > > Try it... you might be surprised. Something about the combination of a > television and GP3 and the transformation is sweet. > > Stephen

I agree completely. The graphics engine doesn't matter, it's what you do with it that does ;). F1 2000 probably has a technically superior graphics engine, but it lacks the artistic perfection that shines through in GP3. GP3 just looks real (especially from a car when it rains!), other F1 sims have a cartoony feel to them, perhaps because they tried to accentuate techicalities in favour of careful tuning towards real life. -Gregor

Stephen Ferguson wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > By the way, Gregor, w.r.t. the GP3 graphics engine, did you see my followup > note in the "Geoff's ultra-efficient graphics engine" thread? I had a few > more questions for you about how GP3 draws wheels. Do you really think it's > more efficient to only rotate the wheel polys about the steering axis, then > figure out the proper texture map to use based on: > 1. viewing angle > 2. wheel angle about steering axis > 3. wheel rotation about the hub > and map that onto the polys. I still think it would be quicker to fix the > textures onto the polys, rotate them all about both axes and let the 3D card > figure out the rest for getting the image onto the screen. I guess it's a > legacy of his software rendering. I'm sure there are all sorts of other > crafty "tricks" which are redundant with proper 3D card support. > > Stephen

Actually, as I see it the texture map is only adjusted according to the rotation of the wheel around the hub, and not to the steering or the viewing angle. This can be accomplished in both Direct3D or a software engine, it doesn't really matter, as you just need to modify the texture mapping coordinates for the vertices at each frame, then the hardware or software renderer does the, well, rendering. The benefit is that you do not see the rough edges of the polygons rotating (think F1 2000 in replay mode when the cars are far away), it's only the texture that flows around the wheel according to the angle of the wheel rotation. It doesn't shatter the illusion of the rendered wheel being round as quickly as the shape is not rotated, that's all. -Gregor

On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 08:59:52 +0200, "Stephen Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>Yes, I have ranted about the inefficiency of the GP3 hardware code, but I >also think it looks pretty damn good. Last night I took my notebook to our >lecture hall and ran it through the projection beamer at 800x600 (my >notebook won't do XGA in hardware mode). My jaw dropped. The true beauty >of GP3's graphics shone through. I don't know if it's the palette, or the >oft-maligned selective filtering, but it looked like a race broadcast. I >ran MGPRS2 through the projector, and it looked like a computer game. >Others walked in while I was running a GP3 race from the "director's chair" >and they had to look twice before they realised it was a game; one asked me >which race I had "taped". > >Try it... you might be surprised. Something about the combination of a >television and GP3 and the transformation is sweet.

Strange it took you so long to realize. Some still haven't realized it :-) I agree completely: in "concept", GP3 graphics are truely awesome. They capture the colours and atmosphere absolutely perfectly. I played F12000 a few days ago and sure, the graphics look clean and smooth. But it is a virtual world; it doesn't look ANYTHING like the real world. I wonder in what kind of universe people live who think F12000 graphics are what F1 graphics should be :-) I'm even wondering whether the "poor" 3D implementation isn't entirely on purpose. Maybe, if you add "proper" 3D support, everything inevitably becomes "virtualised"? JoH