I had this post so long on mind that I forgot half what I was going to say, so abridged version recapping the week:
I started working on caves and managed to implement a very powerful but very complicated solution. Any convex surface without an underside could be used to create caves underneath if it was high enough. Increase the complexity a little and I'm sure I would have wound up with full boolean mesh operations. Early on I realized that this is far too complicated for what I need but I still finished the implementation, tested it, saw that it was great and immediately deleted it.
I think that a simpler design and terrain overall would benefit my game. I scaled back a lot on the complexity until I reached a fair compromise between ease of creation and what can be done with terrain. The time spent creating the complex solution means that Snapshot 9 will be a little bit behind feature wise: no level switching, no slicing and no caves.
The first good reason to have relatively simple terrain is that terrain is often just eye-candy. You take a look at it, go "WOOOOOOOOOW" and then you spend 99.99% of your time staring either at a horizontal section though the landscape or and underground level.
The second good reason is that complicated terrain requires complicated tools. I could create a full on set of terrain editing tools for the GUI, but this is not really the scope for the game.
Instead my focus was to create an accesible terrain that looks good and is very natural, both initially and after you interact with it. In my last video I have shown and early digging prototype and that had very straight edges around the part that was removed. I don't like that because it brings back memories of the cubes. MUST... AVOID... PUBES... JOKE... I want softer surfaces and I'll show what I came up with at the end of this post, but first something has to be done about the way the landscape looks.
While there is plenty of detail in the map, because of the flat shading you can barely tell what is going on. Using Irrlicht's built in normal calculator I tried to add definition to the landscape. The result did not turn out too great. I obviously needed something more powerful, a solution implemented by me, but by using this first I learned a ton about normals, Irrlicht implementation for them, how Blender exports them and why using flat shading requires more vertices that smooth shading. Here is the result of the Irrlicht solution:
While there is plenty of detail in the map, because of the flat shading you can barely tell what is going on. Using Irrlicht's built in normal calculator I tried to add definition to the landscape. The result did not turn out too great. I obviously needed something more powerful, a solution implemented by me, but by using this first I learned a ton about normals, Irrlicht implementation for them, how Blender exports them and why using flat shading requires more vertices that smooth shading. Here is the result of the Irrlicht solution:
This solution, while far from perfect gave the required detail to the landscape. It also highlighted some problems with terrain creation. When I learned midpoint displacement I remember reading about rectangular artifacts that get carried up and create undesired pyramidal structures. I knew about this bug but for a cube world it was never a problem.
So the next step was to write a powerful terrain generator class to handle all these tasks, using the same algorithm as the above one, but replacing square midpoint-displacement with diamond-square midpoint displacement. And since I needed normal calculations, I made the class provide these too. The class not only works for discrete values, i.e. each point in the heigh-map, but can provide the correct values for height and normals for any floating point coordinate using interpolation. Currently the class only supports discrete and interpolated height and normal operations, but on a need by need basis I'll add support for other useful values for a 3D engine, like tangents, binormals, bitangents and bisexuals.
The next step was to improve lighting. Correct normals and bad lighting does not a pretty map make. I learned a ton about lighting in general. How did I do that? By trying to learn shaders. This is how you learn shaders: you start of with a "neutral" shader, one that simply converts from logical 3D coordinates to coordinates the GPU can use using the world-view-projection matrix and fill the areas with a single hard coded color. This is the most basic shader that you really need to fully understand. Then you start expanding upon it, adding ambient color, texture, directional lighting, specular highlights, normal mapping, etc. I am not ready yet to write my shader lessons, but I'll get there. First I need to solve a problem: out there on the Internet people often write shaders that have global variables initialized with some value. Pretty straightforward. Yet when I use those shaders, the initial value is never assigned and is instead zero, resulting in incorrect rendering. I need to figure out first why these values work for other people and not for me.
Using my new knowledge I created a new lighting model that only uses two lights. This might solve the problems with Irrlicht's default PS 1 shaders that only support two lights for some effects. The new model is far from perfect, and I am still iterating upon it, but this was a good result:
I further tweaked terrain generation, digging softness and lighting.
Terrain generation is done. As in the shape of it. I will not improve upon it more. Not all randoms maps are equally good, but I haven't found a single bad one yet. The difference between them comes down to subjectivity. I like hilly/rocky landscapes, but some might enjoy smoother ones. The random terrain generator creates both.
Lighting for terrain is also done, at least until I switch from fixed pipeline lighting to a terrain shader.
The only thing left is texturing. A new texturing scheme will come creating more realistic and modern looking landscapes, but not now.
The terrain generator has a resolution. It creates an amount of discrete points in concordance with that resolution. Increasing the resolution does not simply create a good looking terrain with twice the size and useful data. It creates a terrain with twice the size but half the detail. Every time I change resolution a new set of parameters for the terrain generator must be manually and experimentally determined. It is similar to a picture. Scaling it up won't give you any more detail. You may use some filtering, but eventually you'll need a higher resolution image. So I am going with a fixed resolution terrain.
So I implemented strectching. The terrain data can now be used to create terrain at any scale. Currently the unit borders are aligned with the heightmap to create the best looking map. I have not yet investigated how this looks if they are not aligned.
The terrain is also seedable, as in there are a few values that when reused always create the same terrain. Useful, this way I can always play around with my favorite maps.
Putting it all together we get this:
There are some coloring bugs that I have intentionally left in for terrain. While examining the physics and terrain model you can easily prove that these values are wrong, but I actually like it this way because it gives the terrain a little bit of personality and outlandishness. The texture stretching bugs are not intentional and will get fixed!
Overall this was a great first week for March's experiment-a-thon. A smashing success even. There is absolutely no way I am going back to cubes! Or a 2D engine!
Now just let's hope that I can hack together a Snapshot 9 out of all this stuff!
You are doing the Lord's work, sir. The dwarven lord's.
ReplyDeleteWow fuck this great, you are god)
ReplyDelete