Update Speculation thread

Do we need or do we want?

 

hey look, they released a new picture of the bluebuck! it looks pretty snazzy in with that two-tone paintjob, also lowrider config confirmed! /s

 

Where is the pic from?

 

Photoshop
R/whoosh

 

Can we cut the "whoosh," shit out? Thanks.

 

wooooosh

 

Idiot! You made me look!

 

The only thing that annoys me more than the fact you said r/whoosh is the fact that you didn't even use it in the right context.

a 'whoosh' is when the joke goes over your head. I'm pretty sure MrAnnoyingDude knows it's not a real teaser

 

actually gimp, but yeah.
on the topic of the bluebuck, I was wondering about the front grille when i was making this, and how there's a lot of unused space inside it. i made another version with a black front grille (and alternative side chrome trim) and i'd imagine that the final thing might get some kind of concealed headlight option, like the barstow RS. what do you guys think?

 

I feel like the final design may have quite a few differences with the original concept drawing.

Possibly the grill may extend the whole way - surrounding the lights, similar to the Impalas of the era?

ft. my all time favourite lowrider, the Gypsy Rose

 

Haha this is the most delusional thing I've read today You should know better, you are in the credits of the game! Or maybe that reflects the whole team...

Sure, the current compression does compress textures. PBR however, could somewhat improve the look of the game.

 

What? Where?

 

In the credits lol

Just click on 'credits' in game

 

Yeah really the worst the current compression does is make areas of some textures green (or in the case of the ETK I series the whole carpet is green..) Either way not really a graphics issue.

 

when the bluebuck comes out i can make your grille idea into a real thing if you want lol

 

Eh, of course PBR 'can' look great, only problem is that so far what I have seen in games it has not been quite the thing people like to make it to be, so far it tends not to be better than what texture compression upgrade to game looks in this game was, which was pretty big improvement from muddy looking skins to something crisp.

However implementation what rF2 has about OBR for example has still quite bit of work left until it really starts to show up how good it is. At times it can look nice and sure it has potential to be great, but it just seems to take quite bit of work to actually start working well and PBR alone is not enough to be worked on, so many other aspects affect to that.

I think you just simply did not understood at all what you quoted, somehow you presumed that I would of said PBR would not be more, when I did say it might not be more, PBR like many other things can look really bad too if not taking care, effort and time to make it right. It does not automatically give awesome results just by putting it to game.

 

I don't really get what you mean, yes better textures are nicer to a small degree but something like PBR alone without any significant changes elsewhere *is* a vast improvement just by the simple nature of how it works. You just need to look at some basic examples to see the difference



Ontop of that considering the PBR shader work is basically done by Torque3d devs already its not like its going to be starting from scratch for the devs either.

 

I still don't think you're quite grasping the impact of PBR if you still insist that texture compression would make more of a difference. Check out these examples from Unity that I made myself.




Notice how the reflections of white light aren't simply a single smooth "spot", but rather have multiple areas and bounces from where it "goes within" the material and interacts with multuple layers? And how the distribution of light and reflections is less uniform and more scattered, as it would be in real life? You can't get results like these in a traditional renderer - something like Beam's implementation of Torque would simply have smoother looking materials (normal maps notwithstanding), because there aren't layers to the materials for light to interact with.

At its core, lighting is *THE* fundamental part of what makes or breaks a renderer, and having those calculations based on the real world physical properties of light and materials makes everything look infinitely more "grounded" and like you're looking at a real world scene as opposed to something cartoony. Even these simple materials I threw together in a matter of minutes in Unity, because all the hard work was already done in implementing PBR, looks miles ahead of anything a traditional renderer could output

 

I is not me who is not understanding, at least that is how I see this mess.

Good implementation of illumination and traditional means is not going to be far off from quickly slapped in PBR which barely works, it is not a magic cure that is the point which from some reason is not understood here, it is like presumed PBR would give impressive results straight out of the box without realizing how much work already is put to traditional rendering engine and how much it would take to make PBR to even work without giving blue or green screen or just crashing constantly.

I am not saying that PBR can't look good, I'm saying it is not automatically going to solve everything and look awesome. It does not solve magically all the issues in rF2 either, nothing works like that, there is going to be several generations of PBR games and eventually it will work awesomely. You are presuming that PBR implementation would be perfect or really good, does not happen quite so simply, new ways need to be learned and lot of fail will happen with them.

Also before texture compression upgrade BeamNG skins were quite blurry mess, with new compression improvement was a huge at least to my eyes and that is level X of improvement to visual looks, you improve visual looks by that amount (level X) by whatever means and it is going to be big improvement, if improvement is Level X minus tiny bit, it still is big improvement, even it is not more than what texture compression improved visual appearance.

Well, obviously that either is not understood and from some odd reason it is taken as claim as texture compression changes way rendering works more than PBR from some odd random reasons, which don't make sense at all, but that is always how it is when trying to explain something, people presume instead of read how it is written.

Why you are presuming that I'm thinking about perfect PBR vs perfect traditional renderer situation? That is causing you to misread my point completely. (yes, my point still is, PBR is not automatically making everything awesome, it can also looks shitty if fail happens, which does happen, especially with new things and as can seen with rF2 it is not giving much over traditional renderer if traditional one is just tweaked further).

No, it is not really your fault, but I'm just tired of this world presuming constantly without even trying to understand what was idea behind the text, just because that is average way, hence I write less and less.
--- Post updated ---

Green screens, black screens, crashing, things looking totally weird, for some it would cause game run 3fps for no apparent reason, amount of trouble from even a single change can be quite amusing, it does not work like just putting it in, nothing never does. Like faster UI, in theory simple thing, in practice well you have probably noticed amount of trouble it has given to some of the people.
To my understanding PBR still needs light sources to work and what if light sources are not quite the perfect?

Sure it would be nice to have all the bells and whistles, but when there are these unforeseen challenges always happening, they need time allocation and it can be quite bit more than one can guess.

Like when you get odd green sky when setting TOD to near sunset, with PBR you would still get odd green sky with light source being really weird and making PBR work all odd ways beyond imagination, sun might be like if illumination would be a candle and blinker might burn everything white, there just is not knowing other than that with this engine you don't usually get quite what you presume, there are challenges beyond imagination.

Tdev wrote that what T3D has is completely incompatible, also as previously has been written, there probably is not much original code left as since forking off from T3D all has been written again, while base looks similar, thing is not compatible, it is not just take and put in as what thing relies on is different, it would mean rewriting much much more and completely new issues which kind nobody here me included can even imagine.

If it would be as easy as just taking from new T3D and pasting into BeamNG, surely developers would do it, but it is never so easy, more likely is that it will cause house of dominoes to shift and that would be year of more work or something like that on completely different area than implementing PBR from T3D in order to make implementing even possible, idk.

Sure it would be huge improvement eventually, after 2 years of struggle or something like that, but might be people want game bit sooner than delaying 2 years or something like that, I don't really know how long it would take, but I know generally in any development things take longer than what people generally think and there are issues that most will never even realize being possible issues.

That is why there is golden rule about software development, stick to plan, no matter how great ideas you are given, stick to your plan, otherwise development time becomes insanely long or product will be hugely buggy, which are things so often seen in this industry.