User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 68 of 68

Thread: Simple Procedural Planets - BP only.

  1. #41
    0
    You would have an instant buy from me.

  2. #42
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by franktech View Post
    In that case...

    I was the one who paid $1300 for NMS <cough> and can confirm its really bad.
    So I guess that leaves more time for developing your own project instead then
    Haha nice try

  3. #43
    0
    Allright. As I can see there's a different project doing exactly the same with BP. No reason to continue working on this kind of thing I guess. You can get a BP procedural planets free there, so I'm out with this one.

    ...

    I mean, I done with BP only approach. Started to work with C++ this week so I can use different noise functions, and run generation process on different CPU thread.

    What I have done so far:
    Full C++ grid generation and Noise implementation for Fractal Value, Gradient, Cellular, Simplex.
    Custom made (still WIP) normal calculation which is much faster than the one from Procedural Mesh.

    Next step is moving all the functions to different CPU thread so there is absolutely no FPS drop during planet generation.

    Basically, a segment of 256x256 poly is generated in about 800 ms.

    Screenies:

    Name:  Planet0.jpg
Views: 932
Size:  120.1 KB

    Name:  Planet1.jpg
Views: 926
Size:  87.9 KB

    Name:  Planet2.jpg
Views: 929
Size:  114.8 KB

    Yep.

  4. #44
    1
    Luminary
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,700
    I like this allot more

  5. #45
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by HeadClot View Post
    I like this allot more
    Agree! This one looks more advanced too
    Plus, there's room for competition anyway.
    If a dev retires their plugin is dead / frozen.
    So we need more devs going head to head...
    Or collaborating. Pool efforts / split rewards!

  6. #46
    1
    Yours is indeed far more advanced I'm just making a community one so people can take what I've done and improve it further, I'd buy yours in a heart beat if it was on the market place. Love your noise generation btw. I'll probably stick to BP only, even though it's slower, it gives something for beginners to look at and not be too overwhelmed by code.

  7. #47
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by HeroicVillain View Post
    Yours is indeed far more advanced I'm just making a community one so people can take what I've done and improve it further, I'd buy yours in a heart beat if it was on the market place. Love your noise generation btw. I'll probably stick to BP only, even though it's slower, it gives something for beginners to look at and not be too overwhelmed by code.
    To be frank, I gotta say I'm kind'a grateful, thanks to you I got to C++ finally. And turned out not to be that much of a challange really. --so far--
    Competition is good XD

    Still, as it comes to BP, they are slow. I need fast and accurate results. Couldn't do that with BP.

  8. #48
    0
    For some reason running Runtime mesh component I have 30% less FPS than using Procedural mesh component. Am I doing something wrong or what...?

    Forums are finally up, meh.

  9. #49
    0
    Samaritan

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Z-enzyme View Post
    For some reason running Runtime mesh component I have 30% less FPS than using Procedural mesh component. Am I doing something wrong or what...?

    Forums are finally up, meh.
    Not sure how that would happen... The RMC on its slowest parts is exactly the same as the PMC, but almost everything in there is just faster than the PMC. I'd be interested in seeing the profiling output to see what's up.

    Also as a short list of questions:
    1. What UpdateFrequency are you setting (if you are at all) in CreateMeshSection?
    2. Is this with/without collision?
    3. How frequently are you calling Create/Update etc?
    4. Are you using the PMC style API with its separate buffers per component, or the new one using the single array of the 1 structure?

  10. #50
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Koderz View Post
    Not sure how that would happen... The RMC on its slowest parts is exactly the same as the PMC, but almost everything in there is just faster than the PMC. I'd be interested in seeing the profiling output to see what's up.

    Also as a short list of questions:
    1. What UpdateFrequency are you setting (if you are at all) in CreateMeshSection?
    2. Is this with/without collision?
    3. How frequently are you calling Create/Update etc?
    4. Are you using the PMC style API with its separate buffers per component, or the new one using the single array of the 1 structure?
    1: That doesn't really matter because when I create a mesh section I'm not updating it at all.
    2: Yes, I am using collision - it seems collision or not the FPS is exactly the same.
    3: Only once, when I create a quad it just sits there doing nothing.
    4: Ummm, I don't really know how to set up buffers in RMC.

    BUT - this is mu setup for both

    Name:  Rr.jpg
Views: 850
Size:  356.2 KB

    (Don't mind the Create Collision bool being turned off, I was checking every configuration, always 6 FPS less from that angle, always less FPS from any angle)

    Creating only 1/6th of the whole mesh I have 6 FPS less using RMC.

    Procedural Mesh Component
    Name:  Procedural_noShadows.jpg
Views: 849
Size:  682.5 KB

    Runtime Mesh Component
    Name:  Runtime_NoShadows.jpg
Views: 848
Size:  683.7 KB

    I have no idea how to debug this, check what the heck is going on, so, I'd be grateful for any advice here.

  11. #51
    0
    Samaritan

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Z-enzyme View Post
    1: That doesn't really matter because when I create a mesh section I'm not updating it at all.
    2: Yes, I am using collision - it seems collision or not the FPS is exactly the same.
    3: Only once, when I create a quad it just sits there doing nothing.
    4: Ummm, I don't really know how to set up buffers in RMC.


    Ok, the reason for the first question was to see if you had it set to Infrequent, which underneath actually switches to a faster rendering path than the PMC, whether you had that flagged or not it should be faster rendering either way as the RMC fixes a couple issues the PMC had that degrades performance. You have it setup generally how I figured, so there's no reason I can think of as to why it's running slower...

    If you're willing, run the full profiler for each of the two and send me the results. If you've never used that before, open the console "~" and type... stat startfile ...and then wait maybe 10-20 seconds and then type stat stopfile
    then in your game project folder look in Saved/Profiling and find the two most recent files and send those to me either here, pm, slack.

  12. #52
    0
    are you still doing this ?
    If not could you pass this on to me ? I need a procedural generated low poly sphere.

  13. #53
    0
    Still in development, so, no, sorry.
    But, as to sphere, PM me, we can talk.

  14. #54
    0
    Doublepost, YAY!
    A quick update. Been working on the planets but something struck me. Would it be possible to make a skybox for the galasy as a 3D galaxy map?
    Well, it's Unreal Engine 4. Sure it would. This might work beautifully when we have a working world origin shifting in multiplayer.

    Here's a video of a working star map of a spiral galaxy with 90 000 stars in it. Each can be targeted, each has it's own seeds for later star and planet creation. Gonna work on that later. It takes time to generate, like 10 seconds, but once moved to C++ it will be faster, as it only needs to be generated once. After that it's just kept in the memory. Only the star vectors, the rest is generated on the fly - names, solar system properties, planets and such. Well, not yet, it is planned.


  15. #55
    0
    Luminary
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Z-enzyme View Post
    Doublepost, YAY!
    A quick update. Been working on the planets but something struck me. Would it be possible to make a skybox for the galasy as a 3D galaxy map?
    Well, it's Unreal Engine 4. Sure it would. This might work beautifully when we have a working world origin shifting in multiplayer.

    Here's a video of a working star map of a spiral galaxy with 90 000 stars in it. Each can be targeted, each has it's own seeds for later star and planet creation. Gonna work on that later. It takes time to generate, like 10 seconds, but once moved to C++ it will be faster, as it only needs to be generated once. After that it's just kept in the memory. Only the star vectors, the rest is generated on the fly - names, solar system properties, planets and such. Well, not yet, it is planned.

    This looks amazing.

    World Origin shifting for Multiplayer is coming in 4.14. Just saying.

    Also going to shoot you a PM real quick.

    Edit: Sent the PM to you @Z-enzyme

    Please get back to me when you can.
    Last edited by HeadClot; 10-06-2016 at 11:32 PM.

  16. #56
    0
    Again, quick update, probably will be changing the galaxy model to a more accurate one. After digging the internet found a way to create a galaxy using the density wave theory.



    Looks legit.

    And, no, no rotation in game, it's way too heavy. I'm only interested in the shape and more less even star separation - this was the problem with the last model, there were places I could leave cause the stars were too far away. Maybe this one will work.

    Cheers,
    Z.

  17. #57
    0
    Wow impressive. Definitely keeping my eye on this since I am working on exactly the same thing (altho ur further along)
    NVIDIA GameWorks merged branch (v4.9.2) (v4.12.5) (v4.13 p2)
    Feel free to Donate if you wish to support me

  18. #58
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GalaxyMan2015 View Post
    Wow impressive. Definitely keeping my eye on this since I am working on exactly the same thing (altho ur further along)
    Lotta people is. XD

  19. #59
    0
    Infiltrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    13
    Hey @Z-enzyme, are you still working on this? I was going to start a while back, but real life is real life. Been planning to start again recently but there really isn't a reason to reinvent the wheel (only difference for me is I don't need procedural, I just want a couple hand made ones).

  20. #60
    0
    Amazing work so far yo. The level of detail you're getting is nuts!

  21. #61
    0
    This is really awesome! All the things you can do with procedural generation... blows my mind!

  22. #62
    0
    Just a little tease. Maybe will be showing something bigger soon.

    Name:  Tease.jpg
Views: 384
Size:  579.7 KB

  23. #63
    0
    Luminary
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,700
    Hey @Z-enzyme -

    Looks nice so far. Cannot wait to see what you have to show off

  24. #64
    0
    Alright, playing with 4.16 features.


  25. #65
    0
    Name:  Galaxy_2.jpg
Views: 144
Size:  791.4 KB

    Name:  Galaxy_1.jpg
Views: 145
Size:  917.7 KB

    Name:  Galaxy_0.jpg
Views: 143
Size:  323.9 KB

    The Black Hole is a bit big... But, ah, well, it's still POC.

  26. #66
    0
    Love it

    How you doing your stars?

  27. #67
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ioFlow Studios View Post
    Love it

    How you doing your stars?
    A bit of math and instanced static meshes.

  28. #68
    0
    How many planets will you Procedural in your game?Is it infinite?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •