Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

Space Graphics Toolkit & Planets

Discussion in 'Assets and Asset Store' started by Darkcoder, Aug 18, 2012.

  1. Uncasid

    Uncasid

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Posts:
    193
    You can actually achieve a lot of this via other tools.. Like lock and shoot, or the explosion framework, decal framework + chickenlord shaders for shield effects.
     
  2. Xsnip3rX

    Xsnip3rX

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Posts:
    197
    keywords: Other Tools
     
  3. Uncasid

    Uncasid

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Posts:
    193
    I don't think all of that is in his scope, though I may be wrong.

    My intention was to give him a solution that works right now :)
     
  4. Darkcoder

    Darkcoder

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Posts:
    3,404
    You can already make nice looking laser effects using the thruster component and some additional code to handle projectiles (e.g. raycasting, homing, acceleration, damage, etc), though beam weapons may require a separate component. I won't be including space explosions, because this toolkit isn't designed to be a media pack. There are many tools out that that can generate nice explosion tile sheets, and Unity comes with two particles systems built-in, so you can just use those.

    However, I will be including a component to allow you to create shield impact effects, because that's not something that can easily be made without quite a bit of code and a custom shader (nice shield effects that is).

    I agree that you could create a nice spiral galaxy by combining the starfield and nebula, so I'll get cracking on those.
     
  5. Uncasid

    Uncasid

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Posts:
    193
    Also another suggestion.. The galaxies should have a bulge in the middle. As I was playing with the elliptical version, I noticed this was missing.

    http://physics.uoregon.edu/~jimbrau/BrauImNew/Chap23/6th/23_01Figurea-F.jpg

    Here is an example of what I am talking about. I tried to simulate something like it using another elliptical, but couldn't get it to smooth correctly into the main galaxy
     
  6. Darkcoder

    Darkcoder

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Posts:
    3,404
    The milky way is a barred spiral galaxy so its shape is different, I don't think any elliptical galaxies have bulges like that. But I will write a spiral galaxy option for the starfield component, and I'll make sure I include this feature!
     
  7. Xsnip3rX

    Xsnip3rX

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Posts:
    197
    So i have a quote here of you saying that you WILL make the laser, and then you are just now saying "Fend for yourself" sorta thing... so which is it going to be? fend for yourself or what you previously said you would do?
     
  8. Darkcoder

    Darkcoder

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Posts:
    3,404
    I will make a laser beam component, but you can already make non-beam (e.g. star-wars style) lasers using the thruster component. When I add the shield component then I'll make a small demo showing the shield effects by firing stuff (e.g. thruster-based lasers) at them. But no, I won't be making a dedicated non-beam laser component, because it would just be copy/pasting the thruster class.

    [edit] Also keep in mind that all of this discussion pertains to the graphics components only. To make a non-beam laser using the thruster component, you still need to write a separate script to make the thruster move through space.

    Similarly, the laser beam component will just allow you to render a fancy line between two points in space, it will still require a separate script to actually handle the shooting of the beam.

    The reason why this needs to be separate is because lasers and laser beams probably need to have code to damage the objects they're being fired at, but there's no way I can write code that will work with everyone's games, and I'm not exactly going to implement a spaceship damage system into the core of a graphics library.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2013
  9. ForceX

    ForceX

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    1,102
    @ Darkcoder : Sorry if I step on some toes but.

    @Xsnip3rX :

    If lasers or beam weapons are a feature that you are needing then i ask that you try and create them yourself, and not corner DC into including them. I know for a fact that projectiles have been discussed many many times here on the forums and there are lots of tutorals on youtube. Then if you find you still need help you can ask for assistance on the forum, but please do not depend on a feature to be included inside an allready released package. Especially if the feature request falls outsdie the scope of the orgional package. Just because SGT is dealing with space related themes does not necessiarly mean that it will ecompase everything dealing with space games.

    Darkcoder has created a fantastic package for creating beautiful celestial environments. Anything that he feels he wants to add to this package should just be considered icing on this already delicious cake, and not something that is deserved.
     
  10. Steve-Tack

    Steve-Tack

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Posts:
    1,240
    I'm in the process of leaning Unity and building a space game as I go. Recently I discovered how easy it is to make "energy bolt" style projectiles as well as solid beams with the line renderer built into Unity. If you looking for sci-fi weapons, it's worth checking out.

    Since I'm making a space game (sort of Freelancer style), I've been watching this thread closely to see what features are being added to the asset. At this point, I'm using traditional skyboxes and will play with drawing planets as billboards for a first pass, so a good chunk of the features I may not need. Some of the features mentioned for possibilities in the future are very interesting to me though, specifically:

    * Nebulae. If I could use this asset to draw some colored areas, I could get away from the skybox thing and save a lot on texture memory. While I will have some regular black space areas, some areas I would like to make more distinct.

    * Warp/hyperspace effect.

    * Shield hit effect. I saw an amazing asset on the Asset Store for this, so I'm curious what Darkcoder can come up with. If it's even half that cool, I'd probably buy SGT just for that.


    I had some questions on the asteroid belt generator. In my game, there is going to be asteroid mining. Is there a way with that feature to "promote" the asteroids to interactive objects when the player is near? I'm thinking in terms of collision, physics, and being able to identify specific asteroids near the player. Also is there a poly limit to the asteroid models themselves when using that? What I'm doing now is drawing somewhat higher poly asteroids with normal mapping when the player is close, then switching to lower poly and a simpler shader when farther away to take advantage of dynamic batching. That's work, but it's still limited on how many I can draw compared to the SGT feature.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2013
  11. Xsnip3rX

    Xsnip3rX

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Posts:
    197
    For one, please read everything before you jump in, after all, remember the old saying, "only fools rush in"

    I was talking about non-projectile weapons, if i pay for a package and he asks people what they want to see in it then i have the right to tell him that i would like beam weapons, he does not have to add them, but he previously mentioned he was going to, so all i was doing was reminding him that he previously stated that, if he did indeed state that he was going to add a certain effect then yes it is deserved, and it is also appreciated.
     
  12. ForceX

    ForceX

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    1,102
    Beam weapons and projectile / laser weapons can be coded very similarly, if you have a good working knowledge of projectiles then you can easily create a beam weapon. A simple way would be to cast a ray either from the center of your screen or from muzzle of your barrel outwards. Next you can draw a linerenderer or custom mesh from your start point to you end point, then check if the beam is colliding with an object and subtract health.

    True this is something he mentioned that he will work on. I do not take this as an admission of absoluteness. Situations can change feature sets can fall off or simply become there own entity. Not to say that it will, I do not know what DC has in store for his products.

    As i do read this forum, my feeling is that you were/are trying to trap DC into creating a specific feature, and i simply want to remind you that this is his asset. If you have bought it then it was for the contents that it currently contains. If you are buying for future features that have only been briefly mentioned, then do not be upset if they do not materialize.

    As this is potentially turning into a hijack i will no longer be commenting on this. The last word is yours.
     
  13. Darkcoder

    Darkcoder

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Posts:
    3,404
    @ ForceX

    Thanks for chiming in, you're completely right. There are many things I've said in this thread that didn't pan out after thinking/experimenting about/with them more.

    Before starting this project I had a choice between releasing lots of small assets separately, and releasing one big asset with many components. I chose to make it one big asset, mainly because this allows me to make nice example scenes that combine multiple features. The original plan was to extend the feature set to get more sales, then increase the price to match the demand, but things didn't work out that way.

    Since releasing SGT I've added lots of features for free, but I haven't seen an increase in sales, so it makes no sense for me to increase the price (I imagine it'd just lower sales from people who want just a subset of the features). Based on this, it also gives me no incentive to add any extra features.

    So I'm not sure what the future of SGT holds in terms of features. Maybe I should add more features and hope for more sales? Maybe I should add more features and increase the price and hope that sales remain the same? Maybe I should release new features as separate assets?

    But right now I'm mainly focusing on my next asset store product, which should be more applicable to all projects (not just space based ones).


    Can you link to the asset? I had a brief look but couldn't seem to find anything relevant. HERE's a screenshot of them in one of my previous projects, they will probably end up looking something like that.


    I had a long think about the asteroid ring component a while back, and I concluded that it's way too much work to allow the asteroids to be 'promoted' to separate GameObjects when you get close to them. If you need this feature, then you can try combining it with the new Debris Spawner component to spawn actual GameObjects around the camera. To make this effect work nicely, you'd need to dynamically adjust the debris object count based on the camera's proximity to the ring disc. This is very similar to how Freelancer's asteroid fields work.
     
  14. Uncasid

    Uncasid

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Posts:
    193
    Personally, I don't think the thrusters / lasers / shield effect / other items like that should be in this package. A lot of those things are already covered in the asset store.

    What I think should be in the package is stuff that comes to scene generation, like; skyboxes, planets, suns, galaxies, nebulae, asteroids, maybe some warp effect or wormhole, maybe some multi material ship shaders, and black holes... things like that. Doing something like that allows a scene to feel artistically similar.

    Honestly, you have done a fantastic job with this package already!! Also, do you have a forum? I think that might be a good idea, as users can share changes / mods to the package that they like for the community! This might help on sales a little bit.

    As for the forcefield shader:

    I am pretty sure the shield effect he is talking about is right here:
    https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/#/content/6839

    Preview:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siOALsGjJqs&feature=youtu.be
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2013
  15. Steve-Tack

    Steve-Tack

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Posts:
    1,240
    Yes, the "dynamic force field" that Uncasid linked to is the one I looked at. If something like that is out of scope for SGT, that's understandable. The one downside of that force field asset is that it requires SM 3.0, but probably not a deal breaker for what I'm doing.

    That's a good idea and would work well for what I've got in mind for asteroids. Thanks for the reply!
     
  16. Steve-Tack

    Steve-Tack

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Posts:
    1,240
    I haven't even bought SGT yet, but from what I can see, I agree that he's done a great job. Unfortunately the author himself made the mistake of mentioning several possible upcoming features, which is what got me excited about this thread to begin with. I'm betting that's a lesson learned. :)
     
  17. Xsnip3rX

    Xsnip3rX

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Posts:
    197
    To be honest i was satisfied with just a few planets and whatnot, but DC you did start promising more features which is probably what got most of us on this thread into the "Buy Now" mode.
     
  18. ForceX

    ForceX

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    1,102
    How about we just give DC a bit of time. He has already stated that work SGT will be slowing as he is preparing a new asset.

    Instead of pestering him with “when will version 3 come out” or non constructive dialog such as :

    Let’s help DC with potential ideas that are thought out and fit in well with the scope of the project. If there is a feature that you would like, then post comments that are constructive and promote creativity. Instead of just, “I want”, and then “when are we going to get feature X” .

    I believe if we all wait a bit longer that SGT will expand into something even greater than it is now, but we have to work with DC, not hurry him along. When he is ready, just as in the past I am sure he will have an official announcement with the new features.
     
  19. Django

    Django

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Posts:
    120
    I am inclined to agree.

    Although trusters/lasers/shields are cool, there are other assets that can cover this.

    In my opinion, it seems that the package should be more about planets, galaxies, skyboxes, nebulas, black holes...

    So more about the space environment and "graphics" like name of the toolkit implies, rather than space gameplay (lasers, ships, gravity, etc) which could probably be more at home in a second package (something like: Space Gameplay Toolkit maybe ?).

    As for the lack of sale increases (even with all the nice updates) , I think one of the reason is because SGT is hard to find on the asset store. So even if you make lots of updates; if its not easy to find, there won't be sale increases.

    I agree. Personally, I think nebulas would be great because its one of the first things that comes up to mind when we hear the word "space". I think that nebulas would enhance how the environment will look. I believe it fits the scope of the toolkit since its about "graphics".
     
  20. ForceX

    ForceX

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    1,102
    I think nebula's would be a great idea. Which type of nebula effect were you thinking about.

    Type 1 Freespace / X3 style nebula : This is what i would consider to be your classic space game nebula effect that looks as if you are flying through an endless colorful cloud. This is something that just might work out really well with the Debris Spawner component. Instead of debris you would use camera facing billboards with the appropriate looking nebula/cloud texture along with an additive or screen layer effect. This effect is also suited perfectly for unity's particle system that has been configured to work in a similar manner as the Debris Spawner.

    Type 2 Scenery set pieces : These are a bit more tricky if you do not want to use your typical skybox texture. I think the best way to display them on screen using gameObjects would be to use a separate camera / rendering layer. As nebula can be many light years in size, i think this would be best to keep them in the background. Now how to create one. I think they might be able to be setup with a series of static particle system that can be uniquely arranged to create any shape nebula. Similar to how Dantus did with his Cloud System. The hard part (at least for me) is that nebula are very high contrast. They have extremely dark areas contrasted with very bright highlights. What could be the best way to achieve this look and feel. Normal maps? Using the same principal as the asteroid field generator and using billboards with normal maps could be the first step in creating custom nebula that have that sense of depth. A second step may involve creating some type of custom shader that can use a depth map to adjust the over all luminosity of the texture and help to darken the areas in the center of the cloud and brighten areas towards the edges.
     
  21. Uncasid

    Uncasid

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Posts:
    193
    I do agree... the asset is hard to find.. I just stumbled upon it.. Maybe you need to change the description to have some key words or something?

    As for the clouds.. that is pretty cool! I was experimenting with megaspheres a few years ago, and you can get some really cool effects from those (though they don't look good when moving)
    http://www.gamerendering.com/2009/09/15/mega-particles/
    Here is the link to the implementation
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2013
  22. ForceX

    ForceX

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    1,102
    I'm not sure i am familiar with mega particles. Are they from an external GFX editor? The core principal is there. You mentioned that they don't look good when moving. If being used as a static set piece fixed in the background, I wouldn't think the player movement would be that big an issue. Theoretically you could arrange your "mega particles" in any way you see fit, use a second camera that only mimics the player rotations and have it set to render just the nebulas in the background. Wallah instant customizable nebula backdrops.

    Wheels turning
     
  23. Uncasid

    Uncasid

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Posts:
    193
    I want to have nebulae that you can fly through, something like this vid:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOxFvRy3KdQ

    Actually.. A lot of my inspiration comes from the infinity universe project.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2013
  24. ForceX

    ForceX

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    1,102
    WOW!! That was incredible, and incredibly advanced. Perhaps something along the lines of a volumetric texture or some form of volume rendering. I remember someone here on the forums a while back that had a tech demo once showing some form of volumetric rendering. I'm not sure what ever happened with it. Or perhaps some type of DX11 direct compute program.

    It does seam as the camera is flying "through" the gas that it might be a very complex particle setup with really nice textures. I would definitely be interested in knowing more about it though.
     
  25. Uncasid

    Uncasid

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Posts:
    193
  26. Darkcoder

    Darkcoder

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Posts:
    3,404
    Thanks for the comments guys, it's nice food for thought.

    Nope, no forum. I find them quite annoying to run, so I doubt I'll start one, unless demand for it becomes overwhelming.


    I completely agree, but there's not much I can do about this. I was amazed a few weeks ago when I discovered that searching the store for the 'Space' keyword didn't yield my product in any of the search sort categories, despite my asset containing the word Space in the title, the description containing it multiple times, and it being updated every now and then.

    I contacted Unity about this and their reply was basically 'tough S***', so I don't see how I can improve this. I can maybe bug Unity for front page features, or ask to be put into the 24 hour sales pot, but these would only be temporary fixes. I could also make a website for it, but I honestly don't imagine many people would search outside of the Unity forums/asset store when looking for this kind of thing. But maybe making more YouTube videos would help.


    --------------


    As for the nebula rendering. The nebulas in the Infinity project use point sprite fields with millions of points combined with billboards. I've experimented with point sprite fields in the past, and in the latest version of SGT you can see that the IceWorld demo scene's background skysphere was generated from such field using a strange attractor with the Pickover algo.

    However, this is really really inefficient for realtime rendering, and would absolutely crush mobile devices. To get a decent (weird) looking nebula you need millions of these particles, and even then it looks grainy. Increasing the particle size gets rid of this grainyness, but then you lose all your hard edges, and your fillrate has just exploded.

    Volume rendering is a possibility, but this wouldn't support mobile devices, and it's not supported by Unity 3.5 which the project is currently being submitted with (as I imagine not everyone is using Unity 4?).

    This leaves us with billboards. The implementation I think I'll go for is where I generate a grid of billboards based on a heightmap, and they will be coloured using a colour map (the heightmap could also be derived from the colours). The particles within this grid will be randomly sized and offset so it doesn't appear to be a grid, and you'll have an option to adjust the amount of particles, as well as the option to mirror and/or fill the grid on both sides.

    This method should allow you to create 3D nebulae quite easily from NASA pictures and such. The actual billboards inside the grid would either be a single mesh with billboarding handled inside the shader (like the starfield component does), or as separate GameObjects for each cloud. The latter would allow better depth sorting against transparent objects, at the cost of FPS.
     
  27. Uncasid

    Uncasid

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Posts:
    193
    Hehe, I don't mind if you move to unity pro 4 + volume rendering :D. I understand wanting to keep it mobile oriented, but I think a majority of the people who purchase this set don't really have mobile in mind.. I could be wrong about this though
     
  28. Xsnip3rX

    Xsnip3rX

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Posts:
    197
    Well, i'd say a good number of his customers are using unity indie, i know i am.
     
  29. ForceX

    ForceX

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    1,102
    I see where your going with this. What would you think about dual height map sampling. One height map for the vertical depth that is checked against a horizontal height map. This may allow for better 3D construction with bends, overhangs, or bulges. I think it would have to sample the horizontal map first to check if a value exist. If not move on to the next grid point. If a value does exist then sample the vertical height map along the same grid.

    Something like:


    This may be a terrible idea. I'm really not sure if it would work or not. Just thought i would throw it out there as an idea. I might experiment with it and see what happens.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: May 9, 2013
  30. Darkcoder

    Darkcoder

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Posts:
    3,404
    It's not something I've thought much about, because creating the media for that would probably be too demanding for most users. For example, Space Engine has multiple distribution types, and their cube one allows you to specify up to 6 textures for the additive particles, then 6 for the subtractive. I doubt I'd have the patience to make this kind of media, let alone expect others to. But I could always allow you to choose between distribution models (like with the starfield), this would allow me to add stuff later, or allow users to implement their own stuff more easily.
     
  31. ForceX

    ForceX

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    1,102
    Agreed. It would be an involved process.
     
  32. Uncasid

    Uncasid

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Posts:
    193
    I can honestly say that I would pay more for pro features!

    And back to the content on topic.. I am playing with the debris spawner, there is something that I do think needs to be included with that class: A seed. I do a lot of procedural generation in a multiplayer environment, I need to ensure that placements are the same on every system.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2013
  33. Darkcoder

    Darkcoder

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Posts:
    3,404
    I don't have Unity Pro, so it's quite hard to do pro-only features. It's also very unlikely that adding pro-only features will give me enough additional customers to cover the cost of investing in it.


    Even with a seed, this is something that can't be guaranteed across multiple systems, let alone the same one when running it multiple times. The debris spawner component works by respawning debris objects that have exited the invisible bubble around the camera/player. So moving your camera/player in different directions will give you totally different debris patterns.

    If I changed the component to spawn debris at positions based on a random seed then it could be deterministic, but if you give your asteroids physics then they would all eventually fly out of the bubble and never return.

    Maybe you could sync their positions using Unity's networking system or something? I've never tried it personally.
     
  34. Uncasid

    Uncasid

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Posts:
    193
    I can understand that completely!

    I suppose I will look into it and see what I can modify. I wasn't intending on using it around a camera, more around an object. I tend to not use physics simulations in multiplayer, because, like you said; it isn't deterministic.
     
  35. Ahdireyo

    Ahdireyo

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Posts:
    33
    I havnt been up to date with this product for a month. Whats in the new version 2.6
     
  36. Darkcoder

    Darkcoder

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Posts:
    3,404
    HERE's a preview of the nebula component. It was built with Unity 3.5, so some users may have issues running it.

    Left Click + Drag = Move
    Mouse Wheel = Change Speed
    WASD/Arrows = Move

    It currently uses Shuriken to render the particles, but I'm not really happy with its results, so I will replace them. However, one problem I just realised is that mixing additive/subtractive particles as seen in Infinity only works correctly if all your particles are sorted by depth, or if you use a floating point render target. I don't have Unity Pro, so I can't experiment with the latter, and the former would result in an insane amount of draw calls, so I guess I can't make nebulae as good as those projects.

    Anyway, let me know what you think about the results in the demo.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2013
  37. Uncasid

    Uncasid

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Posts:
    193
    Can't see it :( Requires the webplayer that I can't install.
     
  38. ForceX

    ForceX

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    1,102
    Same as Uncasid. I just get directed to download the Unity web player. I think it wants me to install a 3.x.x version.

    _http://webplayer.unity3d.com/download_webplayer-3.x/UnityWebPlayer.exe

    My current web player version is 4.1.2f1

    If nothing else a screen shot would be cool.
     
  39. Darkcoder

    Darkcoder

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Posts:
    3,404
    Haha, I guess that's one way to get people to upgrade to Unity 4 >_>. Anyway, I've made a new build with Unity 4, try it HERE.
     
  40. Uncasid

    Uncasid

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Posts:
    193
    Thank you! Yeah, you are right, it doesn't quite look correct. It is a great start though!
     
  41. ForceX

    ForceX

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    1,102
    This looks like a fantastic foundation to build from. Were the nebula and galaxy created from a single image? I think i see one problem your not happy about with the particle system. They tend to not scale and then move out of the way as the camera moves through them. I think adjusting the "Max Particle Size" under the particle renderer settings can help with this as it will allow the particles to take up more screen space as the camera gets closer to them, instead of simply moving out of the way. This can help with that flying through feeling.
     
  42. Nostre

    Nostre

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2012
    Posts:
    44
    work well in Unity 3.7 Pro I like it
     
  43. Darkcoder

    Darkcoder

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Posts:
    3,404
    Yeah, they were all generated from a single colour texture. The height can be sampled from the alpha channel, or the red/green/blue, the average, the highest channel value, etc, so it's very easy to get a 3D nebula up and running. For example, the green/orange one at the bottom was generated directly from a NASA image with minimal modifications (I just removed major artifacts and surrounding stars/glare), the other two have depth stored in their alpha channels.

    I didn't notice the Max particle Size, if I set that to a high value then it looks much better, thanks. However, particles still have the large limitation that you can't scale the whole emitter without recreating all the particles, and many of the particle settings can only be directly edited from the inspector (e.g. the max particle size).

    [Edit] HERE's a new version of the nebula preview. I've now replaced shuriken with a procedural billboard mesh, and modified the shader to fade particles out when you get close to them. I'm pretty happy with the results, so unless someone has some changed in mind, I'll tidy up the scenes, write documentation, and submit it.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2013
  44. Xsnip3rX

    Xsnip3rX

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Posts:
    197
    Is there a way you can add more volume? as in make it so that the nebula does not fade at all when the camera gets closer.
     
  45. WillBellJr

    WillBellJr

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Posts:
    394
    This stuff looks GREAT, DC, please continue!


    I agree about the density issue - the Neb's look perfect from a distance, better than I had even hoped actually!

    But when flying into them, I don't know? They just need to seem more awesome when you're within them somehow?

    Maybe a 2nd particle generator to make it more "dense"?

    Dunno, but I could definitely USE what you have now.

    As always, excellent work, DC!


    -Will
     
  46. Xsnip3rX

    Xsnip3rX

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Posts:
    197
    100% agreed, thanks for wording it better, Will.
     
  47. Uncasid

    Uncasid

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Posts:
    193
    Yeah, version 2 is a LOT better!

    But yeah, I agree with those above.. it doesn't feel dense
     
  48. Darkcoder

    Darkcoder

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Posts:
    3,404
    Assuming we're all talking about the 2nd nebula demo I posted. The density of the nebula could be visually improved as you 'enter' it, but it's pretty tricky to do. Perhaps the easiest method would be to use the Debris Spawner to spawn cloud billboards that are coloured based on their position inside the nebula (if they're inside one). This shouldn't be too tricky to do, but this method only just occurred to me so it won't be included in Version 2.7 (which I submitted earlier). However, I did include another little bonus component which should make you guys happy (unless you wanted lasers/shields).
     
  49. Uncasid

    Uncasid

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Posts:
    193
    Yes, I was talking about the second!

    Thanks man, I appreciate your responsiveness!!
     
  50. Xsnip3rX

    Xsnip3rX

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Posts:
    197
    i wanted the beams :)