So much noise on those bipeds. I agree. The detail bumps on those need to be toned down a good bit. TBH, sometimes, a properly made specular map can really give something a 3D enough look for those small bump details anyway. I almost wouldn't waste tagspace myself on those detail normals. A cool feature to have, but honestly, those 32-bit bitmaps just take up too much tagspace and it's probably better to limit it to just the base normals and rely on well made speculars in the detail maps themselves.

Also, one thing I really don't understand. Models get 3 normal maps if I'm not mistaken, but the environment shaders for OS still only get 1 normal map I believe unless there is a way to extend it. (sort of just learning just now what is new in OS) Why is that? Nothing against model having 3 normals in model, even one would have been awesome enough, but I really think that environment shaders need to get an update so when you go from grassy to dirt you can see the transition. Besides, the environment is much bigger than the models within it, I would think they would need the most detail into them.
Anyway, I may just be out of the loop, but does anyone happen to know if anything else like this is going to be added or WIP or anything? I haven't seen anything in the forum yet, but that was more a lot of skimming just trying to read the major info I need.

While that may seem like the intent, the intent was actually to call Masterz out on his constant ridiculous glorification of OS. He's practically a one man PR department for Open Sauce. I don't mean to down OS, it's a good addition. But it's not the next best thing since hot water, as the PR department sometimes seems to believe.

What is wrong with you?

Actually I'm doing pretty good man, although a bit tired. How are you doing?

That's not the question.

There is no "the" question. There are in fact several questions per user, which can be further sub-categorised by date. It is in fact "a" question. #semantics

Well the fp pic with the sword looks better there than any other modern halo game. The fact a 12 year old game can look better than a modern game is why it blows my mind.

I mean seriously. This



vs



or



vs



(If you want to compare a more similar shot to H3.)


Just look at how the lights interact with the objects. It's pretty incredible he can pull that off.
Edited by Masters1337 on Jan 16, 2013 at 02:05 PM
Edited by Masters1337 on Jan 16, 2013 at 02:06 PM

We've asked it a thousand times. Still a mystery

@masterz: They are pretty badass shots, though I do know we've seen it all before.
Edited by Ki11erFTW on Jan 16, 2013 at 02:03 PM

I must be blind, but it does not look better.
Clearly it's a big step up from default Halo, and it does look good, dare I say similar. But saying it surpasses it is simply incorrect, and there's no need for such needless PR. I've never understood why you always feel the need to hype your company's software product, unless Korner Industries really are paying you to do PR.

It's not my company? Maybe I'm just enthusiastic because I love seeing new tools and capabilities being available and how people use them to produce what is my opinion, stellar content.

You are always welcome to your opinion as am I, My opinion is that the shader modes surpass those used in the later games in the series.

Your opinion is that of a PR department praising its new flashy product, with every post someone makes about it.
There can be no opinion on the technical finess of software. Either a feature in engine x is better than the same feature of engine y or vice versa. Here we are comparing an advanced lighting mechanism from the later Halo games, with a hobbyist lighting/bumpmap/whatever implementation of a reverse-engineered older game.

Clearly, the former is of a better technical quality than the latter. You simply can not say that the OS shaders surpass those of Halo 3, Reach or 4. It is technically ridiculous. It's the same as claiming the moon is better at supporting life than planet Earth.

You can say that the OS shaders surpass those of Halo 3, Reach or 4. Easily.

What you can't say is that OS is better than anything in Halo 3, Reach or 4 as a whole. The development set up(or toolkit) in Halo 3+ is likely far simpler and more efficient than anything Halo 1 has ever seen.

Shaders don't define all of the advantages of a new engine. Not only are there better toolkits but there are also tons of new features that are made possible with new engines.
Not to mention the visual upgrades on the animation side. OS may allow better static visuals than Halo 3+ but animations are a major factor in visual fidelity too. Even Kornman would likely agree that OS will never allow advanced animations unless the source code is given to modders.

I am talking on a technical level. You can of course say that screenshot x of old game y looks better than screenshot xx of newer game yy because they turned up the glow property a bit...that's personal taste.

Opinions and facts, like sandwhiches and plants, are two different things.

You can ONLY say OS' shaders are better than those of the newer Halo games if you get yourself a nice chart of figures and numbers, which compare an identical example in terms of performance and graphical fidelity.

Once again, sandwhiches and plants, my good chap.

Its funny because all the arguing is about the sword, and I don't even think OS does anything to shader_transparent_chicago tags which that tag most likely uses lol. The sword in that picture is most likely running on standard halo shaders.

And the shaders are certainly static

I'm talking about the lighting and the shaders on the cyborg, which look amazing with the swords dynamic lights. The sword is really well done (and does look better than the other games too for that matter) but I was trying to point out just how nice the OS shaders can look (on the cyborg).

Edit: Lodex, the topic of this thread is OS shaders, and you're complaining about me praising OS in a thread thats about showing cool OS stuff? Give me a break.
Edited by Masters1337 on Jan 16, 2013 at 03:44 PM

What is wrong with you?

I wouldn't use the word 'static' to describe the shaders on the blade

The blade has multiple meshes with separate shaders...

Though, nothing step animated or anything like that... if that is what you mean

The shaders look alright but they are nothing in comparison of halo 3, 4, etc. don't know why you would say so anyway, because they aren't.

Yeah, I agree that on a PURE techical level, the material make-up is nowhere near that of the later games.

What is worth noting is how close results can look to those of the later Halo games... Even if technically deficient in comparison.

Well yes, exactly this. There really is no discussion about it. It's mind-blowing how some stubborn individuals cannot grasp such simple logic.



Aaand no. That is not what I'm doing. There is nothing wrong with praising OS. There is something wrong however, with saying that it's shader system surpasses that of say Halo 4. Which is clearly not the case. See, if you just said "wow, this is a well done sword man! it even looks pretty similar to Halo Reach!" instead of "its amazing how we can surpass Halo Reach in shaders!"... then this argument wouldn't be going on.
Edited by The Lodeman on Jan 16, 2013 at 05:12 PM

No, the reason there's an "argument" is because you have a lack of hobbies. You are trying to put words in my mouth.

What I said was



Which is far different than what you are saying I did.

In fact, I first said,



Shockingly exactly what you are saying I should be posting!

You're a terrible troll. And by terrible I mean you suck at it.
Edited by Masters1337 on Jan 16, 2013 at 05:24 PM

And your a terrible person. By terrible I mean your an idiot (and terrible).

That's so ironic it's insane.
*You're

1) I cut out the nonsense of your post, there is absolutely no need to insult people over a simple forum argument. You don't know me, and I don't know you. Perhaps you should consider joining a yoga class to calm down before posting.

2) I might have mixed Halo 3 and Halo Reach loosely in my argument, but it doesn't change the point.

3) So tell me, how is "It's crazy we can surpass H3 in quality in some areas." correct when you look at the argument that the technical possibilities of H3's engine (and more specifically: shaders) is far superior?

Anyways, the flaws in your statement were exposed by me and others despite your apparent post-denial. A good time for me to withdraw from this argument. Lesson here is: try not to present incorrect facts in the future, for the purpose of PR. Thanks for your time :-)

Oh, didn't know you had to be great in English to figure out who's stupid and who's not.

*BTW i farted like 3 times during the construction of this post*

No, you don't have to be great in English, but the lack of grammar in that post, which was, in fact, calling others idiots, was rather comical.

yes but that is just your opinion. stop being the community know it all, your honestly not. you may have been here longer than most of us but that doesnt mean your always right or you know whats right. so stop QQ'ing when lod3x comments about something.

I second this.

The man was farting while typing up the post, surely you understand the delicacy in fine posting. Any irregularity in the typing process can quickly cause disturbances in the post.

WHO THE **** CARES! Can all of you idiots stop this inane argument? Can we just stop, right here, and go back to talking about the topic of the thread? I would rather see more OS shaders, and talk about them then check in to see the trolls, idiots, multi-account tards and everyone else who feels like yammering on about this stupid crap.

so, um.. opensauce shaders?

this is a thread to showcase models that employ open sauce, not a debate over what is better.

please stop.

.
Edited by Bobblehob on Jan 17, 2013 at 01:11 AM