VoxelWar Discussion thread

[LeCom]

I could implement a stack for the rays and distribute them among cores and SSE# registers, or other stuff, I know. But at first I want a working and good implementation of the tracer. If one's algorithm isn't good enough, not even SIMD or hyperthreading help.

As for D, there's a GCC port (GDC) and an LLVM implementation. I don't know if LLVM's optimization code is language-independent and therefore as fast as the C one, but there's still GDC. C works pretty fine though, I just had some thoughts that certain high-level stuff in D could be faster than doing it by hand in C (pretty much like the ASM vs. C comparison). However, I don't think so anymore and stick to C anyway.

Edit: page 69

[longbyte1]

I actually once considered using D (heck, it lets you do inline asm!) but wasn't really sure of the performance given the limited assortment of available compilers. I'm glad you made the same consideration too.

[LeCom]

I actually once considered using D (heck, it lets you do inline asm!) but wasn't really sure of the performance given the limited assortment of available compilers. I'm glad you made the same consideration too.

I don't really get the link between compiler selection width and language performance. Out of the 3 main D compilers available, one is the reference implementation with focus on reliability and correctness, and the other are ports of the two most important and fastest compilers out there (GCC and LLVM). Plus, benchmarks say that D is almost as fast as C/C++, the main slowdown reason being the shitty garbage collector (that you can disable ofc).
Moreover, inline asm is nothing compared to the freshly added OOP-based SIMD implementation.

[longbyte1]

I actually once considered using D (heck, it lets you do inline asm!) but wasn't really sure of the performance given the limited assortment of available compilers. I'm glad you made the same consideration too.

I don't really get the link between compiler selection width and language performance. Out of the 3 main D compilers available, one is the reference implementation with focus on reliability and correctness, and the other are ports of the two most important and fastest compilers out there (GCC and LLVM). Plus, benchmarks say that D is almost as fast as C/C++, the main slowdown reason being the shitty garbage collector (that you can disable ofc).
Moreover, inline asm is nothing compared to the freshly added OOP-based SIMD implementation.

What are you trying to tell me?

[Icarus North]

And how tf does this topic have nearly 70 pages, It's like the biggest topic in this forum

Biggest active thread. Biggest thread used to be the original Iceball thread but jdrew's shitty clan managed to beat that record by treating the thread like a chat room.

That's basically all it is anyways since people aren't actively discussing and playing it anymore.

[LeCom]

What are you trying to tell me?

Same here

That's basically all it is anyways since people aren't actively discussing and playing it anymore.

Can't you just, like, not give a fuck?

[bloodfox]

What are you trying to tell me?

Same here

That's basically all it is anyways since people aren't actively discussing and playing it anymore.

Can't you just, like, not give a fuck?

impossibruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

[Marisa Kirisame]

I mentioned earlier in this thread that beamtracing was worth trying.

I've tried it and it's definitely worth at least doing a low-res depth-only pass at 1/4 scale. Seems that building up a whole beamtree isn't really worth it, but that 1/4 scale is REALLY, REALLY worth it. However, you will need to pull back a sufficient amount of the way so you don't end up clipping through the geometry.

Just be warned, some small weird-shaped stuff in the distance can disappear and/or flicker.

[LeCom]

I mentioned earlier in this thread that beamtracing was worth trying.

I've tried it and it's definitely worth at least doing a low-res depth-only pass at 1/4 scale. Seems that building up a whole beamtree isn't really worth it, but that 1/4 scale is REALLY, REALLY worth it. However, you will need to pull back a sufficient amount of the way so you don't end up clipping through the geometry.

Just be warned, some small weird-shaped stuff in the distance can disappear and/or flicker.

low-res and not complete? So basically not better than what I had with raytracing SVOs? Aw shit. I haven't even figured out the details of the algorithm, and you're telling me it's not the big killer. I'll try it anyways, maybe there's some other improvement I can throw in.

[Fluffeh Panda]

Same modding as Openspades? Not to be rude but the guns look pretty bad, I would like to try to re-model them

[Chameleon]

This project is, sadly, dead.
Weapons and graphics indeed look awful... But this game has it's own touch. I don't agree with all the features that are in there, but this game definitely is something Ace Of Spades should move towards.

[bloodfox]

just wait for pnd3d to come out and it would look a hell lot better...

Unfortunately, it's abandoned.

http://advsys.net/ken/voxlap/pnd3d.htm

I seriously love this game, it's great but hell starting it when BnS was on it's fall was a bad idea

[Chameleon]

We shall make BnS rise from the ashes.

Well if not, I'll be playing IL-2 1946 on i7

[bloodfox]

oh yeah I totally want BnS rise from the ashes but it's hard to see people who are willing to contribute and there's always that same fucking annoying dumbass question.

"How?"

[Chameleon]

"How?"
You play the game. You see something that can be improved. You try to improve it.