Snayke - Out now! Version 1.1, soundtrack available
- bartbes
- Sex machine
- Posts: 4946
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:35 am
- Location: The Netherlands
- Contact:
Re: Snayke [2.2]
FBOs (canvases) were introduced in OpenGL 3.0, official support anyway. And the extensions needed to make it work for older versions are probably not there either.
- slime
- Solid Snayke
- Posts: 3163
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:45 am
- Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Snayke [2.2]
http://feedback.wildfiregames.com/repor ... fer_object
Framebuffer support is very dependent on drivers. It's most likely a driver issue unless your video card was made > 10 years ago.
Framebuffer support is very dependent on drivers. It's most likely a driver issue unless your video card was made > 10 years ago.
Re: Snayke [2.2]
Well, I'm sorry to read that you both say, that's bad. Going for that way will ruin it the good thing of Love that is be like universal in all 3 major OS's whatever the machine. Going that way make Love so less useful and if is trying to do super-gfx stuff better starting pure coding languages like C++.
My GFX card is there but no OSX references.
My GFX card is there but no OSX references.
- slime
- Solid Snayke
- Posts: 3163
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:45 am
- Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Snayke [2.2]
Framebuffers have been here since 0.7.0, and very very few computers have no support for them. As I said, you are probably using very out of date drivers or bad third-party ones if your computer/OS doesn't support framebuffers.coffee wrote:Well, I'm sorry to read that you both say, that's bad. Going for that way will ruin it the good thing of Love that is be like universal in all 3 major OS's whatever the machine. Going that way make Love so less useful and if is trying to do super-gfx stuff better starting pure coding languages like C++.
My GFX card is there but no OSX references.
Framebuffers are supported in OSX at least down to 10.5, in all video cards except the ATI radeon 7500 8500 and 9000/9200, and nvidia GeForce 2MX/4MX, GeForce 3, and GeForce 4 Ti. All Intel integrated video cards support framebuffers on OS X.
Basically, it's not LÖVE's problem there are shitty drivers out there.
http://developer.apple.com/graphicsimag ... _1058.html
http://developer.apple.com/graphicsimag ... _1068.html
http://developer.apple.com/graphicsimag ... _1070.html
http://developer.apple.com/graphicsimag ... index.html
Re: Snayke [2.2]
Well but slime it's not so simple here, remember that the shitty drivers out there are used equally by all the millions of osx users that always have the drivers auto-updated without other option if they are using last version of osx they can (and all do that unless testing older versions of OSX and refusing updates). So any Love GPU problem is almost shared with a lot of other mac users using same machine. Remember that in mac universe the lack of "freeedom" at least is compensated that we don't have much to have to figure out or worry with wrong combinations of hardware or outdated drivers. It's really software developers and hardware makers that work to have Apple certification and standards and not the other way around like in Linux world that people burn their brains to properly make some device work in OS. Apple is less than perfect but they are smart to put everyone obey their law.slime wrote: Framebuffers have been here since 0.7.0, and very very few computers have no support for them. As I said, you are probably using very out of date drivers or bad third-party ones if your card doesn't support framebuffers.
Framebuffers are supported in OSX at least down to 10.5, in all video cards except the ATI radeon 7500 8500 and 9000/9200, and nvidia GeForce 2MX/4MX, GeForce 3, and GeForce 4 Ti. All Intel integrated video cards support framebuffers on OS X.
Basically, it's not LÖVE's problem there are shitty drivers out there.
Well but I don't worry much if my machine have correct opengl support or not, just giving as any Love user the feedback how 0,8 is behaving around. If a non-universal unreliable 0.8 version appear I would prefer work in 0.72 because I think reliability that my program work anywhere is more important that work with Love state-of-art gfx power. Just my two cents guys.
- slime
- Solid Snayke
- Posts: 3163
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:45 am
- Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Snayke [2.2]
It's up to the game developer (me, in this case) to choose what features to use. LÖVE doesn't force anyone to develop using framebuffers or pixeleffects. There is also the ability to check whether certain things (non power-of-two textures, framebuffers, and pixel effects) are supported on the computer running LÖVE, so again, it's up to the game developer to choose whether to have fallbacks or not.coffee wrote:If a non-universal unreliable 0.8 version appear I would prefer work in 0.72 because I think reliability that my program work anywhere is more important that work with Love state-of-art gfx power. Just my two cents guys.
Preventing developers from utilizing modern (semi-modern, in this case) graphics techniques simply because a minority won't support it is not a good way to develop a game framework. Giving them a choice and allowing them to use fallbacks when necessary - just like what 99% of other games out there do, is a good thing.
In the case of Snayke, I do not know of a way to render the background without framebuffers that will result in decent framerates, so I don't support computers that don't support framebuffers. The bloom is automatically disabled if the computer doesn't support it, although there's an issue I haven't resolved yet with GijsB's bug.
tl;dr minimum system requirements are up to the game developer. LÖVE didn't suddenly stop supporting systems that don't have good drivers.
EDIT: also, neither framebuffers or pixel shaders are state-of-the-art, almost every game these days uses them to some degree. Things like BF3's implementations of real-time radiosity and CPU-side occlusion culling are examples of state-of-the-art graphical techniques.
Re: Snayke [2.2]
Game displays only bloom effect. Without bloom it works just fine.
Debug windows display:
I checked some of the source and figured the 'premultiplied' blend mode doesn't work on my machine since it looks just like the 'alpha' blend mode when switching the setBlendMode() parameter in bloom:postdraw() in bloom.lua, and because the linux intel video drivers suck.
I might write a small test later, but I wanted to let you know about this bug before trying to debug it any further.
Debug windows display:
I checked some of the source and figured the 'premultiplied' blend mode doesn't work on my machine since it looks just like the 'alpha' blend mode when switching the setBlendMode() parameter in bloom:postdraw() in bloom.lua, and because the linux intel video drivers suck.
I might write a small test later, but I wanted to let you know about this bug before trying to debug it any further.
Last edited by tsaxi on Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
- slime
- Solid Snayke
- Posts: 3163
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:45 am
- Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Snayke [2.2]
New version soon, but not quite yet.
- Jasoco
- Inner party member
- Posts: 3726
- Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:35 am
- Location: Pennsylvania, USA
- Contact:
Re: Snayke [2.2]
Awesome! I think the powerups should spin faster though to help differentiate them more than just a bit of color.
Re: Snayke [2.2]
Hehehe warps
It's really fun to see a simple idea I had turned into an actual feature for a really good quality looking game
Glad to see you made something with it, and wish you good luck to maybe make it slightly more user-friendly (powerups I mean)
It's really fun to see a simple idea I had turned into an actual feature for a really good quality looking game
Glad to see you made something with it, and wish you good luck to maybe make it slightly more user-friendly (powerups I mean)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests