Yeah, but there happens to be a fair amount of dissension on whether we should be copying the movie, or considering it one of our sources of inspiration, and I'm in the second camp. I want better explosions, period. I wouldn't mind movie-like explosions, but I want concussion waves.Lyx wrote: Thats true. However, for someone who has seen the movie, those explosions make a bigger difference in getting the tron-feeling visually, than "our" bells and whistles.
I think that our menues are bloated and suffering from growing-pains...Our menus are more complex.
*snip*
[/quote]
Indeed, I'll be the first to agree we need to rework our gui, I didn't say ours was perfect, just that his is much simpler and so has nothing to offer us in a cooperative sorta thing.
What I didn't mention (since I was comparing default look anyway) is that ours gets more luminous with different textures. Most of the difference is caused by simply having different graphics than he has. The remainder is in the fog effect he uses to get the halos on the cycles, which I admit is kinda neat.I'd say the luminousity of his grid is more near the movie - but for my taste its a bit too bright. Something in-between our moviepack and gltron's grid would imho rule.
Our explosions are going to rock starting in 0.3. I put this particle system in and I beat on it every now and then, making a little progress each time. We'll have concussion waves (like I want), we'll have triangle cycle parts, even more complex models, and by blending two or more particle systems together we will probably get a high-performance configurable explosion. So if the question is "Can we take his and strip it down?" Yes, we can, but we don't need to because we're already working towards better explosions through regular incremental improvement.Hmm, right - is there maybe a way to have something which looks similiar to his explosions, but more simplified to save resources?
I'll give you that our sky could use some improvement, but I suspect that's mostly texture that needs to be improved. GLTron felt very small to me, nothing on the scale of the movie grid, whereas with high rim walls armagetron feels huge to me. So I'm not sure we're going to connect here other than to agree we'd like to see the whole environment look better.i think it boils down to hugeness and speed at the same time. In the movie, the arena feels HUGE....
I don't know about problematic, it looks like his code is solid code and well-designed at that. I didn't say this before, but it was clear looking at his code that he's a very good programmer.Concerning your finishing thoughts: to put it overly simple..... armagetron looks unpolished and "rough" on the surface, but scalable and advanced under the hood...... GLTron looks polished and "professional" on the surface, but limited and problematic under the hood.
C code can be ugly, but it usually isn't pretty, and when it is, that's the sign of a craftsman or an artist. And his C code was very pretty. It just doesn't do as much, feature for feature, as ours.I should point out that a lot of the code in armagetron is also very pretty, and there are subtleties all over the place that might bite you, but are kinda neat. Overtones, I guess you could say. I'd wager that for every line of code I might look at and say "this sucks", there's 5-8 lines of code that are really awesome, if the ratio is even that large, probably more like 1:20 or something.
I like Linux in large part because there was a great deal of focus on building a solid core first, then building the next stuff, then the next. We'll get there. Our current group of players is definitely very interested in playing the game rather than looking at shiny things. Everytime someone says "let's make it look prettier", 5 people (mostly not developers) jump in and say "No! Let's make it more fun!"Keep in mind that what the players see, is only the surface. What the players might see in the future depends on the "internals".
Heh, pretty, fun, bug-free. You may have the two that you pick.
