Developer Blog

Where to discuss the official sequel. Developers blog, kickstarter, your experience with pre-alpha demo, ideas etc.
User avatar
RacerBG
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 8:03 pm
Location: Bulgaria

Re: Developer Blog

Post by RacerBG »

I guess that Twitter is more important but hey not everybody wants to go in Twitter to search for news. It will be better to post this news on to the DB. It's created for this type of news anyway.
Gentlemens, start your engines!
User avatar
Trigger Happy
GeneRally Trackmaster
Posts: 7134
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:54 pm
Location: CZE
Contact:

Re: Developer Blog

Post by Trigger Happy »

You're right, guys. With considering this pace of releasing blog posts and number of topics James mentioned here or twitter he'd like to write about, he has something to write about no matter if the game ETA would be in really distant future. :rofl: On the other hand, I certainly prefer, if James is spending his time rather by writing the code of the game than by writing some blogs for us. :hammer:
User avatar
RacerBG
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 8:03 pm
Location: Bulgaria

Re: Developer Blog

Post by RacerBG »

Already 17 days had passed from the last post here, still no news?

Im not pushing anyone but at least say something new...
Gentlemens, start your engines!
User avatar
James
GeneRally Trackmaster
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:26 pm

Re: Developer Blog

Post by James »

We've just updated the developer blog with our second post! Hopefully it'll give a bit of insight into some of our artistic/feature choices for the sequel :)
User avatar
TuomoH
GeneRally Trackmaster
Posts: 2351
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Developer Blog

Post by TuomoH »

Great read, thanks for the update. :bg: Makes just think how some of the old tracks where objects were used creatively will look like in the new game. :scratch: Maybe a possibility to switch between a classic mode and updated mode. :hiya:
User avatar
Mad Dan
GeneRally Trackmaster
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:46 pm
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Developer Blog

Post by Mad Dan »

thanks for update :). I just, I have to say I hate the look of the new lamp post. The old one is minimalistic and very cool, I think it'd be a lot better if you didn't make the new one like it's 150 years old but in modern style. Maybe I'll try to make a sketchup model of my idea :). Hope you don't mind :D.

edit: ok it was very fast and looks almost like the old one...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Mad Dan on Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Trigger Happy
GeneRally Trackmaster
Posts: 7134
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:54 pm
Location: CZE
Contact:

Re: Developer Blog

Post by Trigger Happy »

On one hand you'll not go forward by allowing custom-made objects, on other you're eliminating (or weakening) the only way, how people managed to face it (mixing up objects into complex ways thanks to color, shape etc compatibilitis) by making them one-interpretation explicit (like the lamp or racetrack concrete wall)? The trackmaking may become be soon very boring in that case (certainly sooner than with GR1).
User avatar
James
GeneRally Trackmaster
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:26 pm

Re: Developer Blog

Post by James »

Well, now may be the time to tell you that that's not the only lamp post model that will be in-game (and fences on walls can be toggled on or off) ;)

Edit: For clarity, I've added this information to the top of the blog post :)
User avatar
Bouncebackability
GeneRally Trackmaster
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:09 pm
Location: England

Re: Developer Blog

Post by Bouncebackability »

James Burgess wrote:Well, now may be the time to tell you that that's not the only lamp post model that will be in-game (and fences on walls can be toggled on or off) ;)
Fantastic news! And a great blog post!
User avatar
Trigger Happy
GeneRally Trackmaster
Posts: 7134
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:54 pm
Location: CZE
Contact:

Re: Developer Blog

Post by Trigger Happy »

Bouncebackability wrote:Fantastic news! And a great blog post!
:iagree: As long as at least one of those alternative models will have as nicely uncertainly defined meaning as the original pieces. :yummy:

:hattip:
Whiplash
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 10:56 am
Location: Bosnia

Re: Developer Blog

Post by Whiplash »

James said:
"Over the years, there have been numerous requests to allow custom objects for tracks, but in reality, that’s just not something that fits with the style we’re going for. We want people to make the most of the resources they have, and come up with superb creations (think back to the first time you saw someone make something interesting out of boats or office blocks, for example)."
I totally agree there. Good decision.
TuomoH wrote:Great read, thanks for the update. :bg: Makes just think how some of the old tracks where objects were used creatively will look like in the new game. :scratch: Maybe a possibility to switch between a classic mode and updated mode. :hiya:
I was thinking about that too. At first I just thought that all old tracks will be able be read by the new version of the game. But now I saw that they will be converted to it.
I don't know, maybe we all should just accept the new style totally and give them all support there.
Otherwise, if we could switch between "classic and updated mode", that could kinda split the community and reduce the significance of the sequel. :scratch:

The things I want to ask about are system requirements. Will this polygon count increasing have big influence on that. I hope that older graphic cards will still be able to read the game smoothly.
User avatar
TuomoH
GeneRally Trackmaster
Posts: 2351
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Developer Blog

Post by TuomoH »

That's good to hear, James. Maybe consider having all the original objects as one possible set, that way we wouldn't need the classic/updated mode I was talking about. ;)
User avatar
Bouncebackability
GeneRally Trackmaster
Posts: 2320
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:09 pm
Location: England

Re: Developer Blog

Post by Bouncebackability »

Actually, one other thing, the circular wheels. Curious as to why you're unsure about its use? I think its one of the defining details that separates GR from its many competitors and makes it so easily recognisable :scratch:
User avatar
puttz
Posts: 1985
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:13 pm
Location: The good ol' US of A

Re: Developer Blog

Post by puttz »

Great update! I agree about the wheel thing, the spherical wheels gives GR a unique quality that makes it clear that it is a GR car. Also a big thumbs up :bg: to the lighting and weather features.
April 2012 rookie of the month, winner CoM Nov/Dec 2013 (NASCAR CWTS 2013), Jan/Feb 2014 (NASCAR Sprint Cup 2014) and Sep/Oct 2014 (TUDOR USC GT Lemans), Winner 2013 Competition Organizer Rabina Award
Volcano Motorsports
Check out my stuff
Owner and promoter of NAGRCA
User avatar
ACM
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:33 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Developer Blog

Post by ACM »

I have to say- am I the only one not excited over these posted images of models? You have given them so much visual clarity as to totally diminish the effect of player imagination that was previously so relied upon. Granted, you want multiple variant models for each object, but this still leaves be suspicious- if they are all going to look this detailed then you can only make so many to cover for so many concieveable ideas trackmakers imagine.

* Concrete barriers look to have a static repeating texture. As if if you don't align them by their exact lengh you will create endless texture seams. So, so ugly.
* One one hand, the actual sign is simple enough. On the other, the pole supporting it looks uncannily detailed with many wasted polygons and smooth lighting. When the object is that small are people going to want to notice the detail on it? In either case, the styles clash with eachother.
* The lamp speaks for itself, really.
* This could just be because they are early renders, but the lighting shown on the new models is so soft that nothing pops out, and the new models in general look dreary and unsaturated.


I know I'm sounding harsh but to me these are real concerns. The vibe I get from these renders is not one of charming simplicity, but of an attempt at real 3d from around the turn of the millenium when development of 3d graphics still looked hideous. I feel it's important to point out this difference. These new renders don't pop out to me like old GeneRally does, and it was screenshots of the game which originally lured me into it.
User avatar
James
GeneRally Trackmaster
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:26 pm

Re: Developer Blog

Post by James »

All valid concerns, there - thanks for the feedback :up: Let me attempt to clarify a few points for you here:
  • Textures and lighting are there for rendering purposes - these are not in-game, and the textures themselves will be subject to many iterations and visual tests (such as with intersecting/overlapping walls) before being finalised.
  • The poles are far less detailed than you may be led to believe by the lighting. Furthermore, bear in mind that it's only two polies per side for the entirety of the pole (plus the polies for the caps), and there are only 8 sides. We'll probably drop it down to somewhere around 6 sides, but much below that, and you'll end up with a square pole again, which we don't want to do. For clarity, the pole (at 8 sides) is only 22 polies in that screenshot, the sign is 8. We really don't think 30 polies for an object is unreasonable, especially considering the original sign is 15 polies all by itself (the pole is 13 of that) - it's really not that big of a step.
  • We have a lamp post that is visually/dimensionally almost identical to the existing lamp, which alluded to in an earlier reply... but we thought some variation would be nice for track makers. If we're going to try and give more track-making options, one of the ways we'll do that is with new objects.
I admit, it's difficult for you, the community, to understand the relevance/suitability of these objects without the context of actually seeing them as part of a track and from a traditional viewpoint - but this is part of the process we have to go through :) We had two options: not show anything at all until it was 'perfect', or share progress in return for good feedback - we chose the latter, and we're glad we did ;)
User avatar
Garbre
GeneRally Trackmaster
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:12 am
Location: Magyarország(Hungary)

Re: Developer Blog

Post by Garbre »

Thanks for the great news James! :bg: I like the object design! I'm already thinking about how those two lamp models would look if I place them into each other. :yummy: Thanks for keeping the process of track making, it really is something why I still make tracks for this game! Though, designing the outlook of objects is still an easier job than making humans and identities. But I have a feeling we don't have to be afraid! Good luck!
Always sign your every work in GR! Or use .txt files to inform us about ownership!
*My tracks* Contact me on garbregr1.2@gmail.com
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
User avatar
AleksiNir
GeneRally Trackmaster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Developer Blog

Post by AleksiNir »

I think the new lamp could be great in some situations, but definitely doesn't work when used in the way that light posts are now used. The concrete wall looks really good to me.

Dynamic lightning and weather sound awesome :up: And I'm very glad that you discarded custom objects :)
User avatar
LongBow
GeneRally Wizard
Posts: 619
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:20 pm
Location: Slovenia
Contact:

Re: Developer Blog

Post by LongBow »

Thanks for the news, James :bg:

Even though I understand the doubts of some community members about this new blog post, I have full confidence in Markku and especially James work.

Don't forget that this is only a very early stage of the sequel development and I'm sure things will become more clear and understandable as we move forward :nod:
Scorpion
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:27 pm
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Developer Blog

Post by Scorpion »

Very great news, I can't wait.
I hope that we'll can use old and new objects togheter :)
It would be great to see someday after eelease easy program which one will convert tracks with old objects to remaked objects.

Btw, Would you like answer at my questions asked on e-mail James?

But no info about 'killing' people, I hope that they won't be like blooding wall :)
Allan Simonsen, Sean Edwards, Andrea de Cesaris, Renzo Zorzi, Jules Bianchi... God please save my buddies... hope that more won't ever go away too fast
User avatar
FRUKIScze
Posts: 1608
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:57 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: Developer Blog

Post by FRUKIScze »

I thing, that lamps can have two versions. One like you did and one halogen, like in the picture below.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
4 times pole-sitter in GRPL F2. Future GRPL F2POSTPONEDrace winner. 1 time best of the rest qualification in GRPL F1.
(last edit: 18/09/2020)
User avatar
Lukeno94
GeneRally Carmaster
Posts: 4128
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:59 am

Re: Developer Blog

Post by Lukeno94 »

I like the new concrete wall, especially if that catch fencing is solid! I like the sign as well, but I agree that the lamp post really doesn't fit - it looks like a mining lantern stuck on a pole, and nothing like a real street lamp post. Then again, I wouldn't use Dan's model either, but one more modelled off a real street lamp post, like this:

Image

I'm delighted that cars are actually not being overlooked, and that the poly count is being increased - a 60/50 poly/vertex arrangement would be fine (as would 80/60). I'd happily keep the spherical wheels, although I'd suggest they were made slightly more spherical (not too much). I suggest that a couple of objects are paintable in car editor - things like the soft wall, boats, stands, for example. Otherwise, keep up the good work!
Scorpion
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:27 pm
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Developer Blog

Post by Scorpion »

About lamps:
http://www.virtualr.net/wp-content/gall ... ight_1.jpg
Maybe like these too (in two variants: 1) like on picture, 2) wider?)?
Allan Simonsen, Sean Edwards, Andrea de Cesaris, Renzo Zorzi, Jules Bianchi... God please save my buddies... hope that more won't ever go away too fast
User avatar
RacerBG
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 8:03 pm
Location: Bulgaria

Re: Developer Blog

Post by RacerBG »

Awesome news. For me all of this is great stuff! I hope that you will continue your development in the same excellent way.
Gentlemens, start your engines!
User avatar
Crowella
GeneRally Trackmaster
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 1:03 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia

Re: Developer Blog

Post by Crowella »

I have a few questions. Mind you, what I'm saying here isn't requests per se but if this is not the thread for asking questions, could someone please move this post?

Anyway, onto the questions, since you mentioned dynamic lighting, I'm assuming that mean lamp posts will become light sources. If so, will they switch "on" due to day/night/weather effects and will we be able to determine which switch on or not? I ask this because lamp posts are normally used as catch fencing in many current circuits and I have a feeling that I will still use some lamp posts as decorations.

Second question. Has there ever been a consideration for adding an "alpha" layer to circuits to determine what the driving surface is rather than going from the LMap? I ask this because in normal dithering, you have a mix of mud, sand, dirt but when you drive on a dithered grass section in the current version you get a combined effect and not what you would normally expect. It's more of a thought, but it could enable more colours to be used on a track while not detracting from the racing and would probably be nice for those that like doing some more artistic circuits. That said, I'm not requesting it, just rather asking.

If these have been answered, please link me to them since I have had a look.

For my two cents, I am happy to see development. I have quite a lot of trust in the development team in keeping the original vision. I understand that we can be a bit skeptical about some features but it's things that most of us have asked for in the past. Besides, I wouldn't mind being able to race some circuits of mine in the blistering heat and have them in a nicer looking environment. I think updating the game has been long overdue. Hopefully you guys can get the kickstarter up soon. :bg:
View my archived circuits/cars here
Post Reply