Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Well since no one is wanting to help. Maybe if I was willing to paid for the help would that motive?? Well I'm willing to pay something if someone could do it. I can't pay alot because for one it's finished code that is just needing to be ported. And two it shouldn't be alot of work..If interested please PM me and we can neigotate!!!
  2. Sound great! My reason for trying to port to lighting is because I was using 3.7..which currently uses lighting. I wouldn't mind using shading (actually things look and operate just about the same on my cpu)..As I mentioned I have other shaders that were written for the lighting pipeline, so I would have to have those ported to shading and unfornately I'm not skilled in writting shaders to do it myself without help...so that's my reason for wanting the port. Not saying the development for T3D is keeping me from moving forward with my project but I been trying to focus on the art side of the
  3. Update: I restarted an attempt at porting to lighting..followed all the steps, regarding adding all the files and adding paths. During compiling I had a group of color values that kept giving me errors. I decide to comment them out and it built without any errors. It now starts the mission without freezing like it did my last attempt. The olpv icon shows up and the options are selectable. The only call stack error is point to reflections: ShaderData(OfflineLPVPropagatedShaderData): samplerNames[0] = "$" are diferent to sampler in shader: $lpvData : register(S0) ShaderData(OfflineLPVPropag
  4. Nope i mentioned they should allow to..if im not mistaken the current lightning solution was created by a community members..so i agree thats the least they can do is allow an author's name to be on what they create. Nonetheless it's a feature specifically for this engine..on gg side they should allow it, if that's it..imo its a small thing to ask.
  5. Agreed!!! I see pros and cons..nonetheless it is T3D and the feature(s) are be written specifically for that engine so if the rights go to garagegames then really it shouldn't be an issue. Daniels walkabout im sure took many hour to create and his nav mesh editor the same but now navmesh is apart of the main branch, the pbs work az is doing. I haven't asked him but I'm guessing if it being developed for T3D that he wouldn't mind either..i don't know maybe i been apart of the community so long that I don't see the issue of them owning code specifically made for the engine...it's not like you
  6. Yeah i know features are being added and that great, i was just venting earlier.. So the reason its not is over credit..wow...i remember when t3d was in the betas and there was a lot I mean alot of talented ppl that put things into the engine and they didn't complain about credit. On the flip side I wouldn't see if a person waiting to have their name credited why that would be an issue. Me personally if it was me i wouldn't care. The end result should be bringing attention to the engine...
  7. Oh well.. Probably the reason why this community has dwindled to almost nothing and the engine is making small growth..Honestly I don't understand the position of creating a feature just to sit in cyber space never to be touched..i guess whatever floats ppls boats I guess...Its kind sad to see a engine that started off with so much potential fade because of things like this..oh well theres always other engines..
  8. I'm looking for help porting OLPV to work with the deffered lighting verison of the T3D engine. The current setup up is plugged into the shading pipeline and I'm trying to port to the lighting which is what the current verison of T3D is based on.. The idea would be to get it ported so it can be tested and possibly added to the main repo. Ultimately becoming an out the box feature. Currently it works well for the deferred shading pipeline and if the lighting verison works as good as the shading verison, then there isn't a reason why it shouldn't be added. IM me if interested.
  • Create New...