Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - JavaMan

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16
Projects / Re: Simple Animated Texture Interface
« on: September 10, 2009, 03:36:51 am »
Wow! Sounds exciting. I was trying to create a Swing to jpct binder to create "3D" uis, but for some reason I couldn't get the texture quality fast or good enough. Maybe I'll be able to use this project when you put it out. That movie applet you posted was amazing: it was so fast.

--Edit--Wow again. Amazingly fast.

News / Re: jPCT goes Android
« on: August 16, 2009, 05:14:16 am »
So much for Google's claim when Android came out:"We're going to have OpenGL3D Graphics on compatible hardware."

News / Re: jPCT goes Android
« on: July 20, 2009, 02:34:50 pm »
I thought about getting one, but wow after checking the price. Yikes! They are expensive; too expensive for a freshman college dude like me.

News / Re: jPCT goes Android
« on: July 20, 2009, 05:55:08 am »
Cool! Hope it is faster.

Projects / Re: Animated GIFs
« on: June 28, 2009, 08:44:39 pm »
Cool! No lag at all on my machine. Probably useful to use for grass effects. ::)

I have though a question about the texture width*height limits. I would probably have run into this problem in the future, so I'll clear myself up now. You said 8192*256 won't work. It says in the docs "Supported texture sizes are 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096 and 8192 pixels in width with any height." Is 8192 height and 256 the width?

Support / Re: Video in animation
« on: June 25, 2009, 09:56:38 pm »
I think you have two options. JMF(JavaMediaFramework) or JavaFX. JMF can play video, I have never used it so not sure about AVI. Also, JavaFX can play video, but you will have to use the JavaFX runtime and lanuage.

Support / Re: Help Have No Idea How To Use jpct?
« on: June 14, 2009, 04:02:31 am »
What other tools or software do I need?

I would suggest checking out Blender . It has a bit of a learning curve (at least for me it does), but it is very powerful. What I will be using it for is making my models, and painting textures onto them. Also, with the recent release of v 2.49, painting onto textures now uses GLSL, so it is now perfect for painting textures onto models. I am actually really psyched about this.

Also, I think people use Gimp for creating textures as well.

Support / Re: Resize FrameBuffer or paint it in the whole canvas.
« on: June 08, 2009, 10:46:32 pm »
I see two other ways to do this.

One way would be to get the Image from FrameBuffer.getOutputBuffer();
You could then get the graphics context of whatever component you want to draw onto and call component.drawImage(image,...,...,componet.width,component.height,...);

Also, you could use FrameBuffer.display(Graphics) and draw onto an image. You could then draw this image like I said above.

EDIT: Oops sorry about that. What I suggest would only work with the Software Renderer enabled. I must have misread something on the forums somewhere else.

Is there some way to find out how much "power" each card has? Like I have know idea that difference between varying Geforce cards. I suppose the older ones are weaker compared to the new cards.
Yes...older is usually slower than newer when you stay in the same range (i.e. low-end, mid-range, high-end). Higher numbers are faster than lower (most of the time...). As a rule of thumb, performance doubles from generation to generation (ignoring refresh designs like 4870->4890 and similar).

It's hard to tell from the numbers what to expect and it depends on your personal view of things. To me, as a hardware freak, everything below upper mid-range isn't even worth looking at in terms of performance, but that doesn't mean that you can't play Robombs for example on an Intel onboard chipset.

IIRC, you posted in the that you have a doesn't get much lower than this. The GF4MX is nothing more than a slightly improved GF2. It doesn't even offer shaders and has 2 texture stages only. If you design your game to run fine on that card, it will run on anything.

Ok, thanks for the info. I'll take another look with this in mind. It's nice you provide so much help to people on your forums, especially ones who haven't contributed anything big yet(as in ME).

On that GF4MX, I'm glad that is the bottom of pit as in what people have. The graphical power of that pc is pretty bad, especially since the pc only has 512MB of RAM  ;D.

I checked out the stats. I find it interesting that most people have Dual core machines. That is quite useful to know that adding extra threads will help out on at least half of the users.

Is there some way to find out how much "power" each card has? Like I have know idea that difference between varying Geforce cards. I suppose the older ones are weaker compared to the new cards.

Thanks! I'll have a look at them later.

like when you make a 2d game and you draw several large images

Ah, ok I see.

Thanks slenkar. What do you mean by
fill the screen multiple times with textures
? I'm confused. ::)

I can post some numbers from Robombs later if that matters.
If you could, that would be great.

Also, based on what you've seen with Robombs, is there like a average max polycount that average users can do with jpct?

Feedback / What does the average user have, as in graphical power?
« on: May 31, 2009, 07:16:20 pm »
Hey all,
I am thinking about developing an applet for my church website, and using 3D graphics(jpct) in it. People that access this website, though aren't necessarily gamers, and therefore don't necessarily have high-end graphics equipment. So, has there ever been a "survey" to find out how much graphical power the average web visitor has? Or, maybe is there some site that does this periodically?
I want the applet to look good, but I don't want to put so much in that most people won't be able to run it.
Anybody know where this info may be available?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16