Need Help Bug with camera for ship model

[Pieter Boelen]

Correct, but only if played with my version of the engine; it fixes it at the source of the problem, which is the camera positioning that is calculated from the ship's bounding box. This box is calced from the base model of the ship, so that's why splitting the mast tops off, works, because then that extra height is no longer factored in that calculation. I changed it to allow setting a max height, that can even be changed in the script code. Your camera will still pan up over the very tops of the masts, just as before, but that default view at sea level is correct, no matter how high the masts are for the base model, without need for reworking the ship model/splitting the masts.

It works for all versions my engine plays, which at the moment is: POTC, New Horizons, Caribbean Tales, CT Historical Immersion, COAS, GOF 1, 2, 2.1.5, ERAS and a Russian Mod that @Myth works.

Thanks for confirming.

Is Maelstrom now 100% compatible with NH?
I recall @pedrwyth was helping you to work out a few incompatibilities in the mod's PROGRAM folder, but I don't remember hearing how that finished.

We're not going to "fix" the model, because we have no need, now with my adjustment. I eliminate work, not create more

A "fix" for the model would be welcome mainly for players of TEHO then.

 

[kb31]

I probably can patch TEHO if I have more information.
Or I can contact TEHO engine developer, but as far as you know they don't appreciate modding.

 

[kb31]

Here is a draft patch: MEGA
Replace the file in modules folder with this one
I made this from 1.6 binary, hope it doesn't differ from 1.5 version

This can negatively affect the camera on other ships. If so, let me know and I'll make a more complex patch if I have some free time

 

[Myth]

Ha! Not a problem anymore! Now that the topic has piqued my awareness, I just went and added code to the engine so that this never happens. No need to modify models anymore by simply setting a camera attribute for limiting that default height. So, if the ship box becomes large, due to that connected mast, rather than a separate mast, it no longer matters and the camera will still settle low enough on those problem ships.

I do not want to offend anyone, but to be honest: for my taste, the camera position is too high. One of the three problems that prevent me from releasing a new version .. If interested, I can suggest another solution to the problem.

Screen from my mod.

And since you mentioned my mod: I have a great desire to shoot a few clips specially for the foreign community with mine as it seems to me the most abrupt revisions. Most likely it will be difficult to translate the game into English. But I can easily share the cool ready code, I gave you women for the church.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

And since you mentioned my mod: I have a great desire to shoot a few clips specially for the foreign community with mine as it seems to me the most abrupt revisions. Most likely it will be difficult to translate the game into English. But I can easily share the cool ready code, I gave you women for the church.

Nice!

 

[pedrwyth]

Is Maelstrom now 100% compatible with NH?
I recall @pedrwyth was helping you to work out a few incompatibilities in the mod's PROGRAM folder, but I don't remember hearing how that finished.

It didn't finish as such more like faded out as I moved on to other things after completing TOSH (last January). Not sure if/when I will get back to it however I guess I may try and bring the NH updates since the original conversion (based on NH moddb at Apr 2016) into play now a new version is on moddb as of May.

However 100% compatible depends on your expectation ie not all of stuff in NH on old engine will work and other stuff will work differently (eg personal combat). The opportunity exists to rework some problem stuff (such as flags) into a revised (working) approach. I think particle effects are still unresolved for now.

 

[ChezJfrey]

I do not want to offend anyone, but to be honest: for my taste, the camera position is too high. One of the three problems that prevent me from releasing a new version .. If interested, I can suggest another solution to the problem.

Screen from my mod.

And since you mentioned my mod: I have a great desire to shoot a few clips specially for the foreign community with mine as it seems to me the most abrupt revisions. Most likely it will be difficult to translate the game into English. But I can easily share the cool ready code, I gave you women for the church.

Exactly. It is too high for some ships and always required model adjustment. My next engine release to you will no longer have this problem.

 

[ChezJfrey]

It didn't finish as such more like faded out as I moved on to other things after completing TOSH (last January). Not sure if/when I will get back to it however I guess I may try and bring the NH updates since the original conversion (based on NH moddb at Apr 2016) into play now a new version is on moddb as of May.

However 100% compatible depends on your expectation ie not all of stuff in NH on old engine will work and other stuff will work differently (eg personal combat). The opportunity exists to rework some problem stuff (such as flags) into a revised (working) approach. I think particle effects are still unresolved for now.

Frankly, the "100% compatible" expectation is ridiculous; I'm not going to devote the time to play every scenario in NH and work toward that end. In fact, I'm not going to play it at all. I have already, unsolicited, done all the heavy lifting to convert the majority of incompatibilities, all on my own, to get it in a playable state just because I thought that's what people here wanted. You, @pedrwyth, were gracious enough to take that, and work through some play, offering help and troubleshooting, that allowed further resolutions. Your participation was quite helpful. As of this date, I believe all the problems were resolved. The last you mentioned, was the fort/island at Cartagena, which I found was simply a missing Island.ImmersionDepth attribute that needed addition in the script code; the default in the engine, if not provided, was 25.0, so setting Island.ImmersionDepth = 0.0, like is found in COAS scripts, solved that problem. See attached.

As you mentioned, there are other details, like the particles, that will need attention. The quickest solution is to simply revert to the .xps files offered in COAS, which may mean some of the special effects are just no longer available, but until someone creates new particles and converts them to the binary form now required (or even the new, readable, XML format I added as a new feature), that would have to suffice.

Right now, @pedrwyth has proven that much, if not most, of the game can already be played with an upgraded and fixed engine. Yet, besides this one person, I've not seen anyone else even try...or care. That's fine by me, because I don't care either. As I've also shown, if there is interest, troubleshooting and feedback, I attend to them quite quickly. I've resolved everything that's been thrown my way in a fairly quick turnaround. But I'm not working on it now, because I've already taken care of everything pedrwyth informed about, so I am finished.

That said, I have no qualms about stating it plays NH, because it does. If someone deems it "not 100%" and won't bother with it, then I assure you, it will never be complete, because it will require people playing and discovering the last details. Apparently, nobody has that kind of time, or interest...presumably because it seems more worthwhile to continue suffering through flag glitches, high mast glitches, bad saves, crashes, etc. Fine by me, have at it. The only harm is to those that have a vested interest in making New Horizons better; I don't have such an interest, myself, I just thought others here might have such interest and thought I'd help where I could. Turned out to be a waste of my time, but I learned a lot and even uncovered some further engine bugs I was unaware of, due to unused features in the newer versions.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Frankly, the "100% compatible" expectation is ridiculous

Let me rephrase it then: Are there any known incompatibilities left?

As you mentioned, there are other details, like the particles, that will need attention. The quickest solution is to simply revert to the .xps files offered in COAS, which may mean some of the special effects are just no longer available, but until someone creates new particles and converts them to the binary form now required (or even the new, readable, XML format I added as a new feature), that would have to suffice.

That's one known incompatibility then that would need to be addressed.

Right now, @pedrwyth has proven that much, if not most, of the game can already be played with an upgraded and fixed engine. Yet, besides this one person, I've not seen anyone else even try...or care. That's fine by me, because I don't care either. As I've also shown, if there is interest, troubleshooting and feedback, I attend to them quite quickly. I've resolved everything that's been thrown my way in a fairly quick turnaround. But I'm not working on it now, because I've already taken care of everything pedrwyth informed about, so I am finished.

Fair enough. Sounds like the ball is in our park now.

Unfortunately the issue isn't so much that "nobody cares"; it is more that "everybody either cares more about working on their own projecs OR is too busy for additional work".

I know you do care, so this situation must be quite disappointing to you. And truth be told, I am equally disappointed.
However, it is beyond my control to do anything about it, so I'm honestly not sure what else could be done to keep up progress...

That said, I have no qualms about stating it plays NH, because it does. If someone deems it "not 100%" and won't bother with it, then I assure you, it will never be complete, because it will require people playing and discovering the last details. Apparently, nobody has that kind of time, or interest...presumably because it seems more worthwhile to continue suffering through flag glitches, high mast glitches, bad saves, crashes, etc. Fine by me, have at it. The only harm is to those that have a vested interest in making New Horizons better; I don't have such an interest, myself, I just thought others here might have such interest and thought I'd help where I could. Turned out to be a waste of my time, but I learned a lot and even uncovered some further engine bugs I was unaware of, due to unused features in the newer versions.

I'm glad to hear all your efforts were not a waste of time!

I also think you may believe the people here aren't interested in the engine switch, but I'm afraid the issue is more basic than that.
We have only very few active members and most of them only work on what they on the projects they themselves invented.
This is always a challenge with complete freelance-for-free projects and it means that important things that should really be done, often end up being delayed or not happening at all.

It didn't finish as such more like faded out as I moved on to other things after completing TOSH (last January). Not sure if/when I will get back to it however I guess I may try and bring the NH updates since the original conversion (based on NH moddb at Apr 2016) into play now a new version is on moddb as of May.

However 100% compatible depends on your expectation ie not all of stuff in NH on old engine will work and other stuff will work differently (eg personal combat). The opportunity exists to rework some problem stuff (such as flags) into a revised (working) approach. I think particle effects are still unresolved for now.

Thanks a lot for the update, @pedrwyth!
I think you had to make some changes to the mod's PROGRAM code for it to run in Maelstrom, right?
If you didn't already do so (maybe you did and I didn't notice...), perhaps you could release the best files you've got?
Of course there are never any guarantees, but we can always hope somebody will be inspired to pick it up where you left off and take the next steps.

I myself waged war on the problematic flags code a while ago. @Grey Roger and @Jack Rackham have recently been working on it now as well, trying to fix what I couldn't back then.
Due to lack of time, I cannot possibly afford to look into it myself anymore.
Therefore I kind-of hope one of them eventually decides it isn't worth the effort to keep trying with the old "hack" system and to look towards Maelstrom instead.

This holds true in general as well. I've got virtually no time or energy to spare for any actual development work.
Practically speaking, I don't see that changing any time soon; if at all. Therefore it is all in other people's hands now...

All we can do is to make it as inviting as possible to work towards a better future.
But in the end, it all comes down to individuals who choose for themselves how they want to spend their spare time.

 

[kb31]

Unfortunately the issue isn't so much that "nobody cares"; it is more that "everybody either cares more about working on their own projecs OR is too busy for additional work".

Personally, I'd like to participate in engine modernization, however it seems that no one wants to cooperate. I have no intention to redo what is already done and I'm absolutely convinced that competing in modifying completely outdated engine is worthless and really stupid idea, especially in view of the fact I neither play this game nor working on any addon currently, so I was interested in coding experience only.

So, it's also about atmosphere prevailing here which absolutely obscure to me.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Personally, I'd like to participate in engine modernization, however it seems that no one wants to cooperate.

That's indeed a big challenge. How would you like to see good cooperation?
What do you imagine should be done? And how would you like to spread the work over multiple people?
Cooperation is difficult; but it isn't impossible.

 

[Myth]

The first thing I would change in the engine, if it was a conversation about it, then a new lighting system is needed. @kb31 understand about the transfer of what I'm saying. And @ChezJfrey too

 

[kb31]

That's indeed a big challenge. How would you like to see good cooperation?
What do you imagine should be done? And how would you like to spread the work over multiple people?
Cooperation is difficult; but it isn't impossible.

Damn. I've written tl;dr text and my electricity blinked right after the last dot. What a nice f*cking day
My English is poor so it took 50 min. Unfortunately, I'm too tired right now to make this feat again, so I'll be brief.

1) F*ck the rain.

2) I know that you ran into a lot of problems while developing NH. But I bet it would be 10x easier if you used proper tools e.g. SVN and functional bugtracker. I know someone tried to integrate SVN into NH development, but this apparently, failed. I was able to participate in some community projects which are acting this way, and I have to say this is like chalk and cheese.
Of course, this was not the only problem, it's just for the record.

3) Situation about the SE sources. Very briefly: konradk disappeared, ChezJfrey refused all my proposals to cooperate and began to ignore me, teho engine developer offered me to exchange our code bases but I'm not really interested in that after the situation with teho staff.
I'm frustrated by the fact I had worked alone on something which will never see the light so I decided to stop my work on the SE.

The first thing I would change in the engine, if it was a conversation about it, then a new lighting system is needed. @kb31 understand about the transfer of what I'm saying. And @ChezJfrey too

I fixed dynamic lights system months ago (if you are talking about DMC lightning) and sent a video to ChezJfrey, but he was not interested.
I've added directx 9 Effects (techniques and shaders) support to the engine but they are almost useless since SE written in old directx 8 "fixed-function rendering pipeline" style and requires tons of C++ code to be rewritten before implementing such features like deferred shading (i.e. truly dynamic lightning).

 

[ChezJfrey]

3) Situation about the SE sources. Very briefly: konradk disappeared, ChezJfrey refused all my proposals to cooperate and began to ignore me, teho engine developer offered me to exchange our code bases but I'm not really interested in that after the situation with teho staff.
I'm frustrated by the fact I had worked alone on something which will never see the light so I decided to stop my work on the SE.


I fixed dynamic lights system months ago (if you are talking about DMC lightning) and sent a video to ChezJfrey, but he was not interested.
I've added directx 9 Effects (techniques and shaders) support to the engine but they are almost useless since SE written in old directx 8 "fixed-function rendering pipeline" style and requires tons of C++ code to be rewritten before implementing such features like deferred shading (i.e. truly dynamic lightning).

BS. Here is a direct, copy/paste of our PMs:

The shadow problem is because for DX8, the engine used Zbias for those, but DX9 changed Zbias and you have to figure out a way to use either depth bias, or sloped bias, instead.

I think the sea is black because your shaders are probably no longer working. DirectX 8 did not require you to define the vertex structure for shaders, because you could use a predefined FVF value. With DirectX 9, you have to define the vertex structure yourself, if you are using a shader, and pass that information to the shader routines.

Since my DirectX 9 version is our competitive edge, among the different Storm offerings (like Blackmark TEHO), and considering I had to spend many, many hours figuring this out on my own, that’s about as much detail I am willing to divulge, but it should be enough information for you to start looking for the solution.

[deleted]

The shaders need the dcl declarations in the .sha, but they also need a declaration in the .cpp files and get passed to the draw statements. It used to be a ’stream’ which the techniques read from the .sha files…kind of a ’dynamic’ approach, but that stream method is not available, and they have to be defined as an array.

I did not convert asm for 64 bit with SSE, and just used the equivalent C++ code to get the same result.

[deleted]

Look up D3DVERTEXELEMENT9 and CreateVerteeclaration

[deleted]

Yes, exactly. You need to call call SetVerteeclaration for the non-FVF draws that have that declaration, but only for those custom vertex declarations. The standard FVF vertex types do not need that. That is part of what changed from DX8 to DX9.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Using dynamic lighting is not something I have yet taken the time to work on. Do you have maybe screen shots to see the difference so MK and I can decide whether this is something we might want to change? I wonder if there is any sort of performance penalty for dynamic or not?

I’ve spent most time just trying to get rid of bugs and performance problems with the old engine and the lighting has been a low priority. My current work is trying to fix sea problems due to the weak wave algorithms. I think I might change that to something more realistic and without the jagged edges seen in some hours, but that has been fairly challenging.

[deleted]

It looks like that link is broken, I don’t get anything.

But you mentioned something in your post I am curious about: ”…without KK’s numerous corrections…”

Do you have the source code without KK’s alterations? Because I think it was KK that messed up the sea wave calculations. I would really like to compare sea.cpp to what KK did in order to see if my hunch is correct. I only have KK’s version of the source and never got the code without his work, which has caused some problems because I have already had to correct bugs that KK introduced that may have never been in the original code.

[deleted]

I would like to take a look and compare sea.cpp. I am nearly convinced there has to be a change. If I run the COAS 2.8 vs. the KK version, using the same game scripts, the same save file, the waves are a different shape for the same settings and I might be able to find out why if I can look at the original.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

The "deleted" are due to the fact that you eventually just deleted your own account over there, and the system subsequently removed all your messages (I am guessing, or you did that yourself).

You claim you want to learn. I've provided a bunch of information, but I'm not gonna hold your hand. Unless you were expecting me to send you the code, but I'm not going to do that either, because you are clearly close to BlackMark, even going so far as to divulge you might possibly "exchange our code bases." I knew you were close to them and I'm not going to give you everything I've done, just so TEHO can get it from you and turn around and sell it for $15 a pop on Steam. I gave you information and clues, so do as you claim, and learn.

And no, I'm not interested in dynamic lighting. I know you want it, and I know Myth wants it, but I have decided for many reasons, that it's not worth the effort. For one, it will probably cost more performance for no appreciable gain, except possibly some "prettiness," but it's not worth it. Many others know this to be true. Here is an example reddit conversation that covers some of the detail:

r/Games - Why is per-pixel dynamic lighting still so uncommon, 10 years after Doom 3.

lightmaps (static, baked) are still much better looking and perform better than real-time methods

Soft ray-traced shadows are computationally expensive.

Two major factors I can think of that come under the 'good enough' banner, static lighting is a lot easier to implement and make it look good (a lot of games don't have environments with dramatic lighting changes), and things like radiance/global illumination are very hard to do real time. Games are often a trade off between many factors, and if they can get 95% of what they're after without chasing technology that's experimental, risky to implement, and probably performance heavy, they'll leave it to the side.

A solution is to pre-calculate shadowmaps that are just stored like level textures. That takes a lot of time (potentially hours!), but only has to be done once, after that it's simply a static layer on every surface. Takes up some disk space and RAM, but that's much better than having to calculate it in real time.

Computing these shadow maps or shadow volumes is still a CPU-heavy task. That's why many games use static-baked lighting textures to give the illusion of many shadow-casting light sources when only a handful do so in real time.

Short...it's not worth it for me to spend the time doing something like dynamic lighting when it will probably just detract performance for no good reason.

I've added directx 9 Effects (techniques and shaders) support to the engine but they are almost useless since SE written in old directx 8 "fixed-function rendering pipeline" style and requires tons of C++ code to be rewritten before implementing such features like deferred shading (i.e. truly dynamic lightning).

Agreed. I've also converted to DX9, but the game does not take advantage of HLSL, because I'd have to rewrite them all, and also change over all the fixed pipeline. I don't have the time or enough knowledge to do that all myself. That's also why I haven't done much in the way of a DX11 upgrade, because it's required since it doesn't support fixed at all.

 

[kb31]

The "deleted" are due to the fact that you eventually just deleted your own account over there, and the system subsequently removed all your messages (I am guessing, or you did that yourself).

After I sent my last PM to you which you completely ignored, I waited a couple of days and deleted my account.

I've provided a bunch of information

Yes, you saved several hours for me. Probably the whole day. And I gave you original sea.cpp and offered to share my dynamic lightning fix which as far as I remember has very low overhead.
Dynamic lighting is used in Akella's official mod to CT called Dead Man's Chest. The reason for the significant differences between DMS and COAS engines is that they were made by competing teams. I don't remember much details, it's already a part of history.

Unless you were expecting me to send you the code

You took Konrad's code with PLENTY of changes, made your changes and called that your code. I wanted to merge our code bases and make further work on top of it.
Feel the difference between sending code and working together.

Short...it's not worth it for me to spend the time doing something like dynamic lighting when it will probably just detract performance for no good reason.

Soft ray-traced shadows are computationally expensive.

Just for the record, SE does many things this way.

you are clearly close to BlackMark

lol

TEHO can get it from you

LOL
I will imagine that this was a joke and pretend I did not hear anything about this.

UPD:
I couldn't help but post this:
post-556484
you are clearly close to BlackMark
you are clearly close to BlackMark
you are clearly close to BlackMark

 

[johnny88]

Here is a draft patch: MEGA
Replace the file in modules folder with this one
I made this from 1.6 binary, hope it doesn't differ from 1.5 version

This can negatively affect the camera on other ships. If so, let me know and I'll make a more complex patch if I have some free time

Yohoho!!! It’s work!!! Thank you so much!!!
It’s real work! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

But not perfect With some ship model the camera have big distance Can you explain how can edit this setting myself?



P.S. Ты русский?

 

[kb31]

Yohoho!!! It’s work!!! Thank you so much!!!
It’s real work! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

But not perfect With some ship model the camera have big distance

I just changed height scaling. If distance couldn't be properly scaled by zooming in, it requires a bit more tricky tweaking - changing camera moving equation or height restricting. This is a non-trivial patch and therefore it requires code caving or dynamic patching, so it will take more time. I can not promise anything, but maybe I could do this in a few days.

Can you explain how can edit this setting myself?

If you have no idea how - most likely this is impossible

P.S. Ты русский?

Да

 

[johnny88]

Да

Вот это вообще отличная новость

Могу ли я выложить этот патч на corsairs-harbour.ru? С ссылкой на твоё авторство, разумеется.
Ещё раз огромное спасибо!
​

If you have no idea how - most likely this is impossible

У меня есть товарищ, который разберется, я думаю )

 

[kb31]

Вот это вообще отличная новость

Могу ли я выложить этот патч на corsairs-harbour.ru? С ссылкой на твоё авторство, разумеется.​

I don't mind, but maybe it's better to wait a bit for a more appropriate patch. Also, it would be nice if you could test it.

Ещё раз огромное спасибо!

I'm glad it helped. However, remember that this forum is for English speakers; if you prefer speaking Russian it's better to PM me

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Damn. I've written tl;dr text and my electricity blinked right after the last dot. What a nice f*cking day
My English is poor so it took 50 min. Unfortunately, I'm too tired right now to make this feat again, so I'll be brief.

1) F*ck the rain.

Ouch; that's terrible! Thanks for making the effort a second time.

2) I know that you ran into a lot of problems while developing NH. But I bet it would be 10x easier if you used proper tools e.g. SVN and functional bugtracker. I know someone tried to integrate SVN into NH development, but this apparently, failed. I was able to participate in some community projects which are acting this way, and I have to say this is like chalk and cheese.
Of course, this was not the only problem, it's just for the record.

You are very, VERY right! We use an SVN and proper Bug Tracker at my work and it's AWESOME!
I really wished I could convince the other modders here to use it as well, but no such luck yet.
Oh well... Maybe one day...?

3) Situation about the SE sources. Very briefly: konradk disappeared, ChezJfrey refused all my proposals to cooperate and began to ignore me, teho engine developer offered me to exchange our code bases but I'm not really interested in that after the situation with teho staff.
I'm frustrated by the fact I had worked alone on something which will never see the light so I decided to stop my work on the SE.

@konradk didn't disappear that far. He's busy with real life, but I can easily get in contact with him.
If you have any specific questions or requests for him, I'll be happy to pass them on.

You claim you want to learn. I've provided a bunch of information, but I'm not gonna hold your hand. Unless you were expecting me to send you the code, but I'm not going to do that either, because you are clearly close to BlackMark, even going so far as to divulge you might possibly "exchange our code bases." I knew you were close to them and I'm not going to give you everything I've done, just so TEHO can get it from you and turn around and sell it for $15 a pop on Steam. I gave you information and clues, so do as you claim, and learn.

I've been feeling some hostility between the CoAS and TEHO communities for quite some time. It would make me very happy if that could somehow be resolved.
But I don't know if that is even possible or, if it is, how that could be done.

I can understand @ChezJfrey doesn't want BlackMark studios to make money from his own personal hard free-lance work and that is certainly fair enough.
But maybe @ChezJfrey can broker a deal directly with BlackMark studios and end up getting something in return?
Is that actually possible? I haven't a clue... But I would hope so.

Also, while @kb31 indeed does have "a" link to BlackMark studios, it isn't a GOOD link.
BlackMark studios does not approve of his modding work and got him banned.
So I think you've got less to worry about than you may think...

The reason for the significant differences between DMS and COAS engines is that they were made by competing teams. I don't remember much details, it's already a part of history.

I've been curious about that for a long time. As far as I can tell, there have been several Russian Sea Dogs enthusiasts who grouped together in different teams.
Those teams then ended up competing with each other, leading to all sorts of unpleasantness.
This unpleasantness sometimes reached us here, but we were never involved and haven't a clue what's actually going on.

All I can say is what we want here in this community: Our aim is for everyone to work together as much as possible, to reach the best results possible and, most importantly, to have fun doing it.
Anyone who has the same goals is always welcome in our community and we will always provide whatever help we can.

You took Konrad's code with PLENTY of changes, made your changes and called that your code. I wanted to merge our code bases and make further work on top of it.
Feel the difference between sending code and working together.

Indeed it is my experience that the best results are gained not through negative competition, but through positive cooperation.

However, remember that this forum is for English speakers; if you prefer speaking Russian it's better to PM me

Thanks for mentioning that! Saves me the trouble of quoting the forum rules.
Anyway, I checked all the Russian above. No worries for now!