Re: to be or not to be... - XCC ForumRegister | Login | Search
History | Home | Messages

to be or not to be...flyby07:05 19-11-2001
Re: to be or not to be...Olaf van der Spek17:35 19-11-2001

> I'd like to see an open discussion on the following topic :

> Contrary to popular believe, I'm starting to be convinced that TS style and RA2 style normals have nothing in common.


> It is not so that RA2 normals build upon the foundations of TS normals. They are infact 2 different systems that coexist in the game. It is the header (TS =2 or RA2=4) that determines what lighting system (that is what the normals actually are) will be used.

> When I received 2 identical voxels, with their header being the only difference between them, it turned out that they display differently. The TS voxel displayed as nice, the RA2 header voxel was a bit screwed up.
> Since there was no difference in layout of the normals, the difference in visual aspect of both voxels has to be found in the way the normals are calculated in the game. Meaning 2 different lighting systems. To me the header appears to have a switch function...

> It'd be nice to see some feed back on this just to see if this is a vallid idea...

Import a TS VXL into RA2. Analyse it inside RA2. Change VXL version to 4. Analyse it again and you know whether it's true or not.


Re: to be or not to be...will17:52 19-11-200128
    Re: to be or not to be...Godwin18:23 19-11-2001
        Re: to be or not to be...Olaf van der Spek18:26 19-11-2001
        Re: to be or not to be...will18:29 19-11-2001
            Re: to be or not to be...Olaf van der Spek18:34 19-11-2001
            Re: to be or not to be...flyby19:07 19-11-2001
                Re: to be or not to be...will19:10 19-11-2001
                    Re: to be or not to be...flyby19:30 19-11-2001
                        Re: to be or not to be...will19:32 19-11-2001
                            Re: to be or not to be...flyby20:27 19-11-2001
                            Re: to be or not to be...ReaprZero20:44 19-11-2001
                                Re: to be or not to be...flyby20:59 19-11-2001
                                    Re: to be or not to be...will21:26 19-11-2001
                                        Re: to be or not to be...flyby21:44 19-11-2001
                                            Re: to be or not to be...Olaf van der Spek22:43 19-11-2001
                                                Re: to be or not to be...flyby22:51 19-11-2001
                                                    Re: to be or not to be...will23:46 19-11-2001
                                                        Re: to be or not to be...flyby00:09 20-11-2001
                                                        Re: to be or not to be...ReaprZero07:07 20-11-2001
                                                            Re: to be or not to be...Godwin18:37 21-11-2001
                                                            Re: to be or not to be...Koen van de Sande04:11 22-11-2001
                                                        Re: to be or not to be...haydn00:33 24-11-2001
                                                    Re: to be or not to be...Olaf van der Spek19:00 20-11-2001
            Re: to be or not to be...ReaprZero20:43 19-11-2001
    Re: to be or not to be...flyby18:47 19-11-2001
        Re: to be or not to be...will18:54 19-11-2001
            Re: to be or not to be...flyby19:24 19-11-2001
        Re: to be or not to be...Olaf van der Spek19:09 19-11-2001


Home | Post | Users | Messages