Reflections are all real-time. Intensive? Not really, running fine on my computer(20fps). Quality can be adjusted, lowering the quality will create distortion in the textures, but still mostly playable.

Here, see a video :)



Chances are in final play the scene won't be that zoomed in on the terrain, though.

Oh neat, I see what you did there. Seems very smooth as well. Well done, can't wait to mess around with the code.

The horizon renders much further than that in a mode7 racer. Not to be a killjoy, but this is just as far as everyone else gets with mode7 in Graal. The hump has been getting enough texel density to accurately render things further out on the horizon. I think with the new technique you're using it'll be totally possible, though. Best of luck.

looks awesome.

"Chances are in final play the scene won't be that zoomed in on the terrain, though."
http://i.imgur.com/jpojQ.png
Actual racing levels will probably be gmaps, alleviating this issue moreso.

yeah, I know what you said. I'm just saying as you approach the horizon you have to do more texel samples in order to accomplish the desired effect.

This might not be an issue for you since you can cheap out by just having the GPU do its built-in texture interpolation because you build an image.

I'm also not sure what method you're using, but mode7 isn't a 3D transformation or projection. It's a 2D affine transformation, which is why there's a clearly defined (and perspectively inaccurate) horizon line that appears. If you are doing a 3D transformation, you should just drop it and use the actual formula. It's on Wikipedia in the form of an affine transformation matrix. It'd probably make it very easy to replicate the mode7 results pretty much perfectly.

I was having a bit of trouble messing around with PFA's version, since it's not something I wrote up so I was fairly unfamiliar with it, and decided to revisit my own to see where I get.

I'm pretty happy with what I eventually ended up with:
http://i.imgur.com/89JkU.png

live demo? ;D

Are you having framerate issues? I see the 3 and have some ideas.

I cranked up the quality to 1 polygon per tile simply to make it look nice :) Here's at 16 tiles per polygon:
http://i.imgur.com/y2sdr.png
There's more distortion because of the extreme angle, but honestly I'm okay with that. People with more powerful computers will be able to adjust the quality.

Anyone who has access on Testbed can go on and add "Public/DustyPorViva/Mode7" Though I'm still changing things around so don't be surprised if it's not working at any given time.

Does it bottleneck during rasterization or transformation with the higher quality?

You could also probably get away by scaling up the polycount for the closer sections.

I was curious and checked it out before. Simply running the loop at 64*64 with no math or rendering drops the fps down to about 8. Then the math/rendering drops it down to 3.

I was thinking about the scaling resolution as well, but that may be WAY too much work.

I so want to play around with that code. Really good job on it so far! :D

Let me play with it ;)

Wait, no math or rendering as in a 64x64 loop without transformation or rendering? What else are you doing? It sounds like something odd is going on if you're getting significant performance drops from things other than what should most intensive parts.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you meant by math and rendering, of course.

Putting each polygon on its own layer, or at least ensuring neighboring polygons don't have the same layer should prevent Graal from trying to sort them. Normally Graal sorts images by their bottom left corner, which, at least on some of the older clients, caused huge performance drops because it was done every frame without regard to the previous frame (It should store the new, sorted data so the majority of the stuff is still sorted).

Dynamically scaling up would drastically increase performance and visual quality..