Cosmic Trip updated, source available now

WIP games, tools & toy projects Archived Projects
#21

[quote]Seems like lotsa people got different experiences with Java Web Start.
[/quote]
Yes, it seems that way. However it never failed on me. I tried different versions on different PC’s and never had any problem. :-/

[quote]I suggest that you get rid of the distance thingy. Just use the time. I mean its hard enough.
[/quote]
Or maybe a little more time if it’s too difficult? I want the players to feel rushed :slight_smile: and you kinda loose that if you get rid of the distance.

Thanks for the feedback :slight_smile:

#22

I never had any problems with Web Start either.

I know you’re talking about that nice adrenaline rush. The only game that has sent my heart beating like crazy was Chrome B.S.U. for Linux.

Are there enemies in the later levels? Cause that would add to the rush.

#23

[quote]Are there enemies in the later levels?
[/quote]
There are only the rotating ‘monoliths’, the heat seaking missiles and in level 4, the huge erm… ‘blocks’ that you have to navigate through.
I got a little tired with developing this game so I dunno if I’ll ever add more gameplay to it.
I reused the engine to create a break-out game with 1st person perspective though, but I already got bored with that too ;D. Maybe I’ll still put it online someday.

#24

[quote]I don’t really consider a GeForce 4 a very fast card now.
[/quote]
:o

#25

[quote]I don’t really consider a GeForce 4 a very fast card now.
[/quote]
You have a GF4 MX-440 which is basically a GF2 with some minor tweaks. It’s in no way comparable to a “real” GeForce4, which is still a very nice card.

#26

You are totally wrong. A Geforce 4 MX-440 SE is way faster than the Geforce3 Ti’s. A Geforce 4 is a real geforce 4. There is no “real” unless you mean the TI’s. Trust me on this, pal.

#27

Ive heard/read that too, that a MX is just a overclocked gf2…

#28

GF4MX has the same chipset as the GF2 but at a much higher clock.

EDIT: Which is exactly what darcone wrote… doh.

My laptop has a GF4MX 440 Go while my desktop has a GF3Ti. The GF3Ti blows away the MX in terms of quality (MX can’t handle shaders) but about the same in terms of frame rate.

#29

[quote]You are totally wrong. A Geforce 4 MX-440 SE is way faster than the Geforce3 Ti’s. A Geforce 4 is a real geforce 4. There is no “real” unless you mean the TI’s. Trust me on this, pal.
[/quote]
Let’s see…i own a GF3-Ti500, a GF4-MX 440 and a GF4 Ti-4400 (and a Radeon 9700pro…but anyway) and the GF4 MX is by far the weakest card of them. It does have a crossbar memory controller (but 2-way and not 4-way like the Ti has) and multisampling-AA…but that’s almost all that is different from the GF2. It has less features than the GF3…no pixelshader for example. All it can do in that area is DOT3-stuff…like the GF2. So basically, it’s a GF2 with a better memory-controller and multisampling-AA and that’s it. It’s not a bad card and it will serve your rather weak cpu well enough, but the name GF4 is a marketing-joke. Search the web for Carmack’s opinion on this line of cards and you’ll see too.
Anyway, this all seems to be quite off topic now… ;D

#30

Hi,

Just played your game, it looks and plays great. I seemed to be getting a very good framerate on:

P4 1.8Ghz
GeFroce 4 MX 64 MEG
512 SDR RAM
Win XP Pro

#31

i will not let you insult my 79 dollar card guys >:(

[quote]GF4MX has the same chipset as the GF2 but at a much higher clock.
[/quote]
Definitely not the same chipset, the MX GPU has all the capabilities as the other GeForce 4’s but it is just slower.

And it does have pixel shading, said so on the box!

And also some GeForce 4 demos won’t work with GeForce 3 and 2. Proves that it has more capabilities.

And then read the Werewolf demo readme from NVIDIA

[quote]Werewolf

Another first for NVIDIA - real-time volumetric fur rendering on a fully animated character model.
But this is no cute furry dog - 61 bones, 100,000 polygons, and 8 fur layers make the
NVIDIA Werewolf a rendering challenge that makes other graphics cards run away screaming!

While the GeForce4’s dual programmable vertex shaders rip through the task of animating the Wolfman’s skin and fur, the advanced pixel shaders of the nfiniteFX II engine are shading each individual hair strand using a self-shadowed per-pixel anisotropic lighting model.

Features

Real time volumetric fur rendering
Per-pixel anisotropic lighting using pixel shaders
Matrix palette skinning using vertex shaders
Fully self-shadowed using shadow maps

8 blended fur layers
61 bones, 4 bones/vertex
97,000 polygons/frame

Mouse Controls:

Left mouse button - rotate
Middle mouse button - pan
Right mouse button + drag up and down - zoom

Keys:

‘w’ - toggle wireframe
‘s’ - toggle shaded

‘f’ - toggle fins
‘-’ - subtract fur layers
‘+’ - add fur layers
‘]’ - increase fur depth
‘[’ - decrease fur depth

‘o’ - slow motion
‘m’ - toggle music
space - pause/unpause animation
‘l’ - toggle move light mode

Start animations:
‘1’ - breathe
‘2’ - scratch
‘3’ - howl
‘4’ - walk
‘5’ - look round
‘6’ - run
[/quote]
Note the word pixelshading.

And of course, I was never comparing a GeForce 4 MX with a Ti.

Sorry, for bringing the whole thing back to the off topic. But i won’t let my 79 dollars go to waste! :’(

#32

Sorry a Geforce4 MX 440 is not as fast as a GF3 Ti 200, or even my Radeon 8500.

Edit: Image didn’t work!

Full article here:
http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030120/vgacharts-04.html

Not saying it’s a bad card or anything… but not as fast as you think. The MX line is rarely a good buy, as usually you can get the older generation on closeout that are faster (e.g. a GF3 Ti500). Now if you are using the new features of the card, that can be different.

#33

It’s not about insulting your card, but you are simply wrong here. A MX is NOT real GF4 (feature wise). The MX doesn’t have Pixelshader (whatever your box says) and Vertexshader are emulated and therefor quite slow. Try to run the pixelshader tests of 3DMark2001 (the nature test for example)…it won’t work. It will tell you: no hardware support.

Or look here: http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20020206/geforce4-06.html

#34

[quote]But i won’t let my 79 dollars go to waste!
[/quote]
Your $79 never went to waste. Specially considering that’s NOTHING for a graphics card. That’s a damn good buy. But fooling yourself into thinking it’s better than it is doesn’t make it better. If your card has hardware shaders, you don’t have an MX.

#35

Oh man. You guys were right. No pixel shaders whatsoever. sigh I tried the 3D Mark 2001. Well thanks for clearing the whole thing up.

Whhaaaa!!! :-[

I am stupid. I fell for false advertising.

Back to the main topic, can you make it so that once you get to a level, you stay on that level until you go to the next one? Because its so hard to start from the beginning when you die.

#36

[quote]can you make it so that once you get to a level, you stay on that level until you go to the next one? Because its so hard to start from the beginning when you die.
[/quote]
Well, there’s only 4 levels… OTOH, I have the feeling it is too goddamn hard for most people since hardly anybody is playing it or has ever played it more than once. Maybe I just have to lower the difficulty? Or maybe the concept is just lame…
Having quit active development on this game, I still think it looks kinda cool (if I may say so myself :)), but gameplay lacks somehow…
Anyway, this was a first attempt to write a java game (before this I used to do emulators) and let’s just say it was quite a good learning experience. :slight_smile:

benny, about your 79 dollar card, if you’re not going to buy a whole new PC anytime soon, you probably purchased the right card. I really doubt if you would really benefit from a ‘real’ GF4 on your PC, given the price difference.
Besides, no pixelshaders whatsoever in cosmic trip ;D

Erik

#37

I was thinking that you should turn the whole thing into a real 3D shooter (like maybe StarFox for N64) instead of making it into a “collect the star globes” game (maybe make the star globes as bonuses that add up to the main score at the end of a level?). Collecting globes doesn’t seem as fun as kicking alien ass with twin plasma cannons (or whatever weapon you like) because the globes don’t interact with you. There isn’t a lot of places where you feel the need to shoot in cosmic trip.

[quote] Besides, no pixelshaders whatsoever in cosmic trip
[/quote]
Thank god.

#38

[quote]Collecting globes doesn’t seem as fun as kicking alien ass with twin plasma cannons (or whatever weapon you like) because the globes don’t interact with you. There isn’t a lot of places where you feel the need to shoot in cosmic trip.
[/quote]
Hmyes, you’ve got a point there. You even have to shoot as little as possible in CT because if you by accident shoot the globes, you won’t make it to the next level…
Thanks for the feedback.

Erik

#39

Oh yeah. I am stuck at 800x600 resolution. Looks damn ugly on my LCD monitor which is best at 1024x768.

#40

I updated the collision detection so that it doesn’t depend so much on the framerate. In effect, it should be more playable especially for people getting less than 60fps.

Erik