Talking lighting

Nah, that definitely doesn't look good. I can't tell why there are so many weird colours in blocks. Light doesn't do blocks like that. Even the front when hit from behind, and the behind when hit from the front. Its a shocking representation.

Vissox wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Clearly you are just being a toxic troll at this point. You don't care about how development is done you just want to say crap on the forum and attack the game not backed by actual criticism.

There is a reason why they are developers are you are here trying to start some crap for no reason with your inability to have a discussion or come to an understanding of the process.

Pointing out a flaw in the visuals=trolling. Ok buddy.

I might not be a game developer, but I do know a thing or two about "how development is done." I spend 6 hours a day mixing audio. That's also a simultaneous process. If my mix sounds shitty, I don't go "oh well it's not done yet so I shouldn't bother fixing this obvious problem" I fix it. Then another thing pops up, and I fix that too. Not to mention that that's just me. By myself. Not a crew of developers. I think the person who doesn't know what the development process is. Is the person sitting here telling me that the lighting in the game doesn't need to be fixed because it looks good for a few frames in a showcase that dynamically changes from that moment. But hey! If you think the lighting is totally done and it doesn't need anything changed about it, that's fine. I can just sum you up as another rose tinted goggle. Andy, who can't handle when other people bring up actual issues that need to be addressed.

I'm saying as a professional you don't seem to want to understand how things are done, and you are not speaking from a place of knowledge either on the process. Mixing audio has ntohing to do with lighting or understanding the process and pipeline.

You are suddenly changing your narrative now, based on my post earlier you saying this shows you know absolutely nothing about development so I wouldn't make comments like this. As what was said earlier their process is not done, lighting isn't just lighting there is more to it than throwing a light on your scene and adjusted it. Textures made and edited, shaders make for the different assets in the game are all things that need to be worked on and change how lighting effects and reacts to it. All these things have a big impact on the world in how lighting will be "lighting" the world effectively.

Seriously leave it to the professionals or if you want to have a discussion atleast do some research and understand the bare basics of unreal engine and work flows in general.

I could get more detailed but anything is going to fly over your head, you don't care how it is done, meaning you are going to be ignorant to anything someone explains to you. Please don't compare audio work to development when it comes to art in games please.

Vissox wrote: »

Tell me this looks good. I'll wait.

What do you know about game development and the lighting process....I'll wait.

"Mag7spy wrote: »

What do you know about game development and the lighting process....I'll wait.

Nothing. How about you, what's your experience? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

NiKr wrote: »

People really are out here in 2023 not knowing about video compression on twitch/youtube and keep thinking that their 3pixel screen shot of "a shitton of effects going on" is a proper representation of how smth looks on your own screen when you're playing. Smh my god damn head.

You can go look at the video yourself bro, it's free. There's only so much you can blame on compression, this lighting looks bad man. Can we just stop kidding ourselves please...

Vissox wrote: »

"Mag7spy wrote: »

What do you know about game development and the lighting process....I'll wait.

Nothing. How about you, what's your experience? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

You were suppose to reply to my previous post or have some comment on that.

No need to talk out of my ass, I've worked on movies you watch, and have worked on plenty of content in unreal engine as well in multiple departments

So you have no experience and don't know how the process works. Which again as i said before it isn't just you throw lighting and things are perfect. That means if they aren't polishing their textures, if they have shader work to do still and tweak / polish. You aren't going to see the final look of the lighting either.

So again if you don't know how things work, why are you assuming they can just do it, why are you assuming their prios, why are you assuming this will be the final look of the game when they again are in development?

I would like a answer to this question.

Mag7spy wrote: »

So again if you don't know how things work, why are you assuming they can just do it, why are you assuming their prios, why are you assuming this will be the final look of the game when they again are in development?

I would like a answer to this question.

Nah, what movies. Name one. You talk mad trash let's see what backs it up. And while you're at it, quote me where I said the lighting was in a finished state. Why am I assuming they can do it? Because it's their fucking job.

Neurath wrote: »

Nah, that definitely doesn't look good. I can't tell why there are so many weird colours in blocks. Light doesn't do blocks like that. Even the front when hit from behind, and the behind when hit from the front. Its a shocking representation.

Vissox wrote: »

You can go look at the video yourself bro, it's free. There's only so much you can blame on compression, this lighting looks bad man. Can we just stop kidding ourselves please...

The first few images on google search for "lens flare" show those exact hexagonal shapes in the light. Does "lens flare" match the fantasy world of Ashes? That question has a subjective answer. To me it falls under the "stylistic choice".

I also prefer that they have a much more dull lighting rather than fucking "burn your eyes out at each spell" kind of lighting. This to me looks way better than an alternative of "the whole room is now blue"

As for the Cyclops showcase, I think Mag is right, they currently have a problem with how snow interacts with spell effects. Instead of being super reflective to light, it just doesn't really change that much, which comes off as unrealistic because we're used to snow being hella bright.

But, Intrepid, take this as a piece of feedback from me - I prefer it this way. I don't want to decrease my screen's brightness every time I enter a snow biome (AND I PLAN TO FUCKING LIVE IN ONE), so I'd rather lose some realism than burn my eyes out for 10h every day.

Also, I would assume that lumen would be responsible for that kind of thing and I'd imagine that Intrepid haven't fully optimized its work yet, so they decided to not fully utilize it for this particular showcase (it having 16 people and all). And this comes back to what Mag was saying. "Fix the lighting" is not as easy as just pressing a button or checking a setting in UE. It impacts way more stuff in the overall developmental process. And when the question is "do we show 10fps pretty gameplay or a 50fps a bit less pretty gameplay", I'd imagine, for a proper studio the answer is always the latter, because to gamers it comes off as a much better representation of what the game can do.

Though I guess I'm completely wrong on that, considering how fucking many people fall in love with a completely fake cgi teaser instead of waiting for proper gameplay.

NiKr wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

Nah, that definitely doesn't look good. I can't tell why there are so many weird colours in blocks. Light doesn't do blocks like that. Even the front when hit from behind, and the behind when hit from the front. Its a shocking representation.

Vissox wrote: »

You can go look at the video yourself bro, it's free. There's only so much you can blame on compression, this lighting looks bad man. Can we just stop kidding ourselves please...

The first few images on google search for "lens flare" show those exact hexagonal shapes in the light. Does "lens flare" match the fantasy world of Ashes? That question has a subjective answer. To me it falls under the "stylistic choice".

I also prefer that they have a much more dull lighting rather than fucking "burn your eyes out at each spell" kind of lighting. This to me looks way better than an alternative of "the whole room is now blue"

As for the Cyclops showcase, I think Mag is right, they currently have a problem with how snow interacts with spell effects. Instead of being super reflective to light, it just doesn't really change that much, which comes off as unrealistic because we're used to snow being hella bright.

But, Intrepid, take this as a piece of feedback from me - I prefer it this way. I don't want to decrease my screen's brightness every time I enter a snow biome (AND I PLAN TO FUCKING LIVE IN ONE), so I'd rather lose some realism than burn my eyes out for 10h every day.

Also, I would assume that lumen would be responsible for that kind of thing and I'd imagine that Intrepid haven't fully optimized its work yet, so they decided to not fully utilize it for this particular showcase (it having 16 people and all). And this comes back to what Mag was saying. "Fix the lighting" is not as easy as just pressing a button or checking a setting in UE. It impacts way more stuff in the overall developmental process. And when the question is "do we show 10fps pretty gameplay or a 50fps a bit less pretty gameplay", I'd imagine, for a proper studio the answer is always the latter, because to gamers it comes off as a much better representation of what the game can do.

Though I guess I'm completely wrong on that, considering how fucking many people fall in love with a completely fake cgi teaser instead of waiting for proper gameplay.

The mage showcase has the same issue. Blocked lighting and direct contrast between light and dark aspects. Cloth doesn't glow and metal reflects. We see neither reflection in good detail or cloth in proper cohesion.

It runs deep and should be highlighted because the game engine has inbuilt functions and ai which does a better job than the current iteration. I feel if the game hadn't come from ue4 we would have less issues overall. We still have ue4 elements in a ue5 engine which causes the disparities.

Vissox wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

So again if you don't know how things work, why are you assuming they can just do it, why are you assuming their prios, why are you assuming this will be the final look of the game when they again are in development?

I would like a answer to this question.

Nah, what movies. Name one. You talk mad trash let's see what backs it up. And while you're at it, quote me where I said the lighting was in a finished state. Why am I assuming they can do it? Because it's their fucking job.

Saying what exact movie isn't going to change anything at this point, it is just leading for you asking more question eventually. If I can assume you have seen it just take it as a big movie is all.

I'm well aware it is their job, the issue is you are trying to state this

"Lighting is an easy right now fix,"

There's no need to intentionally stage the development process so things look shitty in alpha because it's alpha

Effectively you have admitted to not knowing how anything works, Not even the basics I have mentioned. Yet you are trying to say stages aren't needed they just need a final result. When if you knew the basics you would understand that is a contradiction.

Effectively you are saying all their art needs to be in a near finished state across all departments related to it in the pipeline (Pretty much making it as basic as possible so you understand and not including the nuances since i feel that be pointless to discuss at the moment.)

Do you start to see where I'm getting at? Personally i don't care if you think things need to be better, I'm sure any artist will always want their work to be better and they are working towards it. My only issue is not what you feel about the look but you without knowing on anything trying to dictate they need to have things in a near final look.

NiKr wrote: »

[
But, Intrepid, take this as a piece of feedback from me - I prefer it this way. I don't want to decrease my screen's brightness every time I enter a snow biome (AND I PLAN TO FUCKING LIVE IN ONE), so I'd rather lose some realism than burn my eyes out for 10h every day.

Increasing the quality of the lighting doesn't have to mean it becomes unbearably bright. I'm surprised you have this take since I think the lighting is already unbearably bright during spell effects, And I also think when you're facing an object without a light source, it's too dark. You're also not considering that there will probably be particle and lighting adjustment sliders in the actual game menus. When I say lighting I'm not talking about how bright it is. I'm talking about where it goes, where it doesn't go, and just overall how natural it looks. The lighting and ashes does not consistently look natural. That's what I want, consistency.

Neurath wrote: »

The mage showcase has the same issue. Blocked lighting and direct contrast between light and dark aspects. Cloth doesn't glow and metal reflects. We see neither reflection in good detail or cloth in proper cohesion.

It runs deep and should be highlighted because the game engine has inbuilt functions and ai which does a better job than the current iteration. I feel if the game hadn't come from ue4 we would have less issues overall. We still have ue4 elements in a ue5 engine which causes the disparities.

What do you mean by "blocked"? If you're talking about light spreading further than what we see or shining through things correctly, then I thiiiink that's the Lumen I was talking about. And as I said, I'd imagine that it has its own potential issues, especially in the optimization department. They might've tried the fight with it enabled and it came out looking like shit, performance wise, so they went with a more simplistic visual but a better performance.

But I definitely think that this can be developed/optimized later on, because right now we need more base lvl stuff like core mechanics and their interactions (not like any of those were shown though

). I guess this topic is worth bringing up just to show Intrepid that we see a problem there, but I HIGHLY doubt it's an easy fix.

Lumens only do indirect lighting and actually increase performance from my knowledge of UE5. I'm discussing direct lighting and more importantly, interaction between the elements and the lighting. Its like the elements are just jumbled together and have no cohesion. Like stuff is made in isolation which it is. I realise these things can be remedied later on but we are having a discussion between what looks good and what looks bad and from my standpoint it just looks bad right now.

Vissox wrote: »

When I say lighting I'm not talking about how bright it is. I'm talking about where it goes, where it doesn't go, and just overall how natural it looks. The lighting and ashes does not consistently look natural. That's what I want, consistency.

Natural light goes far, reflects off of a ton of stuff and is almost all-encompassing. Natural light in a snowy location is fucking insane. There's a reason why you need proper eyewear for when you're snowboarding. You get blinded by the snow because it reflects the sun in a very harsh way. And even at night you see everything much better because there's way more reflected light around, even just from the moon.

And that is exactly why I prefer the current duller look. That electroball would've blasted the entire space in white-blue light, if it was "realistic". And even if it was tuned up by just a bit, you'd barely be able to see anything as soon as there were multiple mages casting it in that room.

I didn't find the Cyclops fight all that visually busy exactly because the light from all the spells was way more muted than it would've realistically be. I'd even assume that Intrepid have a default dimming of effects during overcast/dark times of the day, in order to prevent burning out our eyes.

And like I said, I prefer it that way.

Neurath wrote: »

Lumens only do indirect lighting and actually increase performance from my knowledge of UE5. I'm discussing direct lighting and more importantly, interaction between the elements and the lighting. Its like the elements are just jumbled together and have no cohesion. Like stuff is made in isolation which it is. I realise these things can be remedied later on but we are having a discussion between what looks good and what looks bad and from my standpoint it just looks bad right now.

Discussion for me is mainly not about what looks good and bad but someone saying it needs to be finished lol.

No one is going to sit here and argue a game pre alpha isn't polished or looking perfect. I could care less about that part.

Neurath wrote: »

Lumens only do indirect lighting and actually increase performance from my knowledge of UE5. I'm discussing direct lighting and more importantly, interaction between the elements and the lighting. Its like the elements are just jumbled together and have no cohesion. Like stuff is made in isolation which it is. I realise these things can be remedied later on but we are having a discussion between what looks good and what looks bad and from my standpoint it just looks bad right now.

Do you have an example from a game for what you're talking about? Cause I think I understand, but I'm not sure.

Noaani

Vissox wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Or do you disagree with that?

Yeah I do. Do things right the first time, don't half ass things, fix problems as they arise. The lighting is a problem, it needs to be fixed. There's no need to intentionally stage the development process so things look shitty in alpha because it's alpha. That's the stupidest, most bureaucratic thing I have ever heard.

And how would that work, exactly?

If you were to do lighting in one take, you would have to wait until every model and texture is in the game, at the very least.

That would.mean we would have literally no lighting effects right now.

Noaani wrote: »

Vissox wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Or do you disagree with that?

Yeah I do. Do things right the first time, don't half ass things, fix problems as they arise. The lighting is a problem, it needs to be fixed. There's no need to intentionally stage the development process so things look shitty in alpha because it's alpha. That's the stupidest, most bureaucratic thing I have ever heard.

And how would that work, exactly?

If you were to do lighting in one take, you would have to wait until every model and texture is in the game, at the very least.

That would.mean we would have literally no lighting effects right now.

For indoors at least you could change how the lighting is handled, I think outside is fine for the most part until things like fog or night scenery comes in. The contrast in general is just very off, I think it could be adjusted in their current lighting system, and the way it interacts with the spell visuals could be changed independent of the lighting system. That's why I said it was an easy fix, and I'm not saying that this would be the final iteration of the lighting, despite what some morons in this thread would have you believe, obviously you'll have to change it again later, but it can be changed right now in slight ways that will make a big difference, especially when you're trying to garner an audience this early on through monthly live streams where people are making their decisions already on whether or not they're going to play this game.

Vissox wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Saying what exact movie isn't going to change anything at this point, it is just leading for you asking more question eventually. If I can assume you have seen it just take it as a big movie is all.
[/b]

Nah, I think I just caught you on some bullshit, you were so ready to say how you know everything about how every little process works. But as soon as I ask you for proof you back up. You know fuckall about game lighting, which I would excuse, except your out here giving me grief for not knowing the minutia of how games are developed.

The lighting as it stands right now sucks, it doesn't take fucking inside information on game development to see that it could be better than how it is right now before alpha 2. I'm tired of the people in this community shutting down every valid critique because the game is still under development. I understand this, I also understand this is a forum for FEEDBACK and so I'm going to give some mother fucking feedback, because the last thing that I want is to wait three more years for a game only for the lighting to suck because I didn't speak up when it mattered.

Do not at me in a DM again, I don't want to talk to you anymore.

You are try type to actually dox someone at the end of the day lmao, I'm not telling you anything more on info on me xD. You already were given enough proof not in me saying what I've worked on but in the fact you literarily don't understand anything and are whining online it doesn't look like a finished product.

Its funny when you are talking about shutting down criticism when you realize it is in development. What is even more funny is my point is on you and your lack of experience, and trying to open your eyes on you saying they need to have it done, my point isn't about you liking the look or not.

But a mix of your lack of experience (which is fine) but your complete ignorance not caring or even wanting to try to understand is the actual root of the issue.