shader support?

[miphix]

I finally got it all put together. I got a computer. woo hoo. game development here I come! BLAM. I gotta have a video card that supports shader? Well, I've got a radeon ati somethin somethin somethin. is this a direct x thing or what?

[darthviper107]

Something like that, you need to have a video card that supports Shader Model 3.0

If your video card is old then it might only support Shader Model 2.0

[miphix]

it's new enough to support 3D? it's an ati radeon 200 series

[miphix]

CRAP it's a 2.0

[Anartist]

I'm really ticked that the UDK won't support both modes
I use the november beta because of it

Because of the lack of the shader 2 model support my laptop
which I've been using with UDK for a year
won't run it since Decembers build
I had to roll back to november

so I guess I am stuck with the nov 2011 build and do not need to bother anymore updated UDK builds
since I won't be able to work with them

it seems strange they would limit so many people out who were faithfully using the product
I'm fine with the november build for now.

Great games were made with crap like Radiant
so I can't really complain about the quality of the nov 2011 build of UDK
It's decent enough.

[darthviper107]

Actually, I thought the last version that supported Shader Model 2.0 was like April 2011 or something like that. Most people now have SM3.0 cards anyways and if you're a developer you wouldn't want to work with a system that doesn't have it.

[ambershee]

Seriously, if you're limited to shader model 2, your hardware is ancient and needs to be updated - shader model 2 went out with the GeForce 6s / X1000s. You can't expect to be able to hang on to decade old hardware and have something as modern as UDK work as expected.

Where the heck you got a Radeon 200 series card from is beyond me, as they haven't even been manufactured for about seven years.

[Anartist]

I care about static meshes amd normal mapped materials
I really don't give a crap about advanced shaders
I'm more interested in building a decent game right now
Shaders are something you can always add later by setting a texture artist onto something that's already working fine.
The point of UDK, I thought
was to create a large open mod style game design community
I use UDK because Installing Valve SDK and a game is 5 - 7 G
I sort of like the licensing of UDK
I wish their percentage was less or tiered
but I was fine with worldcraft 10 years ago
so being able to easily import fbx animated meshes and nicely normal mapped meshes is already achieving the results I need
not everyone is making a deathmatch particlefest with special effects smorgasbords
I want to design things that will play on an average machine
it should play ok on an integrated chip
not a supercharged gaming rig
but that's my own marketing bias
I don't have 20 multiplayers all moving
I design SP and possibly 4 person co-op adventure

[darthviper107]

Actually, the purpose of UDK wasn't to create a mod style game community, or even offer a low-cost high end game engine to people. Instead it's so that more game developers will learn the engine so that game studios will pay for the full license of the Unreal Engine, since they can more easily hire people that know how to use the engine.

Anyways. Your options are to use the older version of UDK that still supports SM2.0 or buy a new video card (which wouldn't be possible if you've got a laptop though).

I wouldn't worry about trying to support low-end systems, the people who own computers like that probably wouldn't care about buying games much anyways.

[Anartist]

I wouldn't be sure of that.
My bed ridden cousin spends $50 a pop on facebook "coins" for her farm
look at the insane OCD fans of the SIMs
Myst had no bots or npc's and I played it for months
That market didn't die.
anyway
I have a 4 core i3 with win 7 x64 an it was worth $850 2 years ago
so it should still be able to play games that I design
I want people to take a month to finish it
not just blast everything to smithereens
I'm fine with novembers build
the developers aren't focusing on the core things I'm interested in right now
a nice basic inventory/quest rpg template
some better reference meshes and scenes for maya max zbrush
I'm using the ut3male max reference
still having problems with the pure fbx rig
but the biped one works
a couple more base vehicle classes and meshes would be nice
like a couple sort of "normal" ones

anyway
I'm old
I played quake 1 and 2 for over 10 years
so I'm kind of oblivious to "standard block of lava over there" shaders

[Graylord]

So... You're annoyed because Epic games aren't making your game for you?

[ambershee]

Facebook games aren't even games. They're just well crafted click-for-progress machines (and they are geared to extract money from vulnerable people - companies like Zygna hire psychologists to ensure it's as effective as possible at this).


I want to design things that will play on an average machine
it should play ok on an integrated chip
not a supercharged gaming rig

Then buy an average machine - if you picked up an i3 with a bottom end Intel GMA, then unfortunately the issue here is more your poor purchasing decision than UDKs hardware support. If you want to blame anyone there, blame yourself for not having done the appropriate research, and blame the person who sold it to you for selling you junk.

Shader model 2 is dead and has been for a long time; nearly ten years. Most games require SM3 - and if they don't they at least require the underlying hardware to be at the same level as an SM3 supporting chipset. Take a look at the Steam user stats; DX9, SM2 card constitute only 1% of Steam users. 5% of users have a DX9, SM3 card. 60% of users have a DirectX 10 capable card, and around 35% use a DirectX11 card. darthviper107 isn't wrong when he says that people with systems that low-end, because the proof is right there in the stats. This means that 95% or more of users have hardware that is compatible with UDK; which makes sense seeing as UDK wants to position itself to be in a position where it can best serve the majority of customers.

I'd be surprised if you managed to pick up a machine with a Core 2 Quad that doesn't have a shader model 3 graphics set.

[miphix]

This has proven to be an intresting turn out of comments. You guys are awesome. DarthViper sort of makes a point. It is a realistic strategy of having an outsourced data bucket that fills itself instead of having to pay for an outsource or your own guys time! The funny thing however is how simple it would be to implement a line of code that just cycles over the shader when a rendering capacity isn't visible to the software. But still, why waste your time on an issue that isn't your own to get data on it for your own info. I'm still not sold on that though. Becuase if you think about it, despite the fact that the general demographic of game users are kids at home with their parents money for hardware and software toys, you gotta think! I've got a computer that satisfy's my intrests becuase even though it's 7 or more years old, IT FRIKKEN WORKS. Case in point, I'm pretty sure that over the years things become obselete. The hand-me-down effect is still on going even in relation to computers. I think this is just going to boil down to me asking one of you fine gentlemen to hook me up with a link to an older version and it's latest update to be able to play in my small sandbox of world that is forced upon me with shader 2

[ambershee]

SM2 support would have been removed when it became too difficult to maintain without compromising the feature set intended for the main audience. I couldn't say just how far back you need to go to find a version that supports it, but I'd look at the builds from early 2010.

[neurosys]

Facebook games aren't even games. They're just well crafted click-for-progress machines (and they are geared to extract money from vulnerable people - companies like Zygna hire psychologists to ensure it's as effective as possible at this).

LMAO. So true. I'm saving this clip of text to shove in facebookie faces.
I agree with this so much. I'd say web game devs are sooo much different from serious game lovers.
It's like in Mr Deeds, "did you ever say you wanted to re-produce old text genres to become the internet equivalent of a slot machine, when you grew up?" hehehe.

[Anartist]

... I've got a computer that satisfy's my intrests becuase even though it's 7 or more years old, IT FRIKKEN WORKS..... I think this is just going to boil down to me asking one of you fine gentlemen to hook me up with a link to an older version and it's latest update to be able to play in my small sandbox of world that is forced upon me with shader 2

on the UDK Download page there is the older versions
I have an archived copy of november install as well
http://download.udk.com/UDKInstall-2010-11-BETA.exe
http://download.udk.com/UDKInstall-2010-10-BETA.exe
http://download.udk.com/UDKInstall-2010-09.exe

It's fine.
These hardcore codehead dudes don't get it.
I should be able to install it and build and if I have a better machine it will add the extra support
Maybe UDK should just archive that last build for people with regular rigs

If I can play Skyrim, not being able to even install UDK is a bit lame.

I am building my own game, not asking epic to do it,
some better templates would be nice, but it helps those l33t ppl get an extra strut.

I can build fine with what I have, as I've said.
You can all go ahead where no man has gone before
I built things with quark, radiant, and worldcraft, and this same machine runs HL2 and it's sdk fine
so this is fine. UDK at Nov.

I'm glad at least one person got my point that not everyone is designing things that need crazy shaders.
Crazy shaders are only a texture thing, so they shouldn't impede installing of the UDK and use of things not related to advanced shaders.

IMHO

[Anartist]

Facebook games aren't even games. They're just well crafted click-for-progress machines....

I'd be surprised if you managed to pick up a machine with a Core 2 Quad that doesn't have a shader model 3 graphics set.

I think the same thing about facebook games. But it shows another business model revenue stream. It also represents that there are people who have money that will stare at something with absolutely lame graphics if you hook them somehow with the gameplay or STORY.

Story.
That's the actual game in my little designer world.

Try not to act like I'm really "*****ing".
Because I'm not. Right now the Nov build of UDK supports what I'm doing.
Maybe a future build will install and run on my computer.
If it does I'll be happy.
Otherwise, whatever...level design hasn't really changed, it just LOOKS better and is actually easier.

I guess I should state clearly that it has always been my design philosophy for games (the kind I am interested in and try to design) is to aim for 3 year old mid level laptops. I always aim for those rigs.

I know it sounds crazy.
but it's multiple times the number of possible installations if you make an offline hit.

as for my machine
which will run zbrush/maya/max/afterfx/dx2humanrev/skyrim/fallout3/ut3/ut2k4
it is an asus k52f = i3 m350@2.27 x4 w/ intel integrated.
It's better than a rusty machete. If I had a graphics tablet I'd actually be pretty happy with the results

[darthviper107]

Facebook is more about the ease of use rather than graphics not being important. With UDK currently your only option is to release on your own or release on Steam, neither of those options target the type of people that play Facebook games. Instead the people that would most likely be buying your game are gamers who already have SM3.0 systems.

[ambershee]

For the record, I started my career as a hobbyist working with the Quake 2 engine (later Quake 3, then into Unreal 2 and now Unreal 3 - with some other toolsets and engines thrown in there when I've had to work with them).

I get what you want. I'm trying to tell you why you can't have it in as reasonable way as possible - even presenting you with the real statistics even though you have chosen to ignore it. UDK builds presently don't support shader model 3, and it won't in future either. They don't, because the number of instructions in UDKs base compiled shader (which has to be there) exceeds the absolute maximum supported by shader model 2.

That statistics do not lie, check them for yourself. No amount of smug superiority complex will change that:
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

Take a look - firstly Intel only represents 3% of the market in terms of graphics card distribution. Cards that do not support Shader Model 3 represent a little over 1% of the market, and this number is declining. Epic made a choice to drop SM2 support because there is no point holding back development that benefits 99% of their user base for the sake of people holding on to hardware that is only just adequate to run their software - if it was ever capable of running it at all.

Your view of a "3 year old average laptop" is skewed - the hardware you have was not average and never was, it was always bottom-of-the-pile. As far as Intel onboard graphics sets go, only the very lowest end GMA did not support shader model 3. If you want to support that 1% of people, then that's great. If that's your business model, I question its validity on the basis that it probably isn't all that statistically viable. In any case, I wouldn't be a bad workman and continue blaming my tool for not providing that SM2 support, I'd go out and use the right tool for the job instead.


I think the same thing about facebook games. But it shows another business model revenue stream. It also represents that there are people who have money that will stare at something with absolutely lame graphics if you hook them somehow with the gameplay or STORY.

I've not encountered a facebook 'game' with a story worth spending time on, and certainly not many that even have any kind of story at all. They all run on the same fundamental model; you get 'X' clicks which refill with time, using clicks gains a resource. You can spend real world money to expediate the need to wait for this to refill (where the money comes from). The "gameplay" all revolves around various ways of sending messages to other users or non-users in order to encourage them to also play. The mechanic that keeps people playing is statistical accumulation of the resource which makes people feel like they are progressing, even though there is no actual effort in expending clicks. The absolute zero skill or effort is how people get into the game initially over conventional games. I find the whole business model somewhat disturbing.

[miphix]

Very informative ambershee. Thanks, it actually makes sense that shader 2.0's modelling system wouldn't be able to cope with I guess the quantity of texture that is available. Still, I gotta say that was a very abrupt messege. Could've used a little dapper holiday attitude. I still find it intresting that some one would take a very litteral approach to the shading models of their engines. Since I've been trying to get into the gaming world as a hobbiest and who knows where that'll take me(Either complete boardem and frustration or the complete other direction. I really do enjoy the problem solving involved in software development and satisfaction in good results.) but I've read this and that and came accross an intresting thought that was put out there in one of the "for dummies" additions that simple puts that you can modify a program and it would work the way you had set out to design it. Now, our problem basically deals with the fact that shader 2.0 is over worked by the quantity of information it has to process. Well, I propose that for the sake of discussion we put into consideration the different systems of shading available and their overall process and rendering capacity and create a patch(for the lack of a better deffinition) that allows for an easily rendered shading model to begin with. But, seeing as how we're using UDK and it's world renowned capacity for makin' a slap happy awesome graphics intuced world, we shouldn't allow this to effect the published product to which will be played on an xbox or something works with shader 3.0. The other flip of the coin which I imagine may require some co-ordination with some one that has the main copy in source before it's rendered to an installation module(or could require one of us crafty code manipulators to outline an installation module that must installed first and trumps the UDK's requirement search into saying well damn it if you really really want it than here you go. Thus inabling us to work with it the way we want!

Let's see what we can do!

[ambershee]

I tend to be like that - years of suffering some of the worst posts mankind has ever deigned to read can jade the mind. Threads like this with some kind of conversation go a long way.

It's not so much the number of textures, as it really is the number of instructions; consider that any simple arithmatic operation in the shader is an instruction (A = B + C would constitute two instructions assuming we're dealing with simple numbers; one to add B and C together, then another to copy the result into the space occupied by A). Shader model 2 limits you to something like 128 instructions - normal mapping techniques will mean you're actually going to be pushing that limit, let alone anything more complex. Where UDKs support gave in would have been in the base shader implementation - which unfortunately is pretty tightly wound into the renderer. It's be quite difficult to set up two alternative rendering paths to support lower-end machines. Probably more effort than it is worth (and it's not something the casual user can do either, it would need to be made avaialble by Epic).

[Anartist]

Thanks for the information.
I've worked in production environments,
my environment doesn't allow me to upgrade past the nov build.

its fine with me.

I wonder what the difference is between nov and dec+
Your explanation sounds reasonable.

I think I'm also trying to get across that what I have is working well
So I simply wonder why they don't have a fork with maybe a quarterly build that uses or has the previous shader system

I get what you're saying about the numerical impossibility
I run 64 bit for that reason
but for a year+ they had somthing that worked for me great each month
So I'm only wondering why
because it's causing me a change management issue
the rollback

I've been a network engineer for years
so I'm fine with rolling back or freezing update cycles to keep a production machine image stable
I have the install backed up, I could stay with this build for 2 years and still work with the project I have and not be hampered.

I seem to have normal mapping in mine, so maybe I do have SL3 but mauybe it's a stripped down model
Did some say it was 10 years? I don't know, this laptop is only 3
it's not a gamer laptop, but its not total crud

The product does design and cook things down for the IOS,
do apple handhelds run shader 3?
can we make cook settings for different machines?

perhaps I misunderstand
the underlying geometry and lightmaps are not affected by the shader definition header package.


I don't have many other problems
although
I still would like the motion blur and some other world settings to be toggleable and not on by default
adjusting game ini seems weird since you might be working on more than one game with different settings
I wonder if epic has some camera tools/gui they are holding out on us for cinematics

I'm finding FaceFX less intuitive than Valve's FacePoser for me, but I don't need lip synced NPC's for probably a year with my particular projects in dev, they don't have much 3rd party interaction, mostly just world interaction.

overall I'm pleased with the results
I like the basic lighting templates.
cooked game size is a bit large in my testing, but its fine considering the quality of the underlying engine and the result

[darthviper107]

When it cooks for iOS it converts it

I would actually imagine that you do have SM3.0 on your machine. I'm pretty sure they stopped supporting 2.0 in a much older release, either early 2011 or even early 2010. So if you can't use the December 2011 UDK then it would be another issue.

[Anartist]

When it cooks for iOS it converts it

I would actually imagine that you do have SM3.0 on your machine. I'm pretty sure they stopped supporting 2.0 in a much older release, either early 2011 or even early 2010. So if you can't use the December 2011 UDK then it would be another issue.

That's what I'm thinking
because I have dx10 and 11 and I can play human revolution and other games
I don't get great framerates with better games
but I can play most of them.

But that is the message I have gotten with the installs from dec+
"UDK uses shader model 3. Your graphics cards does not support...install will now exit..."

It won't install period.

Maybe that's why we dicuss issues in the forums
its possible that it isn't the lack of SM3
but just that it may be a less robust version for intel HD integrated graphics

[darthviper107]

Maybe there's some drivers you can update, or try the new January beta

[ambershee]

If you're running DirectX10 or 11, you must have a shader model 3 card ;)

[Anartist]

If you're running DirectX10 or 11, you must have a shader model 3 card ;)

Thx.
Excellent.
so its just perhaps the install isn't detecting that I have a card able to install
Is the SM3 something that is built into the gfx card bios?

anyway. Thx.
That means there's hope that a future build will install
I'm greatful that the udk installs by default in new build directories.
In the future when it hits a higher beta or alpha stage maybe we will be able to dl incremental changes above our base build.
Excellent.
Because I like the UDK a lot, and I can wait a couple more betas and then give it another try.
Lots I can do with what I have till then.