What would you want to hear?

i suppose he means the poly count. but that's a technical point of view. as a gamer you usually don't count the trianlges

Can you explain what you mean by "crappy graphics"

I mean that if you create a basic model and make it look good with good texturing and maybe animation then its crappy graphics but looks actually quite good and your pc doesn't have to work that hard to render/display it. Also if you look at n0d's flame tank the flames looks 2d but it still looks really really good (Maybe I'm mistaken about the 2d part I'm just saying stuff of my head (don't have the game installed atm) so I can just give comment of what I can remember ).
what else makes up the graphics?

Well if they wanted to make ppl's pcs lag then they could add better lighting and environmental stuff like grass, animals, trees (I can't remember if there was trees :P) they could also model with more detail. If they wanted they could actually make the railings at the side of the road brake if you drive over it with a tank like in red alert 2 :| (Played c&c3 version 103)

Sorry for being off topic renanse good luck though maybe you could say some thing about the very helpful community we have ;)

imho: crappy graphics = bad looking graphics

so if they look good, they're good graphics. it doesn't matter which tricks you use to make them look good.

better graphics can make good graphics look crappy, but that's another story :stuck_out_tongue:

ScarFreewill said:

What I would want to hear/You should tell:

  • Future planing for visual effects like hdr; motion blur (already usable); bloom (already usable);

ummm, motion blur is a tad on the scewy side... if they see you call THAT usable, they may worry about the rest of the engine  ;)

Heh, ok, so I need to discuss C&C and why "crappy" graphics can still look great.  writing notes

yeah, that'll give you standing ovations  XD

I double-dog dare you to mention C&C3 and "crappy graphics" in your discussion.  :stuck_out_tongue:

so if they look good, they're good graphics. it doesn't matter which tricks you use to make them look good.
better graphics can make good graphics look crappy

Thats a good conclusion ;)
ummm, motion blur is a tad on the scewy side

Yeah should have rather said that the basics is implemented or something like that... um or still getting implemented ... :oops:

renanse it would be funny if you said something about c&c3... um seriously I would mention the games that has been commercially sold using jme, and say how easy it is to use jme (you don't need any java training, nor opengl training heck not even school) and then I would also try to show as much media as passable like that game your developing that looks almost like wow except better :lol:

btw I'm in my last year of school when I started using jme I didn't know java at all (nwm java I didn't know any pc language), I still don't know opengl (well at lest i don't think i know it :P) and I'm write a game in my spare time. the game has a main menu with options to change the resolution when you go into single player then you control a car with physics and you can drive over rams and really mess up those shocks... I've also learned somewhat blender and how to texture a object in blender and then how to load the model in jme thanks to the easy to understand how-tos... anyways I'm all out of spare time cya  :D

I think you should discuss LWJGL, and why Java in general is good to program games in.

There are people that love Java but think its no good for 3D or at least very slower than c/c++ games.

Probably just a quick blurb at the start about that… maybe a side by side FPS comparison?

Agree with EmperorLiam: One of the main advantages of jME is that starts with "j".

Uh, and wear a shirt with the Holy Sacred Monkey.  :D