Oh, I doubt that Jim will compromise on the quality of 3.0 after spending so much time on it. He knows that most folks won't pay for something that doesn't look as good as the hype (which is sure to come) suggests that it does. And he is an artist after all. Obviously Jim has to pick a limit to what 3.0 will look like and do. But I expect nothing less than his masterpiece, and would be shocked to find that he compromised in places that he didn't have to after he's put so much effort into it.

..... So no pressure there then, Jim. ;)

I'm WAY past feeling pressure. Just blindly trudging on until it's done.

Ok, I also want to apologise in advance for the idiot(s) who 30 minutes after downloading 3.0 will come back and ask the question:
"When will 3.1 come out?" :(

/Tiny Trudging

Apology accepted.

And here I was wanting to inquire about 4.0!

Believe me - those will pop up withing five minutes of the others as well...

Ain't that the truth.

Ah, but think of all the future fun discussing MA3 and hunting for tiny details. etc. It's been too long and I really miss it.

Sorry, Jim. I didn't mean it that way. I only expect the best because it's pretty clear that you demand the best from yourself. I would never demand the best from you. Ultimately, what you do with 3.0 is none of my business, nor would I expect you to give a hoot about any opinions I might have on the subject. It's just fun to dicuss it-- that's all. :)

Feel free to discuss it.:)

Jim I haven't been here in awhile,but I noticed you named some of the creatures that will be in the aquarium.I was surprised that these guys didn't make it:

-Masked Angel
-Pakistani Butterfly
-Reticulated Butterfly
-Spotted Scat

^Aren't these fish in most pet stores,or do you not like them for some reason?

I'm not Jim, but those are fish, not creatures. There's a fine distinction.

Jim intends to retexture some or all of the existing fish with higher res textures. I don't know if he is considering adding more fish as well.

My plan is for the MA3 to have reworked versions of the current fish when it first comes out. Two Creature Packs will be added later, with (I think) about 5 new fish and 5 other type creatures in each. I'm still open to suggestions regarding which fish will make the cut.

A Pakistani Butterfly would require higher resolution textures and texture anti-aliasing.

https://www.feldoncentral.com/Sachs/...0Butterfly.jpg

as would a Majestic Angel:
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/10525123-S.jpg
{Click for incredibly sharp image}




I'd be excited to see the addition of more black and white fish as I think they add a great look.

It's true that those fish were too high-frequency for the 64x64 textures used in the current version of the Aquarium, but MA3 will use at least 128x128 fish textures. It all depends on my being able to find them in stores and take proper pics.

Pakistani's I haven't seen that often. But, the Majestic is generally a staple in about any store at one time or the other.

Jim made a point that right now, the best part of the Aquarium are the fish. Once the background is redone, the roles will be reversed and the lack of definition in some of the fish will become evident.

Current texture sizes in Marine Aquarium 2.6:

310 x 280 transverse (1)
Clearfin Lionfish

160 x 100 transverse (4)
Blue Ring Angel
Redfin Butterfly
Red Volitans Lionfish
Rock Beauty Angel

128 x 128 (11)
Achilles Tang
Addis Butterfly
Copperbanded Butterfly
Emperor Angel
French Angel
Forceps Angel
Powder Blue Tang
Regal Tang
Squarespot Angel
Wimplefish
Yellow Tang

128 x 64 (12)
3 Stripe Damsel
Blue Chromis
Clown Trigger
Koran Angel
Flame Angel
False Percula Clown
Picasso Trigger
Purple Tang
Queen Angel
Regal Angel
Royal Gramma
Threadfin Butterfly

Textures for 5 of the fish are mounted transversely (45°). This not only makes more use of the space, but allows for higher quality fin textures. As you can see, the Clearfin Lionfish is more than twice as detailed as the Red Volitans Lionfish and really flexes its muscle on a 1600 x 1200 display. :)

To upgrade them all to 256 x 256 -- transverse or otherwise -- would be quite an undertaking! Just upgrading the dozen or so 128 x 64's would go a long way.

Jim,

How is progress on the cave going?

The cave is done, at least for now. I may give it a tune-up later, but it's not bad. Now I'm working on objects in the distance.

That's good news.

Hey Jim, I was just wondering if you could say what the most unusual fish will be in MA3? Also, can you say how detailed you plan to get with behavior? Not just the normal kind, but the kind you see sometimes that makes you think that maybe the fish went a little too deep. :)

P.S.
Congrats on the cave. I bet that's a load off your mind.

At first MA3 will have the same fish as MA2. Additions will be done through Creature Packs, which will come later. I expect the most difficult creature to be the octopus, which is why I'm saving it for last. The fish behavior will be as detailed as I can reasonably make it in a limited amount of time. Typical actions would include schooling, chasing, darting, nibbling at corals, etc.

looks great

Great news on the cave front! Thanks Jim. :)

Just going back to the textures again, what does a texture actually look like before it gets wrapped around a fish? I thought we might have covered that in the past, but my searches aren't turning up anything informative.

I don't know that a raw texture has ever been posted here before. I would want Jim's permission first.

As I mentioned before, most of the fish textures are "straight-on". A few are diagonal which allows for the side fins to be more detailed and as a side benefit gives the fish body texture a higher resolution as well. The clearfin lionfish texture is gigantic compared to the other fish.

Here's a typical fish texture - In this case the Koran Angel. The bitmap and alpha channel would be combined into one DDS file in the program.

Stupid question, Jim-- is that something you have to draw by hand or in the computer, or are there such things as fish templates that you add color to? Sorry if that's a dumb question, it just fascinates me that it's actually possible to make such a realistic screensaver. I wish I had that kind of skill to make one-- or like the ones 3planesoft makes. It just amazes me. :eek:

Boy, there's a great idea for a program, eh? Make your own fish screensaver. That's gonna make someone a fistful of cash someday. :TU:

Hand drawing the textures makes fish that look hand-drawn. Photography is vital. There's no real fish template, but I can load one of my earlier models into Lightwave, change the shape, pin a new texture on it, and save it as a new fish.

Jim

Since we are at it, what are alpha channels...

The Alpha channel is for Transparency - how much of the background to show through the image - a common use would be for a fin, where you want to be able to see through it a bit.

Yes, transparency is the most common use of an Alpha channel -- anything that's white shows 100% texture image, black is 100% background image, shades of gray will mix a proportional amount of the two.

It's very easy to use transparency, and I've always used it for the "clear" parts of the fish, the fins of my saltwater fish and various body parts of my freshwater fish. But the extra realism I'm going for in 3.0 has brought up a problem: When you look "through" the fin of an actual fish, you can't really see a clear image of what's on the other side. It's blurry, like frosted glass. Using shaders, it's possible to achieve this effect. Instead of combining each pixel with the one directly under it, the program would average each pixel with several underneath it. Some XP programs do this when windows overlap each other, but virtually no one notices it.

That's my problem -- is it worth the development time and clock-cycle overhead to do this, or would it be lost on 99% of the people viewing it?

You could always post us an example for us to comment on! ;);)

..... My guess is that it would be worth it, ... but then who besides me likes the n key?

Do you want to impress the masses? ... Or go for quality? ... That is the question.

If you do it on just the fins? No.

If you can add translucency and light refraction to the entire body of fish like the Yellow Tang, Flame Angel, Royal Gramma, etc., then it's absolutely worth it.

http://content.answers.com/main/cont...w.tang.arp.jpg

I'm with the Koran of Huston...

Me too!

And thanks for the info above - For some reason I was imagining an image which was much more warped than the example you posted turned out to be. I guess I was imagining both sides of a fish as a single texture (minus eyes and pectoral fins, obviously). Um, duh! :o:dunce:

That's the advantage in mapping a thin object with bilateral symmetry -- almost no warping of the texture.

Anyone alive in 2007 ?
 

Anyone alive in 2007 ?

just checking

Whaddaya mean, Dirk?

I just got back from Chicago. Got some good source material from the Shedd Aquarium. I borrowed my daughter's new Panasonic Lumix camera, and it really made a difference in grabbing quick shots between the crowds. I just left it on Automatic, and let the camera do all the thinking.