0 Favourites

Stylized Fire using Particles

This forum is currently in read-only mode.
  • This looks best once it's fully (pardon the pun) fired up.

    So I figured I haven't really contributed anything at all to this community, so here is a little stylized fire based on the particle object. It's a heavily modified version of the fire demo that was on here. I changed the texture to something more fire looking, and modified it a lot to be a little smaller and have tiny sparks floating around it/through it. I was amazed what a simple texture could do to diversify the particles once I was through.

    Yeah, stylized fire, maybe for a cartoon looking game or something.

    If you modify the display angle turn randomizer you can get much different effects, possibly more realistic or out of control looking.

  • That looks awesome

  • That does indeed look awesome, but it chokes a little on my machine. every second or so it seems to skip frames.

    Then again, so does the Plasma object if start to add effects.

  • You can probably drop the rate down from 1000 to 400 and still get the same idea. It's not as full, of course, but it's decent.

    Thanks guys.

  • nice but useless, it takes way too much power, and it seems hard to contain for a true effect

  • It runs about 290fps uncapped on my 8800GT - that is quite intensive for a graphics card so powerful. Nice to use as a smaller effect on a high detail setting, maybe.

  • Hey man that's great! It becomes VERY usable even on a slower machine if you make it a realistic size for what your average game might call for. I reduced the rate to about 30, and the random width to about 30 and the random size to 10... then it became the perfect size for a pixel perfect inferno and ran perfectly on my laptop. PERFECT!

    ~Sol

  • How fast does your future time machine trillion core computer run it when uncapped, Soldjah?

  • Well to be honest, I don't know lol. My monster PC lives at my friends house since I am there frequently, I get to use it more there than if it were at home. I will check it out next time I go to visit him, which will most likely be Friday night at this point. I'm guessing around 400+ fps?

    ~Sol

  • It starts out uncapped on my PC at around 1000fps, but quickly drops and stabilizes at 250 fps and just sits there... weird :/

    I guess it would be partly due to having a quad core (2.5ghz) instead of a 3.2 dual core? Still fast as hell!

    ~Sol

  • Construct 3

    Buy Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Buy Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • I don't think Construct uses multi-core (or does it?)

    My laptop gets ~200fps (starts at 800+) uncapped and cost 1/3 your "future pc" lol.

    Either that or the GPU you have matches only a fraction of the potential the CPU provides.

  • I don't think Construct uses multi-core (or does it?)

    My laptop gets ~200fps (starts at 800+) uncapped and cost 1/3 your "future pc" lol.

    Either that or the GPU you have matches only a fraction of the potential the CPU provides.

    The fact that it doesn't support multi core is what I'm getting at... it would perform better on a dual core since the base core speed is much faster. The thing that holds my PC back is software that doen;t use the technology to it's full potential.

    I am seriously considering "downgrading" to a dual core CPU until more software comes out that uses multi core.

    My GPU is the fastest GPU available on the market to date... and I have two of them... so there is no bottle neck there. It is the sheer difference in Ghz of my CPU. If I overclock from 2.5Ghz core to 2.8 I go from 250 fps to around 320fps... so if I go buy a 3.2Ghz extreme edition CPU, put liquid nitrogen through a liquid cooling system, and overclock is to 5.7Ghz, I will be getting somewhere around 1000fps?

    Who cares anyway... 250 fps is way faster than anyone needs it to be. It's weird because it runs at the same speed as Assassins Creed on full settings :/

    ~Sol

  • And my point is that because of how few programs support multi-core still, you could have 100 of the best gpus on the market and it still won't match the potential of your CPU ... see what I'm saying?

    I ran Crysis on a quad core CPU versus a dual core, with the same clock speed. The results for me were that the fps were the same 90% of the time, until a lot of physics occurred at once, leading to the quad core giving around 5 fps more.

    I don't support blowing a lot of money on a computer because A. it will be outdated in 6 months and B. companies won't utilize it for much longer, making the technology cheaper by the time they do.

    Partly the reason why I just do everything on a laptop now. It cost half the price of a good desktop PC, plays Crysis on high at 30 fps and is portable.

    More power to you if you're Bill Gates in disguise - I guess I'd have 100 PC's for no reason then if I was.

  • Partly the reason why I just do everything on a laptop now. It cost half the price of a good desktop PC, plays Crysis on high at 30 fps and is portable.

    You kidding?!? Laptops generally cost much more than an equivalent desktop PC.

  • If you just buy them from Best Buy or something, yes they do.

Jump to:
Active Users
There are 1 visitors browsing this topic (0 users and 1 guests)
Similar Topics Posts Views Last Post
Unread hot topic
76 9,273
Pandadoor's avatar
Pandadoor
Unread hot topic
0 Favourites
[plugin] 3D using Copperlicht
72 25,984
Reken's avatar
Reken
Unread hot topic
67 9,855
spartacuswell's avatar
spartacuswell