How did a 1996 game have working cameras?

How did a 1996 game have working cameras?

Because rendering a level twice wasn't that big.

It's just another viewport. Except you have no control of it

effort

it didnt, it was prerendered.

How come it updates and shows dead enemies on camera then?

the sprites are added in after. try playing in multiplayer u wont see other players on the screen.

Complete bs, Other players ARE shown on cameras. It is glitchy when it comes to tripwires placed outside its field of view when the lines should cross its field of view, but other than that, it's an accurate far view.

What are the best custom Douk maps?

How did any game made at any time have working cameras?

why not? What's the problem?

How do I make video games?

Exactly. What's the point of this thread?

how do letters and numbers on a computer turn into a video game?

Developers weren't such lazy assholes and actually put their heart and soul into creating their game.

Nah, there was just good money in it at the time.

Is it pathetic that the naked women in DN3D still arouse me?

meh, let user answer. If they genuinely wonder how cameras in games work, this thread can at least serve some purpose. As for the original "point" of this thread, cameras are fairly cool things in games, because they stand out from all the "static" objects and stuff. I can understand why user is confused that when a game two decades ago did it with moderate ease, why such a visually appealing element has disappeared almost entirely

>Is it pathetic that naked women arouse me?
yes

Cameras have gotten too advanced to be properly emulated in video games.

no, there really wasn't. Adding these gimmicks did not translate into additional sales. It was entirely because developers cared about putting shit into games that they thought was cool and/or fitting

Because 3D is more taxing to render twice

Games make more money now than ever.

our computers have only gotten more powerful. If it was possible in 1996, why would it not be possible in 2016?

Rendering all the shaders and lighting effects twice is harder to do than just rendering the environment in older games.

It is done though. I don't know why people think it's not. Not every new game has shiny reflective floors and mirrors in every room though like older games did because they thought it was cool.

>Rendering all the shaders and lighting effects twice
you know you don't have to. Note how duke is rendering the camera at low resolution for a reason

>than just rendering the environment in older games
is it? Both are fillrate limited

>It is done though
examples?

>you know you don't have to
If you want the reflection/camera to look like shit maybe. You know what you're saying right? Just not rendering shaders and lighting in the reflection? It wouldn't even be a reflection in that case and would look completely different from the room you're in. Shaders are a very large part of modern video game graphics.

>is it? Both are fillrate limited
Modern games have multiple render passes and if you wanted to render everything you need to do all these passes twice.

>examples?
Hitman Absolution
Hitman (2016)
Max Payne 3
Batman Arkham Origins
Sleeping Dogs (which also has limited real time building window reflections)
GTAV
Uncharted 4

Just for a few examples of games with mirrors, which is using the same tech as the cameras in OP's image.

>Just not rendering shaders and lighting in the reflection?
not rendering all of them, doofus. Nobody is gonna notice the lack of parallax mapping in that camera, and the lack of global illumination is due to the cheap camera system. And nobody's gonna notice that the camera's only running at 10 or 20fps either, unless you make it the center of attention, in which case the scene itself is usually very minimal (just the screen and surroundings) and you can skip a lot of shaders

>Modern games have multiple render passes and if you wanted to render everything you need to do all these passes twice.
does not change things one iota. The camera requires some extra rendering time, big deal. How it's allocated is secondary.

>games with mirrors, which is using the same tech as the cameras in OP's image.
We're talking cameras, not reflections. They are related on a technical level, nowadays (which is bullshit on its very own), but to the viewer they're different things.

Because Duke wasnt 3D but raycasted.

raycasting (which Duke isn't doing anyway) is a 3D rendering technique. Duke is a fully capable 4 DOF 3D engine. For performance reasons a 4 DOF engine assumes points on the same planar coordinates and a different elevation share a pixel column on the output, which is true as long as the camera is level (try it with a photograph, if you want). All computations involved follow classic perspective projection

>Nobody is gonna notice the lack of parallax mapping in that camera,
Shaders are basically used for everything these days. You would notice a lack of shaders.

>And nobody's gonna notice that the camera's only running at 10 or 20fps either
Holy shit, yes they would. That would be extremely noticeable if you're running at 60 fps. These things usually are rendered at lower resolutions but them being a fraction of the framerate you're running at would be very noticeable.

>does not change things one iota
It does. Doubling everything (which regardless of what you think, is necessary for it to not look like shit) when there's more to double requires more rendering power. But like I said, games do do it sometimes.

>They are related on a technical level, nowadays (which is bullshit on its very own)
Why is it bullshit? You can't simply reflect with the way games work today. When games start using ray/path tracing you'll be able to but not now. The only way to do it is to either put a duplicate room behind a wall (which is how most older games did it) or render the area from a separate camera. You might also be able to use planar reflections but I don't know of any game that uses that for mirrors or even if it's possible to use for mirrors.

Can't think of any newer games off the top of my head that use viewport cameras like you're thinking of. HL2 and its episodes had security camera setups. SWAT 4 in 2005 had viewport cameras from your teammates' cameras. It's the same thing as rendering it to a mirror though, you're just rendering another area rather than the area your character is in.

>Shaders are basically used for everything these days. You would notice a lack of shaders.
Again, you do not remove all of them. You remove the most expensive ones, which happen to have the least impact. Keep the diffuse mapping, vertex lighting and you have something that can fool 99% of the viewers. Think low quality vs. ultra quality. We have threads on that subject here every now and then, and the difference between them is tiny, especially if you render the image at SD resolution. Yet that tiny visual difference is the vast majority of shader work.

>That would be extremely noticeable if you're running at 60 fps
the camera doesn't move, the objects on the camera move slowly and are small, and the video signal is of low quality (shader on the rendered camera image)

>Doubling everything (which regardless of what you think, is necessary for it to not look like shit)
the old engine in Duke had to "double everything", and unlike modern engines, it had no superfluous shaders it could skip

>Can't think of any newer games off the top of my head that use viewport cameras like you're thinking of
exactly, that's the problem. It's a ridiculously cheap effect, the infrastructure is fully established, and it would wow quite a few people, yet it's not done.

>the old engine in Duke had to "double everything"
The point is its "everything" has less rendering steps. Not even that it's obviously an old game, it has less steps. Your idea to remove shaders is completely retarded.

>exactly, that's the problem. It's a ridiculously cheap effect, the infrastructure is fully established, and it would wow quite a few people, yet it's not done.
It would wow people as much as mirrors, and by that it wows people like you that are for some reason impressed by the gimmick and think development time should go into them for no other reason than to "wow" people. Mirrors are kind of a different subject as they're pretty common irl but I'm guessing most games have no reason to put in a closed circuit TV system and you basically want them to design their game around putting one of them in.

Are you retards seriously arguing over this?

Dead Rising 2 had working mirrors. Only lazy games break all the mirrors.

>"everything" has less rendering steps
How is that relevant? Both get 16ms to produce their picture. Whether it's 2 steps of 6 and 10ms, or one of 16ms, it's the same work load. The number of steps is completely meaningless, as it says nothing about the work load as a whole and how it can be distributed over the available time.

>Your idea to remove shaders is completely retarded
It's done to set quality options in all modern video games. It's also done on Duke, as the camera viewport uses low resolution and likely shorter viewing distance.

>It would wow people as much as mirrors
You're a tech head, that's fine, but try for once to think like a normie. Mirrors show what's nearby already (some mirror effects take advantage of this, even, like screen space reflections), cameras don't.

A lot of modern shooters are in tech heavy environments, where surveillance is very common and useful from a tactical viewpoint. Camera drones would also use such a feature. A lot of sports games take place in environments where huge video walls are common, a lot of people in urban open world environments have cell phones and TVs. There are many applications for this, without going out of your way or distorting your game

...

You didn't play the game so fuck off.

Also even Arma 3 which runs on czech spaghetti code has working car mirrors. I'm sure devs could put in the effort if they wanted to.

lol this child

Cameras work the same as rendering your screen. It renders the geometry, lighting, etc to a texture. Instead of passing this texture to the monitor, it draws it on top of the main game texture to look like a screen, which is then passed to your monitor.

The right way of doing this requires drawing the entire scene twice, but ofc there are tricks to doing it efficiently that doesn't require 2x the rendering power, such as making the in game camera a tiny resolution, only drawing certain objects and culling the rest, stuff like that.

The reason old games did it is because it was cheap. Newer games can't pull off AAA quality and still have cameras (or mirrors, same concept). If they wanted cameras it would be a huge performance hit. That's really all there is too it.

Say that to my face and not over the internet and see what fucking happens cunt.

under 18 not allowed go home child