Velocity buffer motion blur?

I was playing with motion blur and found that even my new 9800GT stutters occasionally with it. I was reading up on it on the web, and found another technique that involves using a velocity buffer to determine how to blur the scene - which means the screen doesn't need to be rendered multiple times per frame, and doesn't leave gaps on fast moving objects.

Theoretically, it seems like this technique would be both faster and provide better image quality, though I'm certainly no expert on it. Would this be a possibility in construct 2?

Possibly, I didn't know about that algorithm when I originally did motion blur. It's a true temporal antialiasing system so even things moved by the mouse are motion blurred, which could be tricky with a velocity buffer system.

I'd love that - anything that helps making motion blur faster would be worth researching into, IMO.

MoBlur is one of the things right now that give games a look that we haven't had before in games - most of the devs I showed Sein to loved the MoBlur in it, cause we haven't really seen a lot of 2d games using Post Processing techniques and stuff yet. Most 2d games are still sorta stuck with the 16bit look, cause nobody kept pushing into that area.

But 720p with a lot of pixel shaders and moBlur will be a bit slower even on very powerful machines - Yet, the effect makes quite a bit of difference.

True motion blur is invariably too expensive, except for very simple 2D at smallish resolutions.

Velocity buffer isn't hard to do but I can't think of a way of doing it with fx.

I suggest using my motion blur effect

I suggest using my motion blur effect

Where can I get your motion blur effect?

Say NO to motion blur! It kills the FPS on most systems nowadays.

Motion Blur is nice, but it's really just a gimmick. It's not going to make the game any more fun if it's turned on, and it's way too intensive to be played by casual players. Most people get into indie games because they just want the core game play and originality witch was present in earlier eras. IMO most games these days care mostly about graphics and looking as hot as possible.. Just gimme a new n64 Zelda or Snes Mario and i'll probably be playing them a lot longer than Gears of War.. I'm not saying that I loathe all new games, just trying to get the point across that indie games are part of a completely separate universe in which I care nothing for high end graphics. Pixel art, 8 bit sounds and chiptunes ftw.

I disagree, I think motion blur is an important addition if the graphics hardware can afford it. Games tend to run with no motion blur at all, effectively being a series of very fast slides, and luckily your brain is clever enough to see motion from this unnatural sequence of images. Add motion blur (which happens with real film), and a still image also contains information about motion, and the brain can extract more information about what is happening on-screen. Try playing a game at 20fps with motion blur off then on to make the difference obvious. When it's on, the low framerate is much more tolerable, because instead of seeing a still image for 50ms, you're looking at an image with motion information.

In fact, motion blur is a form of antialiasing, but through time rather than through space. Therefore anything to make it more usable is a good idea.

Motion Blur is nice, but it's really just a gimmick. It's not going to make the game any more fun if it's turned on, and it's way too intensive to be played by casual players. Most people get into indie games because they just want the core game play and originality witch was present in earlier eras. IMO most games these days care mostly about graphics and looking as hot as possible.. Just gimme a new n64 Zelda or Snes Mario and i'll probably be playing them a lot longer than Gears of War.. I'm not saying that I loathe all new games, just trying to get the point across that indie games are part of a completely separate universe in which I care nothing for high end graphics. Pixel art, 8 bit sounds and chiptunes ftw.

not for me, I play indie games for the originality, and the price

I can buy an indie game just to try it

the pixel art, chiptunes thing you like is a matter of personal taste

both braid and world of goo are way ahead of what was possible on those systems

personally, I don't want to make a simulation of an 8 or 16 bit game.

I want to make the experience as immersible and visceral as possible.

2d was left behind when fast 3d became feasible. Construct is a vehicle for elevating 2d to current gen, where people can say," wow, that game looks amazing!"

thomasmahler's project is a perfect example. why would we not want awesome graphical effects at our disposal?

besides, motion blur is one of the least gimmicky effects I can think of. the lack of it has been an obvious visual flaw in animation since the original king kong and godzilla claymation scenes

But is it worth killing the FPS?

But is it worth killing the FPS?

Theoretically, it seems like this technique would be both faster and provide better image quality, though I'm certainly no expert on it. Would this be a possibility in construct 2?

Motion Blur is nice, but it's really just a gimmick. It's not going to make the game any more fun if it's turned on, and it's way too intensive to be played by casual players. Most people get into indie games because they just want the core game play and originality witch was present in earlier eras. IMO most games these days care mostly about graphics and looking as hot as possible.. Just gimme a new n64 Zelda or Snes Mario and i'll probably be playing them a lot longer than Gears of War.. I'm not saying that I loathe all new games, just trying to get the point across that indie games are part of a completely separate universe in which I care nothing for high end graphics. Pixel art, 8 bit sounds and chiptunes ftw.

Dude, it'd be nice if you'd let everyone decide on their own what styles and effects they're relying on to make their project come to life.

I think your way of seeing things is really limited. I don't want to re-do the old games over and over again, I want to see '2d games' going through a revolution in terms of gameplay and visual styles.

If you'd give me the N64 Zelda or the SNES Mario I'd gladly hand them back to you, cause I've played those games 10-20 years ago. That part of gaming is already history and we see too many remakes being done right now already anyway.

I don't think that most gamers get into indie games because of the core gameplay that was presented to them 20 years ago, I think they're in for the innovation and because the chances that we see something completely new are rather high when we're talking about productions that cost under 200k to produce.

Ash already summed it up nicely - MoBlur is a really important effect and is way more than just eye candy.

if i had to choose between moblur at 20 fps or no blur at 60, i would gladly choose 60. when moblur is simply an effect that wont destroy fps, its of course a good thing, any effect that can be added to make a game look better is usually a good thing, but adding that effect at the cost of lots of framerate when it has minimal effect isnt.

Claymation looked bad, not because of a lack of motion blur, but a lack of frames and quality tweens. the tweens werent proper so it gave a jittery effect. disneys animation doesnt have moblur, but its extreme framerate makes the animation incredible. if the animation was done with 30 frames and blur info, it wouldn't look as good

feature films are 24 frames per second, including disney movies

watch a dreamworks 2d animation like Prince of Egypt or Road to El Dorado, and look at how the motion blur adds to the fluidity

or watch Gladiator or 28 Weeks Later, and notice how the blurless highspeed camera used in action sequences gives reality itself an unnatural feel.

Little Big Planet is a perfect example, if I'm correct that game is locked at 24 frames, or maybe 30.

It has motion blur. It completes the realistic look. I would rather it be locked at the lower frame rate with the motion blur, than be at 128 frames per second without it.

it's a subtle effect, but it makes all the difference in the world when it's the effect you need

besides. the whole point of this thread is to discuss the possibility of a less costly motion blur technique

flamewar begin.

kidding.

the pixel art, chiptunes thing you like is a matter of personal taste

Exactly, they're just a little part of golden age gaming I enjoy, that's all. I'm not saying all games should be like this. I enjoy new indie games with better graphics.

As long as motion blur doesn't impact performance too much (right now it's too much ), i'm all for it. I'm only saying that people tend to focus a lot on graphics and effects more than anything else. I agree that new gen indie games (ie. braid and world of goo) have come a long way from low res graphics and such, but remember, these games emphasize gameplay more than anything else. Their success comes not from their graphics, but from their originality and gameplay.

I don't think that most gamers get into indie games because of the core gameplay that was presented to them 20 years ago

see Cave Story, but i see what your saying.

the lack of it has been an obvious visual flaw in animation since the original king kong and godzilla claymation scenes

It would not look better with motion blur, It needs more frames, and overall better animation.

Anyways, if someone can make motion blur look nice without killing the game, then bring it on. The velocity buffer idea sounds cool.