New version, 0.66b1

[K.B.] Napalm Cobra · Post by **[K.B.] Napalm Cobra** » 16 Nov 2005, 09:35

And have decent implementation, ie, one per piece.

Gnomre · Post by **Gnomre** » 16 Nov 2005, 11:15

That'd be horribly inefficient and hard to use... hardly decent. Try knowing what you're talking about before using your ass as a mouth.

aGorm · Post by **aGorm** » 16 Nov 2005, 15:11

One map per a peice?!?! That would defyi the point of it!!

aGorm

GrOuNd_ZeRo · Post by **GrOuNd_ZeRo** » 16 Nov 2005, 17:19

LathanStanley wrote:
GrOuNd_ZeRo wrote:UV-Mapping is a nice feature although skinning is much more time consuming and complicated than per-face texture system.

No Alpha-Textures are supported as far as I have seen which is not a great thing...
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!

UV mapping is the greatest thing ever...

remember old Quake 1, and how EASY it was to change the skin on a guy?

thats UV MAPPING... much easier than old school per face mapping..

you just gotta know how to do it

Quake 1 was indeed easy, but those were very low poly models.

Just try something more complex like a recreation of a firearm, you'll see what I mean.

Aun · Post by **Aun** » 16 Nov 2005, 17:23

It's still easier than texturing 100s of faces one by one...

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 17 Nov 2005, 06:40

GrOuNd_ZeRo wrote:
LathanStanley wrote:
GrOuNd_ZeRo wrote:UV-Mapping is a nice feature although skinning is much more time consuming and complicated than per-face texture system.

No Alpha-Textures are supported as far as I have seen which is not a great thing...
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!

UV mapping is the greatest thing ever...

remember old Quake 1, and how EASY it was to change the skin on a guy?

thats UV MAPPING... much easier than old school per face mapping..

you just gotta know how to do it
Quake 1 was indeed easy, but those were very low poly models.

Just try something more complex like a recreation of a firearm, you'll see what I mean.

HL2 still uses UV maps... it might not be quite as easy as it was quake 1, but it's still the standard, and there is really no other way of doing that is easier.

Either way, most TAS models are way closer to quake 1 polyage then they are to any newer game's polycounts.

GrOuNd_ZeRo · Post by **GrOuNd_ZeRo** » 17 Nov 2005, 06:48

My new infantry model is closer to Quake 2~3, but a Quake 1 style skinning method would probably suffice.

Tanks are a bit more difficult, but I need to find the time to try to texture/UV my new Abrams.

Sean Mirrsen · Post by **Sean Mirrsen** » 17 Nov 2005, 12:29

I wonder, how hard would it be to include LOD models in the new format? I mean, it sure means more work for the modeller, but the resulting performance boost can't be denied. If we have at least 3 lods, one for absolutely close-up, one for "a few yards away" view, one for "quarter mile away" view, this would decrease polycount per frame to 50-40% of its current amount for most of the time, and to 25-20% when viewing massive battles from afar, while keeping the ability to zoom in and take a look at the details on units. LODs could be made like "layers" of the model, several tabs in the editor, each sharing the same piece tree and texture, but having different model pieces mapped to that texture. In game, LODs would be defined by distance to the camera, and maybe whether or not they are within the camera's "sight".

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 17 Nov 2005, 18:11

LOD would be the coolest but it must be extremely hard to implement seeing as Petrograph are using it in EaW and believe it is very cutting edge! O,o

Post by **jcnossen** » 17 Nov 2005, 18:33

That would mean extending the s3o format to include high-detail pieces or something, could be done though, but right now I wonder who's going to make all that HD stuff. If someone comes with some high detail units I'll start thinking about it

colorblind · Post by **colorblind** » 17 Nov 2005, 18:58

Well you don't need to include the HD stuff right away, you can just start with making the simplest models for far-away use. Or will be current models be used for that?

Post by **jcnossen** » 17 Nov 2005, 19:09

It's not really useful to reduce quality even further for far-away units, the bottleneck is simply not in the number of triangles drawn right now, but it could be if people will make high-detail units.

Archangel of Death · Post by **Archangel of Death** » 18 Nov 2005, 03:59

LOD's aren't really that cutting edge. The earliest game I know of that used them is Homeworld. It wasn't one model with all the lods in it though.

Post by **jcnossen** » 19 Nov 2005, 14:07

Who said there were cutting edge? It's still a good way to optimize when models get more detail.

GrOuNd_ZeRo · Post by **GrOuNd_ZeRo** » 19 Nov 2005, 14:34

LODs were used by Quake 3 before Homeworld.

I am not sure what game it used first...

Sean Mirrsen · Post by **Sean Mirrsen** » 19 Nov 2005, 21:04

I, for one, WILL need LODs for my modification. I'm planning on hundreds of small units that have to have a decent polycount to be looking acceptable at point blank range. I'll need at least two in addition to what we have now, one normal and one generated for "extremely far-away", which are really not enough. I need one for a distance of several meters, so most extra details ("goblins" they are called in Homeworld) are removed, and one for a few hundred meters away distance, so that only a basic representation of the unit can be used.

AF · Post by AF » 20 Nov 2005, 18:07

And it would be nice to have the HW sensor view I talked of, which only needs that untis be replaced with a model so simple its just a symbol with billboarding when far away. That combined with a thign to make the map far less detailed with a uniform coloured texture at very high heights would let us view maps as large as 50x50 in a single screen much easier.

Spring RTS Engine

New version, 0.66b1