Highpoly "discussion", formerly known as MC0003

rattle · Post by **rattle** » 23 Oct 2006, 23:18

Doom 2 really is a bad example... was it even a true 3D engine? I guess not.

A good model is an optimized model (just like what Argh said every so often) so it doesn't really matter if it got like 1k or 200k polygons as long as they aren't wasted. The polycount only determines the application of said model.

Peet · Post by **Peet** » 23 Oct 2006, 23:24

Optimus Prime wrote: So the only break for high poly models is the performance and we live far after the time of quake1 or doom2 - so we can have models with at least 2-5 k polys in a normal mod. If not - spring will die after sup comm is out (which sure can handle that).

For gods sake, you were just complaining in one of the supcom threads about being unable to play!

Optimus Prime · Post by **Optimus Prime** » 23 Oct 2006, 23:38

yes because my graphic card is destroyed and i have to play with a very old one i bought in 2000. We now have 2006...

edit:

A good model is an optimized model (just like what Argh said every so often) so it doesn't really matter if it got like 1k or 200k polygons as long as they aren't wasted

a box with 6 polygons is a good model? I dont think that you think so

.

Optimus Prime wrote:
sure, but where is the relation between high poly models and animations or textures? Is there a rule, which says that a good model must have bad animations and bad textures? NO!

what exactly is the point of that....

the point of that is, that we are discussing high poly models and people come and tell things about animations and so (you should read the whole thread, than you should know whats the point of that). One was saying that a good animation of a unit is more important than a good 3d model and so we can stay at low poly models, but i tell you that we can have both together and i give you a tripple: we can have good textures too! So i dont see a point which says "oh no let us make low poly models, we can give them good animations and textures and they will be so good" instead of "lets make models as detailed as possible for the engine including good animations and textures".
Is it really so hard to understand?

Peet · Post by **Peet** » 23 Oct 2006, 23:56

The point was, a unit can look good without 512758927e51235289 polygons.

knorke · Post by **knorke** » 24 Oct 2006, 00:15

sure, but where is the relation between high poly models and animations or textures? Is there a rule, which says that a good model must have bad animations and bad textures? NO!

I didn't mention textures.
But while some units are animated quite nicely (the big Monkeylord and some other examples) the big number of units moves very static. No point in having the megahigh-poly model when it slides across the land like an TA Sumo...
It would just look out of place. At some point in time you'll have to animate your model and that seems to be quite hard with the current scripting system.

rattle · Post by **rattle** » 24 Oct 2006, 00:23

A crate usually is is a six sided box, yes. A crate could be a 1 million polygon object of course but then you'll have to model the grain and everything you usually put on the texture. So where's the point?

A model isn't good because it got lots of detail and polygons, it's good because it's optimized. If 500 polygons are enough, why increase them? And if you need 4000 polygons, then so be it, as long as they aren't there to increase the polycount artificially. Actually most of the detail are done by the texture...

Well lets tak a look at Generals. Mostly all of the models are pretty much low poly. Ok it's some years old now so lets take a look at EAs latest 3D RTS they've got in developement (Tiberian Wars). It still looks like most models have a polycount of < 2k, from what I've seen so far that is. Well the question is why? I'm pretty sure they have high polygon models available...

LOrDo · Post by **LOrDo** » 24 Oct 2006, 01:15

Problably cause it has no zoom/rotate feature. Springs uber 1337, so it does.

rattle · Post by **rattle** » 24 Oct 2006, 01:32

What a useful comment.
You could zoom and rotate in Generals and I assume the Tiberian Wars engine is just a pimped up version, taking advantage of more advanced features of course.

Well how many people play mods all zoomed in? I mean PLAY, as in playing, not firing up spring in order to look at super high polygon fancy stuff and close it thereafter. Lastly spring doesn't have LOD models. But that has been mentioned before. What ever I'll stop taking part in this, it's useless, because we apparently talk at cross purposes...

LOrDo · Post by **LOrDo** » 24 Oct 2006, 06:15

Yes, lets half ass spring by assuming nobody will pay close attention to the models, I mean, what kinda loser actually LOOKS at the units their playing with? Sheesh.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 24 Oct 2006, 06:40

I think I'd win more often if I stopped trying to find a cool camera angle less and actually played the game more, but that would be no fun whatsoever.

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 24 Oct 2006, 08:23

OP lives to piss ppl off lol.

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 24 Oct 2006, 08:44

No. Supcom and DoW do NOT use that many polygons. They use LOD models so if you zoom in very close they use that many but in an average gameplay situation the games use MUCH lower polygon counts for their units. Spring doesn't support this.

Of course you can make better looking models with more polies (though it still takes skill to make that good instead of a pure waste of polygons) but there's no point in a competition for making free models for Spring if the models are too detailled to be used in the average Spring mod.

Optimus Prime · Post by **Optimus Prime** » 24 Oct 2006, 12:55

Forboding Angel wrote:OP lives to piss ppl off lol.

if i would be like you, my discussions would be like: "you fucking idiot and sun of a bitch! You are wrong - more polys means more details - point! Stop discussing with me you stupid kid or i will kill your whole family!" - all in bold text with font side of xl.
I just can remember your post in the old closed FF thread...
If you dont have anything constructive to say - say nothing.

Snipawolf · Post by **Snipawolf** » 24 Oct 2006, 12:57

High polys are for later times, I won't waste my time on them now.. My Death Stinger will be something to marvel at (IF I can find some non copyrighted version to make of it..)

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 25 Oct 2006, 07:34

May I note that you continue to compare FPS models with RTS models. This is not a functional comparison. Think about it for a moment. On one hand, you have maybe twelve models onscreen, much of them obscured by weapon fire and smoke. On the other, you have twelve hundred running at each other across terrain with an observer at a distance.

Optimus Prime · Post by **Optimus Prime** » 25 Oct 2006, 11:50

The point is, you think of mods like xta or aa, but what if you make a battletech mod, where you have just a hand full of units, or think if it would be possible in a later spring version, if the mod can force the camera positioned over the head of the commander and you can play the unit like in mech warrior and only turn the camera from this point, so that you can see when a single armour plate will get destroyed.
Spring is an open source project and i dont think that all mods in the future will be massive units mods.

aGorm · Post by **aGorm** » 25 Oct 2006, 12:04

Another way to put what you just said is:

Not every mod will be a massive unit count mod, but some will be, and maybe will have 3000 units on screen at once, and so, maybe they should have lower polie moddels.

In other words you just pointed out that your whole argument is infact based on you assuming that there will be a limited number of units on screen.

What this means is that people that are making mods can do whatever they feel is nesacery polie count wise, depending what there making.

WOOT! I think we should all stop this arguing now.

aGorm

rattle · Post by **rattle** » 25 Oct 2006, 12:10

The mod I'm making isn't designed for massive unit amounts but still I don't see a reason to up the polygon count.

The Battletech mod doesn't make overuse of polygons either, it's not a spam X unit type mod either... they have a good deal of detail on them and if you look at the textured shots, tell me why they need to increase in polycount? What for? Yeah right, could have extruded every quad face there is but... that's not more detail.

4 players with 5-10 units each sporting 10-30k polygons would bring up a total of 200k up to 1.200k polygons on screen.

aGorm · Post by **aGorm** » 25 Oct 2006, 13:03

So... Like I said, Its up to the modder. There is nothing to argue about, If he makes high polie models and then they dont work his fault. If we use lower polie ones, its none of his business realy! Can we just stop this pointless argument?

aGorm

MR.D · Post by **MR.D** » 25 Oct 2006, 13:17

Using nothing but Uber low poly models doesn't add anything to gameplay anymore, People have fast enough PC's and Vid cards to deal with that kind of geometry.

Granted, if you're going to have tons and tons of units on the screen at 1 time, its better to use "lower" poly models, but not models that are barely more than a cube, thats just retarded.

Rule of thumb to work with.

Lots of a single unit likely to be in game, make it lower poly.

Average ammount of this particular unit likely to be in game, make it a bit more detailed.

Very few, or single units for special purposes, make them as detailed as you can without going overboard.

ATM anything beyond 5000 Poly is a waste and you could do alot with that many faces.

If SPRING actually supported LOD progression for main ingame models, you could span the Poly counts as wide as you want without much performance loss.

Too bad that it doesn't, but then again.. thats a shitload of work making a good LOD set for each unit type.

Spring RTS Engine

Highpoly "discussion", formerly known as MC0003