Map "Features" models, pictures, models, comments,

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 03 Jul 2005, 16:27

My building is only 300 faces. You can't really have 2000 face building features hanging around, simply because as an urban world, there would regularly be stacks of the buggers on-screen.

I'd say the absolute maximum you could make building features would be between 500-700. This is a balance between making things look good, and not straining computers too much.
Just think, to get 500 faces on screen in units, you have to build about 40 stumpies. Even Krogoth's are only about 200 faces.
I realise Spring can handle much more, and modern computers are pretty powerful, but bear in mind that we are talking urban maps with perhaps hundreds of buildings. You simply can't have that many buildings at 2000 faces.

On a similar note, that is why I made my building "whole" rather than destroyed. I will probably go back and touch both up, and make a destroyed version. The problem with a destroyed version is that it means heaps more faces. Showing destruction and decay on a structure can be done better with texturing then with modelling, although some indications (such as collapsed sections) are needed.
Avoiding round shapes is essential; I regret making my structure vaguely cylindrical, simply because it meant that I had to add massive amounts of faces for something which doesn't really look all that cylindrical in the end anyway.

I'll have a crack at some other buildings later. I suggest, lathan, that you don't try to recreate urbanworld buildings, but rather use them as inspiration to make new ones, as I have done. For the simple reason that cavedog could make those units as detailed and curved as they wanted, as they were technically drawn 2D. We cannot do intensely detailed structures, and we definitely cannot do round surfaces (only poor impressions, as I did). This means that new buildings are needed.

I am using a combination of the urbanworld tileset and Star Wars' Coruscant to make new buildings for the urban world feature set for Spring.

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 03 Jul 2005, 16:43

!!! SWTA on Coruscant!

:D

LathanStanley · Post by **LathanStanley** » 03 Jul 2005, 17:04

Warlord Zsinj wrote:My building is only 300 faces. You can't really have 2000 face building features hanging around, simply because as an urban world, there would regularly be stacks of the buggers on-screen.

I'd say the absolute maximum you could make building features would be between 500-700. This is a balance between making things look good, and not straining computers too much.
Just think, to get 500 faces on screen in units, you have to build about 40 stumpies. Even Krogoth's are only about 200 faces.
I realise Spring can handle much more, and modern computers are pretty powerful, but bear in mind that we are talking urban maps with perhaps hundreds of buildings. You simply can't have that many buildings at 2000 faces.

On a similar note, that is why I made my building "whole" rather than destroyed. I will probably go back and touch both up, and make a destroyed version. The problem with a destroyed version is that it means heaps more faces. Showing destruction and decay on a structure can be done better with texturing then with modelling, although some indications (such as collapsed sections) are needed.
Avoiding round shapes is essential; I regret making my structure vaguely cylindrical, simply because it meant that I had to add massive amounts of faces for something which doesn't really look all that cylindrical in the end anyway.

I'll have a crack at some other buildings later. I suggest, lathan, that you don't try to recreate urbanworld buildings, but rather use them as inspiration to make new ones, as I have done. For the simple reason that cavedog could make those units as detailed and curved as they wanted, as they were technically drawn 2D. We cannot do intensely detailed structures, and we definitely cannot do round surfaces (only poor impressions, as I did). This means that new buildings are needed.

I am using a combination of the urbanworld tileset and Star Wars' Coruscant to make new buildings for the urban world feature set for Spring.

if every face is textured that makes sense... but dammit people listen to me... I"M NOT TEXTURING MOST OF IT...

until I get the chance to TRY this, and it prooves me wrong... I'm still gonna follow it... mathematically, it makes sense.. and computers are 100% mathematical

edit: if you are wanting to create standard low poly models and texture them.... be my guest, I'll be more than happy to help out, offer advice etc... but I've got this wild hair up my ass to try models a different way.. it prolly won't work, you are probably right... but what does it hurt to try?

LathanStanley · Post by **LathanStanley** » 03 Jul 2005, 20:01

just a reality check... the engine is a HELLOVA lot more powerful than you think...

2.4ghz P4
Mobility Radeon 9000 64mb
1248 mb RAM DDR PCI 133

thats approx 45 faces a peewee x 500 pewees or 22,500 faces !!

30fps...

AND ALL OF THEM ARE TEXTURED!

if they are 90% only a color, then expect 5x that framerate capability...

now mix ~ 25,000 non-terxtured faces (5-6 LARGE buildings) with ~ 200 units (somewhere reasonable) for 10,000 textured faces...

textured faces chew ~8 times the resources that non-tex'd faces do...

so divide the 25,000 faces by 8 = 3125 tex'd faces equiv. + 10,000 from units = 13,125 faces.... WITH 8,000 or so left to go if all used by untex'd buildings... yo could feasiably run:

12,500 * 8
------------ = 33-34 buildings on the screen at once + the 200 units...
3000

and maintain a ~30 fps on an average computer... prolly close to 20 fps on a lower end machine.. and 10 on a bottom end (upgrade damn you

)

AF · Post by AF » 04 Jul 2005, 00:49

hhmmm corrissant, Methinks a map filled with skyscrapers would be impressive for any RTS, and we're in the best position to do it.

As for urban maps, I think the general style is ok, btu to recreate the urban maps of TA almost exactly and put them in spring wouldnt look very good... so some artistic license is needed to make huge buildings.

As for the conflict fo itnerest over high poly versus low poly, why not wait till you've tried them out? And if there is problem then we can have the highend users use the higher res models.

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 04 Jul 2005, 03:37

Make only one prototype then, and test it out.

And when I say test it out, I mean whack 100 of them on a map, and then have a battle using the Springy AI, and see if it slows down.

Also, give it to some people with slower computers, and see if they slow down.

I still think texturing is the best way to go. Grey is simply boring.

[K.B.] Napalm Cobra · Post by **[K.B.] Napalm Cobra** » 04 Jul 2005, 06:08

Oi neuralize. we need textures damnit.

Samoa · Post by **Samoa** » 04 Jul 2005, 09:37

One quick question, somewhat off topic, but not totally, At the SY's I dont believe that we have had any type of way to test pathfinding on planes and such, but what will the planes do around these features that are being made? Will they simply fly over them or will they actually have to navigate around them?

Simply curious
The models look excellent btw, all of them...

AF · Post by AF » 04 Jul 2005, 10:05

Eitherway ti needs to improove, especially with skyscraper features....

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 04 Jul 2005, 10:52

Gnome tested the star destroyer (linked to in one of my posts in the previous page) with star fighters. As long as there is enough room, the fighters seem to be able to manuevre about them. I don't know how well they would do in tight streetscapes, but then again, that would be half the point. And if anything goes wrong, fighters tend to go through things rather than pull strange turns. I don't know whether they take damage from this or not, but one would assume that only the very maneuvrable fighters would be able to pose a threat on an urban map. That and bombers, which could follow the line of the streets (which would have to be pretty wide for gameplay reasons)...

AF · Post by AF » 04 Jul 2005, 11:04

So then should we have:

Huge buildings with major highways for roads

Scale the units to human sized or slightly bigger and have ordinary sized buildings.

Small buildings with immensly unrealistic roads that seem to go on forever, with so many courtyards and parks, and gigantic trees the sizes of skyscrapers........

Gnomre · Post by **Gnomre** » 04 Jul 2005, 11:15

They'll duck around and stuff, limitedly, yes, but the hitboxes need to be much more precise for large buildings.

AF · Post by AF » 04 Jul 2005, 11:19

Hitboxes?

bugger, skyscrapers and spherical collision detection, buildings would need huge roads unless fixed somehow, imagine a long tall skyscraper, it would ahve a huge sphere around it, problems selecting thigns without tryignt o recliam the building, pathfinding etc....

Perhaps stretching spheres to the general shape of the object would be best done if the SY's arent itnerested in Box based collision or per polygon.......

LathanStanley · Post by **LathanStanley** » 04 Jul 2005, 20:38

hmmm... never really thought about collision detection...

I'll have to ponder this one

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 05 Jul 2005, 05:03

Isn't collision detection based on cylinders, rather than spheres? Or is that just firing arcs?

Because cylindrical collision detection (if it had a height limit) would be perfect for buildings...

[K.B.] Napalm Cobra · Post by **[K.B.] Napalm Cobra** » 05 Jul 2005, 07:13

A combination of box/cylinder and perpolygon would be best.

LathanStanley · Post by **LathanStanley** » 05 Jul 2005, 09:48

chamferbox??? hello???

take a box dimensions xyz, chamfer it 20%x20%y20%z

simple.... effective on EVERY UNIT, BUILDING, TREE, EVERYTHING...

AF · Post by AF » 05 Jul 2005, 10:03

Isn't collision detection based on cylinders, rather than spheres? Or is that just firing arcs?

Because cylindrical collision detection (if it had a height limit) would be perfect for buildings...

look at spring in debug mode, you can see the bounding spheres, and yes cylinders would do better, boxes even more so, per polygon even more.

Perhaps buildings such as huge scyscrapers can be made beter by putting multiple buildings into a single feature.

LathanStanley · Post by **LathanStanley** » 05 Jul 2005, 10:14

LathanStanley wrote:chamferbox??? hello???

take a box dimensions xyz, chamfer it 20%x20%y20%z

simple.... effective on EVERY UNIT, BUILDING, TREE, EVERYTHING...

the un-yeilding urge to quote myself to REITERATE the fact I have a solution to everyones shit with bounding boxes.... urgh... has overcome me...

please read that

AF · Post by AF » 05 Jul 2005, 10:38

Which ahs already been put tot he SY's, the SY's are considering it, it does coem with a resource defecit, and they're interested in per polygon detection for the selection process which SJ says is very unsatisfactory..

Spring RTS Engine

Map "Features" models, pictures, models, comments,