Even more trees - on the fourth day of Xmas

[Argh]

Downloading, and Merry Christmas to you as well!

[Beherith]

Added 8 more trees, also with low and high poly versions. High poly large trees can go up to 2k tris in this set, but the low poly ones are still between 200-300 tris.




Smoth, are 2-300 tri trees still too wasteful?

[Jazcash]

Well at least we have some proper trees now. These look awesome compared to the old 8 Poly Bushes or w/e :D

[Argh]

@Beherith: IMO, 300 tris is totally fine, even 1000 for something meant to be large enough to see details (at scale) is just fine. 1000 for a bush that's knee-high to a foot soldier... er, not so much.

The deciduous trees I have in WB are generally in the 150 triangle range, but personally I think I was being a bit parsimonious. The main thing is... if possible, keep the skins in the 128-256 range, and where possible, atlas the skins. Atlasing should improve throughput considerably, Spring still loads models in texture-order, IIRC, so that will result in a good improvement in performance. I will atlas the ones you've already done, if that's all right with you, once I've had a chance to look them over and stuff, like I've done with the Glest models.

[Beherith]

What do you mean by atlas them? All the textures are set up in the same way. Look at the UVs.

[Argh]

I mean, put them all on as few textures as possible. If they're 128X256, for example, move two sets to a single 256, move some of them down, some up. I haven't taken a look yet, but if, for example, it's possible to get 16 different tree variants to use a single set of 256's, that would be ideal.

[smoth]

2-3 hundred is pretty reasonable. however bear in mind that the spring trees have a sort of lod to them.. we have no way to do lod with features yet. So I say the 2-300 ones are good enough. would be nice if you could make them 100-150 each but eh I am not going to be too picky.

[SpikedHelmet]

nevermind, i'm stupid.

[Beherith]

Ok, out of curiosity i tested all 14 trees evenly distributed over a 2x2 map. Altogether 1000 trees. I got 16 fps. When I reduced all of the textures to 256x128 from 512*256, i only got up to 18 fps
The 14 trees use 3 texture sets.

[Argh]

Hrmm, that bad?

Oh, wait, you're talking about the ones in the 1K+ triangle range. There your GPU chokepoint is texels, not textures.

I don't really test like that- those "1K of something" tests aren't anywhere near as useful as testing on a WB map, imo. The texture throughput issue is more of an issue in a scene like that.

[Beherith]

These were the low poly ones, from 150-300 tris each.

[Argh]

Hrmm. That seems off, tbh. That's only 300K triangles- not a minor load, but still, very odd. Meh. I'll take a look when I can.

[1v0ry_k1ng]

subforum this so it is not lost under future spam

[Beherith]

Content of this post has been added to feature resource thread, so no need for the sticky.