Excessive detail

[SwiftSpear]

Yes, increasing the polygon count to try and use polygons for certain details instead of using the texture can make the end result worse off. Things like that little square panel on the tank above. If they'd put a polygon box there, either they would have to split up the mother polygon it's sitting on in loads of ways and then totally screw up their edge topology. Or put it on top of the polygon, as a separate object, then the shading will probably look like crap and the box will not look connected to the rest of the model. Not to mention, UVing/texturing that little sucker in a good way will be almost impossible and take lots of unnecessary time.

Painting the shadows and stuff on the texture to make it come out, is win.

A high poly model can't be textured the same way as a typical low polygon .s3o model. You have to do all the details properly, going all out, and then use procedural textures + decals to texture it, and then do a proper render. So this is why a inbetween high-poly and low-poly model will fail.

Another example: Those wheels on the other hand, are a good choice for using polygons to add detail. They are not hard at all to UV/texture, can all reuse the same texture etc. Probably a third or even half the polygons on that model is in the wheels. But the important part is that it dosn't screw up the mesh topology, and is easy to texture, so no problems. Painting the wheels instead is also sometimes a good choice, but WW2 tanks didn't have much sideskirts so in this case modeling the wheels directly make sense. On a tank with sideskirts covering up most of the wheels (and more importantly the empty space between wheels/track that will give you trouble trying to texture it), like a modern tank such as the abrams, using a texture for the wheels is probably better.

Even more true when we get normal mapping on the units... Normal maps handle small geometry features a matter of hundreds of times more efficiently and effectively then polygonal geometry does in comparison.

[Caydr]

I can use low poly, I can use high poly. When the total number of units in a battle is intended low, which would it make more sense to use?

Even today it's irrelevant, by the time I'm finished, more so. Why do I need to keep on repeating this?

100 models onscreen of 1000 triangles each equals 100,000 triangles. Add terrain and whatever else you want. More systems will be limited by their inability to path for so many units than systems that will be limited by their GPU power. I've presented clear evidence to this effect.

I'll say it all one more time: There's unnecessary emphasis being placed on optimizing models. It takes more time than is needed and the end result will look lacking when not seen from the intended angle. Even TA units don't look completely hideous when you're looking straight down at them, but in a 3D game like Spring, you can't always rely on this. I don't throw polygons at a unit to magically make it pretty, I do what's necessary to make proper use of the available hardware given my intentions for the mod.

More importantly, people besides me just starting out with a mod are wasting time and effort in the mistaken belief that they need to keep models to TA standards.

It looks like 1944's developers at least have the right idea in mind. 1000 triangles is not unreasonable. GPUs can handle that much detail in stride, and I think that's what we should be aiming for, for common units. 1000 triangle peewees even wouldn't be crazy. If you intend to use that much detail on all your models, it will take longer to make them, and it will take many months before there's a release, by which time anyone and their grandmother will be able to afford a GPU which can handle that much detail.

It is my strong belief that continuing to make models of fewer than 500 triangles, even for a current project close to release, is a waste of time. You're going to mess around for so long getting them looking their best like any good modeler/texturer would, only to have them be appropriate for computers that are completely out of date.

Graphics doesn't equal gameplay, evenyone here lives by that. But that doesn't mean that we should ignore the latest developments. Eye candy aren't what a game's all about, but when you can post up stuff that looks like it could actually compete with the likes of SupCom and RA3, *THAT* is that gets people's attention. How can you make a community grow through good coding alone? We are putting the efforts of our developers to waste. They work on this game so it can be played and enjoyed. Should we just stick our heads in the sand and continue focusing all our attention on things that don't grab attention? There's a place for eye candy too.

[TheRegisteredOne]

having 24212153684089753002304094 polies for the sake of having 24212153684089753002304094 makes no sense

[rattle]

It is my strong belief that continuing to make models of fewer than 500 triangles, even for a current project close to release, is a waste of time. You're going to mess around for so long getting them looking their best like any good modeler/texturer would, only to have them be appropriate for computers that are completely out of date.

So how many polygons does the average unit in SupCom or CNC3 have?

[SwiftSpear]

It is my strong belief that continuing to make models of fewer than 500 triangles, even for a current project close to release, is a waste of time. You're going to mess around for so long getting them looking their best like any good modeler/texturer would, only to have them be appropriate for computers that are completely out of date.

So how many polygons does the average unit in SupCom or CNC3 have?

I'd agree... I'd be surprised if Spring was able to massively exceed the averages that those development studios set without any performance determent.

It's already been shown in spring that a the CA nuke explosion can cause major lag on some systems. How close are we to pushing the minimum system requirements seriously with modeling excessiveness?

[smoth]

caydr, gundam has many units that easily break past 1,000 tris...

what is it that you are fighting for? I am not understanding your point. You say we can have over 1000 triangles... I reply with no shit I did it already.

so why is there still an active argument? To me it seems like it is going around and around.

[SwiftSpear]

I can use low poly, I can use high poly. When the total number of units in a battle is intended low, which would it make more sense to use?

Low poly... It never makes sense to use higher poly units unless you are losing graphical detail. Polycount != model visual quality.

[Comp1337]

Why is this eight pages long?
Caydr is basically saying that he will use as many polies he needs to get his desired result, and you're all going "Don't use 15k polies on a cube my god"

[SwiftSpear]

Why is this eight pages long?
Caydr is basically saying that he will use as many polies he needs to get his desired result, and you're all going "Don't use 15k polies on a cube my god"

Unwritten Spring community rules dictate that anything caydr says must be disagreed with until proven incontrovertibly correct, because caydr once had the most popular mod in spring and he was occasionally a real dick about it.

[KDR_11k]

Why is this eight pages long?
Caydr is basically saying that he will use as many polies he needs to get his desired result, and you're all going "Don't use 15k polies on a cube my god"

That's because we've seen what Caydr does.

[1v0ry_k1ng]

so the moral is, a good texture can make a low polly model hawt sex

[FLOZi]

I thought the moral was that S44 is made of pure concentrated win with no additives or artificial colours or flavourings?

[Tim Blokdijk]

The moral is that no mater how good your graphics look you can still fuck up balance.

[tombom]

The moral is that no mater how good your graphics look you can still fuck up balance.

Truth. People should realise this and stop having endless discussions on graphics crap. people will make whatever models they want anyway.

[smoth]

The moral is that no mater how bad your graphics look you can still fuck up balance.

also truth.

[Nemo]

The moral is that no mater how good your graphics look you can still fuck up balance.

Truth. People should realise this and stop having endless discussions on graphics crap. people will make whatever models they want anyway.

But games do not grow on gameplay alone.

It doesn't matter how awesome the gameplay is if it doesn't have some visual polish - you can't market gameplay; you can only market visuals. You might tell a friend "yeah, you really gotta try this game" and they'll say: "sure, lemme see some screens before I download it"

You show them screens, they make an *instant* judgment on the quality of that game based on its visuals. That's human nature. there's nothing we can do about that.

[SwiftSpear]

The moral is that no mater how good your graphics look you can still fuck up balance.

Truth. People should realise this and stop having endless discussions on graphics crap. people will make whatever models they want anyway.

But games do not grow on gameplay alone.

It doesn't matter how awesome the gameplay is if it doesn't have some visual polish - you can't market gameplay; you can only market visuals. You might tell a friend "yeah, you really gotta try this game" and they'll say: "sure, lemme see some screens before I download it"

You show them screens, they make an *instant* judgment on the quality of that game based on its visuals. That's human nature. there's nothing we can do about that.

And yet people still play, GTA, Katamari, Harvest moon, Odins Sphere, Paper mario, and the myriad of other games that prioritize gameplay over time consuming photo realistic graphics.

[Guessmyname]

Zwzsg's uber-post about how graphics should tie into gameplay comes to mind here.

[smoth]

(Click images for larger picture!)

yeah, totally need high poly models etc... Good texturing HELPS a lot. This model has about 700 triangles. I think higher poly counts can and should be used but that isn't the issue. We need textures, effects etc.

Look it is simple. Games need graphics and gameplay. I hate watching 30 minutes of dull crap and nano spam in BA/AA to ultimately watch a bunch of junk looking things wiffle in shitty explosions. Graphics are important, we need them to complete the experience. For some people, who have no appreciation for such things a battle needs only consist of Xs and Os who explode as a large dome and that is it. Simply put but true that we have users here who would be happy with that.

However, I am not, part of the experience of a game is the way it looks. That adds in a large way to the feel of a game. A game can look good and have nice graphics, to suggest the two are separate is asinine. Gameplay and graphics work together towards the overall experience.

noone wants to eat a plate of shit, a pretty plate of shit or a tasty meal that looks like shit.

[AF]

I would prefer to see a game with no textures but half decent models rather than a textured game with poor models and rubbish texturing.

Sometimes in full cartographic mode in supreme comamnder with no textures just green height levels and plain shaded models, it looks prettier than BA, because in BA the models are stupid. Even the models there are updates for need updating, such as the arm commander which is that old OTA model despite a hi poly better textured alernative being available for months. This really annoys me watching BA games.

Smoth, nice model, but I've never liked cammo, its a bit silly that camouflage would help in the OTA age, especially cosnidering that most of the unit would make it obvious anyway, as if a passing unit will ignore a barrel ebcause fo bright yellow cammo. I really hope it gets the redux treatment.