Spring RTS Engine

Flozi is right.

FLOZi wrote:

smoth wrote:5*2 + 3 -> 13 * 2 -> 26

the side towers are 5 faces each and 3 on the middle section if you remove unseen geometry 2 polies for each face.

you are not culling unseen geometry are you.

I count 34 tris with the bottom culled...

3 cubes
6 faces for each
3*6 = 18
X2 to transform square faces to tris
36 polies
/me sighs,
My example was if he made the center piece a strip of 3 faces and the two towers 5 sided with no bottom.

Ps: the wall is 44 tri's, and 34 without the stuff you don't see.

if this is true he really did the walls wrong.


one face is 2 polies each.... I have no idea how it would be 34

do you make stuff just for you?

How many poly is that gun?

smoth wrote:

FLOZi wrote:

smoth wrote:5*2 + 3 -> 13 * 2 -> 26

the side towers are 5 faces each and 3 on the middle section if you remove unseen geometry 2 polies for each face.

you are not culling unseen geometry are you.

I count 34 tris with the bottom culled...

3 cubes
6 faces for each
3*6 = 18
X2 to transform square faces to tris
36 polies
/me sighs,
My example was if he made the center piece a strip of 3 faces and the two towers 5 sided with no bottom.

Ps: the wall is 44 tri's, and 34 without the stuff you don't see.

if this is true he really did the walls wrong.


one face is 2 polies each.... I have no idea how it would be 34

The 'wall' is 6 tris. Each end post is 14. 2 for the top, 2 for the end side, 2 for each side perpendicular to the wall, and 6 for the side connected to the wall.

that model should only be 3 cubes...

It is the right way to model it, imo. No Z-fighting issues.

Oh god he did.

also I use 3 cubes for walls like that and there are zero z-fighting issues. I would eat a hot pepper if I am wrong!

They'd only be very minor as the faces are perpendicular. But it is the right way to do it even though it costs an extra 8 tris. Yes it's not really a big deal on a model as simple as this - but it is good practice to model like that as in a more complex model you will waste texture space and be rendering geometry which is never viewable apart from inside the model.

I have never really seen perpendicular z-fighting. Parallel I see a lot but perpendicular i never see.

Also these walls there might be 100s. isn't it wise to save on that sort of thing?

Well, that depends on what's more expensive. I mean, one system means that it is drawing more physical area on the screen, the other means it's drawing more polygons.

Which slows down fillrate more? More surface (because more exists, albeit hidden), or more polygons?

these are all interesting questions.

daan 79 wrote:do you make stuff just for you?

I'm just making stuff to improve, this isn't really meant for a mod or something.

daan 79 wrote:How many poly is that gun?

It's not done, so not optimised, so I can't give an ansfer to that yet.




Still wip.

smoth wrote:I have never really seen perpendicular z-fighting. Parallel I see a lot but perpendicular i never see.

Also these walls there might be 100s. isn't it wise to save on that sort of thing?

It depends on the size of the zbuffer and would only really be apparant at very acute angles to the wall itself.

Anyway, pxtl hit the crux of the matter.

Though even if there 1000 of these walls, all being rendered in the same scene (pretty unlikely), 8000 tris is a drop in the ocean these days.

I have never really seen perpendicular z-fighting. Parallel I see a lot but perpendicular i never see.

+1, it's a non-issue, 'cept the shadowmap that results is a little funky. I think more of that is stuff that's currently borked with the shadowmap anyhow.

Which slows down fillrate more? More surface (because more exists, albeit hidden), or more polygons?

Fillrate's a factor after culling of backfaces, IIRC, so most of the time it's "how big is that texture" vs. "how much texture are we showing". I've been finding that tricount's less important than fillrate... if you don't have shaders on. With shaders, it's the inverse, because of tessellation. IOW, things with lots of triangles that are then using shaders are pretty expensive, because you're going to have some tessellation on anything but the smallest bits where it's just one texel. An object with big flat planes is getting broken up into dozens, if not hundreds of smaller triangles, it's easy to see in screenshots, if you play around a bit with the camera on reflective things.

Would have done it with two 5-face cuboids and a 3-face wall, with a smaller skin, myself, because most of the time the weird shadow results wouldn't matter, and the rest of it's moot.

@wip: needs more work on barrels. Interesting what you did with the back, but i dont think many players would notice it. I'd say, add more detail to the roof and weapon housing (which btw is too small)!

But it's got that "deadly" look, and, imo, models with "that deadly look" always turn out awesome

You basically made the perfect battlestar gun!

Tell me when you wanna share that nice piece!

An object with big flat planes is getting broken up into dozens, if not hundreds of smaller triangles

Vertex/Fragment shaders do not and can not generate new triangles.

daan 79 wrote:You basically made the perfect battlestar gun!

Tell me when you wanna share that nice piece!

I dunno if I can, all the stuff textured on the image below is on one uvmap and the gun is not uvmapped yet, and spring only supports 1 uvmap, so you'll either need to use it without the stand, or I could try to fit everything on one uvmap.





I dunno about the arrows, I think I'm going to remove them, and I'm still working on the red crate

One more for the lulz:

Looks too wippy atm.

What does that mean?