Spring RTS Engine

Just wondering if the triangular polygon bug from TA has been fixed in spring yet, or are we still stuck with square only polygons?

Quads only until the New Model Format.

Any news on that, btw?

square is not problem, it is a virtue as it save computer resource up to 40%
so they are here to stay and i expect new format still be quad based...
all what it need is new uv system and that is all

I'm fairly sure there must be a reason that every other game released in the past decade has used triangles for 3D operations rather than quads...

That said, I'm sure they'll still support the old format once the new one rolls in. There's no need to ditch the code and start from scratch...

Spring internally can use textured triangles but I dont think the 3dobuilder or whatever ppl use to texture them supports it.

edit: triangles not quads

maestro wrote:square is not problem, it is a virtue as it save computer resource up to 40%
so they are here to stay and i expect new format still be quad based...
all what it need is new uv system and that is all

You sir are not a modeler, and those are vial lies comming from your lips. To represent a triangular face with square polygons you need 3 full polys, to represent any shape greater then 4 sided squares and tris run very similar numbers with tris using less polis for non multiple of 4 shapes in almost every case. 4 sided blocks do multiples of 4 well, and that's pretty much it. Most modelers don't even model with multiples of 4 in thier modles any more, six sided gun barrels are much more efficiant then 8 or 4 sided, and many models like planes and even kbots just look better with triangular faced parts rather then solely square faced parts. Plus its practically impossible to make the seams square faces always meet eachother in a natural looking way in animation.

So in summary
1. Square polygons freeing up system resources is a myth based on untrue assumptions, it never acctually works out that way
2. The format is too unstandard and difficult for modelers to work with
3. It makes standard animation impossible and the alternitives it allows for are often unpleasing visually.

Would it be a big hit on performance if spring supported both?

Doomweaver wrote:Would it be a big hit on performance if spring supported both?

I'd guess probably not? I'd guess the engine code already supports tri's it just hasn't had to use the potential yet. After all, a textured quad is basicly the same thing as a textued dualtri.

SJ wrote:Spring internally can use textured quads but I dont think the 3dobuilder or whatever ppl use to texture them supports it.

If we assume the "quad" stands for "triangle", then it means they are supported. 3dobuilder can apply textures to triangle, it's just that totala.exe don't accept it.

And LoL at saying "you sir are not a modeller" to maestro.

He is one of the best modelers around right now IMO, just look at his Dragon unit, now that's some cool shit.

Halflife used quad faced didn't it?

The only problem I have with Spring's way of handling textures is that some textures don't look good on certain faces, accurate deformed texture support would be nice like 3DObuilder so units with near triangular faces or faces shaped like wings look "accurate".

So bottom line is, I CAN use non-square polygons, but 3do builder MIGHT have trouble texturing it. Ill go experiment then. Thanks for the help.

GrOuNd_ZeRo wrote:He is one of the best modelers around right now IMO, just look at his Dragon unit, now that's some cool shit.

Halflife used quad faced didn't it?

The only problem I have with Spring's way of handling textures is that some textures don't look good on certain faces, accurate deformed texture support would be nice like 3DObuilder so units with near triangular faces or faces shaped like wings look "accurate".

Halflife uses tri's and so has every single 3D engine since then. Sorry to maestro for calling him not a modeler, but the idea that quads save 40% rendering resourses is just ludicrous. It's a theory that has been proven wrong many many many many many times.

Preety much everything uses tris becasue they are the most efficient to render.

Not to mention using quads in moddeling is bad to begin with.
It fucks up subdivision surfaces and normal smoothing (if in use) and generally isnt good for keeping good mesh proportions.

But i guess if you cant use UV mapping, the time saving in texturing may make is look worthwhile...

Quads are somewhat more managable in mechanical units but triangles are easier for biological units like infantry.

SwiftSpear wrote:

GrOuNd_ZeRo wrote:He is one of the best modelers around right now IMO, just look at his Dragon unit, now that's some cool shit.

Halflife used quad faced didn't it?

The only problem I have with Spring's way of handling textures is that some textures don't look good on certain faces, accurate deformed texture support would be nice like 3DObuilder so units with near triangular faces or faces shaped like wings look "accurate".

Halflife uses tri's and so has every single 3D engine since then. Sorry to maestro for calling him not a modeler, but the idea that quads save 40% rendering resourses is just ludicrous. It's a theory that has been proven wrong many many many many many times.

It depend on the engine, lightwave 3d engine capable to handle both quad based and triangle based object. If you make a quad object then make another very same object triangle based you will find triangle based object lotta heavier..... If half life using triangle, that is because it will be easier for its programmer mainly on lighting on non-coplanar polygon...

On 3D MAX, and other triangle based software well, a quad not really a quad they consists of 2 triangle so they are still all the same. So quad not more efficient if the engine already triangle based, it twice more efficient on quad based software

Isn't everything triangles in the end?

"Maby we could find some sort of solutions involving trangles..."

maestro wrote:

SwiftSpear wrote:

GrOuNd_ZeRo wrote:He is one of the best modelers around right now IMO, just look at his Dragon unit, now that's some cool shit.

Halflife used quad faced didn't it?

The only problem I have with Spring's way of handling textures is that some textures don't look good on certain faces, accurate deformed texture support would be nice like 3DObuilder so units with near triangular faces or faces shaped like wings look "accurate".

Halflife uses tri's and so has every single 3D engine since then. Sorry to maestro for calling him not a modeler, but the idea that quads save 40% rendering resourses is just ludicrous. It's a theory that has been proven wrong many many many many many times.

It depend on the engine, lightwave 3d engine capable to handle both quad based and triangle based object. If you make a quad object then make another very same object triangle based you will find triangle based object lotta heavier..... If half life using triangle, that is because it will be easier for its programmer mainly on lighting on non-coplanar polygon...

On 3D MAX, and other triangle based software well, a quad not really a quad they consists of 2 triangle so they are still all the same. So quad not more efficient if the engine already triangle based, it twice more efficient on quad based software

yes, quads in tri based software do consist of 2 tri's, but you don't build models out of quads in tri based software. 5 sided shapes require less tri's to build then quads. so do 7 sided shapes. triangles take 3 quads to render in a quad based engine. Plus you need to store an array of 4 location points for quads whereas you only need to store 3 for tri's. And you need to software check that your quads aren't twisting on you which is rare but possible if one of the 4 location points drops to the wrong location.

If UV mapping is allowed triangles simply better for modeling then quads are, expecially when the models get more complicated and you have less and less flat surfaces.

SwiftSpear wrote:

maestro wrote:

SwiftSpear wrote:Halflife uses tri's and so has every single 3D engine since then. Sorry to maestro for calling him not a modeler, but the idea that quads save 40% rendering resourses is just ludicrous. It's a theory that has been proven wrong many many many many many times.

It depend on the engine, lightwave 3d engine capable to handle both quad based and triangle based object. If you make a quad object then make another very same object triangle based you will find triangle based object lotta heavier..... If half life using triangle, that is because it will be easier for its programmer mainly on lighting on non-coplanar polygon...

On 3D MAX, and other triangle based software well, a quad not really a quad they consists of 2 triangle so they are still all the same. So quad not more efficient if the engine already triangle based, it twice more efficient on quad based software

yes, quads in tri based software do consist of 2 tri's, but you don't build models out of quads in tri based software. 5 sided shapes require less tri's to build then quads. so do 7 sided shapes. triangles take 3 quads to render in a quad based engine. Plus you need to store an array of 4 location points for quads whereas you only need to store 3 for tri's. And you need to software check that your quads aren't twisting on you which is rare but possible if one of the 4 location points drops to the wrong location.

If UV mapping is allowed triangles simply better for modeling then quads are, expecially when the models get more complicated and you have less and less flat surfaces.

in the other side, with uvw u no longer need 3 quad for a triangle (simply one distorted quad combined with good texture) so again....
but i agree with you, uvw is very important, i have asked for uv mapping since 3 month ago (sigh...). Not only make 40+ piece of seamless texture for my sukhoi model so time consuming, but the final result will be distorted in various way
I hopes the team can add it fast, coz once it implemented means i must rebuild the entire wd textures from scratch