Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: Unknown Target on November 17, 2002, 08:51:46 am
-
Could someone PLEASE update the engine to enable up to 10000 polys for cap ships, and 5000 for fighters? I know that may seem like overkill, but that's actually pretty small compared to today's games. Why should you do this? Why, for this, the brand-new, SMOOTHED Herc MK. I:
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/1018759.jpg)
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/1018760.jpg)
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/1018758.jpg)
-
Great work, but I prefer the original.
I do agree that we should up the poly limits. Although I don't like that way, the Hercules could use some work. Like its guns for example. have them circular instead of diamond.
-
5000?
TGE averages between 1 and 3000 for vehicles, and about 2500 for player models.
you put a bucnh of 5000 poly fighters and 10000 poly capships in a mission, and you are gonna strangle older hardware.
Be care ful what you wish for, we can increase limits (and probably should) but consider what those increased limits are gonna do to your framerates...
-
We'll just bump the old ships (non-smoothed) down to LOD 1, and notch everything else down a notch. After all, it's not like FS2'll kill any current systems the way it is now.
BTW, I've only had ONE terran cap ship pass the 10000 mark, the rest stay from 7000-8600.
Fighters, I forget.:rolleyes:
-
Ok, here's some piccies of the Myrmadon (SP?), just for Hades, who sais the smoothed Herc doesn't look as good as the original:
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/1019635.jpg)
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/1019633.jpg)
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/1019634.jpg)
Compare those to the original
-
it doesn't look as good....
terran ships are built not grown so we have hard-non organic lines. Try this on a few vas ships, and they will probably look a helluvalot better. Just my $0.02 USD
-
yay, someone found the nurbs button,
there is a technology that can do the same thing in game, trueform or something, I'd like to see us suport it eventualy
-
Smoothed Myrmidon looks pretty good. Make it a Vasudan varient.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
yay, someone found the nurbs button,
there is a technology that can do the same thing in game, trueform or something, I'd like to see us suport it eventualy
:lol:
NURBS!!!111oneoneone
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
yay, someone found the nurbs button,
there is a technology that can do the same thing in game, trueform or something, I'd like to see us suport it eventualy
That only benefit's ATI Radeon 8500 or 9x00 owners... not even GF4 supports TruForm.
-
isn't Nvida doing something similar?
well I'd still like to see it suported
-
Good lord, this topic went off-track fast...:rolleyes:
Look, can someone just PLEASE heighten the engine? I'd really like to put this in, and you would too if you saw the new smoothed capital ships and the realistic asteroids.
BTW, I think I've got every Terran ship done, and I'll go to Vasudan next, IF I get confirmation that the engine will be improved, otherwise, it's a waste of my time.
-
We can build a test exe. You can take some screenies.
-
it's not off topic were talking about suporting N-pach splines wich is basicly that type of thing used to make those high poly models, you posted
-
Ok, a test build would be nice, and this is something that's immediately noticable, even when playing the main game.
BTW, you're right, it's not off-topic, but the discussion about Nvidia and ATI is.
-
Don't smooth the Orion.
realistic asteroids are good! Maybe that bump maping project can bump map your smoothed ships, as along as they look better than the originals! I'll probably have to wait until Christmas to play this. See if I get a Radeon
-
well if the technology is only available on ATI cards then that isn't off topic ether
-
All smoothing does on the Orion is round the edges and the radar dishes. It's actually not too bad...
-
realistic asteroids are good! Maybe that bump maping project can bump map your smoothed ships, as along as they look better than the originals! I'll probably have to wait until Christmas to play this. See if I get a Radeon
Heard our name, if the poly count is gona be upped then can we have bmp's supported with a whole pallet of colours? Cos don't forget we are retexturing some ships too.
-
Asteroids are now rounded, and have been upped to a lot of polys each (500).
BTW, I'll leave the Orion alone---for now. :D
-
I see no pictures...
-
Me either. I saw them earlier though.
*Anxiously runs back to TVWP forum to make sure screenshots are there*
-
achck... I'd love to see these higher poly models
-
open a cob in ts, hit the nurbs button
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Could someone PLEASE update the engine to enable up to 10000 polys for cap ships, and 5000 for fighters? I know that may seem like overkill, but that's actually pretty small compared to today's games. Why should you do this? Why, for this, the brand-new, SMOOTHED Herc MK. I:
Those Hercs are ugly!
-
personally i think that around 1200-1500 triangles for a fighter should be fair enough, and shouldn't hit so much the performance in slower machines, like mine, as soon as you do all the lods, and maybe if you increase their number too: in this way the higher poly LOD will appear only when a fighter is very close.
more again, i doubt that an higher polycount will give you higher visual quality, since you will not notice on a small model like a fighter all the small details, expecially during action
personally i think that once you reach a good enough level of details, what can increase more the quality are textures instead of more details
-
Hey, you guys don't have to use it. I'm just so tired of seeing these old, outdated, BLOCKY models in FS2. Did you do the math? The Ulysses is FIVE YEARS OLD! It's about time it needs an update! The Myrmadon? 3 years old! Other games have left FS2 in the dust!
Plus, I'd just like to note that you're thinking in terms that would be appropriate for a 1999 or 2000 game-today, those polycounts are low. Guns in First-person-shooters have more polys than the current proposed 2000 polys. Besides: What's wrong with upping the polycount? The worst that could happen is that we don't optimize the engine for higher polycounts, and a few ppl make models, but they're choppy on some ppl's machines. No biggy. Did you know the asteroids polycount in this game? 88 polys. That's right: 88 polygons. That's lower than most RTS game's LOD 4's!
-
I should probably also add that next I'm going to bump-map all the textures, and make them brighter, more colors, etc.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Could someone PLEASE update the engine to enable up to 10000 polys for cap ships, and 5000 for fighters? I know that may seem like overkill, but that's actually pretty small compared to today's games. Why should you do this? Why, for this, the brand-new, SMOOTHED Herc MK. I:
[PICS]
heh... this looks like a cute fluffy teddybear on crack
-
Hey! That thing looks l33+!
Ok, fine, I'll show you the new Perseus, and the new Hecate when I get home-you'll see then! BWAHAHAHA!!!!:drevil:
-
nurbs look better with tension of 0 than the default of .5 and a dencisty of 2 (TS termonology)
-
As you can tell from the screens, I don't use TS. I'll re-do the Herc, and make it less rounded, so you'll quit complaining about it, k?
EDIT: You gotta admit, though, the myrmadon looks a LOT better curved.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
As you can tell from the screens, I don't use TS. I'll re-do the Herc, and make it less rounded, so you'll quit complaining about it, k?
EDIT: You gotta admit, though, the myrmadon looks a LOT better curved.
As it stands, its TOO curved. It needs a few hard edges to make it look like a fighter, instead of an inflatable toy given out at a GTVA Airshow.
-
That would be cool!
Tell you what: I'll leave the Herc alone (for now), and begin my process of bump-mapping all of the textures.
But, before I do: is there any program that will take a cob file an turn it into a pof file, WITHOUT losing sub-objects? Cob2FS2 and Cob2POF lose the sub-objects.
Lastly, LODS: How do you do them?
-
Here are some side-by side comparisons of the Hecates, one smoothed, the other not, let's see if you can guess which is which :D:
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/1027433.jpg)
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/1027434.jpg)
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/1027435.jpg)
EDIT: If they're not showing up for you, try these links:
http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/pubimage.asp?id_=1027433
http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/pubimage.asp?id_=1027434
http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/pubimage.asp?id_=1027435
Now, I admit, it looks a little organic, but I can simple remove that little, erm, uh, thing?
-
All I'm getting is spacer.gif...
-
personally i think that the higher polycount should be used to add more details, than for making things more smoothed
surely some :v: surfaces are too blocky, but very often they are simply assumed to be blocky...i suggest you to don't smooth a whole object but just specific parts....
and consider also that there isn't a big appearence difference between...uh for example a cylinder of 10 faces and a cylinder of 30 faces,when you apply smooth shadings...
so the risk if you go over a certain limit is to add faces that are not needed at all, when you can use those extrapolys to add new details..
well this is at least my opinion
-
I don't know you but in my opinion this nurbs thing is not good at all...
FS2 models are good as they are now, if you really have too much spare time, make them more detailed instead.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Here are some side-by side comparisons of the Hecates, one smoothed, the other not, let's see if you can guess which is which :D:
I'm guessing the ugly curved one is the smoothed one.
Using curves is good. Look at the Super Hoover. If ever there was a model that could use some smoothing, that's the one.
Abusing curves is bad. Smoothing a Herc1, which is, seemingly, intentionally angular, is a very bad idea. Smoothing a Herc1 gets you an uglier Herc2, which aside from the Aries, should not be possible. ;)
I'll agree that higher polycounts would be nice (wouldn't it be nice to see a 20000 poly Mjolnir dropping glowing blue-green death on NTF blockade runners?) but not if its just going to be abused.
-
gee were would we find one of thouse,
I doubt anyone here would havve the proponerance of free time to do that...
;)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
gee were would we find one of thouse,
I doubt anyone here would havve the proponerance of free time to do that...
;)
I dunno, Bobboau. I'm sure SOMEONE could whip one up in... oh, about 8hrs? ;)
-
... ooooooooooook.
I should have checked this page earlier :p
UT, wild meshsmooth is bad, m'k? at least, try and use the creases and weights, coz what you've done has been done in two mouse clicks and is ugly :p
-
Bu...bu-bu...but...I LIKE going nuts with smoothing! :D
Fine, I have so much free time, I could probably get to all the terran ships in about...2 months. That leaves me about a day to do each Terran ship.
Besides, the problem with doing ANYTHING to the :V: ships, is that, well, they wouldn't look like the original very much, and you guys would compalin just as much as you are now.
BTW, can we get a test exe? Just to see what these look like in-game?
Or so that I can test the new ships?
EDIT: Just in case you didn't notice---HELP WOULD BE NICE!
Oh, venom, it was 3 clicks, not 2, and they look neat! So there :p :D
-
I posted something like that in the Freespace Forever forum. I figure we should move this over there, and let the coders get us a test build.
BTW, what changes would you like to see made to the ships?
-
like galatic emperor i'm only getting spacer.gif off the links.
However the current models are, indisputable, very low poly. While retaining the aesthetic shape of the volition models we can attack certain features on the ships.
One that comes to mind are the cap ship turrets, to my standards the squared turrets and barrells look odd. As a refrence for editing could you look up the pen and paper concept art for the various ships?
-
bump the limits up, if possible goto 20-40,000 max. Some fans got hold of the original 3d models used to render the sprites in wc 2... they're 20,000 polys. a geforce 3 can handle about 14 of those models, and with newer hardware that figure can only go up... add the support, you'll want it within 3 years.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
I should probably also add that next I'm going to bump-map all the textures, and make them brighter, more colors, etc.
You gona join the bump map project then? hint hint
BTW i dont like the looks of those smoothed ships, i say we add detail but we dont make the smoother, apart maybe from the vasudan ships. By adding more detail i mean when i have learnt about neon lights in max i plan to model all the white strip lights on the orion. Also on the Ursa the bombs could be modeled on rather than just textured, and the intakes, booleaned out.
Check out the site: http://freespace.virgin.net/realization.project/
-
What detail could be added to the ships? I mean, on the herc, the little, uh, "things" on the bottom could be rounded, and so could the guns, but what else could we do? On the hecate, the turrets could be fixed, and the engines could be rounded, but that's about it.
WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE WANT ADDED TO THE CURRENT SHIPS?
Say something, and I'll try to add it!
BTW, sure, I'd like to join that project. I especially like the way you've done those textures on the Ursa. About the bump-mapping, though. Needs to be more noticable (at leasty on the hecate). Also, just a suggestion: there has been a new source build release that includes lights and headlights. We should add those...
Tell you waht: I'll do some editing to the Herc tonight -if I can- (not smoothing, oh, well, only a little:D) and I'll post it to see what everyone thinks.
-
adding detail != more rounded
in fact oftine it makes things less rounded
-
Originally posted by Darkmage
bump the limits up, if possible goto 20-40,000 max. Some fans got hold of the original 3d models used to render the sprites in wc 2... they're 20,000 polys. a geforce 3 can handle about 14 of those models, and with newer hardware that figure can only go up... add the support, you'll want it within 3 years.
ahmm, yeah, it can, but only if
1 it has full processor time:that means no time for other stuff
2 the system does nothing else :rolleyes:
there is also the AGP port/memory speed issues to think about.
if you got more polygons, you would want to put more highly detailed textures on it. more textures means more memory demands, and more bus traffic.
just because the GFX card can handle more polygons pr second, does not mean it can handle more fully textured models with the same polygon count.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
BTW, sure, I'd like to join that project. I especially like the way you've done those textures on the Ursa. About the bump-mapping, though. Needs to be more noticable (at leasty on the hecate). Also, just a suggestion: there has been a new source build release that includes lights and headlights. We should add those...
First, thanks. 2nd i know some of the bump maps need adjusting, the lighting effects it a lot too. 3rd, on the orion (not released yet) i have added 5 spot lights to light up the name plate.
Drop me an email and i'll keep you informed on the project and hosting situation.
[email protected] ([email protected])
-
we are not going to bump it to 20-40000
The reason those models are so big/so many polys, si so they could chop down from there or do FMV with them.
You'll choke current game hardware with that.
-
Originally posted by DTP
if you got more polygons, you would want to put more highly detailed textures on it. more textures means more memory demands, and more bus traffic.
If you have more polygons, odds are you actually want LESS detailed textures. We use highly detailed textures as a way of covering up the fact that we don't have lots of polygons to throw around. Highly detailed textures applied to a dense polymesh obscures the polygonal details. You want simpler textures that mimic materials at that point, with the polygons giving the shapes. Also, if possible, you take glows and illuminations out of the textures and put them in-engine as actual glows and illumination sources, which would further show the polygonal detail, rather than obscure it.
-
I would rather have fewer better looking polys than more mediocer looking ones
-
For what my opinion's worth to this forum, I'm with Bob - I think I'd sooner see bump mapping and and the whole fleet remapped than have all the models redone with uber poly-counts.
-
I agree with you and Bobboau, DG. I was just pointing out that More Polys != Bigger Textures. ;)
Poly count is nice and all but you're not slinging around dense meshes in a real time engine without some serious horsepower. Textures are MUCH cheaper, clock for clock.
-
said it before and I'll say it again, higher poly counts are good, but not everyone has a pent 4 processor and a whole gig of ram to go with ATI's latest Radeon accelerator; higher poly counts give you lower frame rates, on older PCs like mine it means unplayably low framerates all too quickly.
On the other hand, 24bit TGAs for maps would be good; as would anis (ignore this part if these have already been added, I haven't been following the SCP lately). But please think of the less fortunate machines and their users ;)
-
Wait! You mean 1 gig of RAM isn't the norm????
Sorry, but I really like to gloat about that fact. Sue Me. (We need a sue me smiley
-
At LEAST up the polycounts to 10000, the current 4000 for a humoungous ships is way too low for today's harware.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
At LEAST up the polycounts to 10000, the current 4000 for a humoungous ships is way too low for today's harware.
Please define "today's hardware" :p I somehow have doubts that your definition includes AMD 550 machines that run like 375s and only have 128mg of RAM ;) For the record thats what I'm using with my Geforce3...or was it Geforce2
-
Unknown Target, where do you live? I mean, even cutting edge games like Unreal Tournament 2003 and Doom 3 use only around 2000-3000 polygons for their player models. And they're using much more optimized engines than the FS2 engine.
-
Then the FS models need work, because if UT2k3 uses only that many polygons to make such good scenes...well, whatever.
BTW, I live in the USVI, and my rig is an 800 Mhz PIII, 256 MB of RAM, a 30 Gig HD, and Geforce 2 (Recently upgraded to a Radeon 9000, but it doesn't make that big a diff, except for more anti-aliasing, etc).
Anyways, most games I play I can play at full detail, but for the newer and more complex games *cough*, IL-2 Sturmovik*cough, cough*, I have to turn some polys down.
I forgot how that would benefit my argument, because I lost my train of thought :D
BTW, what's the harm in upping the poly count limits? You make it sound as if you did that, the entire game would come crashing to Earth, and slow all of the 2.5 GHz systems down. It's not like anyone needs to actually even USE the new limits. Only about 5 ppl I've heard about actually use up ALL of the new spaces in the ships.tbl file that you added in.
Besides, with more polys, we'll see more and more high-quality models, so no more of those cheap diamond-or-triangle shaped guns and stuff, and vasudan ships that actually look rounded and organic.
-
Wait! You mean 1 gig of RAM isn't the norm????
No. It is, in fact, a bit weak. some of us have more than that laying around UNUSED, let alone what's in our computers. ;)
even cutting edge games like Unreal Tournament 2003 and Doom 3 use only around 2000-3000 polygons for their player models. And they're using much more optimized engines than the FS2 engine.
Doom3 uses around 5000 for realtime character models, baked down from a starting mesh of around a million. ;) Its one of the things that makes that engine choke on current hardware.
At LEAST up the polycounts to 10000, the current 4000 for a humoungous ships is way too low for today's harware.
Given how much detail you can work into 2000 polys between careful geometry and good mapping, 4000 is more than enough for an entire 4 LOD model. Even my I-War2 models don't go much above about 3500 polys and thats a much more optimised engine.
-
The re-worked Ursa:
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/1055024.jpg)
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/1055023.jpg)
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/1055022.jpg)
EDIT: I only re-worked the front. I can't think of anything to do to the back.
-
:doubt: Have you done anything except round the barrels? Try modeling in some texture detail, like missile bays and grooves around the hull.
-
Good Lord! I put in new barrels, a new side thing that holds them, lengthened the engines, rounded the top turrets, enlarged the missle pods, and made the "vents" in front actually 3D!
EDIT: Plus, if I put in those missle bays you want, then ask for higherpolycounts, then you'll start *****ing and moaning about how "all I did was do it in 3 mouseclicks, oh wow".
Stupid &*()#&(*&^()!!!!!!!!!*#&:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:
-
This is why higher polycounts are almost a waste. Nobody is going to notice what you'v done. When I saw that Ursa I saw the rounded barrels, and then I saw that it looked vasudan. Nothing else.
EDIT: Well I did notice that the side guns are on the wrong side.
-
Two things:
1. The guns are on the right side.
and, 2:
I can't play FS2 with these graphics anymore. And the gameplay requires almost no skill. It's just who can turn the tightest, and who has the bigger guns.
Good day, I'm going to do something fun, like play the graphical treat, Mechwarrior IV, or maybe just make a model. I'll even play Jane's F/A-18, just to get some good, hard gameplay.
-
Okay... You people want to make Freespace 2 as "modern" as possible. I don't see that happening with the current progress in the SCP right now. Engine modifications are COMPLETELY - how can I put this - out of bounds. Try not to get angry at me right now. If you really want a new engine with new high-tech graphics and effects, then why not rewrite the code entirely? The engine code is about four years old. If you want to change a piece of software made back in 1998, I just don't see that happening - not anytime soon.
Another thing, most people who initially bought Freespace 2 [used] to have older computers (E.G. Video Ram of - say - 8MB). Despite people's persistent urge to keep their system up to date, some people aren't, myself included. I'm old. I don't have the resources and energy to keep updating my system year after year. I find it POINTLESS! The stuff will get obsolete anyway in several years. New games such as Metal of Honor, Doom 3, and Unreal Tournament 2003 are initially designed for multiplayer PS2 battles anyway. (That's what I heard.) Featurewise, I think Freespace 2 is good enough being Freespace 2. Don't make it like Doom 3. It's just not worth it making a four-year old game into something that just came out. Instead, try to fix the numerous bugs, add in new gameplay features, simple graphics and lighting, etc.
I conclude my message.
[Holds up American History Textbook: Teacher's Edition to Prepare in Event of Audience Hurling Sharp Objects]
-
I didn't say I wanted a new engine, did I? I said that I wanted the poly counts upped.
BTW, admins, delete this thread before I go bonkers.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
I didn't say I wanted a new engine, did I? I said that I wanted the poly counts upped.
BTW, admins, delete this thread before I go bonkers.
[color=33ff00]UT you shouldn't be miffed, I have to admit that the Ursa didn't look much different to me except for the barrels. I guess it's because we couldn't see it in comparison to the original.
I don't think that the engine is so inflexable as to be upgradable either, with most of those talented source code guys planning the addition of DirectX 8 effects it must have a fair amount of room for updating. Gone are the days when we said 'you can't do that, it's hardcoded into the EXE', now the community has the code and from some of the fantastic features that have been added already I think that the game has a lot of potential. :nod: [/color]
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=33ff00]UT you shouldn't be miffed, I have to admit that the Ursa didn't look much different to me except for the barrels. I guess it's because we couldn't see it in comparison to the original.
I don't think that the engine is so inflexable as to be upgradable either, with most of those talented source code guys planning the addition of DirectX 8 effects it must have a fair amount of room for updating. Gone are the days when we said 'you can't do that, it's hardcoded into the EXE', now the community has the code and from some of the fantastic features that have been added already I think that the game has a lot of potential. :nod: [/color]
call in the national guard, the marsians have landed :D.
-
The only differences I've actually noticed so far are the new lights, the fighter beams, Alt-Pause, and the headlights.
I mean, what's the point of increasing the engine's power to put in more pixels per scene? The people with new hardware can now crush Freespace, bench-mark-wise, and the ppl with older hardware don't have the power required for it (most likely, T&L, arguably the most benneficial thing that's being added, won't be supported by those low-end ppl's video cards).
It might add about 20 FPS, but with a game that any PC bought within the past 3 to 4 years can run without difficulty, it's not like without that incrememntal boost, it's going to rock our world.
Just my $0.02
Don't get me wrong, I think the SCP is a great effort by the community, but the things that are immediately noticable should be put in first, along with anything required to run it, then the background stuff. Also, we're putting in new abilities for texturing, right? Well, what's the point of doing that if you're still using 4 to 5 year-old textures? The SCP should be expanded to also have an update for the stuff already in the game.
-
Join the project. Make a difference. Don't rant.
-
we need time to do a bunch of stuff you are requesting.
with the loss of RT due to disconnection, we are down 1 important coder
-
I would join the project, except for the fact that there's nothing I can do. And, if you read over this entire thread, you'll see I'm already trying to do related things, mikhael.
-
::sips a vodka & 7UP::
This is fun. And people wonder why so many games take 4 years to come out... :)
-
Originally posted by daveb
::sips a vodka & 7UP::
This is fun. And people wonder why so many games take 4 years to come out... :)
:lol:
-
lol
-
daveb: BEST. RESPONSE. EVAR.
-
Originally posted by daveb
::sips a vodka & 7UP::
This is fun. And people wonder why so many games take 4 years to come out... :)
uh i thought it was because the programmers meet at 12:00 and left at 17:00 ;)
**note i know they do a lot of work from home**
-
lol
Daveb, you're enjoying this, arne't you :D
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Daveb, you're enjoying this, arne't you :D
Originally posted by daveb
This is fun.