[Omniscaper]

Bob, I know that you've worked on implementing ATI's Trueform and it looks good (though still buggy). Programmingwise, is it impossible to replace LODs with some type dynamically changing tesselation settings for it? LOD distance settings could cue increase tesselation settings?

I'm all into this topic again after learning more about 3dsmax's spline control options. Instead of box modeling, I feel spline modeling offers more flexibility in detail since once a low poly model is finished, you can tell it to have more smooth curvature through subdivisions controled by spline handles.

 Since nurbs haven't replaced polygons yet in games [PSP (playstation portable) claims such functions, though I am skeptical] I was wondering if there was any possiblity in using such a feature. Does Trueform already work on this principal?

[KARMA]

I think that there are a couple of games using some autolod features starting from the main mesh, iirc it was hegemonia but not sure about that. I always wondered how the hell it works and if it works well

[aldo_14]

I personally wouldn't trust the computer to do a better job loding than the human eye.... FAIK for 'conventional' models, i.e. standard meshes, it's basically a case of merging the closest vertice pairs.

Oh, and at least one game uses Bezier curves/patches for modelling and hence autoLODing.... IIRC the new Earth Somerandomdate and also the MotoGP games use these.

[Bobboau]

no, this would not work right, trueform subdivides polygons, and as such could only be used to make things smoother, hard lines cannot be dynamicly genorated (yet) so it's prety much only good for making good quality objects better when realy close to the screen

[Omniscaper]

Ok, how about htis idea:

Since I now model via splines/bezier curvesand can have as much detail in the modeling process, can I put like 10 LOD's in a model and set the TBL data to have the transition between LODS more smooth? What are the LOD limits anywayz.

[magatsu1]

doesn't strike me as necessary really. So long as your main detail and Lod1 are good the second and third don't really matter.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Omniscaper


Ok, how about htis idea:

Since I now model via splines/bezier curvesand can have as much detail in the modeling process, can I put like 10 LOD's in a model and set the TBL data to have the transition between LODS more smooth? What are the LOD limits anywayz.

I got the impression it was hardcoded to 4 somewhere, not sure where exactly.

[KARMA]

I still have to understand if it is 4 or 6, IIRC kazan said 4 once
if it is 4 it should be raised to 6.....
we can already convert up to 6 lods afterall, we wouldn't need to change tools

[StratComm]

But why?  Other than reducing the currently obvious swapping between the first and second LODs, 4 really is enough.

[IceFire]

I'm told that you can actually have 5 LOD's...been the case since FS1 apparently.

Dark Reign 2, while not much of a success, used dynamic level of detail...it was much talked about.  A reason why it was probably one of the first 3D RTS games...

[StratComm]

Now gremlins or other dynamic detail scaling I would love to see.  But I somehow doubt they'd be much of a priority (right after Geomod )

[KARMA]

Originally posted by StratComm
But why?  Other than reducing the currently obvious swapping between the first and second LODs, 4 really is enough.

because with HTL we tend to make uberdetailed LOD0s.
At LOD1 distance you don't need much more -usually- than ...an actual LOD1, but the transition between lod0 and lod1 can be huge, and we don't nedd, for example, modelled pilots/cockpits at a distance more than few meters.
With 6 lods we could have, for example:
1-uberdetailed model with cockpit, pilot, greeblings etc close to a CG level
2-actual lod0 (the "true" game model)
3-transition between lod0 and lod1
4-lod1
5-lod2
6-lod3
obviously you'd also need to activate all the effects for the first 2-3 lods

[StratComm]

For fighters I guess that makes sense, but for capships you're going to hit an explosion of subobjects to make it work.  Unless, of course, subobject LODs are implimented and their dependency on the primary model's LOD is removed.

[Omniscaper]

As I've posted in the Star Wars Project forums, I think LOD's should refer to their OWN lod set. It would be more effiecient when creating an UBER detailed capship like a super star destroyer or the Collosus. Since current LODS refer to your distance to the overall ship's center to change, much detail will be rendered unecessarily. As a you would flyby a large ship with many substructures as subobjects, if independent lods for those were possible, it would only switch to its highest detailwhen you're close to that subobject.

Bob, anyway that kind of a hierarchy can be implemented?

[KARMA]

I guess that checking the distance between the pov and all the subobjects in a mission (a capship may have 100+ subobjects..)  could be cpu intense.
Also, I seem to remember Bob saying that the game doesn't check the distance to the center of the object but the distance to the closest point of the object, and I don't know if this can be ported w/o changes to the subobjects too (if it uses the bounding boxes, I think that the bounding boxes are created for the whole pof and not for each subobject)

[Omniscaper]

I wonder if we can fake it by making the subobjects SEPERATE from the model and have them "docked" to the main object. Either that or meticulously assemble the object in Fred.

Crazy am I?

[KARMA]

yes:)
there can't be multiple dockings in fs2: the docking system is one of the weirdest parts of the code (as the turrett code) and then it can't be changed.
about the second solution, I think it may work...as long as the model remain still:)
BTW I'd like it too to have the lod distances for the subobjects indipendently: it'd be a first step for some semi realistic landscapes, (death star too). Maybe the coders could find a realistic solution

[Sesquipedalian]

The current maximum number of LODs is indeed 4.