[Flaser]

AnI-LODs is a feature to consider since this could alleviate a lot of things in the long run.

Right now, I know shaders and the long overdue overhaul of the interface is what on the coders mind (along with a massive bug extermination), but later on this may be one of the things on the long could be/should be/may be list to do.

Earlier I posted about Detail Textures.
Bobb already implemented superdetail subobjects.

This would be taking both feates and actually fully utilising them in an encompassing systems.
It would entail a new LODing system:

Instead mere LODs for the whole model, you could/should

a) Break it up to subobjects
b) Write some code to do the same

Doing the later wouldn't be so kewl 'casue doing a) will be the firt step toward damage detailing/modelling too and could be a basis for superdetailed parts to be inserted later on.

Why? In most cases there is little need, however as big as things are in Freespace - and especially some of the stuff we want to make (Death Star, Planets, ect.) - loading every part of a model with the same LOD would be a huge resource drain.
If we only load the parts close/visible to the player with this detail we can gain a lot of performance and do even more insance high poly madness on a grand scale and get away with it.

[Liberator]

Do you mean something like the "goblins" in HW2?

[Flaser]

Originally posted by Liberator
Do you mean something like the "goblins" in HW2?

You tell me what the goblins are in HW2 and then I can relate...though I don't think so.
It's more of a new way to change lods on objects than else. Would be good for really big models and maybe terrain generation.

[StratComm]

That sounds quite like HW2's goblins; objects that are part of the model but only visible at extreme-close range.  HW2 used a slightly different system in that the goblins inherited their textures from the model I think, but the idea of a local detail level on a large object is nothing new.  There's already some code to deal with this, but the problem is that it's being treated as a subobject and thus will count against any subobject totals you need to watch.  I worry that the same will hold true for anything short of a complete render system overhaul though, since there is no structure in place to deal with detail objects directly.

[aldo_14]

Bob already added LOD-distances for subobjects (based on subobj distance not model-centre distance IIRC).

[DaBrain]

That is right, and it will help, but it's not optimal. You would need an unlimited ammount of subobjects to make it optimal,

If we 'reall' want to create planet surfaces, therer is no oher choice ut to create a complete new lod system...

[Flaser]

However this system would allow capships to tote a whooping number of polies and even a mediocre system could stomach it.

[StratComm]

But as I said, it'd take rebuilding the rendering system almost from the ground up to make this work.  That was a core feature of Homeworld 2's graphics system, and it took several years to get that game like they wanted it having started with that goal in mind.

[aldo_14]

It'd also be a monumental pain in the arse for us poor overstretched modellers to make ####k models with trillions of greebling lods.........

[Flipside]

Yeah, I can remember a time when people were happy with 400 polies on a fighter

[aldo_14]

Nowadays it's "make the Death Star with a little modelled Emperor looking out the" window or nothing........:bleh:

[NGTM-1R]

Originally posted by Flipside
Yeah, I can remember a time when people were happy with 400 polies on a fighter

Some of us still are.

[Omniscaper]

Dinosaurs. The year is 2005, not 1998.

[Grug]

Originally posted by Omniscaper
Dinosaurs. The year is 2005, not 1998.

How about modelling the screws for a fighter?

Actually, I was thinking about trying to model the chasis, and all subsystems inside a fighter before doing the outside cover. It would be an interesting way of making a new fighter from scratch. And the extra bits and pieces would make for a nifty Tech Ani and other propaganda images.

[Omniscaper]

Fellow BSG modders are creating a mod for the upcoming Battlefield 2 engine. And pre-release information for BF2 shows their stats:

-----------------------------------------------
Thanks to the new rendering engine, we are able to produce some very detailed models. The last I heard, BF2 will support around 34 moving parts on the vehicles at once. Also, with the per-pixel shading and normal mapping, we will be able to produce some pretty wicked looking stuff. The numbers of these on a map should not be a problem, as we are basing the poly off pre-released information that DICE sent out about the poly count of their models. Not to mention the LOD system in the game, this version of the model will only be seen up close.

Vehicles:

Vehicles: Class 0, i.e. Buggies and civilian vehicles Rec. Max Polys: 4000 incl. integrated Kit parts in the mesh 1P Cockpit: Integrated with original mesh & texture

Vehicles: Class 1, i.e. Hummer or Attack Heli. Airplane vehicles Rec. Max Polys: 5500 incl. integrated Kit parts in the mesh 1P Cockpit: 1000 (Vehicles with entire interior could use up to 2000, i.e. Hummer)

Vehicles: Class 2, i.e. Tank vehicles Rec. Max Polys: 6000 incl.integrated Kit parts in the mesh 1P Cockpit: 1000

Vehicles: Class 3, i.e. AA Vehicle/Helo vehicles Rec. Max Polys: 7000 incl.integrated Kit parts in the mesh 1P Cockpit: 1000

Vehicles: Class 4, i.e. LCAC (Hovercraft vehicles Rec. Max Polys: 8000 incl.integrated Kit parts in the mesh 1P Cockpit: 1000

Number of vehicle LOD steps and reduction in Poly count.
LOD0 100%
LOD1 40%
LOD2 15%
LOD3 2-4%

Player Models Rec. Max. Polygon count
8000 - 10000
--------------------------------------------------------------------

That BSG project is following their lead. I feel that their modellers have much more freedom. I understand that they will be using a DX9 engine, but I feel that we should at least try to break out of that old 1998 mindset. LOD's ARE YOUR FRIENDS!!!

Technology evolves. Dinosaurs are dead.

[Grug]

lol, Indeed.

Some of that seems a little overkill though... 10,000 poly's for a character!? Ingame?
I think texture quality is the next step. Look at FarCry and Doom3, how they take a high poly model, use the texture and bump mapping details from it on a low poly model ingame.
Makes more sense to me anyway.

Imagine D3 shadows, with bumpmapping and shader support in FSO...
Makes me drool just thinking about it, as well as feel pain for my current video card.

[Flaser]

Originally posted by Grug



How about modelling the screws for a fighter?

Actually, I was thinking about trying to model the chasis, and all subsystems inside a fighter before doing the outside cover. It would be an interesting way of making a new fighter from scratch. And the extra bits and pieces would make for a nifty Tech Ani and other propaganda images.

That is actually a clever thing to do - it would have awsome potential for damage modelling.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Omniscaper
Fellow BSG modders are creating a mod for the upcoming Battlefield 2 engine. And pre-release information for BF2 shows their stats:

-----------------------------------------------
Thanks to the new rendering engine, we are able to produce some very detailed models. The last I heard, BF2 will support around 34 moving parts on the vehicles at once. Also, with the per-pixel shading and normal mapping, we will be able to produce some pretty wicked looking stuff. The numbers of these on a map should not be a problem, as we are basing the poly off pre-released information that DICE sent out about the poly count of their models. Not to mention the LOD system in the game, this version of the model will only be seen up close.

Vehicles:

Vehicles: Class 0, i.e. Buggies and civilian vehicles Rec. Max Polys: 4000 incl. integrated Kit parts in the mesh 1P Cockpit: Integrated with original mesh & texture

Vehicles: Class 1, i.e. Hummer or Attack Heli. Airplane vehicles Rec. Max Polys: 5500 incl. integrated Kit parts in the mesh 1P Cockpit: 1000 (Vehicles with entire interior could use up to 2000, i.e. Hummer)

Vehicles: Class 2, i.e. Tank vehicles Rec. Max Polys: 6000 incl.integrated Kit parts in the mesh 1P Cockpit: 1000

Vehicles: Class 3, i.e. AA Vehicle/Helo vehicles Rec. Max Polys: 7000 incl.integrated Kit parts in the mesh 1P Cockpit: 1000

Vehicles: Class 4, i.e. LCAC (Hovercraft vehicles Rec. Max Polys: 8000 incl.integrated Kit parts in the mesh 1P Cockpit: 1000

Number of vehicle LOD steps and reduction in Poly count.
LOD0 100%
LOD1 40%
LOD2 15%
LOD3 2-4%

Player Models Rec. Max. Polygon count
8000 - 10000
--------------------------------------------------------------------

That BSG project is following their lead. I feel that their modellers have much more freedom. I understand that they will be using a DX9 engine, but I feel that we should at least try to break out of that old 1998 mindset. LOD's ARE YOUR FRIENDS!!!

Technology evolves. Dinosaurs are dead.

That's pretty close to the levels I use/am moving to (fighters 3500-4500, cockpit & pilot 1000-500 with LOding for internal, destroyers at 5000 hull + large number of detailed turrets, debris, hull object* and fighterbay).  But like **** am I going to anal retentively model a 15k model with 250 different LOD modes when that detail is only seen at stupidly close ranges.  I do want to actually complete stuff one of these days, after all......

Of course, BF - and most modern games - has the advantage of being set in an environment that aids clipping / occlusion and naturally reduces visible objects.

*The GTD Damocles - the only model I've completed to this spec due to the vast amount of time it needs - is about 12,000 polys, because it has about 20 subobjects and their associated debris attached to the ~5000 poly hull for the purposes of being blown up (as well as the loded fighterbay subobject and debris models for every turret)..... it took months to finish