[Black Wolf]

High poly missiles... high poly missiles. I dunno. I have a picture that highlights exactly why the missiles currently are a little on the low poly side - unfortunately, it highlights this against a secret DatDB mod, so I can't show it. However, I can also see what Setekh and DG and the like have been saying - missiles are rarely seen clearly, and a lot of this stuff is overkkill (though not the shivan specific ones). What they need, in most cases, is a slight increase in polys, maybe up to octagons or dodecagons from hexagons, and possibly slightly higher res texs. A 388 poly Hornet missile is definitely overkill though...

Though really, given that I'm not doing the work, I probably should shut up .

[KARMA]

raptor, look at your first set of missle
you can hardly tell the difference btween lod0 and lod1 now that they are still images, in game you probably will not see any difference even between lod1 and 2
so what's the point of oversmoothing them?
your shivan missles have probably a section of 20-24 edges, wich is useless and a waste even on fighters and details of capships.
You have to cut the pcount by half if not more, using a number of edges in the cylinder section of not more than 10, 12 as GRAND MAXIMUM on the bigger missles.
the last LOD must be just a pyramid with a triangular base, and NOT a "true" model, and this is almost true even for the fighters, that are many many times bigger than a missle, so why the hell should you use on them uberdetailed lower lods??????
And the point is not if they will cause too much performance drain or not, the point is that they have USELESS details, so they are absolutely not efficent, and consider that who is talking, me, have the tendence to uberdetail everything, so if I am saying that, you better believe me.
And useless unefficent details means that you are adding details wich will just increase pcount and give almost none visual addition.

[Raptor]

Well, I just completed a test.

System specs:

CPU: 1.1ghz Processor
RAM: 128mb
Video Card: 128mb Geforce FX 5200 PCI
Screen Res: 1024x768x32
D3D

Launcher Flags:
-HTL
-jpgtga

setting:

12 Perseus fighters (including mine) attacking a Demon Destroyer (playing dead)
Double Load Of hornets (mine), 80 each.  Double Subach HL-7 (Lightspeeds)

At start:

Demon only on screen, FPS: ~30

When all 11 other fighters on screen, + Demon, all firing double Hornet savlos, and double firing Subachs, and myself double firing missiles, FPS low: ~7.5 (note that increasing time compression while only Demon on screen caused the same, not sure if revealent)

All fighters + Demon + Support Ship, no missiles, still firing guns, FPS: ~20

Highest FPS: 40 (external view myself, nothing else in sight)

ONe or two other fighters, firing missiles + guns, +myself doing same, FPS: ~20

Note: before upgrading to this HT&L build, I was getting FPS ~17.5 without any combat.  When combat started, it would drop.

SO, think about this.  I had a Demon Destroyer, 11 Perseus fighters, 12X4X? Subach HL-7 bolts, 12x8x? Hornet missiles, ? explosions, plus all the shading etc, on screen at once.

To me, it's not much of a drop, but to others......

I'll have a look at reducing the poly count a little, make LOD0 use 12 sided cylinders rather than the current 24.......

:EDIT: yes KARMA, I understand you, but they look damm cool! (besides, I'm heading that way now)

[Ashrak]

fx5200 SUCKS!

[aldo_14]

Even given with the SCP improvements, my personal limit for a missile is 100 polys, +/- 15 polys. They aren't LODed, tho..... we haven't done any testing with them, so I may reconsider if fps is affected.

[IceFire]

I love the concept of the higher detail missile models but I think some prudence in the amount of detail you put on them is also important.  I think back in TBP's day we didn't have more than 24 sides for the Babylon 5 main section (with is just a cylinder) and that was for a huge model....your missiles should have considerably less.  The relatively same effect can be achieved using far less polys with appreciable performance gains and efficiency.

Remember that the number of Hornet/Tornado missiles can skyrocket VERY QUICKLY.  Especially if you have five wings of Hercules Mark 2's that jump in and start unloading firepower at their target.  Totally brutal and deadly.

[Fineus]

Perhaps if the level of detail was proportional to the size of the missiles - the larger the missile, the more detail there is. Serving two functions -

There are typically more hornets / tornados / etc. per launch than there are Helios' - reducing the detail on small objects keeps the frame rate reasonable.

Also larger missiles are easier to see (and typically move slower) and so they're more aesthetically appealing with more detail - and will be noticed as opposed to smaller warheads.

[Raptor]

I agree.  I was not going to touch the tempests/furys/etc.  Their just too small.  The Hornet was the first working one, and kind of a test.  It's about the smallest I'll go.

I'll see about reducing polys on the bodys of the missiles.

Icefire: that's why I ran my test with hornets.  Only three wings though.  Must admit the fps depends on how many are on screen at a time.

Ashrak: In your opinon! and it's better than I had 3 weeks ago!

Lightspeed, I have concepts for most of the Shivan missiles now, except the Shivan 'Harbinger'/'Helios' grade monster.

[Lightspeed]

the nearest LOD should have some details, the other ones can remain a bit crappy

And bombs DO need the details. Anyway, i like those shivan missiles

And I bet I can do some pwetty stuff with them models so once that detail-bothering and LODding is done, you know where to go with them

-edit: @raptor: pretty good, note that I wont copy them weapons 1:1 though. So i'm always open for some unique designs, too. I really appreciate your help on this

[IceFire]

I'm totally all for this stuff Lightspeed.  Depending on the timeframes of  a whole lot of your projects and my timeframes BWO *may* ship with of this stuff as standard (or easily acitvated).  So I'd like to put them into practical use but I also know that BWO has some HUGE missions and its not uncommon for several wings of Hornet firing ships to be on the screen at the same time - in some instances.

I also agree that Bomb/Warhead/Torpedo's should definately have some more detail.  That'd be important for sure!

[Lightspeed]

Great

I'll prolly do the circe tomorrow, maybe have a look at the lamprey.

Then I can have a go at missiles, shivan stuff (and the remaining but uncommon primary weapons)

[Sandwich]

Dudes, really - hi-poly missiles? Give it a rest. There's no point in breaking 50-100 polys per missile, and even that I'm skeptical about. Concentrate your skills elsewhere. Seriously.

[Liberator]

Just for bombs, anti-fighter missiles are fine like they are.

[Flaser]

This whole deatil on missiles issue is moot.

These models have LODs IIRC - the distance where they are swapped can be set.

I'm all for the uber detailed missiles - the engine won't draw them anyway unless they pass right by your cockpit - which is rare, but if it happens it's not too nice to see a crunchy thing instead a missile.

What you should argue or converse about is the distance where this LOD should be shown and the distance where the next one is still shown, and the distance where it can be a cube and you won't notice.

[Raptor]

Originally posted by Flaser
This whole deatil on missiles issue is moot.

These models have LODs IIRC - the distance where they are swapped can be set.

I'm all for the uber detailed missiles - the engine won't draw them anyway unless they pass right by your cockpit - which is rare, but if it happens it's not too nice to see a crunchy thing instead a missile.

What you should argue or converse about is the distance where this LOD should be shown and the distance where the next one is still shown, and the distance where it can be a cube and you won't notice.

Hear, Hear!:yes:

[Setekh]

You know, I'd totally forgotten about LODs. Still, LOD0 would have to be set ridiculously low. I'd still work on other stuff first, but if you're having fun going for this, do it.

[Bobboau]

fifty years from now, were all running 6,00 Thz compuuters, you still shouldn't use more than 100 polys for a missle, becase it's a minor detail

[Lightspeed]

Originally posted by Bobboau
fifty years from now, were all running 6,00 Thz compuuters, you still shouldn't use more than 100 polys for a missle, becase it's a minor detail

There will never be '6 Thz' computers. The current method of building CPUs has reached the molecular limit. You cannot reduce the size much more since the thickness is "1 molecule" in some elements.

However, there are experiments with sub-molecular processors which seem very promising (no idea tho how they'd work)

So, probably, in fifty years the whole system will have been changed.

Still, back on topic, why not? Isn't it the tiny details and things that make some games outstanding against the rest?

[KARMA]

I want a quantum computer!
btw..
as said, you can make missles of how many poly you want, that's not the point, the point is that making details that you just can't see it's unefficent, useless, a waste.
With something of the size of a missle it is simply ridiculous to have a cylinder of more than 12 edges, since you can hardly see any difference even if it is a still imagine, so you can imagine in game...
that's it

[Drew]

Originally posted by Lightspeed
There will never be '6 Thz' computers. The current method of building CPUs has reached the molecular limit. You cannot reduce the size much more since the thickness is "1 molecule" in some elements.

this is OT but who cares
Ever heard of the quark based computer some dude is working on? A a system running calculations exploiting quarks ability to be in 2 states at once (1 and 0) would have unlimited calculations