polygon count

TigTig Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71674Members, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver
<div class="IPBDescription">for an outdoor tech point</div>so the highlight of my map is the marine start which is a helipad that is build off the side of a mountain with a waterfall.

so i was building the mountain and i can do it two ways:

1. i can use the poly intensive huge_rock props (which look very nice and realistic)

or

2. i can stitch my own rocks (not very difficult and allow for more interesting angles to be created) but certainly don't look as nice or realistic due to it being just a jagged plane with a rock texture.

my question is:

Given that it is outdoors with a large amount of polys to render + lights + particle waterfall, should i go with #2 to sacrifice the visuals for playability or should i not worry so much about poly count (because the engine can probably handle it)?

Comments

  • SgtBarlowSgtBarlow Level Designer Join Date: 2003-11-13 Member: 22749Members, NS2 Developer
    You can take poly count quite high, top end of 1.5 million.
    The issue is with dynamic shadows. you should in the next patch get a flag for props to disable shadow rendering on a per prop basis. you are best off making your geometry out of the rock models for the moment that way you can turn shadows off for them and disable them for as many props as you can that have no need for a shadow, Certainly for any props that are boundries of your map as they have no reason to cast shadows into the VOID.
  • TigTig Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71674Members, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver
    <!--quoteo(post=1801007:date=Oct 7 2010, 03:51 PM:name=SgtBarlow)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SgtBarlow @ Oct 7 2010, 03:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1801007"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You can take poly count quite high, top end of 1.5 million.
    The issue is with dynamic shadows. you should in the next patch get a flag for props to disable shadow rendering on a per prop basis. you are best off making your geometry out of the rock models for the moment that way you can turn shadows off for them and disable them for as many props as you can that have no need for a shadow, Certainly for any props that are boundries of your map as they have no reason to cast shadows into the VOID.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    but what about people who aren't running top end computers? i'm envisioning 6 jetpackers with flamethrowers flying around with lerks spraying spores everywhere and the waterfall particles slowing things down to a crawl.

    would it be better to alleviate that by simplifying the mountain rocks by not using the props?
  • Evil_bOb1Evil_bOb1 Join Date: 2002-07-13 Member: 938Members, Squad Five Blue
    I would suggest a mix of both. It depends if this is just background or something you are close to. If its something you see from afar there is no need for complex geometry, design is more important. But if its something you can walk around on or climb up as a skulk maybe do something a bit more complex.
  • SgtBarlowSgtBarlow Level Designer Join Date: 2003-11-13 Member: 22749Members, NS2 Developer
    Particles cost very little and I have tested intense scenes of 3 million poly on an 8800 (£50 graphics card nowadays)
  • Chris0132Chris0132 Join Date: 2009-07-25 Member: 68262Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1801014:date=Oct 7 2010, 09:06 PM:name=Tig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tig @ Oct 7 2010, 09:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1801014"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->but what about people who aren't running top end computers? i'm envisioning 6 jetpackers with flamethrowers flying around with lerks spraying spores everywhere and the waterfall particles slowing things down to a crawl.

    would it be better to alleviate that by simplifying the mountain rocks by not using the props?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Then they can use the built in LOD scaling of the props to simplify the geometry by setting their model complexity lower.

    Of course it may be advantageous to be able to set the max LOD of a prop in the editor, if you know the player won't be getting close to it/don't think it will matter if it's slightly blurry.
  • marksmarks Join Date: 2008-07-28 Member: 64720Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1801024:date=Oct 7 2010, 10:17 PM:name=SgtBarlow)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SgtBarlow @ Oct 7 2010, 10:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1801024"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Particles cost very little and I have tested intense scenes of 3 million poly on an 8800 (£50 graphics card nowadays)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Particles and complex shaders are typically the most expensive things to render from what I've heard, quite far beyond texture fill and (nowadays absurdly cheap) triangle draw.
  • TigTig Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71674Members, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver
    really glad i went with the prop rocks now that they made prop instancing :)
Sign In or Register to comment.