C&C Labs Forums
»
Hosted Mods
»
CnC: All Stars
»
POLY COUNTS, IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!!!!
General Joined: 4/25/2003(UTC) Posts: 1,822 Location: Netherlands
|
General Gideonx wrote: The infetry will be a hair larger but I entend to keep them pretty small. This games ention is to be better so the poly counts will be alittle higher then generals (sorry to all low end users) but for about a year I have been able to test the Sage engine and for grins I made units with 60,000 poly a piece and built over 50 of them, the total poly count on the map at one time was over 1.8million and I lost 2.3 frams a sec (very small) and it was not due to the poly count but the number of units. The Sage engine is faster then people think there are things that can slow it down in a hurry, poly count is not one of them unless you are talking about 100,000 poly count, the AI for each unit and processes for each unit/building are more of a drag on your system then the poly number. The thing that can slow it down the most is volumentic partical effects, those are such things as Naplam fire, dust clouds etc. To run Crimson Dawn smooth you should have at lest a 1.2ghz p4/amd 256mb of ram, and 64mb of video mem below that you can still play it but you would have to cut the partical effects down turn the graphics down etc.
Even thought I could have more polys I'm still keeping them faily small the unit caps are as follows:
mass produced units(aka troops-conventional tanks) poly range 80-1.5kpoly
Spiecal Units(aka one can be built) poly range from 2k-8kpoly
normal buildings range 500-3kpoly
Speical Buildings range 3k-10kpoly
Fighter craft 1k-2k poly
Space Crusiers(only one can be built) 3k-8k poly
Believe it or not the game runs fine with Zero frams lost at these poly levels, if you think they are too high test the engine more or you don't have to play with this mod/game. I have tested these poly amounts and higher on a 1.ghz with 32mb of video ram and 256mb of ram and it ran just like generals did same speed.
gideonx posted this on another forum not on this forum but as you can see what we thought about poly counts seems to be untrue, 1,5k polycounts for units that are massed produced is just fine so why are we even bothering with the stupid polycounts so much? |
|
|
|
|
Administrator Joined: 3/31/2002(UTC) Posts: 2,423 Thanks: 13 times Was thanked: 87 time(s) in 58 post(s)
|
Hm... any way to confirm this?? I'm somewhat skeptical, but then again I've never tested any of thus so =) But as for this: Quote:mass produced units(aka troops-conventional tanks) poly range 80-1.5kpoly I presume everyone understands that infantry are NOT to be 1,500 polys? Yes? Good then. CommieDog what do you think? |
|
|
|
|
General Joined: 12/17/2002(UTC) Posts: 1,794 Location: USA
|
Man this could be big. :) Confirmation from commie or something would definitely be greatly appreciated. |
Much that once was...is now lost |
|
|
|
Administrator Joined: 8/3/2003(UTC) Posts: 3,086 Thanks: 445 times Was thanked: 186 time(s) in 130 post(s)
|
GeneralGideonX seems to be more concerned with the SAGE engine's liits than processor limits. As such, I am very skeptical of his claims. The SAGE engine was built to last; it can handle more polygons than laptops and desktop computers can realistically handle right now. Anyway, I suspect that the physical polygon isn't that takes the processing power; it's the skins that you apply to them. But I'm no expert. Better get Krit in here to explain this to us. |
CommieDog: Because someone has to do your dirty work for you |
|
|
|
Commander in Chief Joined: 4/15/2004(UTC) Posts: 2,200 Location: Gensokyo
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
|
I know nothing about these things... But, if that is true, then why doesn't EA make a 1000 poly Crusader tank insntead of a 200 poly one? |
|
|
|
|
General Joined: 12/17/2002(UTC) Posts: 1,794 Location: USA
|
No idea. However Commie I think we'll be wanting to conduct our own experiments with this. |
Much that once was...is now lost |
|
|
|
General Joined: 4/25/2003(UTC) Posts: 1,822 Location: Netherlands
|
we could quickly make a 60k poly unit that looks like ****, has no weapons or way to many well just make something and then somebody could try it out and make tons of them. and if what gideonx said is true then we could make our units alot more detailed. |
|
|
|
|
General Joined: 12/17/2002(UTC) Posts: 1,794 Location: USA
|
We'll see. We'll have to try something along those lines but I think we might not change our poly limits too much even if we find tha this is true. |
Much that once was...is now lost |
|
|
|
General Joined: 4/25/2003(UTC) Posts: 1,822 Location: Netherlands
|
well we could make some units look way better if they can be higher poly count. |
|
|
|
|
General Joined: 12/17/2002(UTC) Posts: 1,794 Location: USA
|
Still. I've talked this over with Commie already and he said he'll run some tests but even if it is true, we probably won't raise our poly limits much if not at all. We've already got pretty high poly counts as it is. |
Much that once was...is now lost |
|
|
|
Administrator Joined: 1/1/2003(UTC) Posts: 6,526 Location: USA
Thanks: 3 times Was thanked: 47 time(s) in 32 post(s)
|
Yes, I agree. Our counts are hugh, if not too high. Keep them how it is unless Commie reports something drastic. |
|
|
|
|
General Joined: 4/25/2003(UTC) Posts: 1,822 Location: Netherlands
|
most things cut be left as they are, some things could maybe use some detail here and there that could be added, but those are minor things which should be done in the end anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Administrator Joined: 1/1/2003(UTC) Posts: 6,526 Location: USA
Thanks: 3 times Was thanked: 47 time(s) in 32 post(s)
|
I agree. This will not have a major effect on our strategy. |
|
|
|
|
Administrator Joined: 4/1/2002(UTC) Posts: 2,089 Location: USA
|
To test this, someone should come up with a 1000 polygon unit and benchmark Generals while building them. |
|
|
|
|
General Joined: 4/25/2003(UTC) Posts: 1,822 Location: Netherlands
|
1k polygon unit is too low, 10k or 60k would do better, but i got no idea how i can get it into zh after making it, i think this test is something for somebody who knows how to do it, commiedog or ACC |
|
|
|
|
Administrator Joined: 1/1/2003(UTC) Posts: 6,526 Location: USA
Thanks: 3 times Was thanked: 47 time(s) in 32 post(s)
|
Hate to rain on everyone's parade here, but I think we're going to stick with our original assessments. If GeneralGideonX wants to reinvent the wheel, let him do so. |
|
|
|
|
General Joined: 4/25/2003(UTC) Posts: 1,822 Location: Netherlands
|
but if we test this then we know we can keep any high poly count units we get instead of redoing them if we cant lower the polycount. |
|
|
|
|
Administrator Joined: 1/1/2003(UTC) Posts: 6,526 Location: USA
Thanks: 3 times Was thanked: 47 time(s) in 32 post(s)
|
If this were true, EA would have done bigger models like Krit said. |
|
|
|
|
Administrator Joined: 4/1/2002(UTC) Posts: 2,089 Location: USA
|
Think about what u just said. EA? They need help tieing their shoes, nevermind making a game.
I was thinking about this today. I think it all depends on hardware. Specifically the gfx card. |
|
|
|
|
General Joined: 4/25/2003(UTC) Posts: 1,822 Location: Netherlands
|
blb, ea´s models are so low poly count so that they could make the game work on p3 with 800mhz pc´s. the lower the system requirements the better aint it? |
|
|
|
|
Users browsing this topic |
Guest
|
C&C Labs Forums
»
Hosted Mods
»
CnC: All Stars
»
POLY COUNTS, IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.