takes alot time and polygons to grow a beard.So Nathan in UC4 has twice as much polygons than 3...
Why are artists using quads insteads of triangles, aint this suboptimal approach given that the rendering primitive still are triangles?
takes alot time and polygons to grow a beard.So Nathan in UC4 has twice as much polygons than 3...
Maybe ND is testing quad rendering?takes alot time and polygons to grow a beard.
Why are artists using quads insteads of triangles, aint this suboptimal approach given that the rendering primitive still are triangles?
I wonder how well quad rendering would perform...It's cleaner to look at and work with. The exporter will then convert everything into triangles.
Saturn was a beast and its sad quads weren't more adopted...Lousily. GPUs work in triangles. You'd still have to subdivide into triangles at some point to rasterise them. Only the Saturn console rendered quads. If you're going to turn quads into trisets, may as well do it in the export and save the realtime processing.
I wonder how well quad rendering would perform...
It was only used by few games...
If you use the tesselator to do quads, you would almost get it for free in comparison to triangle tesselation.
They do, but haven't seen any low poly tree that could not be made of quads...I think one of the reasons (this is just a guess from my limited experience with ZBrush) why we stayed with triangles was that 3D games started with very very low polygon budgets. Quads are a little less flexible when dealing with very low polygon objects. You would require to use more and smaller quads in order to make up for the lack of flexibility and display a little more complexity in the geometry. It would eat up your polygon budget that way.
For reference imagine having just one quad. You cant do much with it.
Now imagine that quad and the same size divided into two triangles (draw a diagonal line from one edge to the other). Vertice points are the same but now that area offers more flexibility.
Now if you have hundreds of thousands or millions of polygons on your model, quads arent a problem anymore.
Games still use some low polygon models for "unimportant"/small objects or objects farther into the distance so it makes sense.
Right. It's trivially obvious that any object that can be made out of tris can also be made out of quads; after all, if you glue two of a quad's vertices together, you wind up with a tri. There's a question of efficiency, though.It is possible to make anything out of quads instead of triangles. Besides ZBrush sculpting that Laa-Yosh was speaking of uses quads as a base.
My question is though how many would you need compared to the ones made out of triangles in order to achieve the same result in a game where you have limited polygon budget?
A sprite/2d tree needs 5 polygons and 2 texture calls/draws/applies to apply a texture to each triangle versus 4 polygons and half as much for textures...It is possible to make anything out of quads instead of triangles. Besides ZBrush sculpting that Laa-Yosh was speaking of uses quads as a base.
My question is though how many would you need compared to the ones made out of triangles in order to achieve the same result in a game where you have limited polygon budget?
?A sprite/2d tree needs 5 polygons and 2 texture calls/draws/applies to apply a texture to each triangle versus 4 polygons and half as much for textures...
???A octagon in triangles needs 13 versus in quads 10 polygons...
Okay, now I'm definitely confused. It's not possible to form a circle from a finite number of triangles. We approximate circles with small numbers of polygons, but there's hardly a standard on just how good the approximation needs to be.Circle 48 in triangles or less than 40 with quad...
In 3D polygonical games?
Why does a sprite tree need 5 polygons?
Applying texture to objects, 2 triangles versus 1 quad... If you have a simple box then you have 12 triangles or 6 quads...And what are you referring to as a "texture call/draw/apply"?
Yes, now count how many polygons/lines does it need and I already did it....???
It takes six triangles to form an octagon, or 3 quads.
A well rounded circle has 24 triangles to avoid being too edgy...Okay, now I'm definitely confused. It's not possible to form a circle from a finite number of triangles. We approximate circles with small numbers of polygons, but there's hardly a standard on just how good the approximation needs to be.
Right. It's trivially obvious that any object that can be made out of tris can also be made out of quads; after all, if you glue two of a quad's vertices together, you wind up with a tri. There's a question of efficiency, though.