Bizzarre admit: We lied about 80,000 per car Polygons

It's true, and we'll be the first to hold our hands up and admit "we were wrong".

There are a few rumours circulating the development community at the moment regarding the polygon count of the cars in PGR3. If you're not aware, the term "poly count" is a rough measure of detail which artists can use to describe (in loose terms) how detailed their 3d model is. The number refers to the amount of individual triangles which make up a car.

In the past we've claimed that each car in PGR3 is made of about 80,000 polygons on average. To put this in perspective, we previously used about 10,000 per car in PGR2... that's an eight fold increase from our last game. Appropriately enough, some were sceptical about this number, especially given the enhanced shading and lighting we're incorporating into the game in addition to the increased number of polygons.

So, I took it upon myself to head over to the car artists, and found out for myself exactly how many polys we were pushing per car. The results were surprising... therefore I'd like to take this opportunity to apologise to all gamers who were expecting 80,000 triangles in PGR3. I can conclusively reveal that in fact we do NOT have 80,000 polygons on average per car.

...

It's actually closer to 96,000... Smiley

Some cars have around 85,000 polygons, but many go as high as 105,000. The McLaren F1 LM (my favourite PGR3 car!) clocked in at over 100,000. Obviously these counts include the car interiors as well as the exteriors, but they don't include the extra geometry to display car damage, which can add between 10,000 and 20,000 more triangles per car.

Of course, polygons aren't the only things which matter in the next generation. We're also using some advanced pixel shaders and other effects to achieve the most realistic look we can muster at this time. I'm putting together a short animation to give you more details about these shaders in the future... so watch this space.

In the meantime, check out these wireframe shots taken straight from the monitor of a Bizarre Creations car artist. As always, click for a full-size screen capture...

Here are a couple of in-game shots from PGR3 for comparison... Please be aware that we use the same shaders and geometry in the showroom as we do in the "real" game (i.e. we don't downsample the cars at all). We're showing the car select screen here because you guys haven't seen it before, not because it's any prettier than the game itself! Smiley

Sorry for any confusion!


http://www.bizarreonline.net/index.php?action=fullnews&showcomments=1&id=61
 
  • Like
Reactions: Geo
!MISLEADING THREAD TITLE ALERT!

:LOL:

I thought it was gloom and doom. I like when developers play around like that. So more than 80,000? almost 100k? wow.

OMG...I just realized that if you get the McLaren F1.....you'll be able to use the beautiful cabin cam with it.

*dies*
 
Oh man this thread title - and the whole pacing of the post - is too much. PLEASE don't play mind games in your title thread. ;)
 
I was just looking at the wireframe images of the McLaren F1 and i'm just in awe of how curvatios the car is. 80,000-100,000 polys seems perfect to get that arodynamic look. The tires are nicely rounded to.

Edit OT: I'm looking at the final car model and i'm thinking, whats keeping the car from looking absolutley real. Theres always talk of a gap that may be impassible (for photo realism) but what exactly makes that car look "off" from a realistic one? Is it lighting? Shading? or the color pallete?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i read somewhere that MGS4 snake's hair is composed of 60 000 poly, and his moustache 5000 poly, at 60fps, i don't know if it's true, but if it is it's really impressive too.
 
Karamazov said:
i read somewhere that MGS4 snake's hair is composed of 60 000 poly, and his moustache 5000 poly, at 60fps, i don't know if it's true, but if it is it's really impressive too.

link? why would you waste 60k polys on just the hair? in pics it doesn't even look like 10k
 
Karamazov said:
i read somewhere that MGS4 snake's hair is composed of 60 000 poly, and his moustache 5000 poly, at 60fps, i don't know if it's true, but if it is it's really impressive too.

that's wierd cause the hair was easily one of the worst parts of that demo, looked totally fake.

And like laa-yosh said, it doesn't make sense they would spend 60k polygons on the moustach/hair when there are still noticeable square edges on the face.
 
Stay on topic people. This thread has nothing to do with MGS4.

On topic I would love Bizarre if they reduced the polygon count made better use of lighting and multi-maps (mutliple pixelshaders) and locked the frame rate at 60hz. Oh and turn on AA ;)
 
Karamazov said:
Are NURBS more difficult to handle ?

From my basic knowledge of 3D Modelling and Basic knowledge of Nurbs. The answer would be YES they are harder to handle. Although, I haven't experimented with Nurbs yet myself (In Maya).
 
Karamazov said:
i read somewhere that MGS4 snake's hair is composed of 60 000 poly, and his moustache 5000 poly, at 60fps, i don't know if it's true, but if it is it's really impressive too.
Ok, you are new, so I will go easy.

This thread is a PGR3 thread. While at times there are threads comparing games and discussing technology or what not (look around, we have a TON of them) we do like to keep certain threads clean.

Now of the thread was "Poly count in games" or the like, COOL. If it was "Bizarre said they have the highest Poly count in any game" COOL, prove them wrong.

But this is not the direction of the thread.

The thread actually has taken a NICE direction of, "Ok, 100k polys--so what do we need for future games to look even more real? Lighting? Colors? AA?" Introducing MGS4 in the thread is not only off topic, it derails profitable discussion AND gets into the tit for tat "Sony vs. MS" debate.

Feel free to start a "Poly count in next gen games" and compare PGR3 and MGS4. You will get a lot of feedback and debate (and a ton of "you cannot compare a game near release that is a racing game that is fast paced to a stealth game a year from launch!!!11").

Discussion is GOOD. Please discuss. But lets keep it in the realm of on topic. Thanks.
 
Nurbs are a pain in the ass. it produces nice results if modeled correctly, but unlike polygons it's not easy to go back and make changes to a nurbs model. the work flow isn't what I'd call great. Sub D's on the other hand are excellent to work with with far fewer of the drawbacks comapred to nurbs. Still, this is only true depending on what you are making.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BlueTsunami said:
From my basic knowledge of 3D Modelling and Basic knowledge of Nurbs. The answer would be YES they are harder to handle. Although, I haven't experimented with Nurbs yet myself (In Maya).
NURBS, from what I have read, are harder to handle because GPUs, i.e. 3D accelerators, are designed around triangle output. I know you can work and design with them, but at some point they need to be output as triangles. It would not surprise me if CELL/XeCPU procedurally generated NURBS and then tesselated them and fed the output to the GPU. I would like to see games do this :D

/Laa-yosh comes into the thread and corrects me and explains a much better idea and way it should be done because I am a 3D Noorb.... errr Noob... :LOL:
 
Acert93 said:
NURBS, from what I have read, are harder to handle because GPUs, i.e. 3D accelerators, are designed around triangle output. I know you can work and design with them, but at some point they need to be output as triangles. It would not surprise me if CELL/XeCPU procedurally generated NURBS and then tesselated them.
In theory Xenos could tessellate the models further for smoother results. Don't know if there's enough spare vertex transofrmation capability to handle this though. What would be nice are some 'total poly's per frame' figures to see how many they're throwing around, fierceness of the LOD, and whether subdivided meshes could be accomodated, perhaps on PGR4 when they've got to grips with Xenos more. Though without knowing if the engine is shader limited maybe total triangles wouldn't that useful to work out such ideas?
 
Nurbs are always converted to polygons before rendeirng anyway. It's basically the work flow when using nurbs. it takes a lot of planning to make sure you end up with the right number spans on a patch.
 
Acert93 said:
Ok, you are new, so I will go easy.

This thread is a PGR3 thread. While at times there are threads comparing games and discussing technology or what not (look around, we have a TON of them) we do like to keep certain threads clean.

Now of the thread was "Poly count in games" or the like, COOL. If it was "Bizarre said they have the highest Poly count in any game" COOL, prove them wrong.

But this is not the direction of the thread.

The thread actually has taken a NICE direction of, "Ok, 100k polys--so what do we need for future games to look even more real? Lighting? Colors? AA?" Introducing MGS4 in the thread is not only off topic, it derails profitable discussion AND gets into the tit for tat "Sony vs. MS" debate.

Feel free to start a "Poly count in next gen games" and compare PGR3 and MGS4. You will get a lot of feedback and debate (and a ton of "you cannot compare a game near release that is a racing game that is fast paced to a stealth game a year from launch!!!11").

Discussion is GOOD. Please discuss. But lets keep it in the realm of on topic. Thanks.

ok sorry
 
LOL it's hilarious I wonder how many poeple were about ready to come into this thread with a I told you so attitude about PGR3. 100,000 is pretty impressiv especially they are deformable(well kinda)
 
Back
Top