LAIR Thread - * Rules: post #469

[scooby_dooby]

Again what does this have to do with target renders?

Well, apparently it wasn't CG, it was realtime??? I dunno, I'm kinda lost in this bickering, but this seems to indicate it was a realtime video:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]He played a recent extremely high-resolution trailer in real-time, occasionally pausing to swing the camera around or turn on or off various effects. To be fair, the scene in question was clearly a cut-scene, calculated to show off just how many polygons the PS3 can throw around; it's still a lot of polygons, though.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Each model, Worch claimed, contained somewhere between 100,000 and 170,000 triangles. Each had a bunch of other special maps and lighting applied, and the main character was built up with "over ten textures". He compared this to an estimated 10,000 for characters in Gears of War and other recent high-res games. The high-res models, meanwhile, that got dithered down to produce the in-game models, ran up around 5,000,000 triangles.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Nesh]

Well, apparently it wasn't CG, it was realtime??? I dunno, I'm kinda lost in this bickering, but this seems to indicate it was a realtime video:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT]

Yeah there was a real time tech demo of Lair which looked more impressve some time ago. I posted a youtube video of that one in this thread.

But the discussion begun about the TGS CGI movie which he claims was a CGI target render. That bloody CGI was nothing more than a movie and has nothing to do with the impressive real time tech demo. At the same show and time that CGI was shown Factor 5 had playable demos of the Lair we already know and hate or love.

 

[Capeta]

Maquettes are used for CGI man. Those same maquettes got downscaled for ingame models. In other words that CGI was a target render using full detail models that got downscaled for ingame models. It's called target render because it's essentially using the SAME models but downscaled. I couldn't care less whether or not YOU are convinced. SONY claimed KZ2 was a "target render" too. I'm using their defintion.

Why don't you define "target render" instead of bickering?

 

[Eagle-Vision]

Maquettes are used for CGI man. Those same maquettes got downscaled for ingame models. In other words that CGI was a target render using full detail models that got downscaled for ingame models. It's called target render because it's essentially using the SAME models but downscaled. I couldn't care less whether or not YOU are convinced. SONY claimed KZ2 was a "target render" too. I'm using their defintion.

Why don't you define "target render" instead of bickering?

Well gonig by that logic, I guess we can consider all of the CGI of the FF games as target renders

 

[Laa-Yosh]

It's called target render because it's essentially using the SAME models but downscaled.

I thought that "downscaled" kinda means it's actually not the same; to me the word implies significant difference...

 

[_phil_]

Maquettes are used for CGI man. Those same maquettes got downscaled for ingame models. In other words that CGI was a target render using full detail models that got downscaled for ingame models.

no ,no professionnal cgi animator would even try to Skin a 15 million polygon dragon .you just spread ignorance ,there. What you are trying to say relates most probably to LOD tuning.

With an engine based heavily on LOD ,work in progress develeppement don't allow you to tune LOD the best way ,just to get acceptable frame rate .
Lod will be better tuned when the game will be closer to completion.

 

[Capeta]

Well gonig by that logic, I guess we can consider all of the CGI of the FF games as target renders

My definition of TR is a render that's used as a target, using downscaled models and textures based on the target ones. CGI doesn't automatically equal target renders. Lair and KZ2 are target offline renders. If you disagree then feel free to provide your own definition and supporting examples.

I thought that "downscaled" kinda means it's actually not the same; to me the word implies significant difference...

To me downscaled is *essentially" the same models if you're using the high detail models as a source target. You're downscaling an existing high detail model, you are not building a low detail model from the ground up.

no ,no professionnal cgi animator would even try to Skin a 15 million polygon dragon .you just spread ignorance ,there. What you are trying to say relates most probably to LOD tuning.

With an engine based heavily on LOD ,work in progress develeppement don't allow you to tune LOD the best way ,just to get acceptable frame rate .
Lod will be better tuned when the game will be closer to completion.

Where did you get 15 million from?

ILM modelers/animators use models with millions of polys for their CGI VFX all the time.

 

[Nesh]

Maquettes are used for CGI man. Those same maquettes got downscaled for ingame models. In other words that CGI was a target render using full detail models that got downscaled for ingame models. It's called target render because it's essentially using the SAME models but downscaled. I couldn't care less whether or not YOU are convinced. SONY claimed KZ2 was a "target render" too. I'm using their defintion.

Why don't you define "target render" instead of bickering?

Here we go again...That doesnt necessarilly make that CGI video a target render, KZ2 has nothing to do with it, and yes KZ2 IS a target render because like you said Sony and Guerilla stated that video was supposed to represent the quality of the game they are trying to make or the quality they are targeting

Please leave irrelevant things like the KZ2 target render out of this thread

 

[Capeta]

Here we go again...That doesnt necessarilly make that CGI video a target render, KZ2 has nothing to do with it, and yes KZ2 IS a target render because like you said Sony and Guerilla stated that video was supposed to represent the quality of the game they are trying to make or the quality they are targeting

So because F5 didn't say it was a target render that means it's not? You can't have your cake and eat it too man.

 

[Nesh]

So because F5 didn't say it was a target render that means it's not? You can't have your cake and eat it too man.

No its a Target Render just because you said so. How ironic does that sound?

 

[Capeta]

No its a Target Render because you said so. How ironic does that sound?

And it's not a target render because you said so with nothing to back it up.

 

[Nesh]

And it's not a target render because you said so with nothing to back it up.

Ahm..no.

But now that you mentioned it...I am still waiting for something relevant that backs your arguement up that people can agree with you. Something TRUELLY relevant that PROOVES this is a target render. Not something you are trying to force it to look relevant

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

Why don't you define "target render" instead of bickering?

"Target render" is a phoney-baloney term dreamt up by gaming press editors and company PR agents in order to bolster interest in a product when nothing substantial can yet be shown.

In reality, there is no such thing as a "target render." Those who claim their projects to be "targeting" what you see are saying crap to keep you interested by remaining vague in what aspect(s) of the video they're actually "targeting" (e.g. animation quality, gameplay flow, physics, destructibles, atmosphere, etc.).

 

[Capeta]

Ahm..no.

But now that you mentioned it...I am still waiting for something relevant that backs your arguement up that people can agree with you. Something TRUELLY relevant that PROOVES this is a target render. Not something you are trying to force it to look relevant

Whether it's relevent or not isn't the point, but since you are so hung up on the issue it must be quite relevent...

It's quite logical to use those CGIs as target renders considering they already paid to have the high resolution maquettes made which are also used ingame as well as that CGI target render. Are you saying they don't want to reach that level? That would be a short sighted assertion. They want to reach that level even for a cutscene but due to various factors they havn't been able to.

 

[Nesh]

Whether it's relevent or not isn't the point, but since you are so hung up on the issue it must be quite relevent...

It's quite logical to use those CGIs as target renders considering they already paid to have the high resolution maquettes made which are also used ingame as well as that CGI target render. Are you saying they don't want to reach that level? That would be a short sighted assertion.

Define target render

 

[Capeta]

Define target render

If you were paying attention you would've already found my definiton a few posts above. What's YOUR definition and why is it NOT a TR?

 

[Nesh]

If you were paying attention you would've already found my definiton a few posts above. What's YOUR definition?

Rephrase so I can understand then

 

[Capeta]

Rephrase so I can understand then

I will rephrase when you tell me why it's not a TR.

 

[Nesh]

You are turning the discussion into a child talk.

I asked first and you avoided to answer. I ll ask one last time.

What is a target render? There are more people who disagreed with you waiting to hear for your answer than there are waiting for me. So please do us all the favor instead of avoiding the question, we are interested to hear especially when you are the one who brought up the matter.

 

[Capeta]

Motorstorm CGI was also a target render. Now tell me why the LAIR CGI was not a target render. If you don't understand what a target render is then don't argue whether or not something is/isn't a target render.