Everytime I see a screen of some next-gen title (be it PC or something aimed for next-gen consoles, which naturally means they are being developed on PC based dev-kits), I see blockiness. It seems like the polygonal detail level of characters are unchanged from this gen, and developers are trying to cover it up with normal maps. Environments look vastly improved, but with all the horsepower of next-gen systems, even this early, at the very least I expect perfectly smooth characters (unless a game is going to push many dozens of characters, there's no excuse for blocky characters IMO).
wtf is up with poly counts
- Thread starter GwymWeepa
- Start date
GwymWeepa said:
HEY that's what i just posted on another thread!!!
I think one reason is that it is better use of resources to do normal maps that immitate 1M polygone characters instead of going Vertex Shader intensive and get a 40k polygon character that a) Wont look any better and would have lower render quality b) would possibly have some issues with lighting and shadowing performance and c) would run very poorly on systems with fewer VS units.
Easier just to do the PS effects, and if the HW cannot do it well just turn it off. Easier than making entirely new models for everything on top of the LoD models.
I would say another big part of the problem is LEGACY.
We have yet to see a single "Next Gen ONLY" game, or even better a game designed for a SPECIFIC console.
Until then a lot of the stuff we are seeing is cross platform that has to work on PCs. My guess is games coming out over the next 12-24 months will want to work on a P4 2.4GHz with 384MB of RAM and a 9600Pro type card (and even lesser HW with features turned down) for sales reasons.
It is one thing to turn off normal maps, bump mapping, lighting, etc... Most of that is PS intensive. But it appears to be a lot more work to have numerous different terrain and character models based on VS performance--and when you throw multiplayer into the equation I can see why it would just be easier to focus on the pretty effects.
I think with the new consoles we will see some highly detailed games though. The R500 will allow developers to push the polys if they want because of the unified shaders. And the PS3 obvisouly has the power.
But like V3 said, it is probably better use of the HW to go other routes. But I also think we will see that change.
Easier just to do the PS effects, and if the HW cannot do it well just turn it off. Easier than making entirely new models for everything on top of the LoD models.
I would say another big part of the problem is LEGACY.
We have yet to see a single "Next Gen ONLY" game, or even better a game designed for a SPECIFIC console.
Until then a lot of the stuff we are seeing is cross platform that has to work on PCs. My guess is games coming out over the next 12-24 months will want to work on a P4 2.4GHz with 384MB of RAM and a 9600Pro type card (and even lesser HW with features turned down) for sales reasons.
It is one thing to turn off normal maps, bump mapping, lighting, etc... Most of that is PS intensive. But it appears to be a lot more work to have numerous different terrain and character models based on VS performance--and when you throw multiplayer into the equation I can see why it would just be easier to focus on the pretty effects.
I think with the new consoles we will see some highly detailed games though. The R500 will allow developers to push the polys if they want because of the unified shaders. And the PS3 obvisouly has the power.
But like V3 said, it is probably better use of the HW to go other routes. But I also think we will see that change.
Well i'm sorry, but when you can count on one hand the polygons making up someone's knee, then i think devs should focus the HW resources on making that look good first, cause it really sticks out like a... blocky knee.
Some people have angular knees, maybe that is just an accurate representation of a woman with angular knees :?
And the clothes in the future might have angular cuts.
And hairstyles of the future could be angular, or maybe they don't have real hair at all but a "wig" style helmet and it is angular because it's designed to reflect radar signals (a stealth wig helmet)
And the clothes in the future might have angular cuts.
And hairstyles of the future could be angular, or maybe they don't have real hair at all but a "wig" style helmet and it is angular because it's designed to reflect radar signals (a stealth wig helmet)
I'm amazed at how people are happy to see super high resolution textures and bump maps, but can count the number of polygons making up the models, even internally, especially at high resolution which we'll get more of in the next generation...
Not only that, but an increase in geometry would be needed to display more advanced animation. A 2 polygons flag moves like a... book... A 200 polys one moves much more like in reality.
When the polygon counts will be high enough that we can't distinguish the shapes from the real ones, then maybe they can focus on other things.
Not only that, but an increase in geometry would be needed to display more advanced animation. A 2 polygons flag moves like a... book... A 200 polys one moves much more like in reality.
When the polygon counts will be high enough that we can't distinguish the shapes from the real ones, then maybe they can focus on other things.
I concur! We have b-Splines next gen. What's the point if the end result is going to be tesselated down to 3 triangles?
Personally, and this is just me, I want to see INTERACTIVE models before increased poly count.
I want stuff to explode off, clothes and hair to move, terrain to deform realistically, water, etc... If that needs to come at the expense of polys I am all for it.
But I think the stuff we are seeing right now is all legacy driven. A top end GPU may do 1M poly/s but an FX5200 sure is not!
I am all for high polygon models... just wait until we see the first next gen exclusive games. With the next gen the PC standard will rise and it will be the norm to get rounded knees
I want stuff to explode off, clothes and hair to move, terrain to deform realistically, water, etc... If that needs to come at the expense of polys I am all for it.
But I think the stuff we are seeing right now is all legacy driven. A top end GPU may do 1M poly/s but an FX5200 sure is not!
I am all for high polygon models... just wait until we see the first next gen exclusive games. With the next gen the PC standard will rise and it will be the norm to get rounded knees
Acert93 said:Personally, and this is just me, I want to see INTERACTIVE models before increased poly count.
I want stuff to explode off, clothes and hair to move, terrain to deform realistically, water, etc... If that needs to come at the expense of polys I am all for it.
But I think the stuff we are seeing right now is all legacy driven. A top end GPU may do 1M poly/s but an FX5200 sure is not!
I am all for high polygon models... just wait until we see the first next gen exclusive games. With the next gen the PC standard will rise and it will be the norm to get rounded knees
But mate, interactive models NEED high polygon counts!! Unless the model is made of enough polygons to make it move and look real, you'll winge about it not being as interactive as the real thing!! Can't believe people still don't understand that.
There is obviously an upper limit, but we're nowhere near it.
I think that even if the polycount was not a limiting factor for nice rounded knees, the modeller person is.
i wouldn't be surprised if the modeller leaves the knees as the last thing he does for a character model. First he might do the face, then boobs, ass, legs, arms, hair.... and very last thing he just puts the remaining few polys to knees.
Who's interested in knees anyway, ever known anyone with knee fetish (except l-b, but he's got every fetish known to man anyway)? Knees are the last part I would check on a person.
i wouldn't be surprised if the modeller leaves the knees as the last thing he does for a character model. First he might do the face, then boobs, ass, legs, arms, hair.... and very last thing he just puts the remaining few polys to knees.
Who's interested in knees anyway, ever known anyone with knee fetish (except l-b, but he's got every fetish known to man anyway)? Knees are the last part I would check on a person.
rabidrabbit said:
RABID it was an example from the "new xbox2 game" thread with the pic of the chick, her knee stood out like a blocky knee!!!
To stay on topic, animation and interactivity and high poly counts are all intertwined, Acer, you can't say "i prefer better animation/interactivity, cloth and hair simulations rather than higher poly counts" cause to achieve the former, you need the latter!!
Martin Eddy
Regular
I have to agree with L B and GwymWeepa (EDIT: and shifty geezer). I want more poly's. Normal maps, bump maps, etc are fine for objects that are quite a distance away, but there's nothing worse than getting close to a wall (for example) and finding it's made up of two triangles with lots of effects painted on top.
Considering that no developer (AFAIK) is working with final hardware, I'm not shocked that blockiness is still with us.
Wait till you see a fighting game on finalized hardware. Tiny polys everywhere.
Wait till you see a fighting game on finalized hardware. Tiny polys everywhere.
london-boy said:
To a degree, yes. I should have been more specific: I do not want to see 40K models that are totally uninteractive. We already have that. I could care less about the visuals as long as they are clean, crisp, and serve the game play well.
If I had to choose between a game with a 40k car that was static or a game with 5k car that, when it hits a wall, wheels fly off, glass shatters, engine block pops out, etc... and all of them are independ physics objects I would take the 5k model.
You do not need insanely high models to do everything. e.g. Losing arms and legs in shooters. No one has done this well (although supported in Havok 2). People still have poor animation systems for characters. When they run around and you shoot them half the time they continue the previous animation or their previous movements are totally canceled as if they had no momentum.
I would rather computation power be put into using physics dependant animation where joint, weight, momentum, center of gravity, etc... all come into play.
Football games are a great example of this. I predict we will see FB games where we have HUGELY detailed models with the same CRAPPY animation system. Woot.... NOT! I would rather see the same models, but the extra processing power put toward a real animation system. For this type of game higher poly models is only eye candy, they serve no actual gameplay purpose. If that power is stuck into the animation system and physics we would end up with a game much more fluid and dynamic--even if lower poly models. Sure, the high poly models will look good in still shots, but the second you compare how they move you would see the high poly models would not be half as fun.
Now the good news is that I think a) the screen shot is not a testament to how next gen games will look and b) there will be enough power all around to do better graphics and better animation/physics. I do not think they will have to choose "Ok, should we use the power for animation or high poly models". At least not in most cases.
Unfortunately we will get your rounded knees long before we get better animation and a lot of physics simply because pretty graphics with high poly models will be easier.
Ps- I know what you are saying and I do agree to an extent. YES, we need higher poly models to do certain things (hair, clothes, etc..) but for a lot of basic things like I mention above you do not need high poly models. And as much as I want to see real "cloth" in games, that again is EYE CANDY. It rarely affects how the game is played. Losing arms, better animation systems based on physics, and cars that lose doors and exploded into pieces on the race track can serve valuable gameplay purposes (or eye candy). I think we both want the same thing: balanced games that look great and play better. But I think we will get "looks great" long before "plays better".
Inane_Dork said:
I agree. These are just PC ports. And the fact is most developers are working with PC reference parts, the PC as the baseline, and also the PC as their high end experience. Hard to develop for something you do not know. The consoles have a lot more power than current PCs because there is no legacy and they are closed boxes. Lets wait until we see some 1st party exclusives before we begin getting to upset. Getting upset at a blocky knee in a MMO game from a small company who is focusing mainly on the PC is a little premature.
Maybe the character models are delibrately kept relatively low poly.
remember Allards interview where he talked about the customisability of next xbox and games.
If the character models are heavily customisable, maybe even with your PC so that you could model your own characters within some limits.
If there were several thousand unique characters in an online game, imagine the time it would take to load these other online players characters to the player's xenon.
Anyone who's played UT2004 with the "preload character models" knows it affects the load times considerably, and in that game the characters are even lower poly.
Still, I don't think that's the the real reason why the woman's knee is blocky in that next gen xenon game shown in that other thread.
remember Allards interview where he talked about the customisability of next xbox and games.
If the character models are heavily customisable, maybe even with your PC so that you could model your own characters within some limits.
If there were several thousand unique characters in an online game, imagine the time it would take to load these other online players characters to the player's xenon.
Anyone who's played UT2004 with the "preload character models" knows it affects the load times considerably, and in that game the characters are even lower poly.
Still, I don't think that's the the real reason why the woman's knee is blocky in that next gen xenon game shown in that other thread.
I disagree. Modern modelling uses SDS (subdivsion) where the model is smoothly modelled, then converted into a triangle mesh of the chosen resolution. Creating a model that looks good in low-polys is more time-consuming than creating a mesh that just looks good. With 10x the poly budget the modeller's life should get easier in some ways.rabidrabbit said:
Battlefield 2 doesn't have ultra high resolution player models, but they look really good in my opinion and they are animated well enough.
Check out this video. When the vehicle starts firing and hits the infantryman, his helmet flies off.
Battlefield 2 The Loop
Check out this video. When the vehicle starts firing and hits the infantryman, his helmet flies off.
Battlefield 2 The Loop
Just to talk about animation and interactivity.
I'd love to see an animator trying to animate an arm, with muscles and bones that move under the skin and shows like it does in reality. All with textures, normal maps and not enough geometry.
See what i mean?
There is so much work to do, that focusing on "other things" is just beyond me.
Thankfully we'll have insane amounts of polygon performance in the next generation of consoles and PC.
I'd love to see an animator trying to animate an arm, with muscles and bones that move under the skin and shows like it does in reality. All with textures, normal maps and not enough geometry.
See what i mean?
There is so much work to do, that focusing on "other things" is just beyond me.
Thankfully we'll have insane amounts of polygon performance in the next generation of consoles and PC.
