Ryse main character= 150,000
Killzone sf npcs = 40,000
Thats 3x more and that's the best exclusive you all have at launch lol
The power shows in the polygons
This topic is locked from further discussion.
There becomes a point where more polygons means jack.
After a few thousand, more won't net you any major gains. You're better off investing more into materials, textures, lighting, and other assets to make the surfaces more realistic or just better looking depending on your artstyle.
There becomes a point where more polygons means jack.
After a few thousand, more won't net you any major gains. You're better off investing more into materials, textures, lighting, and other assets to make the surfaces more realistic or just better looking depending on your artstyle.
Wasdie
System War's resident tech wizard strikes again :)
There becomes a point where more polygons means jack.
Wasdie
I really wish that pic would disappear from the net, its the most misleading example of diminishing returns as applied to polygon count.
I wont go on my full rant like last time, but long story short:
The 60k in that image is likely a high res scan or a digital sculpt. The lower resolution models to the left of it are all algorithmic optimizations with no human input.
This has nothing to do with how production models are built and does not at all reflect how much mileage you would get out of those poly counts with a trained modeler that is well versed in rules of topology and has a sculptors eye for important shapes.
Yes, you do hit diminishing returns with polygon counts, but not in the silly way that that image presents it.
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
There becomes a point where more polygons means jack.
Wiimotefan
I really wish that pic would disappear from the net, its the most misleading example of diminishing returns as applied to polygon count.
I wont go on my full rant like last time, but long story short:
The 60k in that image is likely a high res scan or a digital sculpt. The lower resolution models to the left of it are all algorithmic optimizations with no human input.
This has nothing to do with how production models are built and does not at all reflect how much mileage you would get out of those poly counts with a trained modeler that is well versed in rules of topology and has a sculptors eye for important shapes.
Yes, you do hit diminishing returns with polygon counts, but not in the silly way that that image presents it.
From what I've heard, it's also far more efficient to utilize tesselation to round out those polygons rather than simply cranking up the poly count.
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
There becomes a point where more polygons means jack.
Wiimotefan
I really wish that pic would disappear from the net, its the most misleading example of diminishing returns as applied to polygon count.
I wont go on my full rant like last time, but long story short:
The 60k in that image is likely a high res scan or a digital sculpt. The lower resolution models to the left of it are all algorithmic optimizations with no human input.
This has nothing to do with how production models are built and does not at all reflect how much mileage you would get out of those poly counts with a trained modeler that is well versed in rules of topology and has a sculptors eye for important shapes.
Yes, you do hit diminishing returns with polygon counts, but not in the silly way that that image presents it.
I understand that, but the diminishing returns hit pretty darn fast. As I said, at a point you're better off investing into materials, textures, lighting, post, and pretty much everything else instead of just pushing more polygons.
I also understand culling techniques and whatnot to allow you to keep 100k+ poly models in game at their nearest LoD model. It's more about memory useage. I'm actually a major supporter of tessellations to give more flexibility to the devs.
Anyways lets not forget that the final image is all that matters. 99.9% of users will not be able to tell the difference between a 100k model in game and 40k model, especially if the other assets are well done. There is no point in fanboys saying "my game's model has more polygons" because there are litterally dozens of other factors in producing that scene. Reducing it to polygons is silly. That was my point.
some of you might find this interesting,some will get mad for no reason :cool:
Ryse is a game which focuses on character emotions, so it's not surprising that they've put a lot into the look of the characters.
On the topic of polygons in general, I agree we've reached a point of diminishing returns. But I still think there can be pretty big improvements made by having a much higher polygon count in total, taking into account all of the asetts. A good example I've seen recently was Bioshock Infinite. Just exploring a little throughout the game, there were plenty of objects which ideally should be round (eg. toilet seats) which had really obvious straight egdes. It did break the immersion to some extent the way these things stood out.
tubbyc
I agree. 150k polygons and this is the result:
What about shading, post effects and particles? Most of what people associate with graphics are textures, polygons and resolution. There's much more to it than that.
Much, much more.
PinkiePirate
Textures:
You decide.
I think it's funny that Toy Story still has greater poly-counts than any game. (to be more accurate - it used curved surfaces aka NURBS)
Untill game models don't hit the magic 1 million poly mark, we can forget about CGI-level graphics in games.
It's also funny to think that Rogue Leader on GameCube pushed more polys than some current-gen games did.
I do wonder why game devs never gave NURBS a shot tho:
There were talks about next-gen Xbox and Nintendo using NURBS before this generation (PlayStation was supposed to use raw poly-counts) but talks died down soon.
some of you might find this interesting,some will get mad for no reason :cool:
Tessellation
150k triangles is not the same as 150k polygons
I think it's funny that Toy Story still has greater poly-counts than any game. (to be more accurate - it used curved surfaces aka NURBS)
Untill game models don't hit the magic 1 million poly mark, we can forget about CGI-level graphics in games.
It's also funny to think that Rogue Leader on GameCube pushed more polys than some current-gen games did.
I do wonder why game devs never gave NURBS a shot tho:
There were talks about next-gen Xbox and Nintendo using NURBS before this generation (PlayStation was supposed to use raw poly-counts) but talks died down soon.
nameless12345
GpGPU can process NURBS surfaces faster than the CPU.
[QUOTE="Tessellation"]
some of you might find this interesting,some will get mad for no reason :cool:
ManatuBeard
150k triangles is not the same as 150k polygons
Yes it is. We've already had this discussion in this forum. Triangles are the kind of polygons that game engines and hardware work with, so when a developer talks about the number of polygons or the number of triangles they are talking about the same thing.
"The two common measurements of a game character's 'cost' are polygon count and vertex count. Polygon is interchangeable with triangle in these measurements, as GPUs only see vertices and triangles, not 4+ sided polygons. Depending on the use, a game character may stretch anywhere from 200-300 triangles, to 40,000+ triangles. A high-end third-person console or PC game may use many vertices or triangles per character, and an iOS tower defense game might use very few per character."
"When a game artist talks about the poly count of a model, they really mean the triangle count. Games almost always use triangles not polygons because most modern graphic hardware is built to accelerate the rendering of triangles."
http://wiki.polycount.com/PolygonCount
Toy Story is pre-rendered nubnuts.I think it's funny that Toy Story still has greater poly-counts than any game. (to be more accurate - it used curved surfaces aka NURBS)
Untill game models don't hit the magic 1 million poly mark, we can forget about CGI-level graphics in games.
It's also funny to think that Rogue Leader on GameCube pushed more polys than some current-gen games did.
I do wonder why game devs never gave NURBS a shot tho:
There were talks about next-gen Xbox and Nintendo using NURBS before this generation (PlayStation was supposed to use raw poly-counts) but talks died down soon.
nameless12345
I think it's funny that Toy Story still has greater poly-counts than any game. (to be more accurate - it used curved surfaces aka NURBS)
Untill game models don't hit the magic 1 million poly mark, we can forget about CGI-level graphics in games.
It's also funny to think that Rogue Leader on GameCube pushed more polys than some current-gen games did.
I do wonder why game devs never gave NURBS a shot tho:
There were talks about next-gen Xbox and Nintendo using NURBS before this generation (PlayStation was supposed to use raw poly-counts) but talks died down soon.
nameless12345
For starters, NURBS cant be rendered directly without work arounds, you still need a display mesh.
But simply put, NURBS are hell to work with. Its a pain for modelers since you invest so much more time and often receive worse results. Then that pain extends down the pipeline, especially for animators.
Even Pixar did away with NURBS for most of their work after Toy Story. They even pioneered (Catmull Clark) subdivision because of how terrible NURBS can be.
Sub D surfaces (which are an extension of poly modeling) are where its at. They're stable, predictable and easy to work with. Likewise, all the tools of the industry are built around that foundation (not just sub-ds but poly models in general).
Plus we are quickly approaching the day that higher resolution geometry isn't going to do much for fidelity. Throwing effort into NURBS at this point would be a waste.
NURBS used to have a big presence and in some industries (automotive for example) they still do.
But they never have been and never will be a good match for games. They really weren't a good match for movies either, just a necessity at the time.
... no offense, but I believe this is probably the fourth time I've answered this question for you over the past couple of years (which is why I kept this response to a minimum). I don't know why you continue to post it.
Log in to comment