Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ironman13

Improvements I believe a decent number wants

Recommended Posts

Myke;1844078']It is for sure a combination of both. Without soft edges you would clearly see all edges of the model. Of course' date=' the more sides the better but as you already stated, there is a (logical) limit how many sides make sense. You could make barrels with 32000 sides but i guess you see that this would affect performance rapidly if this would be done with all models. So modellers do decide how many sides really make sense (goin for less sides on lower res LOD's) and let make the soft edges the rest.[/quote']

clarification on Myke's example

The soft shaded as you call it has in fact less vertex normals than the hard surface one.

So all in all, the engine is consider it to be less poly heavy (dx engines couldn't give a rat's ass on poly number but on vertices, more precise vertex normals) than a hard surface one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a high poly count really just mean a high vertices count. Because the polys connect at vertices right?

So, it is just another way to say the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So a high poly count really just mean a high vertices count. Because the polys connect at vertices right?

So, it is just another way to say the same thing.

Not really:

Vertex normal != vertex/point

The hard limit for one .p3d is, based on its 8bit indice, (2^15=32.767). The said number is in fact the limit of the said vertex normals, not vertices which define polygons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really:

Vertex normal != vertex/point

The hard limit for one .p3d is, based on its 8bit indice, (2^15=32.767). The said number is in fact the limit of the said vertex normals, not vertices which define polygons.

What he said!! :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how 2^15 = 32.

So "vertex normals" aren't the same things as where polygons converge. "Vertex normals" are responsible for many equations in DirectX, at least from what I read. Color and light intensity being the outcome of the equations...

It's like stabbing someone with a butter knife. I don't get it. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is how people get from 8bit to 2^15.

2^15 would be 15bits, so I assume I'm missing some essential piece of information here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well why did he put a decimal point in there? A typo, I guess. He also was +1 off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In britain decimal=comma I believe. At least it's like that in russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I don't understand is how people get from 8bit to 2^15.

2^15 would be 15bits, so I assume I'm missing some essential piece of information here.

You are.

I am talking about index and vertex buffer. I am sorry that i wasn't more specific, but i didn't want to drag this discussion into geek talk:

A mesh contains a vertex buffer, an index buffer, and an attribute buffer.

* The vertex buffer contains the vertex data, which are the mesh vertices.

* The index buffer contains vertex indices for accessing the vertex buffer. This can reduce the vertex buffer size by reducing duplicate vertices. Only an indexed mesh uses the index buffer. If a mesh is made up of a triangle list, for example, it does not use the index buffer.

* The attribute buffer contains attribute data. Attributes are properties of the mesh vertices, in no particular order. A D3DX mesh stores attributes in a group of DWORDS, for each face.

vertexindex.jpg

By indices in the index buffer:

* 15 bit index - 2^15 = 32 767

* 16 bit index - 2^16 = 65 535

* 32 bit index - 2^32-1 ~ 4.3 billion per draw (yes, that is right, billion).

Newer cards support 32bit, as well the older 16bit and 8bit. It's all about memory management.

Further reading:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb205133(v=vs.85).aspx

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb147325(v=vs.85).aspx

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb147196(v=vs.85).aspx

http://www.toymaker.info/Games/html/buffers.html

http://www.chadvernon.com/blog/resources/directx9/vertex-and-index-buffers/

---------- Post added at 01:29 AM ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 11:46 PM ----------

well why did he put a decimal point in there? A typo, I guess. He also was +1 off.

Semantics..

The point was there with a purpose. I put a space in it now, just so YOU understand it.

Besides, i am glad you know your math, but there is no mistake. the 32 768 is already +1 more than the engine handles (0 is also considered a value here, so you got 32 768 verts, from 0 to 32 767 :rolleyes:)

Edited by PuFu
Thanks zipper - file siez 14kb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAHAHAHA

Did anyone see all the upgrades to ArmA 3?

Yea, I must not have known what I was talking about right? Most people don't want to see any of those improvements right? I was talking out of my butt right?

Go suck a popsicle and chill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HAHAHAHA

Did anyone see all the upgrades to ArmA 3?

Yea, I must not have known what I was talking about right? Most people don't want to see any of those improvements right? I was talking out of my butt right?

Go suck a popsicle and chill.

Jeez, look at all those people agreeing with you.

Holy shit, basically anyone could have said "hai maek arma3 bettr" and then thumbed their nose at the entire community a la what you did above when A3 was announced... then again, basically anyone is not a big enough retard to say that they speak for the entire community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i only see one of your suggestions from your first post in arma3

that said, i did want it too, but seriously, dont gloat too much on one of your suggestions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I am bumping a super old post here but looking back on this I would like to say, BI and mod makers came a long way since this was originally posted.

Things I thoroughly enjoyed seeing:

- Persistent missions & "Communicating servers" (Don't know what the proper name is... MSO, DayZ concepts). This has really changed what is possible for mission makers.

- MCC editing tool (A work around for a 3D editor)

- USS Nimitz brought a static ship to the game that had great functionality, Gnat and Deanosbeano worked to get moving ships in the game (Feint also tried to get underwater swimming into ArmA2)

- Scripts like DAC from ArmA were reworked and improved greatly

- Mods like ACE and ACRE brought new functionality to the game.

- ArmA3 added swimming as a viable option for insertion/extraction/means to accomplish missions. Did I mention there is an underwater moving vehicle? SHAWEET. I am sure since that is possible making a Navy mod is possible.

- ArmA3 added Zeus which is a great idea for a 3D editor and also spicing up missions that were pre-made, (MCC tool is probably the inspiration for this idea)

I am not implying that this post inspired anything. I am just stating that looking back on this topic a lot of things were attempted to improve the game both by BIS and the community and I am thankful for that.

Edited by {GSF} Ironman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the only thing i realy want changed is the pandur in the acr dlc it still can't swim but it does so fine in arma 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×