Polygon limit?

[Collectar 0]

Hello everyone.

I have been looking around and I can't seem to find the exact poly/tri limit for the various models ingame.

I need to know the count on:

-Soldiers

-Ground/air vehicles (exterior/interior)

-Weapons (First-person-view/exterior)

I hope some of you have an answer or maybe a good link.

Thanks in advance

[StryDa 0]

I'm not 100% sure but people are saying its the same as OFP. 8000 that was I Think

[Collectar 0]

Okay. But 8000 polys/tris?

And for the player models/weapons/vehicles?

A friend of mine has asked me to model the AC-47 gunship.

I'd be happy to post some pictures of the progress, but for now I need some clear guide lines.

Any help is appriciated.

[VXR 9]

Okay. But 8000 polys/tris?

And for the player models/weapons/vehicles?

A friend of mine has asked me to model the AC-47 gunship.

I'd be happy to post some pictures of the progress, but for now I need some clear guide lines.

Any help is appriciated.

Try making it a low as possible, and add the little details with textures.

I would advise to keep it below 5000 or 6000

[Al Simmons 0]

If you are working with Proxies, it should be easy to make Vehicles with more than 8000 Polys. E.g. Video

from my latest Proxy test.

[VXR 9]

Operation Flashpoint: Resolution LOD Samples

from: Bohemia Interactive Community Wiki

Quote[/b] ]Basic information

Model detail in Operation Flashpoint has practically no limits, but for the sake of keeping game-play fluid staying under 5000 polygons is advisable.

No model in OFP can have more then 32,767 faces or vertices. Vertices somewhat correspond to O² points, but there are usually more vertices than points, due to different UV mapping or Normals.

[JdB 151]

Doesn't matter how many vertices/polygons you make it. Just as long as the ultra high version is only used to generate the normal maps, it won't matter. The version actually used ingame should of course have as few polygons as possible (optimized).

[nephilim 0]

depending on what you are intending to do.

but 8k of polygons for a vehicle seems reasonable.

but not eg for a tree or a soldier.

also besure you turn all polygons into tris.

i know it sounds weird but all games use tris.

they can be calculated alot faster and they eliminate the non-planarity issue

[Lockheed Martin-ch 0]

i know it sounds weird but all games use tris.

they can be calculated alot faster and they eliminate the non-planarity issue

I would not be sure, if all games uses triangular polygons.

Are you sure that they are calculated faster? Because I believe that BIS had their reasons why they implemented faces...

I would be very wondering if a model with only triangular polygons has the better performance than a model with a mix of triangular polygons and faces.

Even still I ask myself about why people always ask about maximum poly-count Why not a thread about minimum poly-count? Would be way more interesting Creating a high-poly model is easy to make that it looks good. But with low polys..? That is a problem people always have

[MehMan 0]

That's why you have textures to fake the details .

[Jackal326 1172]

I know someone already posted this, but this is relevent to my reply also.

Quote from BIS WIKI:

Quote[/b] ]Bohemia Interactive Community Wiki

Quote

Basic information

Model detail in Operation Flashpoint has practically no limits, but for the sake of keeping game-play fluid staying under 5000 polygons is advisable.

No model in OFP can have more then 32,767 faces or vertices. Vertices somewhat correspond to O² points, but there are usually more vertices than points, due to different UV mapping or Normals.

Its a shame that Buldozer only 'render's models up to roughly 8000 and after that the model seemingly wont change from the last time it was below the ~8000 limit. Try it yourself, take a highly-detailed model, and keep copying ans pasting it and moving its position slightly around in O2 - You'll soon see that it wont change after the face/vertex count exceeds a certain number (seems to vary from ~8,000 up to ~11,000.

This issue can be remedied by building the model in parts (and/or using proxies), and then pasting everything into one file for use ingame.

[adumb 0]

*An older topic about poly count.*

I just love all the "max poly count" topics on this forum. they always go to the crapper so fast.

Just make what you think is right. and not what others think should be right. Modding for ArmA is about having fun. not reading a crap load of dev rules.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

*An older topic about poly count.*

I just love all the "max poly count" topics on this forum. they always go to the crapper so fast.

Just make what you think is right. and not what others think should be right. Modding for ArmA is about having fun. not reading a crap load of dev rules.

Yeah I agree with you

[baddo 0]

Hi

I would not be sure, if all games uses triangular polygons.

Are you sure that they are calculated faster? Because I believe that BIS had their reasons why they implemented faces...

I would be very wondering if a model with only triangular polygons has the better performance than a model with a mix of triangular polygons and faces.

Well I think none of us can tell what primitive types all games in the World use... but what are the hardware manufacturers recommending, that we can discuss more reliably.

The http://developer.nvidia.com/ and http://ati.amd.com/developer/ websites offer good articles about how to get the best performance out of their graphics cards. It seems to me that triangle strips are favoured. Also the Microsoft DirectX Software Development Kit is, if I recall correctly, pointing out that games should use triangles for best performance.

Check those references out, they contain a whole lot of interesting information.

Best Regards,

Baddo.

[MehMan 0]

Just make what you think is right. and not what others think should be right. Modding for ArmA is about having fun. not reading a crap load of dev rules.

Yeah, but I bet even you wouldn't have fun when you'd import an addon and it would lag the game down or make it crash.

[DaSquade 0]

Quote[/b] ]nephilim: depending on what you are intending to do.

but 8k of polygons for a vehicle seems reasonable.

but not eg for a tree or a soldier.

also besure you turn all polygons into tris.

i know it sounds weird but all games use tris.

they can be calculated alot faster and they eliminate the non-planarity issue

O.K., i can see the point that tris and better compaired to quad (face) polygons. But isn't it (just) better because it calculates lightning/shaders etc better and faster on tris? I mean, their it can indeed be better for, but not sure if it benefiets the overall model and the so called optimization of models.

Meaning, like i have just models a vehicle and stranded roughly on 5600faces (without weaponary and interieur...still looking into reducing/optimizing without detail loss, but end should go around 8000 i'm aiming). But that would mean if i convert it into a tri model the poly count goes from 5600 to a wooping 10787 (for same detail level), but it might indeed preform better when it comes on the lightning/shader part...but don't think it will run better overall .

Where i do agree tri are better (read: needed) is when you have faces when you check if they split wrong if you convert them into a tri. Example: if you take a non-planar face and split it, if it creates the edge in the wrong direction (as it might even draw lightning wrong). There i would consider mirroring the face, split it and mirror it again (yup yup, still old O2 user here ).

Anyway, what i try to explain is, a tris model (in most cases) will have double amount of polys (especially if you optimized it...and i don't mean optimized cilinder construction...but take a 4point face over a tri point face) so OR you will end with a much more poly count model OR you will reduce detail level a lot if you want to work with a max. poly count in the back of your head).

Anyway, no cockfighting here and not looking for the 'best' methode, but just wanted to post my input on this (but i suppose most of us already knew). In the end, everybody does what he thinks is best for him/here, but i guess you make a point (with DirectX 9 and 10 around the corner) it might have a bigger impack (on processing) then is known.

EDIT: oeps, to get back ontopic, i suppose when making a model you should keep a few things in mind. Like will this be a 'thing' that comes single ingame or in the dozin. In your case, realisticly viewed (afaik) you shouldn't have more then 1 airborne during a mission. But in the end, like said try to have a end poly count in mind and try to work throughwords and under it. It is easy to make high poly modles, it is hard to make low poly models that look high poly. Good luck by the way!

[nephilim 0]

i know it sounds arkward but its fact and ive been stated wrong about my previous statesments.

ALL games use tris only.

even ofp converts polygons into tris.

i havent really experienced any performance issues with it.

actually, as ofp/arma triangulates it anyway, you can keep you models in quads, but parts that follow an organic shape should be triangulated.

also mainly the vertex count is important.

as animations, uv(textures) get drawn over the vertices (x,y,z pos in 3d space).

[max power 21]

If you're building a model in quads, each quad is still made up of 2 tris. Quads are just a way of visualizing the meshflow. If you build a model in quads, at the end of the day they're just tris with certain grouping parameters attached. Don't get too hung up on quads vs. tris thing. The game engine is going to throw all that trash out anyways. Just focus on making a model that is nice and clean and easy to texture, and has a good silouette.

[zee-ub00r-assi 0]

... reading all this one question comes to my mind :

(or maybe 2 ...)

1. Is modelling an model in the new oxygen more intelligent

than making it in 3dsmax and then export it to oxygen ?

2. How much effort is it to convert a 3dsmax model into the contrapart of oxyegn , so that it works ?

[nephilim 0]

pro tools like max have some advantages like UV mapping or whatever tools that are cool for modelin.

i cant say much about the new tool (NDA) but you will need it to set up the models for arma.

where ever you make them is your beer tho

[JdB 151]

As Nephilim said, nothing is known about the new tools yet, I hope they have UV mapping, so that I can more easily edit the models I made and mapped in MAX.

Another possibility might be that they are just options for importing models into the game (like many other games have), rather than being a full modelling program like O2 was. (unconfirmed), I heard that BIS uses tools such as MAX rather than "O2" these days, so that is why I posted the "importer" idea.

Also hope they include the possibility to save to .3ds format this time...

[nephilim 0]

uhm why dont ou map your models in max?

[JdB 151]

uhm why dont ou map your models in max?

I do, but when I have to make some small adjustments it's easier to have it right there in "O2", than to have to export to 3ds, import in MAX, save, then reimport in O2 again

Yes, lazyness is part of the problem, as well as the problems that may occur when exporting to a different file format

[nephilim 0]

well if you have problems importing models you might browse the oxygen forums?

lazyness isnt an excuse with which you can expect help here

[JdB 151]

I think you should read my previous 2 posts again...

I have never said that I have trouble either mapping models in MAX, or exporting/importing them. I simply said that it is irritating to have made an entire UV map in MAX, and than having to resort to inferiour remapping in O2 to fix a small mistake or add something.

When you export/import them again to do these things, you again have to define sharp/smooth faces and selections among others. That's my point.