Friday 2010-10-29 Dev. update and Discussion

[major_setback]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

Tessellation is good for FPS games IMHO. Look at Metro 2033 and with high tessellation aka all DirectX 11 gimmicks on it brings to it's knees ANY of the new graphics cards. Really would you see from your 300mph+ speeding Spitfire or Hurricane cockpit if the stones of the railway would be bumped or not?

I really think tessellation could be dropped out of a flight sim that taxes the system hard enough without any more gimmicks to strain it even more. Sure, if an option for the screenie guys then sure, go for it. But if had to choose with it on at a 200+ plane engagement with decent FPS or horrbile FPS..no thanks.

Just my .2cents.

If it (or other techniques) can be used to make craters etc. without having polygon models then you might be getting performance benefit from it.

Anyway, I don't intend to start and finish missions in the air. There will be more to look at than sky.

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by philip.ed
Just a bit of sarcasm.

....

But no, I did not fight in the war but then I would never attempt to justifiy that I did. and me saying 'I was' is not me trying to lead you on.

Originally Posted by Old_Canuck

Give it up. Any credibility you thought you had is totally evaporated.

I think that Phil is being sincere here, and wishes he gave some thought before making the post...when he first made the remark, I pictured him riding a tank with a general's rank, while the bliz...well, you know the rest

[Baron]

+1


Seems most people think tessellation wont effect fps or very little if so, compared to todays way of doing it.

It just takes some rational thinking to understand what tessellation in a game like SoW would do to framerates. Its not like they replace todays way with a more effective method, they are ADDING better graphics. More effective yes, but still MORE of it (hope u understand what i mean)

OMG my gpu just died would proppably fit in nicely if used in SoW for ex.

Hopefully in a couple of years?

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

Tessellation is good for FPS games IMHO. Look at Metro 2033 and with high tessellation aka all DirectX 11 gimmicks on it brings to it's knees ANY of the new graphics cards. Really would you see from your 300mph+ speeding Spitfire or Hurricane cockpit if the stones of the railway would be bumped or not?

I really think tessellation could be dropped out of a flight sim that taxes the system hard enough without any more gimmicks to strain it even more. Sure, if an option for the screenie guys then sure, go for it. But if had to choose with it on at a 200+ plane engagement with decent FPS or horrbile FPS..no thanks.

Just my .2cents.

Likewise, the only benefit I see at the moment is when you are starting up on the ground and taxiing out to the runway. As mentioned before, tesselized bomb craters would be nice, add some oomph to those evil landing gear benders.

[SaQSoN]

Originally Posted by JVM

If tessellation can be "activated " function of viewing distance

This is exactly, how it works in the DX11, fully automatically. Basically, this feature replaces normal mapping feature. the later one is kind of "fake" 3D, which uses lighting effects to simulate small details. On the screenshot with the steam engine you can see "3D" rivetts, done with normal mapping. However, they only look 3D, while actually being flat.

Now, should the game support DX11 tesselation, at a certain distance (usually very close), the rivetts would become real 3D, in the following way: the polygon, this rivetts are painted on, would be tesselated into a HUGE number of a smaller polygons, which will be then displaced, using the same normal map as a displace map and form real 3D objects.

Originally Posted by JVM

it would add a lot of "lifelikeness" to objects like rail ballast and sleepers, road sides, craters, generally man-made objects like houses, buildings...maybe without taxing too much FPS!..

Actually, that is what normal mapping does quite well too. And definitely with bigger FPS (since there is much less polygons used).
As I said above, you would see distictive difference between displacement map and normal map only very close to the object. In a flight sim player very rarely sees objects that close (except cockpit, offcourse).

Originally Posted by major_setback

The picture: They are the same, but of course the model must be mapped in the correct way for the 3D effect to show...that is the wonder of this new graphics technology. It causes a lot less demand on your system than actual polygon modelling.

If a model is correctly made and mapped for use of normal mapping, it will not have to be remodelled to support tesselation+displacement mapping of DX11.
So, generally speaking, if someday Oleg's programmers will decide to include support of this technology into the game, his models will work well with it without any change.

[SaQSoN]

Originally Posted by major_setback

If it (or other techniques) can be used to make craters etc. without having polygon models then you might be getting performance benefit from it.

You see, tesselation DOES BRING ADDITIONAL POLYGONS into the scene. Simply speaking, it "takes" a low-poly model and transforms it into a high-poly one (which, obviously looks better, if you are close enough to see the difference ).
This technology makes modeling easier, but it does not unload the GPU. On contrary, it loads it more. However, the modern (read, DX11 - compatible) GPUs can "chew" a lot more polygons, then the older ones, hence, allowing use of this technology without the significant performance drop.

PS Bomb craters are already 3D.

[C_G]

re: tesselation;
Personally, I find the difference to be quite impressive.
But there are 2 concerns I have:
1- the fps hit.
If anyone has a DX11 capable card and a copy of the [-game-] [edit: Heaven benchmark] tesselation was demonstrated in, it would be interesting to know what impact the extra workload on the vid card caused (obviously while being played, not while taking still screenies).

2- can tesselation capability be easily laid over existing 3D models or does it require a complete rebuild?

C_G

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

PS Bomb craters are already 3D.

In SoW?

[SaQSoN]

Originally Posted by Hecke

In SoW?

Guess.

Can you proof it?