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.

Originally Posted by philip.ed http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/images/...s/viewpost.gif
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. :grin: and me saying 'I was' is not me trying to lead you on.




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:grin:

+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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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. ;)

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

In SoW?

Guess. :cool:

Can you proof it? ;)