middle 40k
uncanny
It is pretty known that polygons count is not everything, let alone it should never be a measure of a great model or graphics. But video game programmers know this already.
Sorry couldn't resist:
Anyway the image is very interesting, certianly makes sense.
Edit: Damn you!!
Sorry couldn't resist:
Anyway the image is very interesting, certianly makes sense.
Edit: Damn you!!
That doesn't really negate the point that after a certain point the increased polygon count becomes more negligible at a casual glance. Especially if in the first pic the 2K model is the original, given the 4K one next to it still doesn't look significantly better.
Think it goes without saying you won't magically wind up with a bust of Beethoven if you keep subdividing a cube in Maya/3DS Max/whatever.
but that still shows diminishing returns, without the conspicuously missing 40k polygon model.
middle 40k
uncanny
While I don't agree with the "diminishing returns" argument due to other variables in 3D interactive rendering that are routinely ignored in analysis, this refute is also pretty poor. Much of the detail added in their version of the 20,000 poly model is already replicated with advanced techniques like normal mapping, giving the illusion of real 3D geometry interacting with light/shadow where there isn't actually any. A better example (though I can appreciate the difficulty of constructing this) would be densely packed full scene of geometric detail, as however many triangles you can push in a single frame render isn't limited to individual assets but instead the entire scene. Having a higher poly budget lets you add greater geometric detail to any one scene.
Nostalgia! Loved Interstate 76!
Thank you, was about to point this out. Very convenient that they left out the new 40k model.
That doesn't really negate the point that after a certain point the increased polygon count becomes more negligible at a casual glance. Especially if in the first pic the 2K model is the original, given the 4K one next to it still doesn't look significantly better.
Think it goes without saying you won't magically wind up with a bust of Beethoven if you keep subdividing a cube in Maya/3DS Max/whatever.
it's far more efficient to represent surface detail with normal maps and focus your polygon budget on getting clean sillhouetes and model topology.
I think the whole point is that the original 40k mesh used in the example is a bad example, since most of the polygons are "wasted" they don't add more detail like it could do. It just increasing the polycount form a basic model.
As it shows later, you can add a lot of detail with more polygons that aren't exactly reflected on the 2k mesh. So more polygons, do actually matter.
Edit: Although like EatChildren said most games uses normal maps, but I think is just a valid refute of the Polygon argument
Efficient yes, but it still looks(alot) worse than real geometry.
While I don't agree with the "diminishing returns" argument due to other variables in 3D interactive rendering that are routinely ignored in analysis, this refute is also pretty poor. Much of the detail added in their version of the 20,000 poly model is already replicated with advanced techniques like normal mapping, giving the illusion of real 3D geometry interacting with light/shadow where there isn't actually any. A better example (though I can appreciate the difficulty of constructing this) would be densely packed full scene of geometric detail, as however many triangles you can push in a single frame render isn't limited to individual assets but instead the entire scene. Having a higher poly budget lets you add greater geometric detail to any one scene.
Nope.Am I the only person who read the words "polygon" and "bad" together, and immediately thought of the site?
Am I the only person who read the words "polygon" and "bad" together, and immediately thought of the site?
Am I the only person who read the words "polygon" and "bad" together, and immediately thought of the site?
The next big mountain we need to climb is parallax occlusion mapping. It's kind of like tesselation, but with a much, much lower performance cost because the added detail is "fake."
It's more noticeable as you look higher on the wall.I...don't see much of a difference.