Poly count?

[*Ringo*]

Don't suppose anybody knows what sort of polygon count the models in RTW are going to have??? (or already do have CA?) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Would be nice to get some practice in for modding new units in (If this is gonna be possible?) It would certainly stop me foaming at the mouth in anticipation http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-afro.gif

*Ringo*

[some_totalwar_dude]

I some of the first previews (man that's already a year ago) they mentiond something like 2000 polygons per unit.
Think about it, counterstrike was using 1200-1600 per unit, and that's a 3D shooter. It really shows how much they advanced.

[*Ringo*]

How can they get decent frame rates with models so detailed? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Surely your gonna need a super computer (or rad workstation) to run the game? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif Still if thats the case will give me a chance to experiment with some wicked models. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

Cheers

*Ringo*

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]How can they get decent frame rates with models so detailed? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
By using the programable functions of DirectX 9.0 3D GPU cards.

Today, for extensive 3D, the most important thing is the Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) not the CPU. The GPU's, contrary of general purpose CPU's, are specialized for 3D geometry and pixel processing.

Before they were developed, the CPU calculated ALL geometry. The graphic card only calculated display information. Today, the GPU is 100 times more powerfull for geometry calculations than the CPU. So, the graphic libraries today, like DirectX or OpenGL, set standards for the GPUs to be developed. They also allow for a redirecting of graphical - geometry (vertex) and lighting & rendering (pixel) - information to bypass the CPU and be calculated in the GPU.

That's the reason why today's games have massive polygon counts without delay... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[*Ringo*]

hmmm.. all very interesting and fine those people who have fully direct X 9.0 compatible video cards (thank god for my radeon 9800) But do you know if you will need a graphics card that contains the new DX 9 feature or will older cards work also?? (Asking on behalf of a friend who wants to know if he should upgrade now or later for optimum RTW performance) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

Cheers for the replies anyway http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

*Ringo*

[Sir Moody]

Quote[/b] ]some of the first previews (man that's already a year ago) they mentiond something like 2000 polygons per unit.
Think about it, counterstrike was using 1200-1600 per unit, and that's a 3D shooter. It really shows how much they advanced.


ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL..... /falls to floor gasping for air


CS is the HL engine and as such is quite out dated - the average modern Shooter has models with nearly 5 or 6 or more times as many poly's 2000 is really not much when it comes to single player - multiplayer its different as generally you want to keep polys down a bit to help with stablity and even then 2000 polys is average...

[some_totalwar_dude]

I know Half life is very old and that games like UT2003 use over 10,000 polys per unit http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

I just was trying to show how much grapichs advanced over the years, over 5 years We'll have stratagy games with guys running around who are as detailed as the dudes in modern FPshooters. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Ashen]

UT uses something closer to 20k per model, so in a 10 player thats 200k, and another 5mil for map and sky and environment, then you get particle effects etc. Upwards of 10million polys on a screen at one time is possible

100'000 can be easily handled by a GeForce 2 MX with a 500P3, so if Rome plans on hitting 2k per model, in an average 2k vs 2k men battle, thats 8million polygons. As many as UT. See, thats what I cant believe. Theres no way Rome uses 2k per model. Half Life models look far better and they use ~2k per model. Skins are 512x512 to be exact. I would say 1k per model is more than enough in rome becuase you dont need the same freedom of movement you do in CS, and with them being smaller 3d models you can use smaller textures on em too.

But you'll still be looking a PC over 1ghz with a GeForce 2 GTS or a GeForce 3 at least I think. Boris is right tho. A direct X 8 game with 200'000 polygons per screen can seemingly run the exact same as a Direct X 9 game with upwards of 5 million due to funky Direct x 9 shaders, and advanced hardware T&L. Its funky stuff ;)

[Spino]

Actually I think there will be little in the way of DX9 programmable shader and vertex functions in RTW. Not that RTW won't use some of DX9's functions but it is a strategy game and I simply don't see the need for such high level 3D functions. The average strategy gamer's system is typcially slower than one owned by your average 3D shooter fan so why raise the 3D rendering requirements to extreme levels? Furthermore since older 32meg TNT2 & GeForce 1 level 3D cards are going to be supported I think it's safe to say RTW will be a predominantly DX8.1 based game. Now if this were Rome Total Shooter... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

RTW's 3D engine sports very aggressive 'level of detail' (LOD) routines which calculate how many polygons and animation frames are needed to render any given scene while maintaining a relatively smooth framerate. These calculations are done by the CPU before the final rendering instructions are passed on to the 3D card. Without efficient LOD routines in place the 3D engine would simply pass along all rendering instructions to the 3D card which would quickly be brought to its knees trying to render several thousand, 2,000 polygon, fully animated soldiers running around hacking each other to pieces. Think 3 frames per second instead of 30. Just what defines a 'smooth' framerate is based on established minimum & maximum system specs of the target user's pc and what the developers would consider to be an average sized battle. The benefits of LOD routines are twofold; first and foremost they cut down on the wasteful rendering of details most people won't notice. There is no point to rendering a 2,000 polygon, fully animated man if he is situated several hundred meters from the camera Why render details in a computer simulation that the naked eye cannot discern at distances of 100, 300 or even 500 meters? Secondly LOD routines help to lower cpu and 3d chip overhead, allowing for the developers to make room for other resource hungry features like improved AI. Lower CPU and 3D chip overhead also allows the developers to lower their minimum system specs therefore avoiding the unpleasant experience of alienating potential buyers who own not-so-state-of-the-art systems.

[Nelson]

Quote[/b] (Spino @ Jan. 23 2004,12:21)]Just what defines a 'smooth' framerate is based on established minimum & maximum system specs of the target user's pc and what the developers would consider to be an average sized battle.
I must disagree. “Smooth” means keeping the lowest frame rate above 30 or so. The high or average is no good if the low is too slow. The valleys are annoying not the peaks. I think a lot of people are tolerant of frame rates that are less than smooth all the time because “playable” doesn’t mean “satin smooth” for everyone.

I’m looking for smooth frame rates at the highest detail with the largest armies. What I’ll have to settle for remains to be seen. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]“Smooth” means keeping the lowest frame rate above 30 or so.

Ah, an optimist... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif


Quote[/b] ]I'm looking for smooth frame rates at the highest detail with the largest armies. What I'll have to settle for remains to be seen.

Ooooh, an idealist too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink3.gif

While I have a great deal of faith in CA and their RTW engine I wouldn't get your hopes up too much. I imagine a 4 vs. 4 battle with large sized units will be just as slow on a high end machine as it is right now in MTW. In the world of PC gaming that kind of optimism will only lead to this... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Actually I think there will be little in the way of DX9 programmable shader and vertex functions in RTW. Not that RTW won't use some of DX9's functions but it is a strategy game and I simply don't see the need for such high level 3D functions. The average strategy gamer's system is typcially slower than one owned by your average 3D shooter fan so why raise the 3D rendering requirements to extreme levels? Furthermore since older 32meg TNT2 & GeForce 1 level 3D cards are going to be supported I think it's safe to say RTW will be a predominantly DX8.1 based game. Now if this were Rome Total Shooter...
I forgot to mention. As Spino says, the REAL jump forward in GLs and GPUs was made with DirectX 8.0 and 8.1. The 9.0 version is much improved, but not a revolution like DirectX 8.0 was... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif