FAQ-QUESTIONS,release date,system specs, for CoD

[Heliocon]

[QUOTE=Skoshi Tiger;207191]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Tessalation is the only way they will be able to pull off large scale air battles, and realistic sight distances without making the game a slide show, or having textures from 2005. In addition I never said GPU based physics, but if the damage and flying models are accurate/realistic they will need advanced physics (which is a necessity not an option). How they will handle delegation I do not know but DX11 cards are the only ones that will be able to handle the data stream from the CPU cals (assuming its cpu based) which could detract from AI etc.
QUOTE]

From my understanding tessalation is only useful for close up items, Anything further away will be scaled back in detail anyway.

It would be useful for texturing craters up close or texturing the leather crash pads in the cockpit but I don't think it would be a make or break addition to the sim.

Hardware Physics would be nice but once again Oleg has repeatedly stated that they developed an have a in house physics engine. Also I don't think the 'Physics API's' Supported by ATI or Nvidia are useful for flight sims. There more useful for modeling fluids, fluttering cloth and particles of exploding bombs. Great for FPS's where your up close and personal but not so good for light sims!

Cheers!

Yep you are right. Sorry if I was unclear - PhysX is nvidias physics program, which the GPU does but you can still calculate physics on the gpu or cpu not using the specific program (for example Havok), its an issue because the physics will have to be calculated constantly while flying (I believe they said there would be rising and falling air/turbulance but I may be wrong) and it takes cycles away from the cpu or gpu.

As for tessalation, it depends. If you run the Unigine heaven demo 2 (beutiful engine btw) they use it for the housing and the roads (cobblestones are actual geometry not bump map). But it can be equally useful for distance, for example while flying in the far distance you could render thousands of bombers with no fps hit because the bombers are only a few hundred polygons each. As you get closer (and you can see fewer planes since your vision is limited to an arch (of course) they can jack up the model quality massivly due to tessalation. You could be up strafing a flawless b52 bomber with all its glorious details and a 200m away there is another 100 b52's but they are scaled down models due to tessalation but since they are at a distance you cant see the lack of detail (when you get closer they tesselate).
Same with towns and houses, far distance they can be little boxes and as you get closer the little squares turn into fully detailed towns and streets.

So you would get a huge performance boost, without it they would all have to be lower quality or have the fully detailed model present and kill fps because its rendering much much more detail then you can actually see!

(for those who are interested here is a little youtube video displaying the benchmark. Also note the dynamic lighting and refraction which is DX11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F6zSgtRnkE

Edit 2: Sorry for the wall of text, just wanted to show this water scene, this is compute-shader which is more Nvidia specific but is DX11. Since the BOB was often near the sea/channel I hope they have water life this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAsoX...eature=related

[Baron]

Tesselation doesnt mean u get more eyecandy from the same power, it just doesnt.


Use tesselation in say SoW i quarentee u the not a single pc on the market will run it, not one.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by Baron

Tesselation doesnt mean u get more eyecandy from the same power, it just doesnt.


Use tesselation in say SoW i quarentee u the not a single pc on the market will run it, not one.

Your evidence for this is.... What?
Sorry for being blunt/rude but you dont seem to know much about how computer graphics work do you? Or you didnt read my explanation.
I think I coverd the power vs graphics detail in it.

[Baron]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Your evidence for this is.... What?
Sorry for being blunt/rude but you dont seem to know much about how computer graphics work do you? Or you didnt read my explanation.
I think I coverd the power vs graphics detail in it.

Come on, ok lets make it simple. Run Heaven benchmark without tesselation, then with tesselation.

Notice any differance in, oh i dont know, fps maby?


P.S. As for your explanation, i dont know what i has to do with tesselation perse. Why would tesselation be usefull rendering boxes (bombers) from 4 km away? Thats not what tesselation is all about.

Its not like u get all those thousands of extra polygons for free u know. Tesselation isnt used for extra performance boost, its used to get extra eyecandy with less performance hit than with traditional tecniques, however u WILL have a performance hit no matter how u slice it compared to not running tesselation.

[TheGrunch]

Is it just me who finds the post you just quoted extremely amusing? "Sorry for being blunt/rude but you dont seem to know much about how computer graphics work do you?" Backing up an argument that basically says "Tesselation = magic, be sure!".

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by Baron

Come on, ok lets make it simple. Run Heaven benchmark without tesselation, then with tesselation.

Notice any differance in, oh i dont know, fps maby?


P.S. As for your explanation, i dont know what i has to do with tesselation perse. Why would tesselation be usefull rendering boxes (bombers) from 4 km away? Thats not what tesselation is all about.

Its not like u get all those thousands of extra polygons for free u know. Tesselation isnt used for extra performance boost, its used to get extra eyecandy with less performance hit than with traditional tecniques, however u WILL have a performance hit no matter how u slice it compared to not running tesselation.

... Ok no you dont but you need to think through your posts. Oleg can make beutiful and high polygon count models of aircraft, smoot rounded hulls and all. Without tessalation or distance mapping the aircraft is renderd in all its full glory even at 10 miles away where you can even make out what type of plane it is. So 1000 planes in the distance (lets say far enough that you can see there basic outline) are being renderd in full detail (high polygon count). Dont you think this will kill frame rate?

With tessalation, those aircraft in the distance would be low polygon count models, but you would not be able to see that because they are far from you on the screen, this gives a big boost in performance as it has far far far less rendering/polygons the gpu has to work with. As you get closer the tessalation kicks in and increases the polygon count gradually, you never notice the difference but at close range the plane is just as detailed if not far more detailed then it would be without tesselation. You get the quality without the performance hit that the quality would bring otherwise.

And yes I do have the unigine benchmark and have used it extensivly to setup my gpu/overclock. The reason I responded as I did before was because your question was silly, think about it...
Of course it takes a fps hit creating each cobblestone vs flat bump mapped ground. BUT without tesselation you would have the flat ground, or the ENTIRE image would be tesselated, even distant objects you cannot visually see clear enough to see any change. Therefor tessalation improves performance as it phases in geometry when you can actually get close enough to see it.

I have done some graphics work in the past with Maya 7.0 (mostly), including models, texture mapping (photoshop) and alittle animation. As far as I can tell from the Oleg quote I think he misunderstands and or isnt updated on the newest info (from what I have heard). I will look for it but I believe Nvidia advertised multi level tesselation for models with the 500 series release. Therefor the models would not have to be modeled (which they arent) as tesselation extrapolates from the base models (sure its alittle more complicated then that, but thats the jist of what I heard).

Not an amazing video but this demonstrates the difference, pay attention to the geometry mesh (I know its not a great video). As a recap tesselation allows huge polygon counts with minimal performance loss due to it being based on distance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-6lR...eature=related

[The Kraken]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Oleg can make beutiful and high polygon count models of aircraft, smoot rounded hulls and all. Without tessalation or distance mapping the aircraft is renderd in all its full glory even at 10 miles away where you can even make out what type of plane it is.

It is not, that's what standard LOD techniques are for which switch to lower polygon models depending on distance. Unlike tessellated models they can also use GPU features for rapidly processing duplicate geometry parts which further increases performance.

Add the huge overhead of creating dedicated DX11 models for the developers which would only be useful for a small audience and it doesn't look like a good approach anymore. There's a reason why outside of graphics demos, tesselation is restricted to spicing up generic surfaces so far.

Like all new GPU features before it will take a few years and 1-2 GPU generations before this will see widespread use, especially with consoles out of the equation.

Besides the main issue with hundreds of planes is not the rendering, but AI & FM calculations. Optimizing this area would be more important than exploring new graphics technologies that so far only few people can use.

Heliocon!!!

Tesselation is not the magic wonder you seem to think it is. From your posts it's obvious that you don't know how it and other features common in computer gaming work.

[TheGrunch]

Heliocon, LOD models (i.e. switching to lower poly models at a distance) have been in Il-2 since 2001, for crying out loud. Never mind SoW. Tessellation is just like normal/parallax mapping in its effects, if not in its inner workings.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

Heliocon!!!

Tesselation is not the magic wonder you seem to think it is. From your posts it's obvious that you don't know how it and other features common in computer gaming work.

Mind to provide evidence/what I said that shows I do not know how effects in computer gaming work? Have you ever done any 3d modeling or texturing?

Just parroting - "you think tesselation is magic" people here on the forums are sad, especially because you havent yet told me why what I am saying is in any way incorrect or even advanced your own posts about it (except for the post commenting on LOD which I addressed).