[project1dev] Re: Scale
- From: Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:07:19 -0700
Nick: LOD hehe (:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> I looked that up, am I correct in thinking that they can just scan a
> light over a cpu and tell what parts are using the most energy (thus
> instructions)?
>
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Alan Wolfe<alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > yeah, ID is amazing. they profile their code with osciliscopes to see
> where
> > in the hardware the bottlenecks are :P
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I like how you're not surprised they were able to do it. :) It looks
> >> like it just takes a certain amount of coding knowledge to be able to
> >> apply it in ways that don't seem possible.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Alan Wolfe<alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >> > there's algorithms for things like this.
> >> >
> >> > for textures you can calculate at various distances how many texture
> >> > pixels
> >> > there are per screen pixels (also taking into account the object's
> >> > scale)
> >> > and try to make it 1 to 1.
> >> >
> >> > For instance if something has a super high resolution texture or is
> >> > scaled
> >> > way down, you might have 8 texture pixels per screen pixel which is a
> >> > lot.
> >> > You could then make the texture 1/8th as large and have it so 1
> texture
> >> > pixel equals 1 on screen pixel.
> >> >
> >> > That's the ideal most of the time.
> >> >
> >> > similarly for models, you can take a look at each vertex and if you
> >> > remove
> >> > the vertex see how many pixels on screen would "pop" and anything
> which
> >> > was
> >> > within the reasonable tolerance, it would get rid of, but keep from
> >> > removing
> >> > vertices that make a huge impact.
> >> >
> >> > Like for instance if you had a cone shaped nose for a character you
> >> > wouldn't
> >> > remove the tip of the nose cause that would make the nose go flat
> which
> >> > is
> >> > really noticeable, but you might remove some of the vertices on the
> base
> >> > of
> >> > the nose since doing that is going to make it less round, but that
> >> > doesnt
> >> > really affect how the model looks.
> >> >
> >> > these are just 2 ways but theres all sorts of algorithms to do this
> >> > stuff
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Wow, that really is impressive. That gives artists and builders so
> >> >> much more freedom it's crazy. I don't even know how one would go
> >> >> about creating that system!
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Alan Wolfe<alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Oh and something really interesting to note!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The geniouses at ID software (carmack etc) have their current
> engine
> >> >> > working
> >> >> > where artists submit huge high resolution textures and way high
> >> >> > polycount
> >> >> > models, and the engine scales each down to only what is needed and
> >> >> > automatically gets rid of the waste.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > it's a neat system, but ID software is like the best of the best so
> >> >> > it's
> >> >> > no
> >> >> > surprise :P
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Well the scaling issues should all but disapear because the
> artists
> >> >> >> are
> >> >> >> going to make models to scale and building won't require making
> >> >> >> things
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> right size for the most part. This is important too because an
> >> >> >> artist
> >> >> >> makes a model to be a specific size. If a builder make it bigger
> >> >> >> than
> >> >> >> that,
> >> >> >> it's going to look bad like you saw with the stretched textures.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The solution to the problem you hit is just to have the artists
> make
> >> >> >> objects the right size and have the builders not have to worry
> about
> >> >> >> it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> the idea of being able to place a bunch of models down in specific
> >> >> >> intervals is a good idea, its probably something we'll need a lot.
> >> >> >> This can
> >> >> >> be done via some script magic currently but i'll put it on the
> list
> >> >> >> as
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> wish item for later (:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> something you might like, is if you type "clone" in the console
> when
> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >> have something selected, it will clone your selection so that when
> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >> click, it will place an object rotated and scaled the exact same
> >> >> >> place
> >> >> >> where
> >> >> >> you click. that should help with this point you bring up too.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In general we want to only use as many verts and texture
> resolution
> >> >> >> as
> >> >> >> we
> >> >> >> need.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's true that if we give a higher res texture to an object and
> >> >> >> extra
> >> >> >> verts then we can scale it up and it will still look good, but
> with
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> artists making objects of the right size for the game, we won't
> ever
> >> >> >> be
> >> >> >> scaling things past where they should be so i think the artists
> >> >> >> should
> >> >> >> keep
> >> >> >> on doin like they have, just use the lowest res texture needed to
> >> >> >> make
> >> >> >> an
> >> >> >> object look good at the scale they want it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> make sense?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Chris Riccobono
> >> >> >> <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Not to keep begging for more editor features....
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> But if we have setscale combined with being able to see exact
> >> >> >>> dimensions of a model when you click on it, then we could have
> >> >> >>> setsize
> >> >> >>> and keep placing models to that exact dimension set. And then
> >> >> >>> combined with the snapto command, we could actually keep placing
> >> >> >>> models every set amount of space, and they would be exactly
> >> >> >>> aligned.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I don't know if this makes full sense but it did when I was
> typing
> >> >> >>> it
> >> >> >>> :x
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Chris
> >> >> >>> Riccobono<crysalim@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >>> > When I was building I found it easier when a model had a good,
> >> >> >>> > high
> >> >> >>> > res texture. They can't be too big cuz of cost, of course, but
> >> >> >>> > if
> >> >> >>> > the
> >> >> >>> > texture is unrepeating and pretty, you can almost scale the
> model
> >> >> >>> > any
> >> >> >>> > way you want and not have to worry.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > When making floors, walls, and ceilings, it seems better to
> have
> >> >> >>> > lower
> >> >> >>> > res and lower size models. This helps when tiling and aligning
> >> >> >>> > things. For example, the first version of the voidmap had some
> >> >> >>> > issues
> >> >> >>> > because the main asteroid was very large and oddly shaped. I
> had
> >> >> >>> > to
> >> >> >>> > almost scale it to a pancake on the Z axis because of that, and
> >> >> >>> > even
> >> >> >>> > then there were still problems with being able to walk under
> and
> >> >> >>> > around things placed on it.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Oddly shaped models are very pretty as decoration though, like
> >> >> >>> > the
> >> >> >>> > fortune teller tent props, the rock piles in cavemap, and the
> new
> >> >> >>> > trees in voidmap.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Hey Alan, maybe we can get around the iffyness of scaling in
> the
> >> >> >>> > editor by being able to set a value of default scale in the
> >> >> >>> > console.
> >> >> >>> > Maybe something like "setscale 0.5 0.5 0.5", so then everything
> >> >> >>> > you
> >> >> >>> > place will already have a scale of that value.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Alan
> >> >> >>> > Wolfe<alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >>> > wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> Yeah, just to re-iterate, scaling in the editor is just like
> >> >> >>> >> what
> >> >> >>> >> happens in
> >> >> >>> >> real life if you stretch an object.
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> the texture stretches too and will look distorted if you
> stretch
> >> >> >>> >> it
> >> >> >>> >> too
> >> >> >>> >> much, or stretch it too far on one axis vs the others
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> the idea is that when we make models we want to make it so 10
> >> >> >>> >> units
> >> >> >>> >> =
> >> >> >>> >> 1
> >> >> >>> >> meter so that when a builder places an object in the level
> that
> >> >> >>> >> they
> >> >> >>> >> dont
> >> >> >>> >> have to scale it, since the artist has an idea of how big the
> >> >> >>> >> object
> >> >> >>> >> should
> >> >> >>> >> be in the world, and scaling takes extra time when building.
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> thats the ideal, but of course it may take us quite a few
> >> >> >>> >> iterations
> >> >> >>> >> before
> >> >> >>> >> we are all on the same page about how to make that happen (:
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Nick Klotz
> >> >> >>> >> <roracsenshi@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >>> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >>>
> >> >> >>> >>> Textures get stretched and compressed at the same ratio you
> >> >> >>> >>> scale.
> >> >> >>> >>>
> >> >> >>> >>>
> >> >> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:45 AM, katie cook <
> ktmcook@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >>> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >>>>
> >> >> >>> >>>> Hey Guys,
> >> >> >>> >>>>
> >> >> >>> >>>> When you scale a model in the level editor, does it scale
> the
> >> >> >>> >>>> textures
> >> >> >>> >>>> proportionately? OR does it stretch them as you scale?
> >> >> >>> >>>>
> >> >> >>> >>>
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Other related posts:
