Duck and Cover

Ah, interesting thing about the LithTech engine (the one used in BIS: Torn).

Good now hopfuly I never fotget the name of the engine again.

1. Neverwinter Nights turned out quite well, although I did feel it somehow lecked personality.

2. BioWare made MDK2, so they really shouldn't have any trouble with the MDK2 engine.

Crow of Ill Omen wrote: You're a 3D graphics programmer that thinks 3D is "baaaad?" That's not exactly going to add weight to your opinion. Why are you doing it? Have you made a personal commitment to producing baaaad software?

3D isn't intrinsically, irredeemably or generally bad. I don't think it would necessarily be appropriate for FO3, but it has its advantages and uses (none of which anything to do with being elite in the way you mentioned).

I'm sure this has all been argued before by various evangelists on either side, and by some more open minded people also, most of whom would understand things better than me.

I do graphics work for architecture-type design, where render speed isn't overly important...but also, I've fiddled a bit with the Q3 source. That is one of the more efficient 3D engines. And something with enough polys to draw a full Fallout town? Everyone would need, as I said, a GeForce4 card. And CBR can brag that he's got one, but anyone who stops and thinks about it will realize that most people won't have one of that caliber until at least late 2003, more likely mid 2004 (when the mid-market boards catch up to today's power rigs) and by then the polygon amounts will need to increase yet more. Ad infinitum. Whereas 2D graphics will run on just about any system, precluding the above problem.

hehe, i should write them a letter saying that ill buy 5 copies of FO3 if they make it, just so they will make more money and sell more copies.

Just out of curiosity, how many polygons would it take to create a screen, assuming it's populated about as much as FO?

It depends on a few varying things. A place like New Reno or The Hub would take a lot more than, say, Junktown, due to more NPCs and buildings and such (because the current trend is no-load-time, and therefore most, if not all, of a level has to be loaded in real-time). I don't have exact numbers, but I'd say at least three to four and a half times the poly counts in Morrowind (assuming it comes out in 2003-04). Since a lot of people will still have their same video cards, though the lower-range cards will be better, I'd give it a FPS of about 30 on said cards (Morrowind runs 60fps on mine).

Let's assume they stuck with the system they have now, dividing up the towns into separate screens. About how many polys would the downtown area of the Hub need, probably one of the busier areas in the game?

Well, it's almost impossible to estimate the amount of polygons, of course you can shoot some wild guesses, but what's the point? The amount of polygons varies a lot, it depends on many things, the amount of things on the screen etc.. It doesn't require billions of polygons to make the game look good. I doubt facial animations and stuff like that would play an important role in Fallout 3, as for example in FPS's

Of course, if we'd have a screenshot to analyze...

That's kind of my point. Blacken is saying it isn't practical, but he hasn't even given any solid estimates about the number of polygons required.

Simply because I wouldn't be able to conjecture it into what would be there then. And regardless of what I say now, it'll be waved in my face if something ever materializes: "Nyah, nyah, you were wrong!" I've given a fair estimate (3-4.5x the amount in Morrowind). And I've also given about what that translates to on the average video card (currently the TNT2 32MB, at about 30fps).

They would be able to divide it up and make it a bit more accessible. However, with the occlusion code used in 3D engines today, that won't make all that much of a difference, because the engine doesn't draw what isn't seen (unless there's a good reason to draw it, i.e. it's behind a breakable object).

I'll post more later, when I can get home and take a look at some more code.

TNT2 is actually pretty low end, though. For about $50 or so you could get a GeForce 2 TI and get more than five times the framerate, based off of Quake 3 benchmarks from Tom's Hardware. Hell, any GF2-based card could get 60 FPS in that situation. Unless you're just completely wrong about those numbers, that's very doable.

http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphic/0 ... ts-03.html

Blacken wrote:And CBR can brag that he's got one, but anyone who stops and thinks about it will realize that most people won't have one of that caliber until at least late 2003, more likely mid 2004 (when the mid-market boards catch up to today's power rigs) and by then the polygon amounts will need to increase yet more. Ad infinitum. Whereas 2D graphics will run on just about any system, precluding the above problem.

Not ad infinitum, surely? At some point, the quality must be comparable to Fallout. Granted, they would still attempt to advance the technology, but at that point 3D could be said to have overtaken 2D.

The crucial factor is when the quality achievable by mid-range cards can be said to be comparable to 2D graphics. If that's before they make FO3, the player loses nothing from 3D and may gain a lot (although the dev company might be out of pocket).

It all really depends on how you define mid-range and averange. Based off of the gamers I know -- primarily from playing CounterStrike -- the average card is significantly better than a TNT2, probably about the level of a GF2 MX 200. While I doubt that card is capable of 3d graphics as good as what FO has, it's not too far behind. In a year/year and a half, the average graphics card -- if we assume it's GF3 or better by that point -- probably would be capable of supporting those graphics, or close enough to use a 3D engine anyway. So if BIS started work on FO3 tomorrow, it's reasonable for them to use a 3d engine.

Of course, all of that depends on your definition of mid-range and average, like I said earlier.

TNT2 is already old in todays standards.

I've given a fair estimate (3-4.5x the amount in Morrowind).

How many polygons is there in Morrowind on average then?

Don't have a copy of the game on-hand, VasikkA. Go look it up if you're curious. And the average card from what I've seen in various computers (I don't mean the gaming PCs, I mean your-average-Joe's PC) is a TNT2.

Crow: No, not ad infinitum. However, when the number of polygons becomes academic, I'm sure they'll come up with something new for the card to waste cycles on - bazillions of particles in a render, shaders from Hell, etcetera.

I think I've lost something here. Are you saying that you think that the standard of 3D graphics will not improve, even though the cards are continually getting better?

Why does it matter what's in a non-gamer's PC, though?

Doyle, reread my post. I mean what's in the average computer, not the hardcore gamer's box. You do realize there are other gamers out there besides the hardcore gamers, right? And games have to be made to run on the lowest common denominator in order to sell more, correct?

I don't doubt that the standard of 3D graphics will remain the same, Crow. I said that once the polygon count becomes academic (meaning, if you didn't catch it, that there's really no visual difference) that the cards will still continue to increase in power (Moore's Law, though that may be petering out in a few years - can't go much below 0.1 micron for chips) and they'll find something else to use the horsepower for. HOWEVER, be honest. I can't tell the difference between a 5,000 polygon human and an 8,000 poly human. But that's being advertised as a major increase in quality. And I'll bet that that demand for that type of increase keeps coming, and so the companies that make the games have to do it in order for everyone's favorite enemy (magazine editors...not really, but I see a lot of nitpicking on this from them) can't say "The graphics are inferior because the game uses less polys."

Blacken wrote:Doyle, reread my post. I mean what's in the average computer, not the hardcore gamer's box. You do realize there are other gamers out there besides the hardcore gamers, right? And games have to be made to run on the lowest common denominator in order to sell more, correct?

You really need to go and reread my posts. Based off of what I've seen from other Counterstrike players, TNT2 is low-end. CS is not a game for hardcore gamers. It's a mod of a game that came out in like '98 or so. Hell, until fairly recently I was playing it with a Voodoo 2. From what I've seen among hardcore gamers, a GF3 TI500 or above is the standard.

Hey hey, easy.
This conversation isn't going anywhere so please don't start flaming or dead bodies might appear.