Polygon Limit?

[Michael_Chang]

So as you all know, I like FSX conversions, and one of the reasons, is that they are so lo-poly and yet they can still look nice! I found out, about a year ago, that FSX actually has a limit imposed on it's modellers of 60000 polygons on their exteriors and interiors, so that the plane can run smoothly in the sim and i was thinking, why can't we put a limit of say, 70000 polygons on the exterior and 80000 polygons on the interior? it's perfectly reasonable and definitely won't affect the overall appearance of the aircraft.

Just as an example, the CRJ-200 is around 100000 polygons in total

[Ben Russell]

No thanks.

Next.

[Michael_Chang]

care to justify why we shouldn't cap it?

[Cameron]

This is incorrect. FS9 had such a limit, and FSX got rid of said limit which finally allowed for developers to add the detail necessary to stay with the times.

Your proposal would be a giant step backwards, especially given today's video card technology and X-Plane's very efficient object chomping.

[Peter T.]

No thanks.

Next.

we should have proper answers here, not people pushing it away because that is rude honestly.

This is incorrect. FS9 had such a limit, and FSX got rid of said limit which finally allowed for developers to add the detail necessary to stay with the times.

Your proposal would be a giant step backwards, especially given today's video card technology and X-Plane's very efficient object chomping.

actually, if we have limits, then we will be forced to think outside the box, on how to make detailed models without compromising smooth sides....plus we will get better FPS, take for instance Peter Hager (whatever said is not meant to offend him)...his a321, his a380 has tons and millions of unnecessary polys, when FSXP 767 is much lower but you cant see the blocky edges.....the 767 is a great example because it is a ported MSFS model and it shows how detailed the model can be only using far less polys then Peter Hager's models.

[tkyler]

care to justify why we shouldn't cap it?

I won't go so far as to say there shouldn't be a "budget" or that there's not a point where "that is too much". The fewer polygons / texture space that can be used to achieve a desired result the better no doubt. Fewer polygons on a cockpit panel means more for scenery for sure....but putting a number on it is not very straightfoward because there are so many hardware configurations and computers / graphics abilities are getting faster every year. What was a concern 3 years ago is less so today. Certainly having a poly budget is a prudent thing but that is for you yourself to place on your work...as oppsed to a "why can't we....approach" which implies that everybody's priorities are the same, which of course they're not. Some are perfectly willing to sacrifice a few FPS for the sake of bragging about having more detail than the next guy. It's a give and take situation for sure and just a matter of weighing the goals/pros cons. Given that everybody has different priorities though, the one sure outcome of any approach taken is that is that someone will complain about it.

Tom K

Edited November 17, 2012 by tkyler

[PascalL]

Polygon limit ? What polygon limit ?

Pascal

Edited November 17, 2012 by PascalL

[Michael_Chang]

I meant on aircraft, because there is a point where that many polygons is useless and won't really enhance the plane's appearance any further, so capping it would help those *ahem* me* with crappy computers fly the planes as well.

[Ben Russell]

Artist time investment is worth more than computer hardware.

Computer hardware gets cheaper every year.

"Life" becomes more priceless every year.

[Ben Russell]

If you want to truly experience the "Joy" of limits, please go and develop for a console or iOS device.

It sucks.

[Goran_M]

60 000 polygons for a whole plane???

My OCD would go absolutely off the scale!

Edit: Just an FYI, most FSX models these days are exceeding, on average, 300 000 polygons in total

Edited November 18, 2012 by Goran_M

[Tonka]

Please, no limits!

[guym-p]

No limits, please! By all means, impose a limit on your own work, then make the low number of polygons a key selling point; but a cap would deny other developers the freedom to make up their own mind.

Computer hardware is improving so fast that any imposed cap would be out of date immediately. Also, the practical limit is not only determined by hardware, but also by the aircraft type and choices made by the developer.

For example, mapping the Plane Maker panel to the cockpit object has a disproportionately high drain on resources. If you make an aircraft with purely analogue instruments (no VDU/LCD displays at all) and do without the Plane Maker panel altogether, the effect on frame rates is enormous.

I switched from a 2048x2048 Plane Maker panel to 3D animations and gained 6.0 FPS instantly. On my system, I found that each 100,000 polygons "cost" 1.0 FPS, and that this was linear up to the overall limitation of VRAM. Without the Plane Maker panel I was able to add 600,000 polygons with no net change in FPS.

[ilias.tselios]

I think that the textures are posing more stress on computers than polygon. Specially to those with limited VRAM like most Macs (like mine IMac)!