|
|
Am I using too many polygons?
About Truespace Archives
These pages are a copy of the official truespace forums prior to their removal somewhere around 2011.
They are retained here for archive purposes only.
Am I using too many polygons? // Work in Progress
Post by MikeJoel // Aug 28, 2008, 12:33pm
|
MikeJoel
Total Posts: 266
|
This is a ram I made up (also mention if you see anything that would make it better please).
It is 31,747 faces. Am I using too many polygons for my work? (this isn't meant for gaming but I don't want to waist polygons).
Thanks
Mike |
Post by splinters // Aug 28, 2008, 12:47pm
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
There is no limit on polygons so as long as your machine can handle the complexity of the scene then there is no need to 'conserve' them. If it is for stills then no need to keep it simple either. |
Post by Luis Saavedra // Aug 28, 2008, 2:00pm
|
Luis Saavedra
Total Posts: 71
|
Maybe you can make the steel horns bigger and then age them, like it has been in many battles. |
Post by Davin // Aug 28, 2008, 2:16pm
|
Davin
Total Posts: 59
|
It depends on what kind of detail you need, if you ae doing really close up shots then no, but it is only going to be a background element you can get the same look with fewer polygons and save a lot of render time. |
Post by MikeJoel // Aug 28, 2008, 2:23pm
|
MikeJoel
Total Posts: 266
|
ok
Thanks.
Actually (unless I'm mistaken about things I've read in the past) things like battering rams and such were usually constructed at the site of the siege so they usually got used once (that siege) - after that they usually weren't in such great shape.
I thought there was some "unspoken" rules about what to expect from a good model (poly count).
Thanks for all the information
Mike |
Post by TomG // Aug 28, 2008, 3:52pm
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Well, it's always good practice not to go overboard on polys and have as many as you need and no more, this is true.
Looking at the wire mesh of your scene, and ignoring the final number of polys, all looks good there. Nothing looks too dense or that it has an overkill of polygons. You might trim a bit off here and there if you set your mind to it, but I think not enough to justify the effort it would take (unless you were indeed making this for a game or something where saving 200 polys might count as that could be 2000 if 10 of these in one scene etc).
So I think you are all good here! It's a good question to ask, and always good to keep in mind, the idea of being economical. Again, it may seem ok as its just one object, then your scene grows and you have 30 objects, then 300, and at that point it does become important that you thought about this right back when making the first object :)
So smart thinking to check that out and ask for advice I think - plus it lets us have a look at the wireframe, which is always interesting I find.
Thanks!
Tom |
Post by frootee // Aug 28, 2008, 5:40pm
|
frootee
Total Posts: 2667
|
Please insert 25 cents for more polys... :D
looks good! |
Post by mrbones // Aug 28, 2008, 5:55pm
|
mrbones
Total Posts: 1280
|
Also Remember that it is possible to use the normal map tool to reduce the polycount of your model yet retain the full details.
(Only available in TrueSpace 7.5 and 7.6) |
Post by W!ZARD // Aug 29, 2008, 1:56am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Looking at your screeny I'd say your doing pretty well. The only obvious place I can see that you could save a few poly's is on the axles. The axle meshes look to be denser than I would use. Also look at those chains - I don't think it's possible to make a low poly chain (other than using alpha planes). So if you really want to lose some poly's that is where I would start - replace those chains with a 6 (or even 4) sided cylinder to represent a rope....
This might be worth doing if you've got a battlefield full of these things or if they are well off in the distance - otherwise I agree with the other comments here.
Nice bit of modeling. |
Post by Nez // Aug 29, 2008, 2:28am
|
Nez
Total Posts: 1102
|
W!zard has said pretty much exactly what I was going to - the axles and chains. Looks like you could use a cylinder with fewer faces for the axles, but if you want chains rather than ropes then they're bound to be bad, although you might be able to reduce the resolution of them too - difficult to tell from this view.
One thing you might be able to do if it's hurting your render times is to position your view so that you can't see all of the chains - then you could leave one or more out, providing it doesn't affect your shadowing etc.
31,000 odd does possibly seem quite a bit for the size of the object - it would be interesting to know what the count is if you delete just the chains.... nothing else looks too 'heavy'... |
Post by MikeJoel // Aug 29, 2008, 6:59am
|
MikeJoel
Total Posts: 266
|
Wow. I took the suggestion and removed the chains.
The model without the chains was only 10,143 polys! That means 21,604 polys were just in the chains!
I redid the chains and they now only contain 2254 each set. The new low poly chains look just as good (even enlarged) as the old ones.
I also redid the axels.
The model now stands at 16,819, about half (and that is with an addition of a few more cross members in the roof). :D
Thanks
Mike
P.S. Since I am posting on this thread again, I want to ask,
when I do models like this I like to do socket joints (like you might find in real life). These joints don't alway show up though. In your opinion is it worth it or should I just set beams on one another? (the picture is an example of what I am speaking about) |
Post by W!ZARD // Aug 30, 2008, 12:43am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Glad the chain thing worked out!
Re the socket joints; I'd say that for the most part actually carving the socket is just extra poly's that have no real reason for being there - unless of course you have a specific reason!!:D One reason might be that you are wanting to make a geometrically accurate model of something or to show a real-world construction technique.
Another reason is you may want a 'hero' joint. In 3d work 'Hero' objects can be just about anything, but generally speaking will take visual precedence in a scene - they'll be seen from close up or will act as an important backdrop. So in a forest scene you might have a 'hero' tree in the centre of the scene, in a city view, you might have a hand full of 'hero' buildings, to set the tone where as minor buildings can be much simpler.
Same principle could be applied to your socket joint. Prominent, close-up or clearly visible joint's may create a better visual impact - you could call them 'Hero' joints - where as joints that are hidden or obscured by foreground features can safely be done mor4e minimalistically.
This is one of the coolest things about 3d work is that you get to decide exactly how everything should go together ;).
Poly counts are important for game content - the fewer points the software has to calculate for the faster it can operate. For static images or rendered animations where instant real-time display is not required you can load up incredibly high poly counts - specially if you have reasonably good hardware and even more especially if you have an efficient and well-optimised object hierarchy.
Hope this helps.
~W~ |
Post by kena // Aug 30, 2008, 4:33am
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
Maybe these will help... I played around with the torus. Make a torus - split it in half - separate the halves then boolean connect them and then join the faces.
they range from 168 to 200 vertices each.
14741
14742
14743
14744 |
Post by MikeJoel // Aug 30, 2008, 1:41pm
|
MikeJoel
Total Posts: 266
|
Thanks! This was all great information.
Also kena, I hadn't thought of doing that way :o
I was extruding a cylinder. That looks a lot easier.
Ok. One more question (I'm sorry if I turned this all into 20 questions).
What is the difference between a cube the I boolean subtract the center out (to make it hollow) compared to making it from sides you boolean union? I have heard it isn't a good idea to cut holes if you can make them without having to subtract.
Sorry for all these questions,
Mike |
Post by kena // Aug 30, 2008, 3:09pm
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
There are many programs out there that do not accept Boolien subtracted holes. So if you are going to export your objects into another program, then you need to triangulate first. But if you are just using TS, then you should have no problems with your objects. |
Post by MikeJoel // Sep 1, 2008, 6:00am
|
MikeJoel
Total Posts: 266
|
Ok. Thought I would post this question in this thread.
I am asking all this so I make models that are considered to be "clean" (not completely sure what is meant by "clean").
Should I cut area out when they intersect?
Here is an example:
Should I cut the post out of the iron collar, and also the pins? Or should I just let them intersect? (cutting would create more faces). I am trying to make these the best I can so when they sell (I sell some of my models online) that they are what is expected.
Thanks
Mike |
Post by kena // Sep 1, 2008, 6:07am
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
You could either leave them intersecting, or weld them together.
A "clean mesh" is one that looks neat and orderly. The polygons flow into each other smoothly rather than having more than you need. |
Post by TomG // Sep 2, 2008, 1:39am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Intersecting won't cause problems with other apps, so long as no faces are in exactly the same place, eg if you had two cubes with one face on each in exactly the same place. This will give rendering artefacts as the render engine won't know which face to draw.
Actually cutting can actually increase polygon count sometimes. Not only that, but then you will need to ensure the holes, or places where objects are joined if you boolean union rather than boolean subtract, are nicely tidied up and avoid n-gons and floating vertices.
I'd leave things intersecting in most cases, and only boolean things together / away if it genuinely saved polys, and if it didn't make too much of a mess of the model. (Note that render engines calculate which faces are occluded and not seen quite quickly, so extra geometry "inside" another part of the model won't actually affect render times too badly, and unless it is adding something like 30% extra polys to the scene count, it probably isn't worth worrying about in terms of slowing real-time performance etc down).
HTH!
Tom |
Post by Breech Block // Sep 26, 2008, 4:32pm
|
Breech Block
Total Posts: 844
|
This is a great thread Mike and well done to all the folk who provided some really top notch answers; I found myself learning quite a bit. |
|
