Topic: Are Lod's still usefull with tech we have now?

[Kreeargh]

Not many modelers make them any more but i was wondering for the future of sfc if they are worth the effort to make them now ? 

[GotAFarmYet?]

for SFC 2 and 1, YES
SFC 3 and future versions NO

The SFC 3 engine used a different system so lods were not really necessary that system handled the graphics better too compaired to the orginal engine.

The LOD was useful because only if the ship was veiwed very closely was the full bit map at a higher resolution used. at a distance of 10 or more the second LOD was used, with a texture setting that was 1/2 to 1/4 the resolution of the up close one. It means the processor used 50 - 25% less of the processing of the LOD 1 version. If LOD was used at ranges above 50 I think it was the model was 1/4 to 1/8 of the LOD 2 25- 12 % of the processing of LOD 2 and a whopping 4% or so of LOD 1.

It meant that you only impaced your system if you closed to a range of under 10 to allot of ships which did not happen all that much

[Starfox1701]

I disagree. anything that gives you more processing power to work with is a good thing. Yes I know its more work but the payoff can be a doubling or tripiling of the number of units and effects the PC can handel

[GotAFarmYet?]

Disagree with which part?

SFC 3 handles the graphics differently it did not use LODs at all, so making them in SFC 3 makes no sense.
SFC 1 & 2 used them and they are actual models with textures that are loaded at different ranges.

So for SFC 1 & 2 LODs are useful, but not the case with SFC 3 or probable future versions

[FoaS_XC]

SFC3 automatically does its own LODs so we don't have to worry about them is what GAFY is saying.

for SFC2 and SFC1? Yes, they are extremely useful, but a pain enough that most don't want to bother making them.
if I WERE to be bothered with it, say for an official project, here's what I'd do:
LOD1 = Full res textures, full res model.
LOD2 = Half-Res textures, full res model.
LOD3 = Bare-detail model, small textures to suit.

[Starfox1701]

with this part

not in probable future versions

I think LODs should always be part of a game because they let you push it further

[Kreeargh]

3 lods are max for the sfc engine right? The change distance for each lod one can not edit?

[FoaS_XC]

I don't know if more than three are possible, but their values are changable on export from 3ds Max

[marstone]

looks like 5 is the max as it is set right now (for EAW, probably the same in the others).

[FoaS_XC]

Good to know

Fourth LOD: an SFB-Style counter. >.<

[GotAFarmYet?]

with this part

not in probable future versions

I think LODs should always be part of a game because they let you push it further

I see your point but you missed mine
LODs will not be needed in the future versions because of a change in programming. The program now does a render of it that uses much less processor time and memory of a modelled ship. In the older version we had to make a model for each LOD, it also meant that when a ship was loaded into the game every texture and model had to assigned to a memory block. depending on the LOD in use would determine processor time needed to render the ship, the farther the better.
The newer way in SFC 3 saves all that processor time by loading a render for all the far stuff and only the model up close. The later way is much less resource dependant after the initial render is made.

So why would the older more labor, resource and processor intensive way be used?

[marstone]

with this part

not in probable future versions

I think LODs should always be part of a game because they let you push it further

I see your point but you missed mine
LODs will not be needed in the future versions because of a change in programming. The program now does a render of it that uses much less processor time and memory of a modelled ship. In the older version we had to make a model for each LOD, it also meant that when a ship was loaded into the game every texture and model had to assigned to a memory block. depending on the LOD in use would determine processor time needed to render the ship, the farther the better.
The newer way in SFC 3 saves all that processor time by loading a render for all the far stuff and only the model up close. The later way is much less resource dependant after the initial render is made.

So why would the older more labor, resource and processor intensive way be used?

quick short answer would be no access to SFC3 rendering engine.

[GotAFarmYet?]

with this part

not in probable future versions

I think LODs should always be part of a game because they let you push it further

I see your point but you missed mine
LODs will not be needed in the future versions because of a change in programming. The program now does a render of it that uses much less processor time and memory of a modelled ship. In the older version we had to make a model for each LOD, it also meant that when a ship was loaded into the game every texture and model had to assigned to a memory block. depending on the LOD in use would determine processor time needed to render the ship, the farther the better.
The newer way in SFC 3 saves all that processor time by loading a render for all the far stuff and only the model up close. The later way is much less resource dependant after the initial render is made.

So why would the older more labor, resource and processor intensive way be used?

quick short answer would be no access to SFC3 rendering engine.

Good point, but that should as of now, but who knows in the future. Also there are plenty of engines that could be used if the next version were being built from the ground up and nolt just a add on. You would actually know the answer to that better than I though

[Dizzy]

They are absolutely necessary for dynaverse play on SFC2EAW and SFCOP, although the future of the dynaverse is clouded atm. When you have plasma, ftrs, PF's, drones, mines, shuttles and terrain in a 3v3 match, models that come into view that are far off are rendered as if they are up close and you can see the frame rate tank.

A lot of model users are unfamiliar with exactly how models affect gameplay and just 'drop' them into their model folders not knowing the consequences of thier actions. Likewise a lot of modelers are unfamiliar with why LoD's are used and therefore dont bother. When high texture and high poly models are used without LoD's, they are usually ok in single player skirmish and solo campaign games... but put them into a scenario like I spelled out above and disaster strikes.

As a dynaverse server admin, I can tell you first hand that it is irresponsible of modelers to use high poly models, high poly textures without using LOD's and then release the models unto ususpecting victims. It's hard enough to get a good PvP match in a game to work, and then having a model kill the connection because the host's frame rate crawls to a stop and throws everyone OoS... is just criminal. Your modeling license should be revoked.

Hats off to Kreeargh for championing this subject. It's an important issue that I would like to hit over Adonis' head till all his modeling ability is knocked out of him and he isnt ever able to release another model again... hehe. Edited for spellin

[Terradyhne]

They are absolutely necessary for dynaverse play on SFC2EAW and SFCOP, although the future of the dynaverse is clouded atm. When you have plasma, ftrs, PF's, drones, mines, shuttles and terrain in a 3v3 match, models that come into view that are far off are rendered as if they are up close and you can see the frame rate tank.

A lot of model users are unfamiliar with exactly how models affect gameplay and just 'drop' them into their model folders not knowing the consequences of thier actions. Likewise a lot of modelers are unfamiliar with why LoD's are used and therefore dont bother. When high texture and high poly models are used without LoD's, they are usually ok in single player skirmish and solo campaign games... but put them into a scenario like I spelled out above and disaster strikes.

As a dynaverse server admin, I can tell you first hand that it is irresponsible of modelers to use high poly models, high poly textures without using LOD's and then release the models unto ususpecting victims. It's hard enough to get a good PvP match in a game to work, and then having a model kill the connection because the host's frame rate crawls to a stop and throws everyone OoS... is just criminal. Your modeling license should be revoked.

Hats off to Kreeargh for championing this subject. It's an important issue that I would like to hit over Adonis' head till all his modeling ability is knocked out of him and he isnt ever able to release another model again... hehe. Edited for spellin

sorry for beeing such an as***** but do you know what LOD's meen, more work and most of the modellers make models because they have fun to make models and won't even consider to make LOD's, cause it's to much work.
if you want to use highpoly models, than go with time and the thinking of modern gaming industry, and change to a newer game that could handle the higher polycounts or invest into better servers or change to a newer OS.
i to won't ever make LOD's for any gamemodels i make, but i even don't want or will ever use online play that much.
i even don't like the way the gaming industry goes with this, to only support online play and throwing the singleplayer part completely out.

[Dizzy]

Yadda yadda, blah blah. Buck up and get out a proper model dyna package will ya, Terradyhne?

The issue isnt as bad as long as the USER knows the model has a high poly and texture count AND he also knows that using it as is without LOD's is bad for gaming. Steps in this situation can be taken so as not to ruin the gaming experience.

Problem is that most modelers dont bother to take the time to explain what it is the user is about to drop into their model folder. A more complete readme text would suffice for the lazy modeler I suppose. But there is no substitute for thoroughness. LoD's are just the icing on the cake of a good model and it's modeler.

[FoaS_XC]

Yes they are useful.

The degree to which they are NECESSARY has decreased but not to the point were they are useless. As Dizzy says: they help greatly in multiplayer games. That being said, in many cases creating LODs is very much like creating an entirely new model, and thus I can definitely understand why many modellers don't want to bother.

Using an arbitrary scale for the sake of argument, if general model quality were measured on a scale of 1-10, including LODs 7 years ago might have bumped it by +3, whereas now they bump by a +2.

[intermech]

OK, always trying to push the envelope here. Here are a couple alternate uses for LODS:

a. Make a ship completely cloaked until you are right up next to it by making the LOD 2 and 3 layers empty.
b. Make a ship deceptive, by making it look like a transport far away, but change into an attack vessel at close range.
c. Make a space monster that has a passive stance far away, but as you get closer, it rears its claws/tenticles/etc. when you get closer.

[FoaS_XC]

Problem with that is that its not range between you and the target, its between the camera and the subject of the camera.

[atheorhaven]

OK, always trying to push the envelope here. Here are a couple alternate uses for LODS:

a. Make a ship completely cloaked until you are right up next to it by making the LOD 2 and 3 layers empty.
b. Make a ship deceptive, by making it look like a transport far away, but change into an attack vessel at close range.
c. Make a space monster that has a passive stance far away, but as you get closer, it rears its claws/tenticles/etc. when you get closer.

Wow, I read that wrong.. would certainly make for a squeemish attack though on the part of the defender.. :p

[Tus-XC]

Yadda yadda, blah blah. Buck up and get out a proper model dyna package will ya, Terradyhne?

The issue isnt as bad as long as the USER knows the model has a high poly and texture count AND he also knows that using it as is without LOD's is bad for gaming. Steps in this situation can be taken so as not to ruin the gaming experience.

Problem is that most modelers dont bother to take the time to explain what it is the user is about to drop into their model folder. A more complete readme text would suffice for the lazy modeler I suppose. But there is no substitute for thoroughness. LoD's are just the icing on the cake of a good model and it's modeler.

sorry, the problem is not with the modellers, its obviously with the USER.  If they fail to understand that a model (regardless of documentation)can have adverse effects on their system (and for that matter, the limits to their system) and don't take corrective action then  no amount of documentation is going to correct that problem.  Educate the user first then maybe you will get modellers on board.

Now for my soap box, I honestly don't give two sh*ts about most players anymore.  there are what, 20 or so active players?  Maybe if there were a few hundred that still played.  But really, whats the point of tailoring my work to 20 people when odds are only 2 people are going to use it.  It ain't worth my damn time and my time is expensive.

[Kreeargh]

I asked if the TECH is needed any more thats all End of subject!  Make it if you want to, i dont care.  Most do not and i dont expect many to try , as a model relese it like swiss cheese the smell and holes distract ones from the possable glory it may be.  Hell the name of the creator will distract one from even viewing a subject. So why should they even try?    Do it make it your will and screw the critics!

[FoaS_XC]

I asked if the TECH is needed any more thats all End of subject!  Make it if you want to, i dont care.  Most do not and i dont expect many to try , as a model relese it like swiss cheese the smell and holes distract ones from the possable glory it may be.  Hell the name of the creator will distract one from even viewing a subject. So why should they even try?    Do it make it your will and screw the critics!

well, the discussion seems to be going in the direction of "it is needed, just not nearly as needed as it once was - it is unneeded enough that people these days can get by without it a lot of the time, but there are more exceptions than a lot of people expect."

[Kreeargh]

I asked if the TECH is needed any more thats all End of subject!  Make it if you want to, i dont care.  Most do not and i dont expect many to try , as a model relese it like swiss cheese the smell and holes distract ones from the possable glory it may be.  Hell the name of the creator will distract one from even viewing a subject. So why should they even try?    Do it make it your will and screw the critics!

well, the discussion seems to be going in the direction of "it is needed, just not nearly as needed as it once was - it is unneeded enough that people these days can get by without it a lot of the time, but there are more exceptions than a lot of people expect."

Then i guess FoaS_XC you need to make a thread that makes it so! Thoughs on LODS or something. My threads die out .   I am just a guest here give thoughts not actions.

[FoaS_XC]

well, we seem to be discussing it fine here - works for me so far :3.

And please, have you seen how many models I've put out recently? All I can spare is thoughts myself, these days.

[Dizzy]

sorry, the problem is not with the modellers, its obviously with the USER.  If they fail to understand that a model (regardless of documentation)can have adverse effects on their system (and for that matter, the limits to their system) and don't take corrective action then  no amount of documentation is going to correct that problem.  Educate the user first then maybe you will get modellers on board.

The problem is most assuredly with the modelers. Modelers post their models for a user to use with no forewarning of the pitfalls that await them. How many times have I bitched about you guys not releasing poly counts with the model? 100? The most modelers usually incorporate into their readme besides credits are instructions on where to put the file. That needs to change.

Now for my soap box, I honestly don't give two sh*ts about most players anymore.  there are what, 20 or so active players?  Maybe if there were a few hundred that still played.  But really, whats the point of tailoring my work to 20 people when odds are only 2 people are going to use it.  It ain't worth my damn time and my time is expensive.

Thats ok tus, they dont give two sh*ts about u either. My point isn't as relevant now as it once was when I tried to champion the idea a long time ago in Adonis' thread. While I appreciate your work, Tus, I'm not expecting you to make LoD's. But if I could get modelers to at least include a warning in their readme file that their model isnt suited for dynaverse play because of high poly count, no LoD's etc., that'd be a good step in the right direction. I'm sure your time and expense could justify a few words in a readme file.

[FoaS_XC]

The problem is most assuredly with the modelers. Modelers post their models for a user to use with no forewarning of the pitfalls that await them. How many times have I bitched about you guys not releasing poly counts with the model? 100? The most modelers usually incorporate into their readme besides credits are instructions on where to put the file. That needs to change.
Thats ok tus, they dont give two sh*ts about u either. My point isn't as relevant now as it once was when I tried to champion the idea a long time ago in Adonis' thread. While I appreciate your work, Tus, I'm not expecting you to make LoD's. But if I could get modelers to at least include a warning in their readme file that their model isnt suited for dynaverse play because of high poly count, no LoD's etc., that'd be a good step in the right direction. I'm sure your time and expense could justify a few words in a readme file.

I feel there are a couple flaws in your thinking here. Tus has a point: a line in a readme isn't going to make a difference. A read-me is a "Go here if you need references" not a "this will be read first and foremost."

We all understand your points about LODs and how they can make quite a difference in a dynaverse campaign. However, there are often times when it seems like your trying to dictate policy for a modeller on their own project, or trying to get the entire community to adhere to your standards.

I'm not saying that's what you ARE doing, but that's how it comes across.

I'm not all about getting the last word in, so Dizzy: here's an opportunity to address what I've just said. After that - can we not let yet ANOTHER poly-count thread degrade into lunacy?

[Kreeargh]

The problem is most assuredly with the modelers. Modelers post their models for a user to use with no forewarning of the pitfalls that await them. How many times have I bitched about you guys not releasing poly counts with the model? 100? The most modelers usually incorporate into their readme besides credits are instructions on where to put the file. That needs to change.
Thats ok tus, they dont give two sh*ts about u either. My point isn't as relevant now as it once was when I tried to champion the idea a long time ago in Adonis' thread. While I appreciate your work, Tus, I'm not expecting you to make LoD's. But if I could get modelers to at least include a warning in their readme file that their model isnt suited for dynaverse play because of high poly count, no LoD's etc., that'd be a good step in the right direction. I'm sure your time and expense could justify a few words in a readme file.

I feel there are a couple flaws in your thinking here. Tus has a point: a line in a readme isn't going to make a difference. A read-me is a "Go here if you need references" not a "this will be read first and foremost."

We all understand your points about LODs and how they can make quite a difference in a dynaverse campaign. However, there are often times when it seems like your trying to dictate policy for a modeller on their own project, or trying to get the entire community to adhere to your standards.

I'm not saying that's what you ARE doing, but that's how it comes across.

I'm not all about getting the last word in, so Dizzy: here's an opportunity to address what I've just said. After that - can we not let yet ANOTHER poly-count thread degrade into lunacy?

Well said let the idea die as it should have. My logic Blah 

[Tus-XC]

Are they not freely distrubuted models? And is it not the users choice to dled, install, and use those models?  And is it not the users responsiblity to make sure their system can use something they dled that is, need i remind you, free?   Is it not also their responsiblilty if they notice issues to take some kind of corrective action? It surely ain't mine, i've put that disclaimer in my readme already for just that reason (which had they bothered to read they would have known).  So yes, its the users who need to stop asking to be babied and take the time to check out this 'free' stuff they just got to make sure it works for them.  You want more than that then just remember we provide a free service - we ain't getting paid to troubleshoot your problems.

[marstone]

in answer to the base question.  Yes, LoDs are still needed.  In SFC it will be needed for awhile yet.  Replacing the rendering engine (even with a pre-made one) will take major work as they are usually integrated into the full game engine fairly tight.

As for the LoD debate on should they be included or not.  I personally would like to see them in there, but as stated it is the modellers choice.  Just give me a poly count so I can choose to DL it or not if I like the model is all I ask.  Not wanting to stir the pot more, I will hold my total thoughts on this.

[Dizzy]

We all understand your points about LODs and how they can make quite a difference in a dynaverse campaign. However, there are often times when it seems like your trying to dictate policy for a modeller on their own project, or trying to get the entire community to adhere to your standards.

I'm not saying that's what you ARE doing, but that's how it comes across.

I'm not all about getting the last word in, so Dizzy: here's an opportunity to address what I've just said. After that - can we not let yet ANOTHER poly-count thread degrade into lunacy?

That is precisely how I am coming across. Why mince words. Modelers should engage in a discussion about how they can better serve their own community than their own vanity. Releasing huge poly models with big textures and no LoD's without a warning to the user that this can adversely affect their game is irresponsible and negligent. Modelers are first and foremost responsible for what they release upon the gaming community. I am not. A user will not 1st read my thread about it even if you sticky it. A user will not read this thread before D/Ling and installing said model.

It is up to the modelers if they care 2 cents about this community to try and fix a wrong. I dont see anything negative about talking about how we can, as a community, make tthis experience better for everyone. If a readme warning buried into the D/L isnt something you think will be read, then we have already engaged in dialogue to address the issue. Perhaps adding a second readme titled, 'Warning, Readme B4 Installing'.

If we agree on a guideline to use and petition all the modelers to follow it I think it will positively impact the community. I never imagined all the modelers would agree to go back and add LoD's to everything past present and future, but at least this is a positive step that will make a difference for the better. Awarness and discussion of the issue is paramount. This problem has persisted long enough. I'm not about to let it die down.

Edit: This thread and my posts are not about the lunacy of poly count models, rather it is a discussion of the OP's question, "Not many modelers make them any more but i was wondering for the future of sfc if they are worth the effort to make them now ?" of how the future of SFC makes it worth the effort to adress this issue.

[FoaS_XC]

Modelers should engage in a discussion about how they can better serve their own community than their own vanity.

I do not do this out of vanity - no one here does. If we did we wouldn't have been here for as many years as we have been. I do this because I enjoy it - it's fun for me and I'd rather give people the opportunity to share what I've had fun creating than hoard it for myself.

Releasing huge poly models with big textures and no LoD's without a warning to the user that this can adversely affect their game is irresponsible and negligent.

My counter-argument is a reductio ad absurdum

its the same thing. I can't be held responsible for user stupidity.

I think Tus has a point: its a labor of love - if I'm getting paid or even just part of a well-organized, well-run team, then I'll follow standards that are agreed upon beforehand, but on my own time and in my own way I will execute it how I want. That isn't vanity, its just that making models is hard work and, for some of us, has a high burn-out rate (especially myself).

It is up to the modelers if they care 2 cents about this community to try and fix a wrong. I dont see anything negative about talking about how we can, as a community, make tthis experience better for everyone.

I like the notion, except it is up to ALL members of the community to discuss (the burden does not reside entirely on modellers), but I don't think this is an absolute Wrong that needs fixing. I don't think including LoDs is as a huge disservice to the entire community as you seem to think it is.

This thread and my posts are not about the lunacy of poly count models, rather it is a discussion of the OP's question, "Not many modelers make them any more but i was wondering for the future of sfc if they are worth the effort to make them now ?" of how the future of SFC makes it worth the effort to adress this issue.

On this you are absolutely right. However, I still feel as if my previous statements in this thread are perfectly valid. Increased hardware performance puts less of an emphasis on the NEED for LoDs - how much of a reduction of need is not something I can quantify off-hand.

For the record, I fly with fleets of ships that have 10k-poly battleships, 8k-poly cruisers, and 800-poly fighters and I've never experienced a problem and I run on a 4-year-old laptop.

Would a model benefit from a set of LoDs? Always.
Is that advantage worth the extra effort? Not Always.

I know what it takes to make a quality model and I'm not going to bemoan a modeler for not including a potentially optional feature - Especially when that effort is going to add another 25-50% of a workload on that one person.

If we agree on a guideline to use and petition all the modelers to follow it I think it will positively impact the community.

Again: I like the sentiment but I feel like its impractical. What we have nowadays is a more independent group of people who are more inclined to do their own thing - which is perfectly fine. If there were an interest in reforming a Dominion of Modellers like back in the p81, Maggot, and Moonraker days, then you might have a point.

I can tell you this: any 3D assets that may be included in a graphically-revamped sfc:ce (when we get to that point) WILL have LODs. The distinction there is that it will be a starting point, not optional add-ons like what the community has produced so far. In that lies the difference.

Allow me to put it another way: If I build a team or are part of a distinct team, I can work with that team to set creative policy for that team. I can't set creative policy for the community as a whole.

As for the LoD debate on should they be included or not.  I personally would like to see them in there, but as stated it is the modellers choice.

I completely agree. I actually would LOVE to have LODs for all my models, hypocritical as it may seem since none of my current releases have them. As I said, its arduous work that increases effort requirements from about 25-50% (though, in fairness, I may have found a workflow that will reduce that significantly).

[FoaS_XC]

Despite everything I just said, I'm going to pull a Columbo: "just the facts, ma'am, just the facts".

Dizzy: you're the most vocal person as far as poly-counts and LODs go - give it to me in technical terms. For the purposes of having a model designed to run on the Dynaverse - what do you feel would would be a good poly-count-limit and texture-size-limit breakdown be for High, Medium, and Low LODs for each a Fighter, Frigate, Heavy Cruiser, Battleship, and Starbase. (I can explain what I'm asking for in a more graphically intuitive way if what I'm asking is not clear).

[marstone]

FoaS, I agree in general with your statements, but disagree with some from the others (not going back to see name).  I don't think it should fall on the end user to make sure it works with his system, and here is why.  I have yet to see a game give a list of max polys and such for graphics.  So the best an average end user can hope for is if a file (graphic image, etc) is formatted to run in the game it is set up to run well in it.  If that asset isn't set up to run like an in game one, a small warning should be given.

Example, I have no clue what the constraints for Fallout 3 on my computer is, but I can get mods for it.  Same with some other games I have.  Now I know somewhat what the limits are for SFC because it is talked about here, and I can check it somewhat also.  But on the average, those limits are not given out to an average owner of a game in the docs they get, so how do you expect them to know it...

[FoaS_XC]

FoaS, I agree in general with your statements, but disagree with some from the others (not going back to see name).  I don't think it should fall on the end user to make sure it works with his system, and here is why.  I have yet to see a game give a list of max polys and such for graphics.  So the best an average end user can hope for is if a file (graphic image, etc) is formatted to run in the game it is set up to run well in it.  If that asset isn't set up to run like an in game one, a small warning should be given.

Example, I have no clue what the constraints for Fallout 3 on my computer is, but I can get mods for it.  Same with some other games I have.  Now I know somewhat what the limits are for SFC because it is talked about here, and I can check it somewhat also.  But on the average, those limits are not given out to an average owner of a game in the docs they get, so how do you expect them to know it...

I really am torn on this: Your argument is not without merit.
In matters of the well-organized / large-mod content or even the "original" game assets? yes - the standards of content should be higher. I feel like its okay that things are much more lax in casual one-off community designs like we find here. I could be wrong - I know my model descriptions lack poly-count and texture-size data - I'll admit that THAT is something I should fix as an absolute minimum.

[marstone]

FoaS, I agree in general with your statements, but disagree with some from the others (not going back to see name).  I don't think it should fall on the end user to make sure it works with his system, and here is why.  I have yet to see a game give a list of max polys and such for graphics.  So the best an average end user can hope for is if a file (graphic image, etc) is formatted to run in the game it is set up to run well in it.  If that asset isn't set up to run like an in game one, a small warning should be given.

Example, I have no clue what the constraints for Fallout 3 on my computer is, but I can get mods for it.  Same with some other games I have.  Now I know somewhat what the limits are for SFC because it is talked about here, and I can check it somewhat also.  But on the average, those limits are not given out to an average owner of a game in the docs they get, so how do you expect them to know it...

I really am torn on this: Your argument is not without merit.
In matters of the well-organized / large-mod content or even the "original" game assets? yes - the standards of content should be higher. I feel like its okay that things are much more lax in casual one-off community designs like we find here. I could be wrong - I know my model descriptions lack poly-count and texture-size data - I'll admit that THAT is something I should fix as an absolute minimum.

I know what you mean.  It is a burden on just being creative to make the extra, but a note is not bad saying something like "use of mod may slow graphics and response of game" is not hard to add so an average user can understand what might happen.  I was clueless over alot of the constraints of games, I have learned alot from being on this board for the past few years now.  But all users are not here.  Some own the game, find the .mod files.  They are put out as working on SFC:OP or such so that person would assume that it will run alright in his game.

Now we have a small community here now, but hopefully as we grow SFC back up again we will get new users, they are the ones that might get disappointed and leave if a simple add on of a new ship model, drops them out of online play.  They probably will not even know it is the model doing it, but may think it is just the game being wonky.

Now I understand that when you do something for fun, and for free, the modeller makes it the way they want, and the user beware.  But trying to fix the outlook that end users should know is important, because they will not.  I know I didn't when I first started to add new ships to my game so many years ago.

[Dizzy]

Now we have a small community here now, but hopefully as we grow SFC back up again we will get new users, they are the ones that might get disappointed and leave if a simple add on of a new ship model, drops them out of online play.  They probably will not even know it is the model doing it, but may think it is just the game being wonky.

BINGO.

That is why this issue is so important. Most modelers dont have a clue as to how their models choke the game. I can tell you for a FACT that most end users are in the dark when it comes to dropping these models into their game. They have no idea what happens when the game engine tries to use these models that are in excess of its design limit. I have seen this limit reached in testing firsthand and know what I am talking about. So it isn't realistic to pin the problem on the user, it's the modeler's responsibility to be responsible here and make a change. The status quo is broken.

I dont expect a modeler to care if they release a huge poly model with gargantuanly large textures and no LoD's. But they should because ultimately it hurts the end user and this community.

No one here can tell me that what I am asking is a bad thing, because at the very LEAST all I am asking is that modelers add a warning to their model release that lets users know that using their model can result in adverse and unsuitable gaming performance because their model uses high poly count, no LoD's, big textures, etc.

As for what constitutes adding this warning, a benchmark will need to be set and agreed upon. Obviously, new 'recommended' system requirements will need to posted letting users know what will happen when they load up these models. This is a process that will need to be discussed.

Edit:

  But trying to fix the outlook that end users should know is important, because they will not.  I know I didn't when I first started to add new ships to my game so many years ago.

I didnt know either, marstone. I found out the hard way during a PvP match, which as host I ruined. I went so far as to uninstall the game and did a defrag and reinstall and then recopy of my model folders, which screwed me again. It took me missing an entire server before I realized why my game was choking and frame rate was killing me and everyone I drafted. This community can't afford to go there. No way you can grow a community when new users to the game drop in a model that is unsuitable for gaming and have the experience I did and not know why. Unlike me, they likely wont attempt a reinstall. They will simply toss the game int he garbage and move on. Things MUST change.

[Tus-XC]

Maybe we should just start requiring standards for computers.  Thats it, everyone who uses my models must have similar stats to my pc.  I have Quad core processor, N560 GTX, 6 Gb of memory, an SSD hd in raid 0 - you don't meet those standards no models for you.  Lookie there, problem solved.  If they dont' want to do that well they are just whiney little bitches and guess they don't care about the community. 

Or maybe you can just set up your own modeling alliance where you can set your standards - maybe people will join.  That is the only way you are ever going to get any modeller to do as you say (hell you run your own servers, that should be enough of a carrot right?).  If you don't want to take that inititive well its your loss and you really have no reason to badger individual modellers to bend to your standards.

[Tus-XC]

I didnt know either, marstone. I found out the hard way during a PvP match, which as host I ruined. I went so far as to uninstall the game and did a defrag and reinstall and then recopy of my model folders, which screwed me again. It took me missing an entire server before I realized why my game was choking and frame rate was killing me and everyone I drafted. This community can't afford to go there. No way you can grow a community when new users to the game drop in a model that is unsuitable for gaming and have the experience I did and not know why. Unlike me, they likely wont attempt a reinstall. They will simply toss the game int he garbage and move on. Things MUST change.

I bet you each one of those models you got (for the most part) included a disclaimer to the effect that 'while this works for some people, it might not work for you'.  Just based on your troubleshooting process it tells me you didn't take that to heart and say 'didn't those models say they could cause problems with my computer?'.  If you didn't do this, what makes you think anyone else is going to do this?  I've put my readme into an install file and still had people who couldn't be bothered to read it even though it was 'in there face' and they had to agree to it to proceed through the install.  This read-me crap is just that, crap - it ain't going to work because 90% of you don't even bother looking at it until you want to 're release it' and even then you can't be arsed to understand it.

[Dizzy]

You're right, Tus. Let's throw our arms up in the air and do nothing. I'm so glad this community can look to you to make it better.

[FoaS_XC]

Okay guys: You've both made good points but your "tone" is starting to get in the way of it.

Dizzy,

Did you see my post about technical facts?

[Starfox1701]

Look I can see both sides here

Dizzy you are taking a long veiw which includes making the environs more newb friendly so they can get into this game the way you all did. This is indeed an admirable thought process but you r approach may not be as practical as you think. Especially if it alienate the very people who make the modes that are the bedrock and foundation of this future you are looking to build. Perhaps it is time to consider other raods you can take that would lead to a simalar end. You may end up doing more work yourself  but then again you do feel its worth doing don't you?

Tus-XC you have an understanding of the hundreds or sometimes thousands of UNPAID manhours that can go into a new high quality model and texture set be for the first game is plaied. However you do care about thoughs 20 0ther guys that play with your stuff other wize it would never see the light of day. In that regaurd consider how the Readme can be improved especially where the novice is concerned. Training new moders and for that mater new modelers is how any comunity survives. I know modeling is a labor of love. No on endures the headachs that come with it. Don't you think your community desers some of the same consideration?

[marstone]

Okay guys: You've both made good points but your "tone" is starting to get in the way of it.

Dizzy,

Did you see my post about technical facts?

Part on this thread I find sad is that some XC members don't give 2 cents about the community members and how to help them out.  Isn't that the reason to join XC is to support the community.  Help it progress.  Oh-well, on to other things.

[GotAFarmYet?]

Okay guys: You've both made good points but your "tone" is starting to get in the way of it.

Dizzy,

Did you see my post about technical facts?

Part on this thread I find sad is that some XC members don't give 2 cents about the community members and how to help them out.  Isn't that the reason to join XC is to support the community.  Help it progress.  Oh-well, on to other things.

Marstone,
Relax they are two people from polar oppsite veiw points, they will each hold their arguement to heart while ignoring the point of the other except to attack it. A oppsite veiw is aways seen as wrong and therefore should be attacked, nothing wrong with it but it does tend to get out of hand. Think of a Tea party memeber and a Liberial having a political discussion, and trying to stop that fight.

Now lets get back to the orginal question that was answered on page one, go back and read it if you want.
Now lets move on to the argument, who is responisble for installing something on their PC, the USER is flat out. Now why are they responsible, they are making a change to a program that the manufacturer did not do, think of it as adding a turbo to your car or lowering it. Most poeple do not understand what a modification will do but they chose to do it, they could have looked it up or asked questions before doing it. As a old time gamer I always new it USER beware if you changed anything to a game you bought, community made or not you took the risk when you changed it. Same thing here if you replaced a defualt ship the game came with then it was your choice, you are the one responsible. You might have assumed that they would test it in every way you would use the game, but more than liki8ly they only tested it in the way they play the game. Large community mods are a bit different as they are usually intended for on-line play and less so for the single player mods, they are made by groups and tested across several platforms and internet connections. Firesoul made sure the ships he puts in a mod has low impact, because he designed it from the start to be a server mod for Dynaverse. Most individual ships are designed for a single player stand point as i doubt the artist system specs will be met by the average user.

So Dizzy well it might be nice for the modellers to make more friendly ships for on-line play unless they are part of a group making a large mod, that is usually outside of their purpose. USER beware should always be assumed as it is true with any piece of software you install, and that is basically a model. You as a server admin know that only a certain shiplist can be used, and if they have not replaced the defualt ships will use them when when playing on those servers. It is why we have the mod switcher and so forth the tools are there but unless someone looks or asks, they made the choice themselves.

So now in your Defense, can a new readme file be drafted to include a warning and what is or isn't in a new ship? Yes it can we can as a community ask the modellers to use a new form of readme file to help new users coming into this game by adding certain information. The readme file has always been a frame work to cover legal, and personal issues about a ship no reason a new one can't be made and distributed.

and now about the texture size and poly counts, Textures are the number one lagg causers for this game the FPS you get from reducing from 16 bit colour to 8 bit colour is hugh, and from a 1024x1024 size to a 512x512 is a 75% saving of meory from the first. You have to remember the game engine is from about 1994, it has serious limits in graphics.

could go on with more but I think this is enough for now

[marstone]

Gafy, yeah, I know those two will argue this until the earth ends.  I was just saying that an XC member you would figure would be behind trying to set standards for the community so everyone will get a better enjoyment out of it. 

As I said, on to other things.  I actually got an urge to work on some code again so back to diving into it.

[FRA.E.Kehakoul_XC]

Okay guys: You've both made good points but your "tone" is starting to get in the way of it.

Dizzy,

Did you see my post about technical facts?

Part on this thread I find sad is that some XC members don't give 2 cents about the community members and how to help them out.  Isn't that the reason to join XC is to support the community.  Help it progress.  Oh-well, on to other things.

Actually Xeno Corp is a fleet /guild with many fields of operations,other gameing platforms etc,, which means we got members  who don't necessarily have their prime focus on Sfc and helping this  Community.

The staff of D.net however is a whole different affair, all working here are dedicated to help this community ,that should be obvious by now.
That said, This is Tus`s opinion about this special topic, and not the  general Stance of XC as a whole in regard to Lods.

[marstone]

okay, will buy that.  I have seen the XC website also.  Just figured it was kind of one of the same. (XC/d.net).  Back to code (never ending stuff it is).

[FA Frey XC]

Ok.

1.) Dizzy - it's absolutely the end users responsibility for ANYTHING they install on their machine. Period. Ultimately it's the end user that has to deal with it, and it may absolutely be:

a.) The model drops the player out of the game
b.) The Model lags the game so badly that one player seems to be rubber-banding as they approach.
c.) Fighters / PF's turn on their launching ship, then fly off for some Starbucks.

and it's all on them. Now, communities form around such things... and how to better play / enjoy said applications. Kinda what happened here, but I'd dare say your "FU" attitude and refusal to even speak in a polite and well-mannered tone has done more damage to the game than anything else. You don't give a rats ass about the community, as usual  you just want to win your argument.

2.) Tus - It's absolutely the software designers (in this case the model designer) responsibility to include relevant documentation so the END USER CAN read it to know about any possible issues. By refusing to, not only is it blatantly un-professional, it's rude and condescending. How many end users would even understand it ? Doesn't matter. You put the info in the readme so it's there, so you've done your part.

FOR MODELERS TO SAY ITS TOO MUCH TROUBLE TO PUT IN A READ ME SOMETHING LIKE

"WARnING!!! This model has been ported from Bridgecommander to Starfleet Command and as such may not run well on the original versions of the game due to it's engine's restrictions."

IS COMPLETELY LAZY. You should be ashamed of yourself... and this proves it :

sorry for beeing such an as***** but do you know what LOD's meen, more work and most of the modellers make models because they have fun to make models and won't even consider to make LOD's, cause it's to much work.
if you want to use highpoly models, than go with time and the thinking of modern gaming industry, and change to a newer game that could handle the higher polycounts or invest into better servers or change to a newer OS.
i to won't ever make LOD's for any gamemodels i make, but i even don't want or will ever use online play that much.
i even don't like the way the gaming industry goes with this, to only support online play and throwing the singleplayer part completely out.

So basically it comes down to this : your BOTH RIGHT, and yet WRONG.

The modeler NEEDS to put relevant information into the readme, so it's THERE. By doing THAT ACT, you've basically put it ON the END USER. Tried and true method, mates, been done since beginning of time - give em a manual and then tell em "give it hell!". If you want to be lazy, fine... make your entry that it may not run well because you certainly didn't DESIGN IT FOR SFC.

If it was designed for SFC, then it SHOULD have the LOD for the game version your playing. SFC3 doesn't require LOD's on models, hence it would be applicable.  The ENTIRE PURPOSE of LODS, does anyone understand it ?

Then WE the COMMUNITY take care, as we always have, of educating the rest of the community on those specific issues. Make a thread containing MODEL packs and those w/ LODS and without, or ensuring specific dynaverse servers have LOD models that require them.

What will the future hold? Who knows ? This community has a history of it's members suddenly getting really selfish and arrogant and the community suffering for it. Perhaps until we, as a community, can again get past

Now for my soap box, I honestly don't give two sh*ts about most players anymore.  there are what, 20 or so active players?  Maybe if there were a few hundred that still played.  But really, whats the point of tailoring my work to 20 people when odds are only 2 people are going to use it.  It ain't worth my damn time and my time is expensive.

arrogance and selfishness, we'd be a lot better.

Regards,

[Tus-XC]

I should make it clear that my stances are my own opinions and do not reflect the views of XC or its members.  I have been crass (and i'm sorry if rubbed some of ya'll the wrong way, tends to happen when i'm annoyed) but there has been a reason.  Through my arguements I took the hard stance that I would not do this or that but did anyone bother to fact check me on this?  If you check my site you will find Poly counts clearly labeled for my newer models (I haven't added them for all of them).  Further, had the readme been checked you would have found this:

Ship name:  Daedalus, NCC - 150
Race: Federation
Model/mesh credits: Tus
Texture credits:  Tus
Design Credits:  Aethernaut
Kitbash credits: n/a


Are these following files/modifications included?

Model brks = (exploding model): - yes
Textured: -yes
Hardpoints/damage points:-yes.
Ship (mod) file : -yes
SFC II illumination maps: -yes
SFC III files: -no
Game specs: Replaces FCL
Background: no

Now granted, i don't have LODs listed, I haven't made them or used them in but 1 or two instances (and don't even intend to, sorry).  But that right there is a pretty detailed readme (even comes with a warning which is both a reminder that it might not work for you but also a bit of protection for me as its my general disclaimer).  But heres the thing, we already police ourselves and do stuff to make it easy for the end user to use our models.  Remember that install file i talked about?  I did that for a while to make it easier for the players to get models, and install them.  I even included a set of specs for it that could be copied into your shiplist (granted they were probably not balanced).  Modellers have been doing things for for a while to help yall and as demonstrated in this thread it, for the most part, goes unnoticed.  Further there is only so much we can do to make it work for everyone.  A detailed readme, stats and specs, info posted plain as day on the dled site.  Beyond that there isn't much we can do as all that now lies in the hands of the user.  This leads me what this really is about and its people demanding we do things their way and then harrasing people when they don't.  I've seen people posting in model threads and not even comment on the model but simply demand 'whats the poly count'.  No coments on the model (good or bad) but a demand. Or as is exampled in this thread belittling others just because they don't share your opinion on how models should be done.  That type of attitude just don't fly with me, and I'm certain that it don't fly with just about everyone else.  Doing just that will deter me from making those changes just to spite them its just that simple. 

Not sure how to end this now, I'm guessing that is long and rambling but I think it sums up my position.

[Kreeargh]

STOP THE --- ---  THIS THREAD was not MODELERS issues. My thoughs were "ITS ABOUT THE TECH" WHAT IS NEEDED !!!!!!!!   
 You know its hard to read all these posts to understand any thing but -- thoughts.
Peace out! I hope sfc lasts forever.

[GotAFarmYet?]

STOP THE --- ---  THIS THREAD was not MODELERS issues. My thoughs were "ITS ABOUT THE TECH" WHAT IS NEEDED !!!!!!!!   
 You know its hard to read all these posts to understand any thing but -- thoughts.
Peace out! I hope sfc lasts forever.

Then go back and read this First post from me and ignore the rest of this thread

for SFC 2 and 1, YES
SFC 3 and future versions NO

The SFC 3 engine used a different system so lods were not really necessary that system handled the graphics better too compaired to the orginal engine.

The LOD was useful because only if the ship was veiwed very closely was the full bit map at a higher resolution used. at a distance of 10 or more the second LOD was used, with a texture setting that was 1/2 to 1/4 the resolution of the up close one. It means the processor used 50 - 25% less of the processing of the LOD 1 version. If LOD was used at ranges above 50 I think it was the model was 1/4 to 1/8 of the LOD 2 25- 12 % of the processing of LOD 2 and a whopping 4% or so of LOD 1.

It meant that you only impaced your system if you closed to a range of under 10 to allot of ships which did not happen all that much

Basically if a new game is developed you will not need the LOD, and will probably have the light maps built into the texture *.TGA file and bump maps and other things added as well. If the next version is built on the current SFC I-OP then they will be needed for the on-line players. Current game engines are far better at graphics than the older engines, remember this one is from about 1994 or older for the orginal games. SFC 3 used a different engine and could handle the higher poly and textures as does the BC, Legacy and other games.

[marstone]

version being worked on is EAW based (only source access is that one).  So limits will be the same to start.  As it is learned (reconstructing the API stuff), I have hopes that a new graphics engine will be added, but that would be farther down the road.  I have hopes of it being done.  If nothing else some tweaks to the engine might be done, like adding some of the newer tech to the older engine.

[intermech]

You cannot put artists into a box. Everything released around here is free. Use of LODs costs money because programs that can generate them are expensive.

I keep my polies low out of habit because I had been using the same low grade computer for over a decade. I rarely now release full ship additions because it seems no one can appreciate a balance between model "quality" and poly-count. It is nice to know that there is a contingent out there that appreciates finesse models that are conservative on the  resource demand.

Without LODs, you get the following catch-22:

If you become a poly-count miser, you get poor reviews on the filefront site because spoiled fifth-graders with corporate-grade computers are upset because your model doesn't look like professional film quality, even though they are tens of times better than the stock models. If you increase poly count to appease the art critics, then you alienate the people who are playing the game for the tactics.

I have never, ever been successful in logging  in anywhere to play multi-player on any SFC game. So writing out detailed information on what a particular model might do to a system for people who do not care to distribute the same level of detail about how to be involved in these games is lopsided at best.

Here is a solid TIP: the better this ship looks, the more it will lag your system. PERIOD.

[GotAFarmYet?]

You cannot put artists into a box. Everything released around here is free. Use of LODs costs money because programs that can generate them are expensive.

I keep my polies low out of habit because I had been using the same low grade computer for over a decade. I rarely now release full ship additions because it seems no one can appreciate a balance between model "quality" and poly-count. It is nice to know that there is a contingent out there that appreciates finesse models that are conservative on the  resource demand.

Without LODs, you get the following catch-22:

If you become a poly-count miser, you get poor reviews on the filefront site because spoiled fifth-graders with corporate-grade computers are upset because your model doesn't look like professional film quality, even though they are tens of times better than the stock models. If you increase poly count to appease the art critics, then you alienate the people who are playing the game for the tactics.

I have never, ever been successful in logging  in anywhere to play multi-player on any SFC game. So writing out detailed information on what a particular model might do to a system for people who do not care to distribute the same level of detail about how to be involved in these games is lopsided at best.

Here is a solid TIP: the better this ship looks, the more it will lag your system. PERIOD.

Go IM!!!
The last line cracked me up and is completely true.

You are correct on the cost side, you need 3DMax 3-5 to export the model with LODs no other program does it. Also on a side note the making of textures has also gone up thanks to corel. The bought the makers of PSP and because it conflicked with there flag ship graphic program Corel Draw they down graded PSP to the point were it is mostly a photo editor now.

Max is still above 1000 I beleive
PS above 700 for the full suite

PSP was about 80 but is now not useful

[Kreeargh]

STOP THE --- ---  THIS THREAD was not MODELERS issues. My thoughs were "ITS ABOUT THE TECH" WHAT IS NEEDED !!!!!!!!   
 You know its hard to read all these posts to understand any thing but -- thoughts.
Peace out! I hope sfc lasts forever.

Then go back and read this First post from me and ignore the rest of this thread

for SFC 2 and 1, YES
SFC 3 and future versions NO

The SFC 3 engine used a different system so lods were not really necessary that system handled the graphics better too compaired to the orginal engine.

The LOD was useful because only if the ship was veiwed very closely was the full bit map at a higher resolution used. at a distance of 10 or more the second LOD was used, with a texture setting that was 1/2 to 1/4 the resolution of the up close one. It means the processor used 50 - 25% less of the processing of the LOD 1 version. If LOD was used at ranges above 50 I think it was the model was 1/4 to 1/8 of the LOD 2 25- 12 % of the processing of LOD 2 and a whopping 4% or so of LOD 1.

It meant that you only impaced your system if you closed to a range of under 10 to allot of ships which did not happen all that much

Basically if a new game is developed you will not need the LOD, and will probably have the light maps built into the texture *.TGA file and bump maps and other things added as well. If the next version is built on the current SFC I-OP then they will be needed for the on-line players. Current game engines are far better at graphics than the older engines, remember this one is from about 1994 or older for the orginal games. SFC 3 used a different engine and could handle the higher poly and textures as does the BC, Legacy and other games.

I AGREE with you I did read that i do not think others did. Let it play out . 

[Adonis]

Oh, man, what a mess...

OK, let's see:

Point 1: Some of you modelers have stated that we do this for free. Yes, we do, and so how we do stuff and most importantly for what we do it for is our own discretion entirely.

Point 2: This is something which by what i red here no one seemed to bother to mention just for the sake of the argument: You cannot just simply cross-port a mesh between ST games, each has it's own way of dealing with things, and porting in reality isn't something you can do easily and with a limited set of knowledge of modelling.

Point 3 (the one Dizzy willfully misses all the time): As GAFY? said upstairs, textures do the lagging 95%, only the remaining 5% is the mesh itself. Add to it that for example you have a mesh that wasn't even done with said particular game in mind, it gets worse if it isn't ported correctly. I've been messing around with Excals engine these past 2 years or so, and that isn't something you can do with limited knowledge of how stuff works in games that Dizzy has. It shows the correlation between poly count and textures nicely, and also which of the two is the resource hog. All moaning aside, as Frey said, your only goal is to be right, which you are not, out of the simple reason that you lack the understanding needed to be able to judge the relations of this whole's sum of parts correctly.

Point 4: Now we get to something which Dizzy will not be able to understand to be blunt, but realistic. It is one thing to build a model which looks good, and a completely different can of worms to make it look good and be done with good skill. The two aren't connected. I was able to transfer this understanding to some to certain degrees of non-absolute excellence, but most fall on deaf ears on the matter. Modeling is something you perfect all the time. Add to this, of course, my second point, which is an integral part of it.

[Strat]

I just want to say 'thank you' for the models people make that add to the fun factor of the game... Its really nice seeing the threads where people discuss them, to see the deep thought and effort put into era design and making them.

Kudos to the effort. Sorry for the times it gets really hard.

[intermech]

Good points Adonis.

I do remember someone took a sample of models which which ranged from very high poly with textures that were practically 4x4 pixel and very low poly with ginormous wallpaper sized textures, played them in the SFC engine, and noted the demand on resources. I wish I could credit who it was, but I remember the conclusion being that the high poly, small textures were much more palatable for the game. The flip side of that is that in SFC3, for example, you can reach a polygon limit. Fallen Warrior had done incremental tests and found this number. But I forget what it was. So, you have to find a balance.

If  you really wanted to classify resource load, I think a way to do it would be to show a factor over the stock models. SFC1 had an average model poly count of about 250 and textures at 256 x 256. So one of my standard ~2500-poly models with 512 x 512 textures would have a poly factor of 10 and a texture factor of 2. . . or may be 4 . . . how ever it is best understood.

[Starfox1701]

do the textue LODs run independent of the mesh LODds?

[Tus-XC]

LoDs are different models that the game engine recognizes as varing camera distances.  As such the textures can be whatever the creater wants them to be.  Sinces the goal of a LoD is to reduce load, the textures associated with that LoD can be reduced in size  accordingly.  They do not act independent of the model as the textures and the model are assigned during creation.  This is only the case of SFC1,2, and OP.  SFC3 as far as i know does not utilize smaller textures for varing LoDs

[Centurus]

LODs aren't used in SFC3, nor are any different textures for the same purpose.  One model, one set of textures.

[GotAFarmYet?]

do the textue LODs run independent of the mesh LODds?

What most don't understand is a LOD is a complete model, It has to be made, mapped, HPed, DPed and textured just like any model. you would basically have to make 3 complete ships then once exported you would have to check each LOD. This would have to be tested in the viewer and the game engine for errors, including where the weapons fire from. It is alot of work and the two other LODs other than the primary one do not transfer to any other game and would have to be removed.

What is a LOD should be your question
A LOD is a Load On Distance model, basically a fully created model that the game will load at a predetermined distance. example below (not exact)
LOD1 = 0-15 Full Detailed Model 1000-7500 polies, Full detailed textures 16 or 8 bit color
LOD2 = 15-50 undetailed model 250-2000 polies, half sized texture reduced resolution 8 bit or 4 bit color
LOD3 = 050+ block model 100-500 polies, quater sized textures reduced resolution 4 bit or 2 bit color

So a modeller would ahve to make three complete ships for every release, a nice thing about the exporter is that if you do not have other models to assign to the export slots it will assign the orginal model for you to those slots. Now only the exporter made for Max let you do this, the other exporters for GMax, MS, etc did not have this ability and only export a 1 model.

So now back to your question:
I make a LOD1 model and assign textures to it, I can make a LOD2 model and assign the same textures or make reduced textures for it and assign them. Note if you rescale them, the textures by the way will need fixing after you do this. One way for making a LOD2 is to run the ship through a poly reducer, note this will cause mesh errors that have to be corrected. In both these cases the errors can be so severe that it will be easy to make a new one than correct the current mesh.

So a LOD is a complete model, with textures, damage points, hardpoints, and mapping. Depending on the camera distance from the target will determine which LOD is used. Only a export from 3DMax versions 2-5 will allow you to place multiple models into the exported MOD file.

Yeah I know clear as mud, but hope it helps ask away where you need it clearified.

[intermech]

GAFY, I think that is a very accurate, clear description. Your poly-counts seem high. Are you quoting stock model specs, or community averages?

[GotAFarmYet?]

GAFY, I think that is a very accurate, clear description. Your poly-counts seem high. Are you quoting stock model specs, or community averages?

Community averages is what I based it off of, the orginal game models were all sub 1200 polies for the full version

[Adonis]

GAFY, I think that is a very accurate, clear description. Your poly-counts seem high. Are you quoting stock model specs, or community averages?

I'd say those are community averages more than stock specs (even for SFC3), you're just used to building really low poly meshses my friend  .

In BC for instance you have the possibility of separate mesh and texture LOD's, so you can even use a LOD2 (called Med in BC) with LOD3 (called Low in BC) textures. Our personal BC limit was 10k for quite a while, and I personally don't even go over 15k (for like really big and/or detailed stuff like starbases or huge ships). Also, my personal rule of thumb is a single big map (2048's are my defaults) on 200 meter ships or below, and 2 or 3, maybe even 4 on bigger stuff, depending on the exact size (but 4 is really enough for anything to look good). One exception to this rule is the Galor/Keldon I did for Excalibur, The Gal is 8.2k with one 2048 map and a 512 one for the glowing parts (impulse, deflector, phaser pyramids), while the Keldon is around 10k with the exact same texture set as the Galor (they share their textures between themselves). I never would go down the road of having a boatload of small textures (like some SFC peeps do), it's pointless and you can achieve the exact same visual result with those max 4 big ones, than 20 which vary in size from 1024 to 4x4  or even 2x2, also, using a smaller number of maps helps with performance too (the analogy is that like you, a PC can handle a couple of big stuff easier than a load of varying size ones).

[Kreeargh]

GAFY, I think that is a very accurate, clear description. Your poly-counts seem high. Are you quoting stock model specs, or community averages?

I'd say those are community averages more than stock specs (even for SFC3), you're just used to building really low poly meshses my friend  .

In BC for instance you have the possibility of separate mesh and texture LOD's, so you can even use a LOD2 (called Med in BC) with LOD3 (called Low in BC) textures. Our personal BC limit was 10k for quite a while, and I personally don't even go over 15k (for like really big and/or detailed stuff like starbases or huge ships). Also, my personal rule of thumb is a single big map (2048's are my defaults) on 200 meter ships or below, and 2 or 3, maybe even 4 on bigger stuff, depending on the exact size (but 4 is really enough for anything to look good). One exception to this rule is the Galor/Keldon I did for Excalibur, The Gal is 8.2k with one 2048 map and a 512 one for the glowing parts (impulse, deflector, phaser pyramids), while the Keldon is around 10k with the exact same texture set as the Galor (they share their textures between themselves). I never would go down the road of having a boatload of small textures (like some SFC peeps do), it's pointless and you can achieve the exact same visual result with those max 4 big ones, than 20 which vary in size from 1024 to 4x4  or even 2x2, also, using a smaller number of maps helps with performance too (the analogy is that like you, a PC can handle a couple of big stuff easier than a load of varying size ones).

I think more options rules SFC is one that gives many. Yea low tech to date but more than other games of same era!  Even BC is just a glory game.    Lods in sfc have some use not just the glory but to work the game engine so it dont die.  If its not true ? Why make it ?

[Adonis]

GAFY, I think that is a very accurate, clear description. Your poly-counts seem high. Are you quoting stock model specs, or community averages?

I'd say those are community averages more than stock specs (even for SFC3), you're just used to building really low poly meshses my friend  .

In BC for instance you have the possibility of separate mesh and texture LOD's, so you can even use a LOD2 (called Med in BC) with LOD3 (called Low in BC) textures. Our personal BC limit was 10k for quite a while, and I personally don't even go over 15k (for like really big and/or detailed stuff like starbases or huge ships). Also, my personal rule of thumb is a single big map (2048's are my defaults) on 200 meter ships or below, and 2 or 3, maybe even 4 on bigger stuff, depending on the exact size (but 4 is really enough for anything to look good). One exception to this rule is the Galor/Keldon I did for Excalibur, The Gal is 8.2k with one 2048 map and a 512 one for the glowing parts (impulse, deflector, phaser pyramids), while the Keldon is around 10k with the exact same texture set as the Galor (they share their textures between themselves). I never would go down the road of having a boatload of small textures (like some SFC peeps do), it's pointless and you can achieve the exact same visual result with those max 4 big ones, than 20 which vary in size from 1024 to 4x4  or even 2x2, also, using a smaller number of maps helps with performance too (the analogy is that like you, a PC can handle a couple of big stuff easier than a load of varying size ones).

I think more options rules SFC is one that gives many. Yea low tech to date but more than other games of same era!  Even BC is just a glory game.    Lods in sfc have some use not just the glory but to work the game engine so it dont die.

Quite the opposite, in BC you have far more room to free-combine stuff in therms of LOD, ST: Excal will be same and better in that regard. I didn't choose to mod BC by accident back in the day when I started and left SFC as an afterthought along the way. For ST:Excal, just look at it as a best-of-both-world approach on the matter, it'll have the flexibility of BC LOD system and the way SFC3 does illumination (colored map). The good things when you write your own engine in-team for the game your a part of making.

[Kreeargh]

My thoughts SFC1 , 2 and OP notscf3 or BC lod files.  I guess one needs law to define things of thought? Its not a debate at all its a question ? 

[marstone]

question to you guys then. If you could make a few minor tweaks to the graphic engine of SFC:EAW what would you do?  And what is the number one important thing you think should be done?  This is for debate and my own interest, not from the standpoint that it would or can be done.

[Kreeargh]

question to you guys then. If you could make a few minor tweaks to the graphic engine of SFC:EAW what would you do?  And what is the number one important thing you think should be done?  This is for debate and my own interest, not from the standpoint that it would or can be done.

My own wish would be use of gif files for use in all textures !
 MANY  ideas possable.

[marstone]

so  gif's so you can add animations would be your one wish if you got it.  that is one.

[Kreeargh]

so  gif's so you can add animations would be your one wish if you got it.  that is one.

Oh how about a Lod tool?  A program that sees polys or verts and coverts it to 3 models baised on the math  from 1 model  idea ?

[Tus-XC]

1. Animatable parts
2. Alpha Maps (I wants transparencies)
3. update to texture formats (PNGs, GIF, JPG,etc)

[Centurus]

What model format would be used, would be my question to the now recent conversation being discussed here.  Would the MOD format still be used, or would another be used instead?  Just curious.

[Panzergranate]

The thing everyone is forgetting is that when SFC 1, SFC 2 and SFC 3 came out PCs were still running single ALU processors which utilised a lot of extraneous clock cycles to process model graphics and texture.

Now we run processors with multiple ALUs, dedecated to branch calls, interrupts, IO handling and the original core ALU that all PC processors have always had. These were features, years ago, that only super computers had.

It is not, as one IT tech once tried to convince a bunch of electronics engineers, 4 x CPUs in one chip.... we laughed so much over that one!! God it was like listening to a medic trying to explain brain surgery to a neurologist....

Therefore LODs aren't really neccessary as their original purpose was to overcome the processor data handling limitations of the old Pentium 2 and Pentium 3 processors.

However I still use LODs in some of my models mainly because:

(A) Some of the PCs we network here for LAN games aren't Dual or Quad Core equiped.

(B) They can prove useful in LAN scenarios for Romulan deceptions such making a warship appear as a freighter or a mine appear as a vessel to attract a victim.

With the latter we allow Romulan corvettes to have the ability to appear to be freighters from a distance and need to use LOD 2 and LOD 3 to maintain that illusion. With their designation, in the shiplist, also under freighter, opposing players aren't always too sure what they are attempting to attack. We also use the Romulan Cloaked Decoy shuttle, from SFB, by a similar system.

We also use the same LOD system for the Klingon K2 scout, except it only appears as a Federation freighter at LOD 3, in keeping with the Star Fleet Museum transcript of its operational failings. The version of the K2, for use against the Kzinti and Hydrans in scenarios, deceives at LOD 2 and LOD 3.

As we use FMSE to script all of our scenarios and use a 500 ship model library, we have some interesting LAN games.

You can have some fun with LODs with some imagination.

[knightstorm]

(B) They can prove useful in LAN scenarios for Romulan deceptions such making a warship appear as a freighter or a mine appear as a vessel to attract a victim.

With the latter we allow Romulan corvettes to have the ability to appear to be freighters from a distance and need to use LOD 2 and LOD 3 to maintain that illusion. With their designation, in the shiplist, also under freighter, opposing players aren't always too sure what they are attempting to attack. We also use the Romulan Cloaked Decoy shuttle, from SFB, by a similar system.

We also use the same LOD system for the Klingon K2 scout, except it only appears as a Federation freighter at LOD 3, in keeping with the Star Fleet Museum transcript of its operational failings. The version of the K2, for use against the Kzinti and Hydrans in scenarios, deceives at LOD 2 and LOD 3.

As we use FMSE to script all of our scenarios and use a 500 ship model library, we have some interesting LAN games.

You can have some fun with LODs with some imagination.

That sounds really cool.   I'm assuming you have some sort of restriction on probes.

[Panzergranate]

Some ships don't have probes.... Orions for instance....

Some players still occasionally forget to fire a probe.

 The other option is to send a Red Shirt out in a budget shuttlecraft to take a closer look. If it turns out to be a monster or a hostile warship then its only a Red Shirt and engineering can always knock up another shuttlecraft. If there was a Red Shirt in a space suit option, that would be better.

Red Shirts.... they're there to die in horrific and stupid ways so you don't have to....

[marstone]

so  gif's so you can add animations would be your one wish if you got it.  that is one.

Oh how about a Lod tool?  A program that sees polys or verts and coverts it to 3 models baised on the math  from 1 model  idea ?

That would be awesome, but if a professional level 3d graphics program can't cut polys without messing up the model, I don't hold a lot of hope for a small utility.  But will put on my little list of things to think about.

[marstone]

What model format would be used, would be my question to the now recent conversation being discussed here.  Would the MOD format still be used, or would another be used instead?  Just curious.

MOD is still the format for use.  From personal thought, maybe adding a MD2 (mod2) format down the road might be good, thus keeping the old one for comparability and add a new one for new things.  But this is only my musing and hopes.

[intermech]

question to you guys then. If you could make a few minor tweaks to the graphic engine of SFC:EAW what would you do?  And what is the number one important thing you think should be done?  This is for debate and my own interest, not from the standpoint that it would or can be done.

Since you asked . . .

1. Ability to Edit the Q3 file. I have been following your progress! Thanks for your work here.
2. Support for wide screen and higher resolution monitors.
3. Transparent texture support for *.tga, *.gif, and *.png formats in SFC1, SFC2, SFCOP (SFC3 already has it)
4. Animated *.gif support.
5. SFC3 allows selection of different spectacularity on individual models in the *.gf file. It would be nice to be able to have different spectacular on  different model groups.
6. Spectacularity and/or bump maps enabled.

[marstone]

question to you guys then. If you could make a few minor tweaks to the graphic engine of SFC:EAW what would you do?  And what is the number one important thing you think should be done?  This is for debate and my own interest, not from the standpoint that it would or can be done.

Since you asked . . .

1. Ability to Edit the Q3 file. I have been following your progress! Thanks for your work here.
2. Support for wide screen and higher resolution monitors.
3. Transparent texture support for *.tga, *.gif, and *.png formats in SFC1, SFC2, SFCOP (SFC3 already has it)
4. Animated *.gif support.
5. SFC3 allows selection of different spectacularity on individual models in the *.gf file. It would be nice to be able to have different spectacular on  different model groups.
6. Spectacularity and/or bump maps enabled.

1. Editing is limited right now, but will expand.  But will probably not be put out for general use.
2. easy and hard to do.  Expanded resolutions should be able to be done for the main 3d screen, but the UI will continue to shrink as it will not expand.  Hardcoded blitter that does a pixel for pixel copy so the final image is always the same size in pixels.  Make the resolution bigger, images get smaller.
3-6.  Varying degrees of difficulty (for various reasons).  But on my list.

[GotAFarmYet?]

Think IM has a good list, but I would go with a different order.
6,3,4 then 2,1,5 would be my order on those.

The Spec and BUmp maps along with other texture support will get us even with other games. This allows model wsharing between games again and can bring modellers and players back. If the only real difference between what game I port a model to is based on a exporter then things become easy for multiple games.

Yes I know there are certain aspects of special files for most of them py files gf file etc but it would make it easier, because the model would work in all the formats

[marstone]

Think IM has a good list, but I would go with a different order.
6,3,4 then 2,1,5 would be my order on those.

The Spec and BUmp maps along with other texture support will get us even with other games. This allows model wsharing between games again and can bring modellers and players back. If the only real difference between what game I port a model to is based on a exporter then things become easy for multiple games.

Yes I know there are certain aspects of special files for most of them py files gf file etc but it would make it easier, because the model would work in all the formats

I can see that.  Question is how does number 5 work in SFC3?

[Tus-XC]

sfc3 does a specular to the ship based on a predefined color and intensity.  It is not texture dependent

[Panzergranate]

So a modeller would ahve to make three complete ships for every release, a nice thing about the exporter is that if you do not have other models to assign to the export slots it will assign the orginal model for you to those slots. Now only the exporter made for Max let you do this, the other exporters for GMax, MS, etc did not have this ability and only export a 1 model.

So now back to your question:
I make a LOD1 model and assign textures to it, I can make a LOD2 model and assign the same textures or make reduced textures for it and assign them. Note if you rescale them, the textures by the way will need fixing after you do this. One way for making a LOD2 is to run the ship through a poly reducer, note this will cause mesh errors that have to be corrected. In both these cases the errors can be so severe that it will be easy to make a new one than correct the current mesh.

So a LOD is a complete model, with textures, damage points, hardpoints, and mapping. Depending on the camera distance from the target will determine which LOD is used. Only a export from 3DMax versions 2-5 will allow you to place multiple models into the exported MOD file.

Yeah I know clear as mud, but hope it helps ask away where you need it clearified.
[/quote]

Not the only way to do it....

I make three sepearate models, then using the freeware MFCSFCED modelling tool, copy and insert each model in place of each LOD layer in a three LOD model, usually a Taldren original game model. I then rename the model. All hardpoints are as set on each model before overlaying into each LOD.

I use the same process to convert downloaded SFC 2 and SFC 3 models so that I can run them on SFC 1. Some require hours of texture re-mapping and patience, others convert in under a minute. I have converted an SFC 3 model to SFC 1 and added in LODs for it before now.

[Starfox1701]

The reason I asked is in Amada 2 the mesh and texture LODs run indpendent of each other. By that I mean that a model does not need on to have the other. When you make a model for A2 you asigne the top level textures to all the apropriate mesh groups. though each groups needs a corisponding material. then when you down size the textures you rename them by ading _1, _2,_3, and _4 for a total of 5 LODs. Now the model doesn't have to have mesh LODs to use the texture LODs and vice versa. This is a very flexable system that lets you add some LODs to ships that never came with them. It also doesn't requier any modeling skill to improve the proformance of large models

[Adonis]

Well, the other question is what kind of specularity exactly? BC for instance only had specular color, but not intensity too...With bumps (you guys want to mean normal maps here?) you can have less model detail, but it adds onto the texture load. This is how my Keldon I talked about in an earlier post looks like in Excal's graphical demonstration engine (meaning, it isn't a final look), has specular color and intensity, normal maps and RGB lightmaps:

[GotAFarmYet?]

The reason I asked is in Amada 2 the mesh and texture LODs run indpendent of each other. By that I mean that a model does not need on to have the other. When you make a model for A2 you asigne the top level textures to all the apropriate mesh groups. though each groups needs a corisponding material. then when you down size the textures you rename them by ading _1, _2,_3, and _4 for a total of 5 LODs. Now the model doesn't have to have mesh LODs to use the texture LODs and vice versa. This is a very flexable system that lets you add some LODs to ships that never came with them. It also doesn't requier any modeling skill to improve the proformance of large models

Unfortuantly we did not get that with SFC so the model only used its assigne textures no mater the distance. Although that would be a nice thing to add, that way one model can be made and smaller textures to reduce the load at distance.

Well, the other question is what kind of specularity exactly? BC for instance only had specular color, but not intensity too...With bumps (you guys want to mean normal maps here?) you can have less model detail, but it adds onto the texture load. This is how my Keldon I talked about in an earlier post looks like in Excal's graphical demonstration engine (meaning, it isn't a final look), has specular color and intensity, normal maps and RGB lightmaps:

Yup, that is what I am asking for to allow us to use that type of mapping to reduce model size and you can actually reduce RBG details and let the normal and Spec maps cover the details instead. over all if properly done it would still use less processor and memory then the current system. It would also allow the model itself to be usuable in other games or from other games with less conversion work needed

Edit: removed Adonis color to make it more easily read in the gray

[Adonis]

Well, the other question is what kind of specularity exactly? BC for instance only had specular color, but not intensity too...With bumps (you guys want to mean normal maps here?) you can have less model detail, but it adds onto the texture load. This is how my Keldon I talked about in an earlier post looks like in Excal's graphical demonstration engine (meaning, it isn't a final look), has specular color and intensity, normal maps and RGB lightmaps:

Yup, that is what I am asking for to allow us to use that type of mapping to reduce model size and you can actually reduce RBG details and let the normal and Spec maps cover the details instead. over all if properly done it would still use less processor and memory then the current system. It would also allow the model itself to be usuable in other games or from other games with less conversion work needed

Edit: removed Adonis color to make it more easily read in the gray

No GAFY?, you misunderstand, bigtime...

With normal maps you need to have a Pixel Shader capable graphics card (which are most of the cards in the last 15 years, however, you have normals since PS2.0 IIRC), and huge amounts of RAM help too (like at least a gig in physical RAM and 256 on GPU to make it playable enough in the scales we're talking about). Excal is so far Pixel Shader 3.0.

Normals and Specs aren't mapping, they're engine capability. Just as the illum maps in SFC are, you just add textures with the appropriate suffixes in the names to it besides the diffuse ones that are made in a specific way to serve a specific purpose. The games engine does the rest of the work. And RGB details are a whole separate can of worms altogether, spec and normals add to the feel and depth of a model, they don't substitute stuff. And normals aren't even the end of the line here, there's a whole load of other engine-based stuff that makes something look really good and feel real, and none of those can be run on machines that are older than say 2 years correctly because the hardware wasn't built for it or isn't powerful enough.

Conversion-wise, it would depend on the exact way that an engine "sees" the said maps, this mostly goes for the normal maps (we got through 3 separate ways of doing them for excal at least that I'm aware of before we got to the one we will use now, becaus ethe earlier ones where problematic). And I'm not talking here the grayscale bump maps, but the RBG normal maps, there's a big difference between those.

[marstone]

sadly, as the person who asked the question I am slow on the uptake on the tech of 3d.  I got stuck last time on the illum maps when doing a conversion of the .MOD translators to a different 3d graphics program.  The terms seem to change depending on the programs used, and who is doing it.  It is a very confusing topic for someone who is just barely a programmer to start with.

might be nice to get some good training sites pointed out so I can educate myself so I can work on this stuff. 

[intermech]

I can see that.  Question is how does number 5 work in SFC3?

Not a programmer, but I will try to elaborate on GAFY. There is a text file in each model folder which acts as a call-out sheet to give SFC3 some additional graphical capability. It is the *.gf file.

The file does the following:

1. It lists the coordinates of the system icons in both the ship/equipment selection screen and in-game ship status screen
2. It lists the "glare" sprite locations, colors, sizes, and intensities. In the developer's official glare editor, these glare sprites are assigned to specific polygons on the model. But, if you swap the *.gf file to another model, the sprites keep the location, and are not tied to a certain polygon.
3. There is a number for spectacularity for the particular model. Specularity in this case calls how light reflects off the model. 0 specularity gives a very flat finish. Higher, say 256 makes the whole model glow. This is independent of the texture. I am wondering if it would be possible to assign different specularities to different groups within the same model.

Hope this is clearer, it may just be the blind leading the blind, lol.

[marstone]

Done alittle digging. Bump mapping was added to directX in DX7.  Even tho we are using DX9 for compiling, the calls in the game are those of DX6.

So more digging is needed.  But who knows.

[intermech]

Are you talking for SFC3, or the others? Because when you install SFC3 it calls for DX7.

[marstone]

Are you talking for SFC3, or the others? Because when you install SFC3 it calls for DX7.

others.  Specifically EAW.  Now I would like to get my hands on the code for SFC3, even tho I personally didn't like the game, I would like to get some of the updates.  And a few other ideas what to do with it.

[GotAFarmYet?]

At this point i would like to thank:
Adonis for bringing up the difference we would have to cover to get to a more current format of models to make this game more compatable with other games.
Marstone for trying to be a voice of reason and trying to do what he can to update this game to prevent its' death.
Kreeargh, Interstellar Machine, and Panzergranate for the additional information they provided through this topic.

Fallen Warrior,
Thanks for the reminder about the 5MB file size as the limit, forgot that one. About your mod do what you want, but it seems silly to let Dizzy stop you from release after 3 years of work. Mind you I am not a good guide for this as i have not completed over a 100 of retextures for one reason or another and none of those will see the light of day either. The reason is different it was because I chose not to complete them or lost interest in the idea I was following. Either way let no one make your decision for you, if you decide to stop working for your own reason good for you if you stop because Dizzy pissed you off I think a new thread with how you really feel should be added here

[Adonis]

But None of it will see the light of day because people like Dizzy have to jump on a bandwagon of anti detail.

My friend, never let the weak minded win with their lack of perspective.

[intermech]

Fallen, you made me very sad to read your comment. I can think of no one who has had more enthusiasm and greater vision for modding SFC3. I think that the decline of SFC modding can be attributed to the fact that the game is 10 years old, is not widely available, and it ceases to be graphically competative against more modern games. Besides this wonderful community, the only alluring thing about the game, for me, is its moddability. I just don't have the gumption to learn  another game. To be honest, my lack of activity can be attributed to tme constraints, but lack of kudos from actual players (if there are any, anymore) encourages me to put my efforts elsewhere. I am sorry for any part I might have played in your dissolussion.

If anyone has a suggestion for a different game or even more relevant project utilizing the same skill set that we can all move to and still work together, I would jump at the opportunity, because I am concerned about losing what we have here.

[marstone]

Can't say much on the  modding side. I don't comment much on others models bwcause my taste for models diffwr from most others.  But wanted to put a word out on the SFC:CE. It shall make it to the light of day. It will be slow. It is being worked on by people on their spare time. So major changes will take time.

As I am a cog and not driver of the development I never talk of specifics, not my place. But as said the game will be updated. Nothing can stop that now, but time is a factor.

[Kreeargh]

I should have never posted this or in any other topic since  my quit thread  Flames, ppl quiting their dreams ect.  from now on.

[marstone]

I should have never posted this or in any other topic since  my quit thread  Flames, ppl quiting their dreams ect.  from now on.

While it is not a good things that people let things boil over in a discussion.  It doesn't really have anything to do with the start of the post.  We should be able to disagree and talk about that.  It is part of being an adult.  Disagree with someone, talk about it (sometimes alittle forcefully) and then either agree or agree to disagree on it.

[Kreeargh]

I should have never posted this or in any other topic since  my quit thread  Flames, ppl quiting their dreams ect.  from now on.

While it is not a good things that people let things boil over in a discussion.  It doesn't really have anything to do with the start of the post.  We should be able to disagree and talk about that.  It is part of being an adult.  Disagree with someone, talk about it (sometimes alittle forcefully) and then either agree or agree to disagree on it.

Well all i have to say 2/3 of the posts in this topic has nothing to do with the orignal topic. In my opinion anyway. LODs for sfc1 and 2 /op . Please read the topic and try to understand my bad spelling and gramor < .  GotAFarmYet got it right off the start . But playing with lods in m6sfced tool i wonderd what was possable after that.


Fallen Warrior dont quit ! give it time , Keep your dreams alive!   

[GotAFarmYet?]

I should have never posted this or in any other topic since  my quit thread  Flames, ppl quiting their dreams ect.  from now on.

You are wrong if you think you are at fault here Kreeargh.
You orginal post had nothing to do with the results that are going on in this thread, you got what you were asking for a answer to the LOD question. All the other off topic stuff could have easily happened in another thread that anyone could have started, and has happened in other threads that people have started. Post topics if you have questions, and in other member topics you can contribute to others their questions. This is what keeps a community going when you can't contribute directly with a model or something. So don't you dare think this is because you started this thread, if you had stopped reading after the first post or ppl stayed on topic this would have happened sooner or later anyways. Fallen is not giving up on his dream, he actually stated that he currently doesn't have the skill set to finish what is left. Which is why I will post to that alittle farther down.

any chance of a ignore post from this memeber option for Dizzy?

Speaking of you, have you been working on mapping at all yet? I know FoaS has, or at least had, a set of maps that are all colored squares. This would actually help alot to scalling between multiple textures. You already can map, just need to get them to scale against one another. I can give you a set of default textures to use, think I have considering the files I sent. Still willing to work in a open topic with you for questions and answers, or E-mail or whatever, even FoaS would probably like to contribute to that.

Fallen do you have a thread out yet of this is what I need help on in the forums? if so bump it up or start one and have FoaS sticky it.

[marstone]

I should have never posted this or in any other topic since  my quit thread  Flames, ppl quiting their dreams ect.  from now on.

While it is not a good things that people let things boil over in a discussion.  It doesn't really have anything to do with the start of the post.  We should be able to disagree and talk about that.  It is part of being an adult.  Disagree with someone, talk about it (sometimes alittle forcefully) and then either agree or agree to disagree on it.

Well all i have to say 2/3 of the posts in this topic has nothing to do with the orignal topic. In my opinion anyway. LODs for sfc1 and 2 /op . Please read the topic and try to understand my bad spelling and gramor < .  GotAFarmYet got it right off the start . But playing with lods in m6sfced tool i wonderd what was possable after that.


Fallen Warrior dont quit ! give it time , Keep your dreams alive!

Well, actually most of the posts does have something to do with the original topic.  The topic was is LoD still relevant.  The other posts was about LoD in general, a simple segway.  Now my posts tried to hijack it away to a topic of what people would want, in alittle attempt to defuse the debate that people where getting alittle to serious in.

But as Gafy posted, it has nothing to do with your posts, or this thread in general.  It is an undercurrent of the board that will wash up from time to time.  The balance of artistic need to the need of the game.

It goes hand in hand that some artists don't want to hear a negative on their work.  I used to give my "actual" opinion on ships people did.  I would say if I liked them or not, and get flamed by the artist over all the work they put in, or how good they think the model is.  Now I will sometimes comment on the technical part of the look, say how good the mesh is (even tho the image is ugly as hell, to me), so that the artist gets positive feedback instead of a critique of what an end user (me) would actually download and use in my game.  But mainly I just don't comment at all, unless I really like the model.  But even then I don't say why or what I like, because it seems many of the artists don't want to know.  But I respect the work you guys do, wish I had half the talent for art as even the worst of the modelers out there.

ramble, ramble, so I am just going to try and do my part to make the environment (and in game one) better for those who still play and those who will come back, or be a new player as time goes on.

[Strat]

Here here! To admit, I have never made a model, but I have sure downloaded a few for dyna's and stuff.

When I view these models thread I have a habit of seeing the art not as the 'look' of the final product, but the 'art' is that talent gone into creating this work. How many decision's go into the design, the technical hurdles overcome, that hours, the thought and the love? This is no minor feat. These days everyone and his brother can be an artist. Sure, they are not all Picasso's or Bach's by the world's view, but that has no bearing on the beauty of the talent.. these artists still have an amazing ability I sure don't have!

Point being: Don't give up. I don't say I understand all the issues mentioned in this thread, except that none of them appear to be more major than some clear communication and a little working together could fix right up. There are plans in work (with significant progress made) for a revamped EAW. But it is like these modeling projects and this thread. Both are affected by the 'positivity' of the community. If we can just keep building things up, these finished 'arts' can be released. If not, well, then both fields would suffer right over each other. I would feel sad if that happened really.. its like wasting good talent and hard work.

[Rod ONeal]

do the textue LODs run independent of the mesh LODds?

Nothing stops you from having all 3 LODs be the same mesh x3 with different textures attached to each one. I still disagree though that it's textures more than polies that influence FPS. Sure, if you exceed your graphics processor's frame buffer, FPS will crash. Up to that point though, it shouldn't matter much, if at all.

There's a lot of calculations that go into rendering the model. They all add up. The secret is keeping them to a minimum without effecting image quality. At least if you are making a model for realtime rendering, like a game model. A modeler not keeping an eye on making the model playable, is not creating a game model. You can't say, "I made this model for SFC but it doesn't matter if it's playable or not because it's all about me and my art". Then you are not creating models for SFC.

LODs will always be useful with SFC II. They will always allow you to use higher detail on the main models and keep FPS up, compared to not using LODs. It's more work, that many people won't be willing to do, and some people just don't know how to use them and won't learn. That's all fine though. People are always free to not use the models.

[marstone]

Rod, I like your answer and outlook on this.

Now I did make a suggestion, that D.net might split it's area for models so that you can have a compliant section and use at your own risk section to host them.  That way modelers can make what they want, and users will have a quick way to tell what will work well in multi-player and which ones might work, but could cause problems for various reasons.  Thus those who have experience in adding models can use their knowledge to choose, and newbs (and people like me) can choose mainly from the models that are game friendly.

[Rod ONeal]

Some people are so sensitive about it that they won't even give the poly count when they make a model. Some users actually get offensive if a model is too hires for them. If you like hires models, but your PC can't run them, buy a better PC. There are some monster processors and graphic cards out there.

[GotAFarmYet?]

Some people are so sensitive about it that they won't even give the poly count when they make a model. Some users actually get offensive if a model is too hires for them. If you like hires models, but your PC can't run them, buy a better PC. There are some monster processors and graphic cards out there.

Yeah I know,
I own a PC that way, it also kind of makes what I do in higher details work fine for me, as i tend to play single player, compared to others who get the models

[marstone]

while I would agree, that if you want great detail, but your computer sucks buy a new one.  I also have to look at it this way, my computer sucks, I have no money, can't get one of those great computers for a hundred bucks.

[Panzergranate]

Not only that there is only about 5-6 people still sporadically releasing for SFC in general and probably only about 20-40 people downloading for it now-a-days. So it seems like it's besides the point to continue.

Not quite true... here in Europe and the UK we didn't have SFC 2EW or OP but SFC 1 was distributed in large volumes.

Also, by making multiple copies of the original game disc, using NERO, SFC 1 has and is still propogated amongst fans of Star Trek starship type gaming who have heard of SFC through the gaming grape vine but missed out on buying it when it was origianally available.

Since the original SFC became abandonware, folks have been passing around copies.

I recently gave a copy to a friend of my son's who was a big Legacy fan. He now understands why I hold Legacy in such contenpt as he now regards SFC as ,"Amazing and brilliant".

There is still a desire for SFC models here in Europe and the UK.  What is completely invisible is the fact that foks download SFC2 and SFC 3 models and convert them to run on SFC 1. I recently converted an SFC 3 Reman Scimitar to run in SFC 1. It took me 10 minutes and it has the same size and appearance of the original.

So to say that only 20 to 40 people download models for SFC 1 is not taking into account the downloading and conversion aspect.

PS If anyone wants their SFC 2 or SFC 3 model converted to SFC 1 but can't be arsed to do so, just ask and I'll see what I can do. I also put in the hard points on those models where folks we'ren't able too or couldn't be bothered too.