Author Topic: How Many Polygons Am I Looking At? (Read 424 times)

hardcase · « **on:** June 11, 2002, 11:12:33 PM »

just a typical view for the infantry in WW2OL. Vastly different than playing in a standalone fast FPS shoebox map.

hardcase

http://home.midsouth.rr.com/gwhitten/Humanity.jpg

Kratzer · « **Reply #1 on:** June 11, 2002, 11:37:06 PM »

Not that many. Aside from Terrain, most all of that stuff is 2d sprites.

The weapons in there look like they are each about 3 polygons.

Silly WW2OL.

Wotan · « **Reply #2 on:** June 12, 2002, 01:23:15 AM »

so all you want about wwiiol gameplay. but that image is uglier then all hell.

As kratzer said most of that stuff is 2d.

Now when you get to game even those "shoebox" fps games are far better quality.

Dont kid yourselves. Your Blitz is no more real then the shoebox games. Where the artillery. Spawn based on real % percentages.

Why is there no front? just a series a town caps.

There 1000 things the rats could have done to make wwiiol better. I think the game is a joke and 0 fun.

I was in a squad of near 35 folks only 4 were in game after the first 6 weeks. I kept my sub even though I rarely played until 1.51 came out. Then said the hell with.

Dont tell us about how great a "concept it is" put up or shut up.

Virtual jogger with an ugly inf model. But I could get over that much like I can with ahs cockpits as long as the gameplays there.

It aint there in wwiiol. Hows the navy coming along? or how bout the supply system?

Kieran · « **Reply #3 on:** June 12, 2002, 01:47:01 AM »

Quote

Virtual jogger

Now THAT is funny! I spent last night jogging from a French FB to the next town, only to be zapped by the AI when I got too close. Was trying for a sniper position and got greedy. It was a harrowing trip, with low-flying Stukas looking for joggers.

"Virtual Jogger." That one goes in the pocket for later use. All due credit given, of course.

Animal · « **Reply #4 on:** June 12, 2002, 01:57:10 AM »

Actually there are very, very few polygons in there.
A few textured boxes for the buildings, and those arms.. hehehe...
Just because the terrain is large doesnt mean it has lots of polygons.

Quake 2 has much more polygons than that image you linked.

The rest is crappy 2D sprites a la Doom or Duke Nukem 3D

Wanna see mad polygon count? try Morrowind or Grand Theft Auto 3

Kratzer · « **Reply #5 on:** June 12, 2002, 02:10:53 PM »

How's GTA3, Animal?

I traded for a copy, and am eagerly awaiting its arrival... it looks pretty damn sweet.

Oh, and bore-owind is pushing insane polys with all those curved buildings and huge towns... the game looks outstanding.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #6 on:** June 12, 2002, 02:12:27 PM »

GTA3 is the shiznit.. fun as hell. Which one did you get- PS2 or PC?

If you got it for the PC, it's not as fast as on the PS2.. it especially slows down if you don't reset the program periodically.
-SW

Fatty · « **Reply #7 on:** June 12, 2002, 03:04:13 PM »

I thought gta3 was pretty cool, for about 48 hours. Then it starts to get incredibly repetitive.

Animal · « **Reply #8 on:** June 12, 2002, 03:26:56 PM »

You better have a good system to run it well.
It was designed to run on the PS2, so on the PC you are essentially running a poorly optimized emulation.

It does look better than playing on the TV obviously. Because of higher resolutions.

I ignore the missions, and simply go out and kill cops.

bore-owind? argh!
That game rocks. But I guess you have to be into that kind of stuff.
Hell, Fatty and SOB play text based RPG's.

Fatty · « **Reply #9 on:** June 12, 2002, 03:35:22 PM »

Heh, been playing morrowind too Anismall. Not bad, but aside from looking at my reflection in the water I wouldn't give it overwhelming reviews.

Kratzer · « **Reply #10 on:** June 12, 2002, 03:50:52 PM »

PC poorly optimized version of the PS2 version? My PC has a helluva lot more power than a PS2.

Quote

From gamespy's preview:
GTA3's open-ended and adult-oriented gameplay, enormous world, superb music and sound, and enthralling storyline captivated PlayStation 2 owners by giving them an experience unlike any other. Perhaps its only flaw was its graphics, which suffered from some clipping and framerate issues. The PC version addresses this problem and adds in a few other enhancements, making it the best version of GTA3 ever. How does a ridiculously superb game get event better? Read on and I'll tell ya how.

The clearest difference between this version and the console version is its visuals. Depending on your system's capabilities, the game will either look superior to the PS2 version or blow it out of the frickin' water. Players with particularly beefy systems can enjoy the game up to a resolution of 1,600 x 1,200 at 32-bit color. If your rig can swing it, you'll notice more detailed textures and more effective lighting effects. If you're still playing games on a modest system, don't worry. You'll still be able to enjoy the game without any of the technical flaws the PS2 version had. The minimum specs are a 450 MHz processor with 96 MB of RAM and a 16 MB graphics card, while the recommended minimums are an 800 MHz processor with 128 MB of RAM and a 32 MB card.

I'm able to run Morrowind at 1600x1200, 32bit... is that enough system?

I'll probably actually go back and play it some more at some point, as I do like in depth RPGs (the Baldur's Gate series is a favorite), I was just feeling like a bit of an errand boy with a string of 'go here, get such and such from so and so, and if they don't cough it up, kill them' missions.

I got the PC version of GTA3 - the only console in our house is an N64 that my wife plays Mario Karts on.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #11 on:** June 12, 2002, 04:03:22 PM »

Most PCs do have a helluva lot more power than a PS2... but the PS2 doesn't have near the amount of overhead a PC has. Windows, device drivers, joysticks, keyboards, mice, etc... while PS2 just has a little controller and no operating system. (well it does in a sense... but then it doesn't.. it's really just there to tell the system how to run the games, play music or play DVDs)

That and consoles are designed purely to run games while PCs are designed to be workstations... true, they are becomming more and more like dedicated gaming stations- but they aren't optimized to do it... then on top of that, PCs have a wide range of peripherals which need to be supported for the game to run... and I think PS2 uses a different language than the PC.

So, in the end- games designed for consoles will run way better on consoles and games designed for PCs will run way better on PCs and much crappier on consoles.

It's like porting stuff from the Mac to the PC... errr wait that don't happen... it's like porting stuff from the PC to the Mac.

-SW

Fishu · « **Reply #12 on:** June 12, 2002, 06:42:55 PM »

Those aren't exactly sprites..

walls of ruined buildings seem mostly to be double sided polygons with alpha layered textures, which makes it possible to see and go through transparent spots and due to textures corners looks round in those walls.

sprites died long ago

bloom25 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 13, 2002, 02:44:28 AM »

I have GTA 3, though I haven't had much time to play it recently. It runs pretty well on my PC, and the graphics are much better than the PS2.

The problem is that it seems to studder at times, which appears to be when it is accessing the CD drive. It doesn't look like the developers ever decided to put the textures on the hard drive, but rather they pull them off the CD as needed.

Animal · « **Reply #14 on:** June 13, 2002, 03:18:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
Those aren't exactly sprites..

walls of ruined buildings seem mostly to be double sided polygons with alpha layered textures, which makes it possible to see and go through transparent spots and due to textures corners looks round in those walls.

sprites died long ago

Those arent sprites?
Wow, then their artists suck so bad that everything looks like sprites.