Elite dangerous

[Skuzzy]

Ripley, you really have no understanding of how things are rendered in a 3D environment.

Just real quick.  There are images in this thread which could be rendered using two triangles and one bitmap and a handful (< 20) of point draws.  That is how much work it is to display space.  A typical frame of any ground based game is usually around 75,000 (or more) triangles, and many bitmaps (bump, normal, specular...).

High detailed terrain will always trump space based games in the effort it takes to draw them.

[mechanic]

and then the next day, I un-learn it

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Ripley, you really have no understanding of how things are rendered in a 3D environment.

Just real quick.  There are images in this thread which could be rendered using two triangles and one bitmap and a handful (< 20) of point draws.  That is how much work it is to display space.  A typical frame of any ground based game is usually around 75,000 (or more) triangles, and many bitmaps (bump, normal, specular...).

High detailed terrain will always trump space based games in the effort it takes to draw them.

You're making the assumption that the planets etc. in the images are just flat 2D backgrounds which they partly probably are (level of detail adjust) but the planets and stars in the jump system are highly unlikely to be just 2D objects - not to mention other players and docking stations.

That was not the point however, the point was that game engine makers seem to create techniques like field of view blocking like in the image. I know for a fact that the more developed game engines use level of detail maps that reduce detail according to view distance (for the reasons mentioned before) and also draw only the visible area of the screen. This means that graphics wise it makes no difference what happens all around you, you can only see the fairly narrow strip that is your field of view.

That, then, means that map size plays no role whatsoever in obtainable graphics quality as far as GPU rendering power requirements go. Your system is either able to render that small strip to the longest set view distance (which is not the whole map border to border unless the map is very small) or not. Makes no difference if there are a gazillion objects that are outside your view distance or field of view. Well, unless you have an engine that renders invisible objects and bogs down your system due to not being optimized.

In AH that would basically mean that when you sit in the cockpit, nothing that is behind your cockpit (dash, bars, wings, clouds etc) at any given second, does not get rendered or even handled in the GPU untill the very second it crosses your field of view and needs to be displayed. Just like that field of view image, all the 'shadow' areas of the image do not even exist as far as GPU sees it.

I'm basing all this to the stuff I've read of the technical documentation of various game engines. Of course I might be totally wrong - this is the impression I've got from studying game engines so far. Maybe there's some specific reason why invisible objects should need to be rendered outside of what you can see.

I'm not taking into account the logistics of tracking hundreds of players and objects which is obviously huge, I'm only talking about the rendering part.

[Skuzzy]

You're making the assumption that the planets etc. in the images are just flat 2D backgrounds which they partly probably are (level of detail adjust) but the planets and stars in the jump system are highly unlikely to be just 2D objects - not to mention other players and docking stations.

Not making any assumptions at all.  I am telling you how far distant objects can be drawn if they are done efficiently. Even if you wanted to draw it all manually, space only needs one pair of triangles.  The rest is drawn on top of it.

That was not the point however, the point was that game engine makers seem to create techniques like field of view blocking like in the image. I know for a fact that the more developed game engines use level of detail maps that reduce detail according to view distance (for the reasons mentioned before) and also draw only the visible area of the screen. This means that graphics wise it makes no difference what happens all around you, you can only see the fairly narrow strip that is your field of view.

It is called mipmapping (several models of the same object with decreasing detail as the distance increases), and every game engine has been using that technique for the last 20 years.   When well done, you are not aware it is happening, like in Aces High.

The rest is called clipping (drawing only what is visible), and has been done even longer.  

Neither of these features are the exclusive domain of "more developed game engines".  This is basic/novice level 3D programming, you are talking about.

That, then, means that map size plays no role whatsoever in obtainable graphics quality as far as GPU rendering power requirements go. Your system is either able to render that small strip to the longest set view distance (which is not the whole map border to border unless the map is very small) or not. Makes no difference if there are a gazillion objects that are outside your view distance or field of view. Well, unless you have an engine that renders invisible objects and bogs down your system due to not being optimized.

Now you have completely left the rails.  So far off the track there is no way to establish a reasonable discussion.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Now you have completely left the rails.  So far off the track there is no way to establish a reasonable discussion.

Yet you can't counter argument. Easier to escape I guess.

[Skuzzy]

Yet you can't counter argument. Easier to escape I guess.

This is nothing to argue.  Your statements have no basis in reality.  They show a complete lack of understanding of the 3D graphic display realm.

[pipz]

You guys should move this to my Argument post!   

[Nathan60]

You guys should move this to my Argument post!   

I agree before a moderator comes along and locks the thread   

[mechanic]

I'm so confused now about 3d graphics, turns out my original statements were correct, or were they? It's a never ending saga

[Arlo]

I always figured AH could effectively model space flight physics, as an aside to the graphics thing. Turn off gravity and drag and there ya go. It would probably surpass most space games that kinda try to 'fly' space like an arcade ride.

[pipz]

I always figured AH could effectively model space flight physics, as an aside to the graphics thing. Turn off gravity and drag and there ya go. It would probably surpass most space games that kinda try to 'fly' space like an arcade ride.

It already does. Take note of the Brewster 239!   

[mbailey]

You guys should move this to my Argument post!   

     

[fbEagle]

In other news, my cobra has made it to SOL. That is all. Capitol ships are scary 

[MrRiplEy[H]]

This is nothing to argue.  Your statements have no basis in reality.  They show a complete lack of understanding of the 3D graphic display realm.

I guess it's easier to resort to ad hominem instead of explaining why a game client would need to render anything that is outside it's field of view and thus negating completely the effect of the size of the map of the equation.

If War Thunder etc. can produce stunning visuals and they have a similar view distance and field of view compared to AH, how would map size take effect (to graphics) if we forget the added load of tracking larger amount of objects in virtual space?

You can compare the situation like if you were playing nethack. You stumble through a vast dungeon and you have a lantern as your light source (field of view). Even though the dungeon is huge, you only see the are that your lantern can light up at any time. The single game client is like a character in the night with it's lantern, a bubble of 'light' in the dark.

Why is my analogy wrong, please I would really like to know.

[Gman]

Thinking about 3d drawing and stuff makes my head hurt, I'm not even going to try and understand it.

I always figured AH could effectively model space flight physics, as an aside to the graphics thing. Turn off gravity and drag and there ya go. It would probably surpass most space games that kinda try to 'fly' space like an arcade ride.

Now this I agree with 100 percent, and have said so before as well.  When the Claw came out I was playing a browser based Battlestar Galactica game, which SUCKED by comparison to what I was seeing with the Claw and the HTC Mothership for it.  I said HTC should contact BSG people or whatever, and offer to build them a REAL space game with Battlestars, Vipers, Raiders, and Cylon BaseStars.  Would have, could have, been great.  Probably still could be, but I'm sure the time will never be there for such a project now, but I agree completely that HTC could build a great space fighter pewpew game.