Author Topic: Map Format (Read 14837 times)

TH300 · « **on:** December 31, 2005, 07:50:43 PM »

We have finally decided on the map format for OP3: Genesis.

Instead of using a heightfield (every x-y coordinate on the map is associated with a certain height) which is typical for outdoor games, Genesis maps will be in a DotScene format, i.e. the planets surface is defined by a set of dots placed anywhere in the scene, thus allowing complicated geometric formations such as canyons, bluffs, cliffs, etc., which are not possible in a heightfield.

Here are a few screenshots which illustrate the possibilities:

The polygon count of the maps will be around 25000 - 35000 for high detail levels. To improve performance, the scenes will use an OctTree Scene optimizer, i.e. only visible triangles are drawn

Experimental scenes with ~74000 triangles have been rendered at ~200-240 fps on an Athlon XP 2200+ with GeForece FX6800 and a P4 3.0Ghz with Radeon 9000.

wizisi2k · « **Reply #1 on:** December 31, 2005, 09:50:37 PM »

wow over 200 FPS. the best I get with another game is 100 FPS and it stays there (I have a AMD 3500+ which is like a 2.2 ghz processor so I should get like 125-150 FPS hopefully)

Eddy-B · « **Reply #2 on:** January 01, 2006, 07:01:30 AM »

send me (or post) some sample program with these tests, so we can all test it. I have an 1800+ i doubt i'll reach 100fps

Stormy · « **Reply #3 on:** January 01, 2006, 11:50:04 AM »

I think we will do that later,

. We may just have a few more modifications to it and goodies!

leeor_net · « **Reply #4 on:** January 01, 2006, 04:57:39 PM »

There are still more tests that I need to run on the Terrain Renderer demo before it's ready. Namely, I need to get the OctTree Scene Manager... well... Managing. Also, it's stability is 0 at this point. It will run on my computer and at least two other computers. How it runs on other computers, there's no way to say. It's fussy.

Its stability issues are namely in the resource management and the lack of its pathfinding abilities (in terms of filesystems, not vehicles). It uses a config file to look for files and if a file/dir isn't there it complains and blows up.

Also, I want to demonstrate the abilities for the refresh engine to render dynamic lights. Currently it has a single directional light which is used to light the entire scene. I also want to add a roaming point-light which shows the abilities of the terrain renderer to light the scene dynamically. I'll also probably add in several objects to show the shadowing abilities (I can do shadows in several ways).

Also, in order to run the demo in its current state, you MUST have Windows 2K and up. Additionally, you need to have either the most recent OpenGL drivers or DirectX 9.0+. So it's limited in many ways. It's more of an experimental thing for me to get the scene managers working and to finalize the map geometry format (as well as the processes involved in creating them). It also requires some pretty hefty CPU specs (for instance, you MUST have an Athlon or P4... Celerons and Semprons just don't do the trick) and you have to have a semi-modern card. Stormy has the equivalent of a GeForce 2 and it only runs at maybe 25 - 30 FPS (which is still playable but not always enjoyable) so a minimum of GeForce FX 5200 (maybe even GeForece 4 MX400) and equivalent cards will be needed in order to run the full game.

(BTW, wizisi2k, a 3500+ is actually 2.9Ghz, the 2700+ is 2.2... if you have a decent video card you'll be in the 200 range although I think my throttle limits have finally begun to work {capping at 75} ).

Leviathan · « **Reply #5 on:** January 04, 2006, 03:45:37 PM »

Sounding great guys

Looking uber sweet too!

Arklon · « **Reply #6 on:** January 05, 2006, 06:12:47 PM »

200 FPS on a Radeon 9000 and 3.0 GHz P4... might be higher with my Radeon X850XT Platinum

Leviathan · « **Reply #7 on:** January 05, 2006, 06:14:51 PM »

Ive got a Radeon 7000 :/ I wonder what i get.

And its gonna go down once lots of complicated objects get added to the map/render.

Betaray · « **Reply #8 on:** January 05, 2006, 07:40:41 PM »

just wondering how will a 128 mb pci card fare?

wizisi2k · « **Reply #9 on:** January 05, 2006, 08:29:26 PM »

I could use a benchmark program b/c I have a ATI radion 9600

Leviathan · « **Reply #10 on:** January 06, 2006, 06:23:19 PM »

Well ive done testing to see what i get compared to others.

Check it out here.

leeor_net · « **Reply #11 on:** January 08, 2006, 11:47:50 AM »

Quote

That's the first Radeon series card ATi made. It's considered rock-bottom, ranking even under Intel GMA 900/950.

Um... no. It's not. The Radeon series of cards has been around for about... I dunno... 10 or so years. Of course, I might also be thinking of the ATI All-in-wonder cards which were the ancestor to the Radeon cards.

As far as benchmarking, this is just an exerimental program. I havn't been able to successfully implement the oct-tree scene rendering yet which will signifigantly reduce the load on any card.

As far as older cards, it's looking more and more like users are going to need at the very least a GeForce 2 or equivalent. There will also be the option to really tune down the graphics settings so that it would be possible to work with lesser cards. How well it would work, I can't really say. That has yet to be tested with everything implemented.

I don't think a lot of units will have too much of a performance hit for newish machines. If you're running anything less than a 1.0GHz P3 than chances are you won't be playing the game. Of course, if you're running anything less than the above stated, you just need a new computer.

EDIT:
Further research into the radeon bit just becase:

The first Radeon chip was the ATI All-In-Wonder Radeon released in 2000 followed shortly by the Radeon 256 (also 2000). Then there was the Radeon SE which competed with the nVidia GeForce 2 circa 2001. The Radeon 7000 is the quivalent of the FX5200 or so which was released only three years or so ago so the 7000 is not a bad card. It's not just an uber powerful card.

BlackBox · « **Reply #12 on:** January 08, 2006, 04:33:51 PM »

I have an old vid card (nVidia TnT 2 AGP, 16 mb memory) if you want me to test.

Speaking of which, is it really necessary to have such a high end video card? This is an RTS game. There aren't that many polygons. Unless you are going for really high poly things, which I would advise against (just.. unnecessary!)

Wouldn't an easier way to describe the map be .. a voxel? (well, an array of them. I'm searching for the right word to mean 'stacked grid'... what is it)

Anima_Vex · « **Reply #13 on:** January 09, 2006, 04:11:05 PM »

So... An NVIDA GeForve4 MX420 will do it? (Just checking...)

Stormy · « **Reply #14 on:** January 09, 2006, 07:01:17 PM »

Uhm... I have an Nvidia GeForce MX 200 or so, and it lags like heck. I mean, It's gotten down to like.... under 10 fps x.x. I'm not sure, what's the difference between teh GeForce4 MX240 and mine?

lordly_dragon · « **Reply #15 on:** January 09, 2006, 08:59:30 PM »

well the first difference is that your g-force is the first generation and he got the 4th generation enyway nvidia rox

Leviathan · « **Reply #16 on:** January 10, 2006, 02:20:02 AM »

Run 3d testing everyone!!!

Go here!

dm-horus · « **Reply #17 on:** January 10, 2006, 02:44:13 AM »

so terrain is built of dot cloud? maybe you could make up a demo (screens) showing us an elevated boulder (a pillar with a large round rock on top). judging from what you said and the screen cap you showed, it looks like you should be capable of making terrain that "hangs over itself". going to the extreme and showing us a "balancing rock" would show this off pretty effectively.

does yur game engine allow for scaling, non-linear inverse perspective scaling, distance fog or scene culling? (the modern equivalent of fog of war to those who dont know) like in Battlefield, it would cut down on system load to only display part of the terrain at any one time.

also, what viewing perspective will the player use? if users can change it (mousewheel) what will be the starting default?

leeor_net · « **Reply #18 on:** January 10, 2006, 04:40:25 PM »

Quote

So... An NVIDA GeForve4 MX420 will do it? (Just checking...)

Most definatly.

Quote

Speaking of which, is it really necessary to have such a high end video card?

A GeForce FX5200 is far from a high-end video card. You can get them for $30 if you look in the right place.

What it comes down to is that I can either develop like I would have developed 5 years ago or I can develop like I would now. I'm going to shoot for now because I think I had mentioned on IRC once or twice that the engine I'm producing for OP3 is not targetted toward any specific type of game (e.g., RTS, FPS, etc.) and is completely capable of turning into any other game. It's graphic capabilities will not be fully exploited in OP3 because I will be using the game engine for two other commercial projects that I am now (as we speak) getting funding for. The graphic abilities for those two projects WILL require high-end video cards to play them otherwise I won't be competing with DooM3/Quake4 and such (as well as new xBox 360 titles that are just now coming out). So yeah, it's necessary.

Will everything be high-polygon? No. It's not intended to be high-polygon. But it will have more detail than older 3D RTS games because consumer hardware has changed over time. Basically, if you can run WCIII at a reasonable rate, you shouldn't need much more to run OP3 (although it will likely look a little better).

Quote

so terrain is built of dot cloud?

I've never heard of 'dot cloud' so I'm going to say no.

To get very technical, the scenes will be in a format called DotScene. Essentially, I create a mesh of whatever I want to create. I then run it through a program that organizes the 3D geometry into an OctTree scene format which is then run through an OctTree Scene Manager. This eliminates the need to render everything at once (as it currently does).

Quote

maybe you could make up a demo (screens) showing us an elevated boulder (a pillar with a large round rock on top). judging from what you said and the screen cap you showed, it looks like you should be capable of making terrain that "hangs over itself". going to the extreme and showing us a "balancing rock" would show this off pretty effectively.

That's what I had originally asked Stormy to create for me for the testing. He didn't have enough time to finish the mesh so I just took what he had at the time. Either way, the current mesh is for demonstration anyway and is not particularly realistic. It was meant to show the detail available to the artist.

As far as a balanced boulder as part of a pillar, yeah. It's definatly capable of that. The question is getting the mesh with that feature as part of it. Stormy is currently in the process of creating a new mesh now for testing so I'll make sure to include that.

Another note, I plan on releasing a demonstration of the terrain renderer very soon. I don't remember if I already said that or not but either way, it just makes sure everyone knows that. You WILL be able to see how it runs on your computer soon enough... just keep in mind that it's a demo renderer and is not in a finished nor optimized state. The stats I had mentioned earlier (200 or so FPS) is in Debug mode which is signifigantly slower than Release mode.

Quote

does yur game engine allow for scaling, non-linear inverse perspective scaling, distance fog or scene culling? (the modern equivalent of fog of war to those who dont know) like in Battlefield, it would cut down on system load to only display part of the terrain at any one time.

What would scaling be useful for?

I already explained the Scene Manager's abilities. If you don't know what OctTree is you can google it and find some pretty good results.

Fog is one of the easiest effects to achieve and there are two types: exponential and linear.

Fog isn't used to cut-down on system load at all. What it's often used for is to hide the fact that the view frustum in some games is very near to the camera. This means that any geometry outside the 'far cull distance' just doesn't get rendered. Fog is often used to mask that.

Fog will be used in OP3 but will only be visible in scenes where the user can see way off into the distance. Being that the atmosphere has a nice bit of a 'haze' to it the fog can easily be explained away...

The user will have a standard RTS view with the ability to zoom in/out and rotate the camera around (like in Age of Mythology or AOE3). It'll be relatively limited as it is, after all, an RTS game.

HOWEVER, that's not been completely set in stone yet. I've still got some planning to do right now before I make that a final decision.

Quote

Run 3d testing everyone!!!

That's not necessary. As I said, if you can Run WCIII at an optimal rate (even on low-quality settings) than you should have the hardware to run OP3. It's now just a matter of gettings the scene managers managing and building the executable in release.

Betaray · « **Reply #19 on:** January 10, 2006, 05:02:56 PM »

all I have to say is

KICK ASS!!!!

dm-horus · « **Reply #20 on:** January 11, 2006, 01:18:22 AM »

sounds good to me

Leviathan · « **Reply #21 on:** January 11, 2006, 01:56:58 AM »

Leeor i was saying it because it would be nice to c what scores everyone gets.

leeor_net · « **Reply #22 on:** January 11, 2006, 01:24:58 PM »

Well, benchmarking is always good for users to find out. It's always fun...

Leviathan · « **Reply #23 on:** January 11, 2006, 02:15:14 PM »

Yea thats why I posted it, so we could compare, but it seams most ppl arnt taking part

Not even the Genesis team members

TH300 · « **Reply #24 on:** January 11, 2006, 04:27:11 PM »

its pointless. Only the final game can tell if my video card is good enough. I might have a new one by then btw..

News:

Author Topic: Map Format (Read 14837 times)