That's your solution? So if I don't like a raw steak, I should stop eating steak altogether?
Explain to me again, how does tessellating something the viewer don't see, adds *visual* improvement?
That's your solution? So if I don't like a raw steak, I should stop eating steak altogether?
Explain to me again, how does tessellating something the viewer don't see, adds *visual* improvement?
If AMD has more performance or similar performance; would this even be a topic? I don't think so.
Yeah, probably some would.
I do remember when ATI did get HDR+AA in Oblivion and some nVidia fans complaining about it is too much of a hit to really enjoy anyway, but, man, was that welcomed. Or when AMD had nice efficiency with x8MS, the downplaying of it from some nVidia fans -- when it was more than welcomed.
Fans on both sides, which is still awesome to me.
But, the key here is this is a serious accusation: Did nVidia with nefarious intent sabotage AMD? Or did nVidia try to bring more fidelity and improve the gaming experience for their customers?
Use the "Extreme" setting for "water" and it will fix the problem.
So with Extreme on, the water won't be rendered in non-viewable scenes? Why doesn't this apply to other settings?
I believe Extreme just turns tessellation off on water, which somewhere was noted gave a noticeable performance boost, thus verifying that the invisible tessellated water is impacted performance for nothing.
So if you want tessellated water at the harbor you need Ultra water, but will hit performance even when no water is around. If you want performance when no water is around, you choose Extreme but get no tessellated water at the harbor.
So basically hotkey On/Off for Tess. Glad I pay money for these self-fixes.
Now to find a guide where and where not to turn it on/off so I can enjoy a game.
Almost seems like the maps could be modded to have a scripted event whenever you approach or leave the waterfront to toggle tessellation on it..
There are too many properties with water, no engine will be able to simulate all of them, only some of them. Each of these simulation requires computation and resources, so designer must choose which ones to use. It is possible to put all properties the engine can simulate into one type of object (assuming they do not cuase conflicts), and uses this type of object throughout the game, but the performance will be very bad. The better approach is to define water objects with different properties depending on the environment that they are going to be in. Crysis 2 shows this as there are many different types of water effects. Some are in the form of water puddle, water pool, water in sewer, ocean, spraying water, running water that follows the landscape etc. They are all water, but with different coding/properties.Am I the only one that noticed in that video that Seero posted of Dirt 2 that the tessellated water has an end? It didn't run across the whole screen.
So, there is no way for the developers use size to render a water patch? It has to be rendered across the whole screen? Just curious, I'm not a graphics coder.
WoW is a well known game, and it really is not a myth about huge performance hit on populated towns. You don't have to be at a place where you see all of those players in the town, you can look at a wall or the sky and still experience performance hit. I am simply trying to explain why.And for the MMO example, I've played a few MMOs where the characters don't load in naked - they don't load in until their full player loads in. Basically they magically pop up. The notion that all the players in a town/map have to load before in view prior sounds farfetched, I can easily go to a room and stand there by myself with high FPS with hundreds of people in another area, and my FPS won't tank until I walk into the room with all those users.
There are too many properties with water, no engine will be able to simulate all of them, only some of them. Each of these simulation requires computation and resources, so designer must choose which ones to use. It is possible to put all properties the engine can simulate into one type of object (assuming they do not cuase conflicts), and uses this type of object throughout the game, but the performance will be very bad. The better approach is to define water objects with different properties depending on the environment that they are going to be in. Crysis 2 shows this as there are many different types of water effects. Some are in the form of water puddle, water pool, water in sewer, ocean, spraying water, running water that follows the landscape etc. They are all water, but with different coding/properties.
WoW is a well known game, and it really is not a myth about huge performance hit on populated towns. You don't have to be at a place where you see all of those players in the town, you can look at a wall or the sky and still experience performance hit. I am simply trying to explain why.
Have you wonder why toons or other objects magically pops up in some MMOs? One of the reason is that the data about others are not received from server yet, the other reason is, the data is partially there, but not completely. This is the problem I was trying to explain about not storing information about objects that are not immediately shown on the screen. Storing them means some resources will be used, but at least you see the correct scene at the cost of higher memory usage, instead of not seeing things you should see with lower memory usage. People knows that SSD helps reducing invisible objects in MMOs, and the reasoning is obvious.
The point I am trying to get to is the stage around the viewport is there in the memory before the rendering occurs. That means, there are lots of things stored in the memory and a user does not immediately see.
I have done that over and over again in this thread.I get this, so then explain why such a giant body of water is needed to be rendered in a scene where there is possibly no water?
They can, but will performance increase? Although the water puddle and the ocean appears to be the same thing (water) to you, it is actually very different behind the scene as they have different properties. They are so different that it makes me wonder if they actually have the common supertype(common root that defines the things in common between the 2 types). This is an open ended question that knowledge itself is not enough to find out the answer to. I never said otherwise.If they can set the limits, such as a puddle, why not just do that? I'd also assume they can set dimensions.
I can be standing in a group of people and suffer 30-40FPS or go into a building, stare in the direction of the people, but have a wall in front of me and enjoy 100+ FPS...
Of course they would. That's what fans do. They cheer/boo the teams in they like/despise. It's just funny watching people jump over hoops to change each other minds.
I only care about the mesh of water. Is there truly no way to reduce rendering such a large object that is not visible? Is this an actual limitation on game coding or just lazy development? (And I think of Dribble's post about Crytek coders seeing this day in/day out.)
In the end who cares? Does it help anyone sleep better that nVidia comes out clean or dirty in this debate? I don't care. I just want to know why either my 5870 or GTX 460 has to render such a large non-visible object.
Kidding me? The nvidia user's would be up in arms. I know I would be, and I'm an ATI user.
I personally have an issue with the rendering of a huge object that I don't see while playing.
Again, if there is a little puddle of water on a map - does the whole ocean have to be rendered? Developers can't set limits?