The Photo-Realism Challenge: Polygons

You may also like...

26 Responses

  1. Minecartuser says:

    Nice article TStrauss! I know quite nothing about polygons, but now I think I at least understand a little bit why GTA IV runs so good with good graphics on my laptop ;D

  2. Sakuryu says:

    Love it, As a person going in for the fine field of Game Art in college I thought this article was very informative and I’m making notes so I can remember this in class.

  3. E says:

    Great article! I love the Economic play on words in the beginning. :) I always love reading your posts. They are so much more technical. Keep up the great work!

  4. Bullshiters says:

    Once again, nice article!

  5. drawerfloat says:

    I seem to be wounded but I can keep going.

  6. Chasez671 says:

    I love reading these Photo-Realism posts. It’s really interesting and detailed! Nice work, TStrauss!

  7. natsu says:

    windows vista????

    correct me if im wrong, but isn’t it vista is one of the worst (if not the worst) windows release ever?

    nice article though.. keep it up

    • natsu says:

      haha… go with win7 folks.. XD

    • Z says:

      Yes, you’re correct. But his point was that to have all these effects and stuff( DX11 and above, tesselation), you’ll need at least Vista, because anything below doesn’t support it( or doesn’t run very well)

      • TStrauss says:

        Normal mapping is in DirectX 9.0c (and whichever OpenGL corresponds to that), so you can enjoy that on a PC running Windows XP. But hardware tessellation is a feature of Shader Model 5.0, which is a part of DirectX 11/11.1. DirectX 10 and up are only on Vista and later, so you will need Vista or later to enjoy hardware tessellation. I don’t know if OpenGL 4.0 runs on Windows XP, so I can’t address that possibility.

        Also, I never said “use Vista,” I said “at least Vista!” I recommend Windows 7, personally. Windows 8 is faster than 7 for most purposes, but benchmarks have consistently put Windows 7 ahead of 8 for gaming, albeit slightly. The upcoming Windows 8 update might improve the render path, I couldn’t say.

    • MarSprite says:

      Vista had it’s issues, but it also implemented a lot of new technology. I was quite fond of Vista, I never had any trouble getting any of the programs to run that everyone was going “oh my gawd! why won’t it run!” It definitely took more doing to install things though if you didn’t turn all the security off. The security hobbled the average user experience in vista.

    • doidao says:

      No, it was Windows ME the worst one.

    • ulisian says:

      No Windows ME was definitly the worst windows

  8. NNNRT says:

    Hopefully, the future of polygons will be real-life images. :P

  9. DS_Marine says:

    Um . . . I’ll take the one on the LEFT! :D
    -DoomSpace Marine,
    as Duke Nukem called the corpse in the secret passage in the church of level 3 :D

  10. Zimond says:

    ” the biggest difference you will see is the number of polygons on the screen.”

    Yeah, thats because Doom doesn’t use a single polygon! Doom uses a raycasting engine which cannot be compared to polygon engines.

    • DS_Marine says:

      well, you got the idea, right?
      why you don’t propose Quake or Descent as a replacement.

      • Zimond says:

        Using Doom as an example is ok since it is one of the very first fully textured 3d games, but it is not a correct example when you talk about polygon counts.

        I know this just a short article and besides the different type of engine it is still kinda legit to compare the complexity of 3d surfaces on the screen. It was just the nerd in me who insisted to raise his finger ;)

        Anyway : Actually these early 3d games like DooM and Duke3D do have something in common with todays games. They both use workarounds to create a more detailed enviroment. Just compare Quake to Duke3D : If you only look at screenshots Duke3D looks way more detailed and runs faster but has some serious limitations in leveldesign.

        • TStrauss says:

          The point of these articles is to give a layman a basic understanding of the underlying tech behind games. Sometimes I have to gloss over relatively small details because it would take too much effort to explain such a minor point (raycasting is hard to explain!). I glossed over much bigger points than raycasting for the sake of simplicity.

          Of course you are correct, Doom is raycasted; the first Id game to run in 3D proper was Quake if I’m not mistaken.

    • DS_Marine says:

      duh how could I forgot to add ‘Alone in the dark’… walking triangles if you check it now :D

  11. Johnmiceter says:

    So how do we get real life graphics, what is needed to achieve this or close to this ? More ram, faster CPU, Faster GPU or something else ?

    I understand the basic stuff but just wondering from those that know a lot what is needed. Could the PS4 achieve close to real live images with it’s power ?

  12. jlo138 says:

    Want to see some polygon games, check out Bubsy 3D for PS1.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Most comments are automatically approved, but in some cases, it might take up to 24h for your comments to show up on the site, if they need manual moderation. Thanks for your understanding