View Full Version : Too late to implement this tech. in BoB?

05-10-2005, 09:56 AM

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Imagine how this could transform Sim graphics. Somehow they are able to get a 7000 poly model to look almost the same 7,000,000 poly model.

05-10-2005, 10:37 AM
to late?!

what are you talking about?

BOB is years away

05-10-2005, 02:40 PM
Yes, but something like this should probably be done from ground up. BoB may be pas that stage now.

05-10-2005, 06:44 PM
thats a good looking game.

05-10-2005, 08:00 PM
Can't say I'm fond of that game but can't wait for America's Army to convert to that engine.

I only hope BoB will have real-time reflections and an actual shiny chrome effect on planes, a bit like in CFS3.

05-10-2005, 10:27 PM
ufff sorry - that P-47 looks sad...maybe its just the screenie dunno...uffff

05-11-2005, 10:16 AM
The Unreal engine 3 is kinda old news now, but the new dispacement mapping still looks nice. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Boy, can hardly wait for 20.000 polygon character models.

05-11-2005, 12:50 PM
That sort of tech requires a very high polygon model to be created first, then the low polygon model on top of that. That means each aircraft will neex 10X the work per aircraft. Oleg did not suddenly get 10X the resources. So if you where to have that tech in BoB, you would have 1/10th the fighters.

05-12-2005, 10:36 AM
In fact this technique was developed to reduce work on modelling. Since you can model the planes, persosn etc with high order surfaces and high order volumes and them use this as the replacement for the high polygon mesh.

Just a matter that polygonal modelling is not intended to be the main content creation technique.

05-12-2005, 11:22 AM
I don't really see the point. I mean, planes are mostly made up of flat or smooth surfaces, there is no reason to do anything like that. Maybe rivets and things, but really it looks just as good with regular normal mapping, no need for parallax. Maybe in the cockpit you can do more with it tho.

Also note that the reason that image looks as good as it does is mostly because of the lighting. So if Oleg wants his engine to last for a long while, like he wrote, I should hope it has dynamic lighting and hopefully spherical harmonics (realtime radiosity/global illumination), like UE3.

05-12-2005, 11:59 AM
What BOB really needs are more realistic lighting and shadows. For instance all objects should have self shadowing, and the landscape too. Just think about how cool the shodaw of a big mountain would look. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

05-12-2005, 01:03 PM
Is this similar to the process used in the Gladiator cockpit and the I-100?

05-12-2005, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
Is this similar to the process used in the Gladiator cockpit and the I-100?

Not really. What was used in the J8 was "false 3D". From a full 3d model the object is "flattened" to a 2d object from a certain point of view (pilot's view) to lower the polygon count and give a false 3d feel.

Here you have a pic of the Compass:
- The Blue polygons are the only ones that ended up in the final model.
- The Yellow polys are the hi-res ones that was rendered.
- The Green ones are just flat polygons that have whatever what was rendered in the yellow ones.

Of course this only works from the pilot's point of view, allowing for some head movement to avoid seeing holes when the head shakes side-to-side.

The original compass:

Work object:

End result:

Can be seen even better here:

PS: Thanks to F19_Haddock (aka Capt_Haddock) for development pics from our J8A project.

05-12-2005, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
In fact this technique was developed to reduce work on modelling.

Let me just tell you this as someone who has used Normal mapping. It dont save you time. Not only do you need to model the subject in extreamly high detail, you still need to model the low poly model to apply the high detail onto. Plus there is extra work involved in the process of generating the normal map and applying it onto the low poly model properly without seams or errors. Trust me when I say its at least 10X the work then just modeling the low polly aircraft.

05-12-2005, 01:53 PM
Yes, The work on the J8a Cockpit alone was a full month's work for one modeller... HUGE effort

05-12-2005, 03:30 PM
Where the planes still exist it is possible to use stereo 3D cameras and create a 3D model. Most of this technology is still proprietrary, though, and you still have to stitch images from multiple viewpoints together to form the whole 3D image which requires a lot of computing power (due to having to take into account distortions and so on between image captures). It's easier to do for external images (e.g. taking pics of the outside of a plane) than internal (a cockpit). Minolta is running a project to capture heritage objects (I don't have the web page reference) and museums and archaeologists are interested in it to allow them to create virtual representations of artefacts to create digital catalogues. It may then ultimately be possible to take high detail representations created by these means and convert them into the representation du jour for gaming purposes.