4 ms·

I worked on COD:AW and we used video in game often. The lead UI artist would have used it significantly more if performance was better. Might be an exception bu

I worked on COD:AW and we used video in game often. The lead UI artist would have used it significantly more if performance was better. Might be an exception but it's not uncommon, I've worked on multiple titles with full 3D and video playback at the same time

hutzlibu 6y ago
Hang on, the performance of playing static video content was not good enough? (and worse than dynamically rendered game art?) You mean a single - full screen video, or videos inside the 3D content?
- moron4hire 6y ago
  Videos can be used for a lot of different things. You can animate textures, obviously, but you can also animate things like normal maps to get really interesting effects. I recently read an article that described how one of the more recent Assassin's Creed games used animated normal maps to make rainfall patterns on the ground.
- Impossible 6y ago
  Video used as textures, either in world on 3D meshes, or as part of UI (HUD) elements. It could be prohibitively expensive to play a single video in some scenes, and we didn't support multiple videos. Not because it wasn't possible or anything, mostly because performance, although there would have been an engineering cost to doing also (ie I would have had to add support to the engine)
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    Ah, video textures. That makes sense and indeed sounds expensive.
    - Impossible 6y ago
      Also remember "expensive" is relative. I think it added little over 1ms to total frame time per video, but in a 60fps console game that. Our budget was about 1ms or less for the entire UI during gameplay (including scripting, layout and rendering), so a video could more than double that. 4 simultaneous videos would be like 1/4 of the entire frame :).
- shahar2k 6y ago
  likely the performance of playing small video elements as part of the UI, oftentimes it's faster to keep a whole uncompressed texture atlas in memory for animations and such.
  - Impossible 6y ago
    Yes and in most cases we would do this, but some content made more sense as video

hutzlibu 6y ago

Hang on, the performance of playing static video content was not good enough? (and worse than dynamically rendered game art?) You mean a single - full screen video, or videos inside the 3D content?

moron4hire 6y ago
Videos can be used for a lot of different things. You can animate textures, obviously, but you can also animate things like normal maps to get really interesting effects. I recently read an article that described how one of the more recent Assassin's Creed games used animated normal maps to make rainfall patterns on the ground.
Impossible 6y ago
Video used as textures, either in world on 3D meshes, or as part of UI (HUD) elements. It could be prohibitively expensive to play a single video in some scenes, and we didn't support multiple videos. Not because it wasn't possible or anything, mostly because performance, although there would have been an engineering cost to doing also (ie I would have had to add support to the engine)
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  Ah, video textures. That makes sense and indeed sounds expensive.
  - Impossible 6y ago
    Also remember "expensive" is relative. I think it added little over 1ms to total frame time per video, but in a 60fps console game that. Our budget was about 1ms or less for the entire UI during gameplay (including scripting, layout and rendering), so a video could more than double that. 4 simultaneous videos would be like 1/4 of the entire frame :).
shahar2k 6y ago
likely the performance of playing small video elements as part of the UI, oftentimes it's faster to keep a whole uncompressed texture atlas in memory for animations and such.
- Impossible 6y ago
  Yes and in most cases we would do this, but some content made more sense as video