4 ms·

This is completely incorrect. The complexity has just been moved into fragment shaders and texture assets. I'm quite sure the cumulative size of the asset is

• Waterluvian 4y ago
  It seems objectively correct, though. The model is simpler. They might take the model and do more processor intensive work with it, transforming it, tessellating if, etc. before render (like all models). But the model itself, is simpler.
  • makapuf 4y ago
    Except that you can't separate model and normal maps since they're baked versions of the real model. As, you can say you have smaller textures (but shaders with complex 2D data also)
    • Dylan16807 4y ago
      Sure you can separate them. And normal maps don't have to be baked from a "real" model.
  • raincole 4y ago
    Depending on what you mean by "model". I would probably call it "mesh".
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• kmeisthax 4y ago
  Yes, but the end result still allows more detail with less processing power. You're going to do texture look-ups for each pixel of the coin anyway, you might as well also grab a normal vector while you're there if you can cut your polycount down by a third.
  • ReactiveJelly 4y ago
    The high-poly model might have looked okay with a blurrier texture, though. It's hard to say without realistic benchmarks on Wii and Switch hardware.
    • MetaWhirledPeas 4y ago
      Isn't texture performance mostly a function of RAM though? Don't polygons require more CPU/GPU horsepower?
      • Aeolun 4y ago
        Only because current GPU’s have whole banks of processors specifically for texture processing, while you have only a single CPU in your machine. The equation might change a bit if you don’t have all those extra units.
  • h0l0cube 4y ago
    > more detail with less processing power Unarguably it's also more processing power than its predecessor which appeared to be untextured. Far more FLOPs are executed at the fragment level than at the vertex level, and that will vary with how much the model takes up on the screen. But more bang for buck than geometry alone? Can't disagree with that.
• maverwa 4y ago
  Well, yes it shifts the details away from the actual poly model and into other assets, but this is what you want a lot of the time. The poly count factors in a lot of steps that do not care about normal maps or stuff like that. Depth pass, culling, transforming between coordination systems, all care about the poly count, not about color. Not sure how many of these things apply to Odyssey, but it’s probably safe to assume this was an intentional choice over going with more polys. Shifts the details to the very end of the pipeline instead is considering them on every step, kind of.
  • h0l0cube 4y ago
    > but this is what you want a lot of the time Don't disagree with that, just the claim that the model is simpler. > Depth pass, culling, transforming between coordination systems, all care about the poly count At a guess a dynamic asset like this would be frustum or occlusion culled by bounding box, which doesn't scale with geometry count. Depth pass happens at draw time. But yes, there would be more vertices to transform. Moving geometric details to shaders is a trade-off between either being fill-rate or vertex bound.
    • djmips 4y ago
      The Switch tends to be vertex bound and texture reads in the fragment shader are efficient. But YMMV, always profile.
    • maverwa 4y ago
      I guess the wording threw me of. For me, the „model“ references just the geometry. Which is what the post states is smaller (=less triangles). But if you include all the assets for the coin in that, yes it’s not simpler/smaller.
• philistine 4y ago
  That's exactly what the second tweet addresses. Most devs would be aware of the difference, but the average game player would have no clue. I'm not the average player and I didn't know how much normal maps could replace.
• make3 4y ago
  they just present this as a cool optimization & aesthetic trick, which it is