3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe Switch tends to be vertex bound and texture reads in the fragment shader are efficient. But YMMV, always profile.
- maverwa 4y agoI 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.