3 ms·
I also find terminology games boring and pointless, but there's something quite interesting that lies at (I think) the heart of the debate: people tend to view
by cnity 4y ago
I also find terminology games boring and pointless, but there's something quite interesting that lies at (I think) the heart of the debate: people tend to view a mesh as something like the underlying concrete object, and the textures as a mere skin pasted onto the outside.
This is evidenced in the way people seem to consider fragment shaders to be a kind of "illusion" or falsehood.
But of course, a spoiler: it's "illusions" all the way down. This is not a pipe. A value in a normal map is just as "real" as a face in a mesh (that is, not at all, or entirely so, depending on your perspective).
- ShamelessC 4y agoRight but this is entirely clarified from reading the image posted. Instead people are reacting based on the title here. Not to imply people don’t read the articles here. I would never imply that…
- mortenjorck 4y ago> people tend to view a mesh as something like the underlying concrete object, and the textures as a mere skin pasted onto the outside This is interesting to consider, as it never occurred to me that anyone would think otherwise. I wonder if it's generational. Those who grew up with games whose triangle (or quad, in the case of a certain Sega system) budgets were constrained to the point of clearly distinct mesh faces probably have a different mental model from those for whom baked normals and LOD meshes have always been a continuum.
- rideontime 4y agoGood insight. My intro to 3D gaming was the N64. For those of us of a certain age, polygons are "real" and anything newer is "fake."