Topic: Are Lod's still usefull with tech we have now?

[Tus-XC]

Yadda yadda, blah blah. Buck up and get out a proper model dyna package will ya, Terradyhne?

The issue isnt as bad as long as the USER knows the model has a high poly and texture count AND he also knows that using it as is without LOD's is bad for gaming. Steps in this situation can be taken so as not to ruin the gaming experience.

Problem is that most modelers dont bother to take the time to explain what it is the user is about to drop into their model folder. A more complete readme text would suffice for the lazy modeler I suppose. But there is no substitute for thoroughness. LoD's are just the icing on the cake of a good model and it's modeler.

sorry, the problem is not with the modellers, its obviously with the USER.  If they fail to understand that a model (regardless of documentation)can have adverse effects on their system (and for that matter, the limits to their system) and don't take corrective action then  no amount of documentation is going to correct that problem.  Educate the user first then maybe you will get modellers on board.

Now for my soap box, I honestly don't give two sh*ts about most players anymore.  there are what, 20 or so active players?  Maybe if there were a few hundred that still played.  But really, whats the point of tailoring my work to 20 people when odds are only 2 people are going to use it.  It ain't worth my damn time and my time is expensive.

[Kreeargh]

I asked if the TECH is needed any more thats all End of subject!  Make it if you want to, i dont care.  Most do not and i dont expect many to try , as a model relese it like swiss cheese the smell and holes distract ones from the possable glory it may be.  Hell the name of the creator will distract one from even viewing a subject. So why should they even try?    Do it make it your will and screw the critics!

[FoaS_XC]

I asked if the TECH is needed any more thats all End of subject!  Make it if you want to, i dont care.  Most do not and i dont expect many to try , as a model relese it like swiss cheese the smell and holes distract ones from the possable glory it may be.  Hell the name of the creator will distract one from even viewing a subject. So why should they even try?    Do it make it your will and screw the critics!

well, the discussion seems to be going in the direction of "it is needed, just not nearly as needed as it once was - it is unneeded enough that people these days can get by without it a lot of the time, but there are more exceptions than a lot of people expect."

[Kreeargh]

I asked if the TECH is needed any more thats all End of subject!  Make it if you want to, i dont care.  Most do not and i dont expect many to try , as a model relese it like swiss cheese the smell and holes distract ones from the possable glory it may be.  Hell the name of the creator will distract one from even viewing a subject. So why should they even try?    Do it make it your will and screw the critics!

well, the discussion seems to be going in the direction of "it is needed, just not nearly as needed as it once was - it is unneeded enough that people these days can get by without it a lot of the time, but there are more exceptions than a lot of people expect."

Then i guess FoaS_XC you need to make a thread that makes it so! Thoughs on LODS or something. My threads die out .   I am just a guest here give thoughts not actions.

[FoaS_XC]

well, we seem to be discussing it fine here - works for me so far :3.

And please, have you seen how many models I've put out recently? All I can spare is thoughts myself, these days.

[Dizzy]

sorry, the problem is not with the modellers, its obviously with the USER.  If they fail to understand that a model (regardless of documentation)can have adverse effects on their system (and for that matter, the limits to their system) and don't take corrective action then  no amount of documentation is going to correct that problem.  Educate the user first then maybe you will get modellers on board.

The problem is most assuredly with the modelers. Modelers post their models for a user to use with no forewarning of the pitfalls that await them. How many times have I bitched about you guys not releasing poly counts with the model? 100? The most modelers usually incorporate into their readme besides credits are instructions on where to put the file. That needs to change.

Now for my soap box, I honestly don't give two sh*ts about most players anymore.  there are what, 20 or so active players?  Maybe if there were a few hundred that still played.  But really, whats the point of tailoring my work to 20 people when odds are only 2 people are going to use it.  It ain't worth my damn time and my time is expensive.

Thats ok tus, they dont give two sh*ts about u either. My point isn't as relevant now as it once was when I tried to champion the idea a long time ago in Adonis' thread. While I appreciate your work, Tus, I'm not expecting you to make LoD's. But if I could get modelers to at least include a warning in their readme file that their model isnt suited for dynaverse play because of high poly count, no LoD's etc., that'd be a good step in the right direction. I'm sure your time and expense could justify a few words in a readme file.

[FoaS_XC]

The problem is most assuredly with the modelers. Modelers post their models for a user to use with no forewarning of the pitfalls that await them. How many times have I bitched about you guys not releasing poly counts with the model? 100? The most modelers usually incorporate into their readme besides credits are instructions on where to put the file. That needs to change.
Thats ok tus, they dont give two sh*ts about u either. My point isn't as relevant now as it once was when I tried to champion the idea a long time ago in Adonis' thread. While I appreciate your work, Tus, I'm not expecting you to make LoD's. But if I could get modelers to at least include a warning in their readme file that their model isnt suited for dynaverse play because of high poly count, no LoD's etc., that'd be a good step in the right direction. I'm sure your time and expense could justify a few words in a readme file.

I feel there are a couple flaws in your thinking here. Tus has a point: a line in a readme isn't going to make a difference. A read-me is a "Go here if you need references" not a "this will be read first and foremost."

We all understand your points about LODs and how they can make quite a difference in a dynaverse campaign. However, there are often times when it seems like your trying to dictate policy for a modeller on their own project, or trying to get the entire community to adhere to your standards.

I'm not saying that's what you ARE doing, but that's how it comes across.

I'm not all about getting the last word in, so Dizzy: here's an opportunity to address what I've just said. After that - can we not let yet ANOTHER poly-count thread degrade into lunacy?

[Kreeargh]

The problem is most assuredly with the modelers. Modelers post their models for a user to use with no forewarning of the pitfalls that await them. How many times have I bitched about you guys not releasing poly counts with the model? 100? The most modelers usually incorporate into their readme besides credits are instructions on where to put the file. That needs to change.
Thats ok tus, they dont give two sh*ts about u either. My point isn't as relevant now as it once was when I tried to champion the idea a long time ago in Adonis' thread. While I appreciate your work, Tus, I'm not expecting you to make LoD's. But if I could get modelers to at least include a warning in their readme file that their model isnt suited for dynaverse play because of high poly count, no LoD's etc., that'd be a good step in the right direction. I'm sure your time and expense could justify a few words in a readme file.

I feel there are a couple flaws in your thinking here. Tus has a point: a line in a readme isn't going to make a difference. A read-me is a "Go here if you need references" not a "this will be read first and foremost."

We all understand your points about LODs and how they can make quite a difference in a dynaverse campaign. However, there are often times when it seems like your trying to dictate policy for a modeller on their own project, or trying to get the entire community to adhere to your standards.

I'm not saying that's what you ARE doing, but that's how it comes across.

I'm not all about getting the last word in, so Dizzy: here's an opportunity to address what I've just said. After that - can we not let yet ANOTHER poly-count thread degrade into lunacy?

Well said let the idea die as it should have. My logic Blah 

[Tus-XC]

Are they not freely distrubuted models? And is it not the users choice to dled, install, and use those models?  And is it not the users responsiblity to make sure their system can use something they dled that is, need i remind you, free?   Is it not also their responsiblilty if they notice issues to take some kind of corrective action? It surely ain't mine, i've put that disclaimer in my readme already for just that reason (which had they bothered to read they would have known).  So yes, its the users who need to stop asking to be babied and take the time to check out this 'free' stuff they just got to make sure it works for them.  You want more than that then just remember we provide a free service - we ain't getting paid to troubleshoot your problems.

[marstone]

in answer to the base question.  Yes, LoDs are still needed.  In SFC it will be needed for awhile yet.  Replacing the rendering engine (even with a pre-made one) will take major work as they are usually integrated into the full game engine fairly tight.

As for the LoD debate on should they be included or not.  I personally would like to see them in there, but as stated it is the modellers choice.  Just give me a poly count so I can choose to DL it or not if I like the model is all I ask.  Not wanting to stir the pot more, I will hold my total thoughts on this.

[Dizzy]

We all understand your points about LODs and how they can make quite a difference in a dynaverse campaign. However, there are often times when it seems like your trying to dictate policy for a modeller on their own project, or trying to get the entire community to adhere to your standards.

I'm not saying that's what you ARE doing, but that's how it comes across.

I'm not all about getting the last word in, so Dizzy: here's an opportunity to address what I've just said. After that - can we not let yet ANOTHER poly-count thread degrade into lunacy?

That is precisely how I am coming across. Why mince words. Modelers should engage in a discussion about how they can better serve their own community than their own vanity. Releasing huge poly models with big textures and no LoD's without a warning to the user that this can adversely affect their game is irresponsible and negligent. Modelers are first and foremost responsible for what they release upon the gaming community. I am not. A user will not 1st read my thread about it even if you sticky it. A user will not read this thread before D/Ling and installing said model.

It is up to the modelers if they care 2 cents about this community to try and fix a wrong. I dont see anything negative about talking about how we can, as a community, make tthis experience better for everyone. If a readme warning buried into the D/L isnt something you think will be read, then we have already engaged in dialogue to address the issue. Perhaps adding a second readme titled, 'Warning, Readme B4 Installing'.

If we agree on a guideline to use and petition all the modelers to follow it I think it will positively impact the community. I never imagined all the modelers would agree to go back and add LoD's to everything past present and future, but at least this is a positive step that will make a difference for the better. Awarness and discussion of the issue is paramount. This problem has persisted long enough. I'm not about to let it die down.

Edit: This thread and my posts are not about the lunacy of poly count models, rather it is a discussion of the OP's question, "Not many modelers make them any more but i was wondering for the future of sfc if they are worth the effort to make them now ?" of how the future of SFC makes it worth the effort to adress this issue.

[FoaS_XC]

Modelers should engage in a discussion about how they can better serve their own community than their own vanity.

I do not do this out of vanity - no one here does. If we did we wouldn't have been here for as many years as we have been. I do this because I enjoy it - it's fun for me and I'd rather give people the opportunity to share what I've had fun creating than hoard it for myself.

Releasing huge poly models with big textures and no LoD's without a warning to the user that this can adversely affect their game is irresponsible and negligent.

My counter-argument is a reductio ad absurdum

its the same thing. I can't be held responsible for user stupidity.

I think Tus has a point: its a labor of love - if I'm getting paid or even just part of a well-organized, well-run team, then I'll follow standards that are agreed upon beforehand, but on my own time and in my own way I will execute it how I want. That isn't vanity, its just that making models is hard work and, for some of us, has a high burn-out rate (especially myself).

It is up to the modelers if they care 2 cents about this community to try and fix a wrong. I dont see anything negative about talking about how we can, as a community, make tthis experience better for everyone.

I like the notion, except it is up to ALL members of the community to discuss (the burden does not reside entirely on modellers), but I don't think this is an absolute Wrong that needs fixing. I don't think including LoDs is as a huge disservice to the entire community as you seem to think it is.

This thread and my posts are not about the lunacy of poly count models, rather it is a discussion of the OP's question, "Not many modelers make them any more but i was wondering for the future of sfc if they are worth the effort to make them now ?" of how the future of SFC makes it worth the effort to adress this issue.

On this you are absolutely right. However, I still feel as if my previous statements in this thread are perfectly valid. Increased hardware performance puts less of an emphasis on the NEED for LoDs - how much of a reduction of need is not something I can quantify off-hand.

For the record, I fly with fleets of ships that have 10k-poly battleships, 8k-poly cruisers, and 800-poly fighters and I've never experienced a problem and I run on a 4-year-old laptop.

Would a model benefit from a set of LoDs? Always.
Is that advantage worth the extra effort? Not Always.

I know what it takes to make a quality model and I'm not going to bemoan a modeler for not including a potentially optional feature - Especially when that effort is going to add another 25-50% of a workload on that one person.

If we agree on a guideline to use and petition all the modelers to follow it I think it will positively impact the community.

Again: I like the sentiment but I feel like its impractical. What we have nowadays is a more independent group of people who are more inclined to do their own thing - which is perfectly fine. If there were an interest in reforming a Dominion of Modellers like back in the p81, Maggot, and Moonraker days, then you might have a point.

I can tell you this: any 3D assets that may be included in a graphically-revamped sfc:ce (when we get to that point) WILL have LODs. The distinction there is that it will be a starting point, not optional add-ons like what the community has produced so far. In that lies the difference.

Allow me to put it another way: If I build a team or are part of a distinct team, I can work with that team to set creative policy for that team. I can't set creative policy for the community as a whole.

As for the LoD debate on should they be included or not.  I personally would like to see them in there, but as stated it is the modellers choice.

I completely agree. I actually would LOVE to have LODs for all my models, hypocritical as it may seem since none of my current releases have them. As I said, its arduous work that increases effort requirements from about 25-50% (though, in fairness, I may have found a workflow that will reduce that significantly).

[FoaS_XC]

Despite everything I just said, I'm going to pull a Columbo: "just the facts, ma'am, just the facts".

Dizzy: you're the most vocal person as far as poly-counts and LODs go - give it to me in technical terms. For the purposes of having a model designed to run on the Dynaverse - what do you feel would would be a good poly-count-limit and texture-size-limit breakdown be for High, Medium, and Low LODs for each a Fighter, Frigate, Heavy Cruiser, Battleship, and Starbase. (I can explain what I'm asking for in a more graphically intuitive way if what I'm asking is not clear).

[marstone]

FoaS, I agree in general with your statements, but disagree with some from the others (not going back to see name).  I don't think it should fall on the end user to make sure it works with his system, and here is why.  I have yet to see a game give a list of max polys and such for graphics.  So the best an average end user can hope for is if a file (graphic image, etc) is formatted to run in the game it is set up to run well in it.  If that asset isn't set up to run like an in game one, a small warning should be given.

Example, I have no clue what the constraints for Fallout 3 on my computer is, but I can get mods for it.  Same with some other games I have.  Now I know somewhat what the limits are for SFC because it is talked about here, and I can check it somewhat also.  But on the average, those limits are not given out to an average owner of a game in the docs they get, so how do you expect them to know it...

[FoaS_XC]

FoaS, I agree in general with your statements, but disagree with some from the others (not going back to see name).  I don't think it should fall on the end user to make sure it works with his system, and here is why.  I have yet to see a game give a list of max polys and such for graphics.  So the best an average end user can hope for is if a file (graphic image, etc) is formatted to run in the game it is set up to run well in it.  If that asset isn't set up to run like an in game one, a small warning should be given.

Example, I have no clue what the constraints for Fallout 3 on my computer is, but I can get mods for it.  Same with some other games I have.  Now I know somewhat what the limits are for SFC because it is talked about here, and I can check it somewhat also.  But on the average, those limits are not given out to an average owner of a game in the docs they get, so how do you expect them to know it...

I really am torn on this: Your argument is not without merit.
In matters of the well-organized / large-mod content or even the "original" game assets? yes - the standards of content should be higher. I feel like its okay that things are much more lax in casual one-off community designs like we find here. I could be wrong - I know my model descriptions lack poly-count and texture-size data - I'll admit that THAT is something I should fix as an absolute minimum.

[marstone]

FoaS, I agree in general with your statements, but disagree with some from the others (not going back to see name).  I don't think it should fall on the end user to make sure it works with his system, and here is why.  I have yet to see a game give a list of max polys and such for graphics.  So the best an average end user can hope for is if a file (graphic image, etc) is formatted to run in the game it is set up to run well in it.  If that asset isn't set up to run like an in game one, a small warning should be given.

Example, I have no clue what the constraints for Fallout 3 on my computer is, but I can get mods for it.  Same with some other games I have.  Now I know somewhat what the limits are for SFC because it is talked about here, and I can check it somewhat also.  But on the average, those limits are not given out to an average owner of a game in the docs they get, so how do you expect them to know it...

I really am torn on this: Your argument is not without merit.
In matters of the well-organized / large-mod content or even the "original" game assets? yes - the standards of content should be higher. I feel like its okay that things are much more lax in casual one-off community designs like we find here. I could be wrong - I know my model descriptions lack poly-count and texture-size data - I'll admit that THAT is something I should fix as an absolute minimum.

I know what you mean.  It is a burden on just being creative to make the extra, but a note is not bad saying something like "use of mod may slow graphics and response of game" is not hard to add so an average user can understand what might happen.  I was clueless over alot of the constraints of games, I have learned alot from being on this board for the past few years now.  But all users are not here.  Some own the game, find the .mod files.  They are put out as working on SFC:OP or such so that person would assume that it will run alright in his game.

Now we have a small community here now, but hopefully as we grow SFC back up again we will get new users, they are the ones that might get disappointed and leave if a simple add on of a new ship model, drops them out of online play.  They probably will not even know it is the model doing it, but may think it is just the game being wonky.

Now I understand that when you do something for fun, and for free, the modeller makes it the way they want, and the user beware.  But trying to fix the outlook that end users should know is important, because they will not.  I know I didn't when I first started to add new ships to my game so many years ago.

[Dizzy]

Now we have a small community here now, but hopefully as we grow SFC back up again we will get new users, they are the ones that might get disappointed and leave if a simple add on of a new ship model, drops them out of online play.  They probably will not even know it is the model doing it, but may think it is just the game being wonky.

BINGO.

That is why this issue is so important. Most modelers dont have a clue as to how their models choke the game. I can tell you for a FACT that most end users are in the dark when it comes to dropping these models into their game. They have no idea what happens when the game engine tries to use these models that are in excess of its design limit. I have seen this limit reached in testing firsthand and know what I am talking about. So it isn't realistic to pin the problem on the user, it's the modeler's responsibility to be responsible here and make a change. The status quo is broken.

I dont expect a modeler to care if they release a huge poly model with gargantuanly large textures and no LoD's. But they should because ultimately it hurts the end user and this community.

No one here can tell me that what I am asking is a bad thing, because at the very LEAST all I am asking is that modelers add a warning to their model release that lets users know that using their model can result in adverse and unsuitable gaming performance because their model uses high poly count, no LoD's, big textures, etc.

As for what constitutes adding this warning, a benchmark will need to be set and agreed upon. Obviously, new 'recommended' system requirements will need to posted letting users know what will happen when they load up these models. This is a process that will need to be discussed.

Edit:

  But trying to fix the outlook that end users should know is important, because they will not.  I know I didn't when I first started to add new ships to my game so many years ago.

I didnt know either, marstone. I found out the hard way during a PvP match, which as host I ruined. I went so far as to uninstall the game and did a defrag and reinstall and then recopy of my model folders, which screwed me again. It took me missing an entire server before I realized why my game was choking and frame rate was killing me and everyone I drafted. This community can't afford to go there. No way you can grow a community when new users to the game drop in a model that is unsuitable for gaming and have the experience I did and not know why. Unlike me, they likely wont attempt a reinstall. They will simply toss the game int he garbage and move on. Things MUST change.

[Tus-XC]

Maybe we should just start requiring standards for computers.  Thats it, everyone who uses my models must have similar stats to my pc.  I have Quad core processor, N560 GTX, 6 Gb of memory, an SSD hd in raid 0 - you don't meet those standards no models for you.  Lookie there, problem solved.  If they dont' want to do that well they are just whiney little bitches and guess they don't care about the community. 

Or maybe you can just set up your own modeling alliance where you can set your standards - maybe people will join.  That is the only way you are ever going to get any modeller to do as you say (hell you run your own servers, that should be enough of a carrot right?).  If you don't want to take that inititive well its your loss and you really have no reason to badger individual modellers to bend to your standards.

[Tus-XC]

I didnt know either, marstone. I found out the hard way during a PvP match, which as host I ruined. I went so far as to uninstall the game and did a defrag and reinstall and then recopy of my model folders, which screwed me again. It took me missing an entire server before I realized why my game was choking and frame rate was killing me and everyone I drafted. This community can't afford to go there. No way you can grow a community when new users to the game drop in a model that is unsuitable for gaming and have the experience I did and not know why. Unlike me, they likely wont attempt a reinstall. They will simply toss the game int he garbage and move on. Things MUST change.

I bet you each one of those models you got (for the most part) included a disclaimer to the effect that 'while this works for some people, it might not work for you'.  Just based on your troubleshooting process it tells me you didn't take that to heart and say 'didn't those models say they could cause problems with my computer?'.  If you didn't do this, what makes you think anyone else is going to do this?  I've put my readme into an install file and still had people who couldn't be bothered to read it even though it was 'in there face' and they had to agree to it to proceed through the install.  This read-me crap is just that, crap - it ain't going to work because 90% of you don't even bother looking at it until you want to 're release it' and even then you can't be arsed to understand it.

[Dizzy]

You're right, Tus. Let's throw our arms up in the air and do nothing. I'm so glad this community can look to you to make it better.