Sign in to follow this  
Guest odog

60,000 polys...all the rage now?

Recommended Posts

As I understand it, 60,000 polygons is the limit for each type of model FS can render (exterior model, interior model, etc). I have seen some aircraft that advertise, as part of their features, 50-60,000 face models.Now I have a pretty powerful machine, but I know I am in the minority here, and not all of us have the machine to support such a model. When you include AI, textures, the new weather engine that FS2004 includes, it seems like conserving polygons in aircraft models has become even more important. I'm just curious what people think about this, since I do not think that having a model with 60,000 polys is something to brag about. Especially if your work precludes people with older machines from enjoying it. What irks me is to look at a model that uses 500 polys for a part where 50 would suffice. Does anyone else see something wrong here?Sorry for my rant, I'm just afraid of where this trend is leading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

hi all :D .. well i think .. both types of aircraft need to exist .. the one with outstanding detail .. with an offensive amount of polys..:-lol.. and the low poly intended basic models.. example.. the ai models.. are not goint to be used to fly .. so it just need the ver very basic shape with a tiny amount of polys.. to just give the feeling .. that theres another plane in your departure/arrival airport.. hehehe...the low poly intended models.. are always welcome.. with cool basic shapes and just the enough polys to get a cool shape of the plane.. and plus works on low end machines .. but to the people who wants to go beyond... these ones are not good enough ...and theres is where the high poly and high detailed aircraft fit in. these planes where the minimal detail is just modelled and texturized.. those planes are delicius to the eye.. but awfull to some systems.. these are usually not able to be run on low end systems .. but as everyones says.. the quality has its costs so it would be awfull if all the airplanes were so high detailed... cuz the low end users could not enjoy the addons of the simso it would be awfull too if all the airplanes were very basic in shape.. without reaching that high level of detail and a lack of realism in its models. cuz here the high edn users.. would be the affected ones.. and his high end systems would be a waste... to not have something to enjoy with ittheres some designers that choose to have theirs in between these too types.. trying to have as detailed as he can .. with a reasonable amount of polys ...:-coolso to what way to choose.. its up to the designers :).. if they want to do frame rate friendly planes.. or eye candy rich models.. or just a mix of both types... i honestly dont see any problem on this subject .. cuz theres always some addons kind for some simmer kind... :-beerchugthe day where the low end users.. wants to use the high poly planes with ease and very good frame rate.. the only thing i would recommend is " UPGRADE YOUR SYSTEM " :-lol lol .. cuz its imposible to have it all ;)KINDEST REGARDS :7DAVID SEGOVIA :-wave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 60k is ridiculous... If you've got that many polys on export, you need to re-examine your modeling style. besides when you export MakeMDL cant recognize points closer than 4mm and welds them anyway. Anything that you cant see from inside the plane is a waste as well. Plus gmax can eliminate unneeded polys without degrading the model.i think top shelf results can be obtained with 40k. poly count is not a good way to judge the models quality. A properly lofted, optimized, and shaded model will carry less faces than a cruddy mesh with tons of burried and useless faces.this is just my opinion based on my studies of patch vs box modeling. and VCs require extreme shrewdness in design. you want to waste nothing here, cuz it will make the gauges very jumpy.JMOjoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>What irks me is to look at a model that uses 500 polys for a>part where 50 would suffice. Does anyone else see something>wrong here?>I think I understand what you are saying here. You are not looking for "low quality" models for AI, as stated in another post, but you are concerned about wasting polys "where 50 would suffice". When I first started studying to be a programmer, our teacher would give us extra marks for efficient code. That is, if I could program in 20 lines what it took someone else to do in 30, then my software might run that much faster. The same holds true for FS2002. If my model is effecient, and doesn't waste polygons, then it will be superior to one that uses twice as many but wastes them. At some point, there is no more trade off between model-detail and framerates, since the polys will just eat up the framerates, without any apparent improvement in visual quality.I like flying the Meljet 777, and I bet it has plenty of polys (anyone know how many?). But it uses those polys well, and the result is an outstanding piece of work. So, I guess that if I read that an aircraft has 60,000 polys, then I won't let myself get too excited until I actually see it.On the first aircraft I ever designed, I added a 6-pack of (virtual) beer on the passenger seat (seriously). I was somewhat disapointed that no one ever emailed me to ask about it, but this is an example of the type of "part" that does not benefit from having lots of polys. Did it really matter if the cans of beer had 12 or 24 sides? Probably not. Of course, the only purpose in me writing this post was so that I could say that I designed the first aircraft with (virtual) beer.- Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I mean Martin. I understand AI planes being relatively low on the poly count because that is what they are for AI. But the Aardvark models look pretty nice, and they did a real good job of conserving the polys there.I also look at Meljet's 777, there you can see where all the polys went, but again, it's nowhere near 60,000 (around 35K I think).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Martin.Pretty funny on the beer, but I wouldn't fly with you :-).For the interested, v.1 of Mel's 777-200ER has 39,405 on the exterior, and 22,155 in the VC. Obviously they are not drawn at the same time.I am not sure I am allowed to release the current poly count for Mel's v.2, but let's just say he is going all out, and the detail is fantastic. Anyone care for accuratelly shaped turbine fan blades? I DO! Bring it on, Mel!P.S. If you don't know what I am talking about, go check out Mel's site at www.meljet.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Joe.Not necessarily. I could agree that the majority of designers wouldn't know what to do with that, but put it in the hand of talented people, and what do you get? An awesomely detailed aircraft.If your statement would hold true, that anything you can't see from the cockpit is a waste, than pretty much all designers would be a failure, for they all have tails, fuselage sections, landing gears, horizontal stabs... Well, you get the idea.It has become pretty clear, by the visual quality of recent add-ons and the posts on screenshot forums everywhere that the visual model of aircraft is extremelly important to the vast majority of users. Hell, we even have outside spot cameras to see our planes! So one could blame it on MS, if one wanted, who is the culprit that started all this ;-).Don't get me wrong. Visual models still need to be efficient. I have, as we have all, seen models that are not efficient at all, but I've seen some that are fantastic. I am all for efficiency, but I love the detailed landing gears, opening cargo doors, and all the other stuf that has no practical use, but that makes me feel I am really there.Finally, the VC is another portion where you obviously need to save as many polys as possible, to make the scrolling and gauge updating smooth, but you have to think about the "being there" factor once again, so the more knobs you have, the better, in that sense. If the seat is closer to being round than to being a box to sit on, great! Summarizing, like everything in life, aircraft design is a compromise, and we have some authors that are extremelly good at that! Good for us!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you missed my point...i go overboard on my designs as well.<<<http://forums.avsim.com/user_files/16294.jpgsome old pics here too.www.geocities.com/odog812/index

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Joe.Beautiful designs, man, I love the above VC and Shakey Jake looks very good!Yes, I missed your point. If you notice, nowhere on your original post you mentioned you were talking about the VC. All you said is stuff you couldn't see from the inside. Point taken. There is absolutelly no need for parts that won't be seen from inside the cockpit or cabin.I checked out the C45, it is OK, definitelly no nuts and bolts were visible. Yes, exaggerating, but just proving you can't do all that with just 43K. I am a designer myself, I know. Not that it doesn't look good, it does. But if it had 70K, it would't be twice as good, but most likely better.FS or MakeMDL can't tell the difference between 32 or 90 sides, but I can. Between 70 and 90, no, that would be too hard, but a 32 sided fuse still shows it's edges when one is walking around the aircraft.FSDS2 and gMax, I am gMax all the way. 3ds is even better.The point is that if you are able to get OK performance and pack as many polys as possible, as long as they are all serving a purpose, and not just filling space, in my book that is ok.Again, congrats on the models, very very nice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks fab, i'll see you and call.. ha hado you use 3ds for work or did you sell your car and buy it? :-)I get to play with it on the weekends but thats about it... i LOVE that prog.yeah, that c54 is ok.. it looks nice rendered. I never looked at the wire frame shots till 2nite. 1600$ sheesh im in the wrong design bizz.. ha habut back to the original point of this post... just claiming that a model has 60k polys, doesnt make it a good model. Im studying many different styles of modeling and am amazed at what can be accomplished with very low face counts.I think too many new builders find one way to make a plane, and think its the only way. If they would branch out and do some Human or animal modeling they would learn so much more... but like me, I love planes.have fun...joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Joe.I use 3ds for work.I agree, just the poly count means nothing. By the way, was it you talking about lofting fuselages the other day? Have you tried that? If so, how is it going? And are you willing to share any other techniques you may have for modeling?When developing 3d models for rendering of background panel bitmaps, I went through about 3 months of trying out techniques, unti I found one that fit. But I am always open. What I love about 3ds is that there is always 856+n ways of doing something. By the way, seen our Cirrus preview at FFS yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is sort of OT, but figures in with what you guys are talking about. I am currently modeling a plane for a combatsim, not CFS series, and as a result, economy of poly's is critical.However, I am also working on some planes for MSFS, my first ever, and I do plan to be as efficient as possible. However, what do you guys think is a good 'number' for fuselage sides? I always see a reference to 32 sided fuselages, but this doesn't make any sense to me. As an engineer, I was planning on making the fuse 36 sided, since that works out to 10 degrees per increment (That's how engineers like me think :D ). Would I be better off going to, say for the sake of argument, a 54 sided fuelage or a 72 sided fuselage? Anyway, can anybody offer any tips on making the plane look smooth WITHOUT using too many poly's?For reference I am using 3DS Max.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a one im trying something new on, maybe will help point you in the right direction...http://forums.avsim.com/user_files/19816.jpg I got a model blueprint of the float on this plane, It's quite impossible to get the fins on the bottom of the float with a standard shape, like a cylinder. Plus, the results resembled a dented car fender.http://forums.avsim.com/user_files/19817.jpg I created this entire model with splines and shapes, like a circle, arc, line. This method allows the adjusting of the mesh, so I can over model the float, then adjust the face count down. However wastefull this appears, as you can see only 17k polys and the cockpit controls are already done.http://forums.avsim.com/user_files/19818.jpg This method takes a ton of pratice to get comfortable with, I recommend the car tutorials to pratice up. its really very fun, and incredibly accurate. I will never box model again.. :-lol Im doing 90% of the work in Editable Patch mode, its more flexible than a mesh object. If you go with a normal box modeling method, i like 40 sides on a fuse, or cowl. Its smooth without over doing it.good luck,joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man.... I can't imagine modeling 60,000 polys. My recent PC-12 was my most complex plane to date and the exterior model only has 12,707 polys....Brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys.I actually use aircraft manufacturer blueprints to model aircraft in AutoCAD, then I convert them to 3d models one polygon at a time. I do that because I am usually working with a 2500 poly limit, TOTAL, per plane.I think I will have to learn the spline and mesh methods you guys are using to make anything of true quality for MSFS. I don't want to make 20,000 poly's by hand..lol, much less 60,000! Needless to say, my poly editing skills are pretty good ;)Time to try those car tutorials :)BTW, Thanks for the PC-12 Brian, I love flying that plane!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this