no bug Triangle amounts are too much for vr (look in post for official oculus documentation)

[ShadowDoggie]

Hello ED,

Many of the models located in: DCS World OpenBeta\Bazar do not have LODs, and are badly optimized, as in they have WAY too many triangles for a vr headset to work well.

Here is the documentation from Oculus/Meta, to provide you developers with information of how many triangles should be drawn MAX:

https://developer.oculus.com/documentation/unity/unity-perf/

I know its unity related, but that doesn't matter, unless you're working with techonology like Nanite, which your game engine does not have.

I would like to ask if your dev team, can reduce the amount of triangles in, at least vr, to the amounts stated in that page provided.

And if you are going to do it, when that would be.

 

 

Edited December 22, 2022 by ShadowDoggie
wrong picture

[ShadowDoggie]

Triangle count in vr (doubled): 

Edited December 22, 2022 by ShadowDoggie

[NineLine]

You are mixing issues. Please open a new report for your concerns on triangles.

As for 3000+ models without LODs I am not seeing this, besides the Hangar model you shared on Discord which I explained, please show models with no LOD?

Thanks.

[ShadowDoggie]

I would like to ask why i have been lied to by NineLine, since he/she claimed that the files i was looking at are not used in the game, while after removing the hangar model it clearly doesn't show up as you can see here: https://imgur.com/a/5l2blPJ

I think you might remove this forum post, because someone that lies, usually doesn't want to hear such thing.

If this post doesn't get removed, i would like to know, why you lied to me.

Also i would like to know why you tried to make me doubt in myself, because clearly these many models do not have LODs whatsoever.

Edited December 22, 2022 by ShadowDoggie
Outdated information

[razo+r]

1 hour ago, ShadowDoggie said:

Also i would like to know why you tried to make me doubt in myself, because clearly these 3000+ models do not have LODs whatsoever.

While I do agree that there should be LODs for most models, the number of models without LODs is a lot less than 3000. 

In that folder are only 1914 .edm files / actual 3D models. 

Some of those are collision models that don't get rendered.

Some of those models are really old with very little triangles to begin with. (Some of those still do have LODs, but I haven't checked all of them)

Some are destroyed object models.

Some of those are parts of a model, e.g. a wing of a big plane.

Some of those are LODs of the same model.

Some of those models do have the LODs inside of them, without the need multiple files. (Example: filter by name and look at 1S91. It has 2 files, one being the alive and one being the destroyed version. Yet both files have 5 LODs each.)

 

But of course there are exceptions, like the MiG-29s for example. I don't see any LODs for the three of them. But saying 3000 models are without LODs is just a lie.

 

 

Quote

just talked with NineLine on discord, and according to him these aren't the models actually used in the map, which i highly doubt since, i have yet to receive proof of this

In the shapes folder are models for almost everything. It contains models that are getting loaded into the map but it also contains models that are not loaded into the map by default, like various aircraft, parachutes, damaged models, destroyed models, ground vehicles etc.

 

Quote

Things, according to the graphics.lua file are rendered to 80000 km, no matter what view distance setting you choose.

I am referring to this line: objects = {5000, 80000};

Thats not everything. Each unit that has LODs change the LOD depending on the distance, and that distance is not universal.

Random examples:

F-86 Pilot model

model = {
	lods = {
		{"pilot_f86.edm",100.000000},
		{"pilot_f86_lod1.edm",500.000000},
		{"pilot_f86_lod2.edm",5000.000000},
	},
}

 

F-15E model

model = {
	lods = {		
		{"f-15e.edm",50.000000};
		{"f-15e_lod01.edm",500.000000};
		{"f-15e_lod02.edm",2000.000000};
		{"f-15e_lod03.edm",50000.000000};
	
	};
	collision_shell = "f-15e-collision.edm";
}

 

Quote

The triangle amounts are simply too high, and for whatever reason, which i would like to know, gets doubled when in vr opposed to desktop mode

I am not sure but my guess would be that it is that way because VR has to render it twice as oposed to 2D only once?

 

 

[speed-of-heat]

The triangle count in VR should be doubled... It's rendering the image twice...

[NineLine]

2 hours ago, ShadowDoggie said:

I would like to ask why i have been lied to by NineLine, since he/she claimed that the files i was looking at are not used in the game, while after removing the hangar model it clearly doesn't show up as you can see here: https://imgur.com/a/5l2blPJ

I think you might remove this forum post, because someone that lies, usually doesn't want to hear such thing.

If this post doesn't get removed, i would like to know, why you lied to me.

Also i would like to know why you tried to make me doubt in myself, because clearly these 3000+ models do not have LODs whatsoever.

*sigh*... as I told you, I did not lie to you.

Most map models are built into the map. The Caucasus Map is an older hybrid map using new and old tech. I have asked how LODs work for that hangar and will report back when I hear.

You call me a liar but as of yet you did not show me the 3000+ models missing LODs. Please be respectful, even to me. 

[razo+r]

I know it's not directed at me but maybe it helps.

4 minutes ago, NineLine said:

I have asked how LODs work for that hangar and will report back when I hear.

The Hangar does not have any LODs it seems.

There are also 2 ways currently I know of how LODs are handled ingame. Either the LODs are all in the same .edm file, or they are seperated and controlled by an additional .lua file that tells when to switch to the different LOD.

4 minutes ago, NineLine said:

You call me a liar but as of yet you did not show me the 3000+ models missing LODs. Please be respectful, even to me. 

He can't show you because there are not 3000 models without LOD. However, there are probably a few that do not have any, like the MiG-29s or that hangar for example.

 

 

[NineLine]

Just now, razo+r said:

I know it's not directed at me but maybe it helps.

The Hangar does not have any LODs it seems.

There are also 2 ways currently I know of how LODs are handled ingame. Either the LODs are all in the same .edm file, or they are seperated and controlled by an additional .lua file that tells when to switch to the different LOD.

He can't show you because there are not 3000 models without LOD. However, there are probably a few that do not have any, like the MiG-29s or that hangar for example.

 

 

Yes, as I have said, I have asked about the LODs on the Hangar, and if there are other LODs missing I am happy to report, but I am not sure what this thread is about anymore. 

[ShadowDoggie]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

Yes, as I have said, I have asked about the LODs on the Hangar, and if there are other LODs missing I am happy to report, but I am not sure what this thread is about anymore. 

Its not just about the hangar model.

Its about the many files (i don't know the exact count, in the folder mentioned earlier.

When i remove the hangar from the folder mentioned, the hangars are gone in game, and this goes for all the files in that folder, meaning that YES indeed the models inside the folder mentione, once again: DCS World OpenBeta\Bazar\World\Shapes ARE in fact the models used in the maps, or at least in caucausus, because i haven't tested it in other maps and can't be bothered doing so, because i am not going to buy a map for a game dev team that refuses to creates LODs needed.

Proof here of the hangars being gone when removing the file: https://imgur.com/a/oEIvp9V

This thread just to clarify is, us players hoping that your dev team, and 3D artists, will make LODs for EVERY single model in the game, as it should be.

Here is an example of one of the many models without LODs, in its LODS config file:

model = {
    lods = {
        {"ab-212_cargo.edm",2000.0},},
    collision_shell = "ab-212_cargo_collision.edm",
}
 

As you can see there is only one model in this config file, meaning there are no LODs for it.

Edited December 22, 2022 by ShadowDoggie
Outdated information

[razo+r]

2 minutes ago, ShadowDoggie said:

Its not just about the hangar model.

Its about all the 3000+ files (i don't know the exact count, in the folder mentioned earlier.

When i remove the hangar from the folder mentioned, the hangars are gone in game, and this goes for all the files in that folder, meaning that YES indeed the models inside the folder mentione, once again: DCS World OpenBeta\Bazar\World\Shapes ARE in fact the models used in the maps, or at least in caucausus, because i haven't tested it in other maps and can't be bothered doing so, because i am not going to buy a map for a game dev team that refuses to creates LODs needed.

Proof here of the hangars being gone when removing the file: https://imgur.com/a/oEIvp9V

This thread just to clarify is, us players hoping that your dev team, and 3D artists, will make LODs for EVERY single model in the game, as it should be.

 

I guess you didn't read my reply. You should. 

[ShadowDoggie]

2 minutes ago, razo+r said:

I guess you didn't read my reply. You should. 

I got it.

You're right its not 3000+, but however many there are without LODs is that amount too many without it.

Every single 3D model in the game needs to have LODs, especially for vr, since in vr triangle amounts are VERY sensitive to performance.

Hence why many vr games are made in a lowpoly style, because those types of models have barely any triangles/polygons.

[razo+r]

Also, to add as I've seen your reply just now. That ab-212 cargo mobel only has 316 tris. Creating a LOD for that one seems unnecessary and a bad example.

[ShadowDoggie]

3 minutes ago, razo+r said:

Also, to add as I've seen your reply just now. That ab-212 cargo mobel only has 316 tris. Creating a LOD for that one seems unnecessary and a bad example.

This is completely the wrong mindset.

Every single model needs LODs, for both consistency of the development, aswell as performance.

I dont want a ab-212 cargo model even being rendered in my game from 80km away and nobody wants that.

And quite frankly its ridicoulous, that t his hasn't been done after all these years, after multiple people speaking out about it.

Edited December 22, 2022 by ShadowDoggie

[razo+r]

9 minutes ago, ShadowDoggie said:

 

As you can see there is only one model in this config file, meaning there are no LODs for it.

 

Wrong. Just because it only has one model does not mean it has no LODs. As I've stated in the previous reply, the LODs can also be exported in the same model file within. Many model files of DCS utilise this method. 

The S-24, 1S91, BMP3 and many others do it that way.

[ShadowDoggie]

6 minutes ago, razo+r said:

Wrong. Just because it only has one model does not mean it has no LODs. As I've stated in the previous reply, the LODs can also be exported in the same model file within. Many model files of DCS utilise this method. 

The S-24, 1S91, BMP3 and many others do it that way.

I see you're correct.

Either way players are rendering hangars and who knows how many more models, almost all over the map (depending on the map) in full triangle amounts, which stack up to millions total as seen in the screenshots that i provided in the reddit post.

That is a huge issue, mostly for vr.

Seen here: https://imgur.com/a/YpXwOw4

Edited December 22, 2022 by ShadowDoggie

[ShadowDoggie]

https://developer.oculus.com/documentation/unity/unity-perf/

Note: 

Platform	Triangle Count
Quest 1	350k-500k
Quest 2	750k-1.0m

 

The official Meta/Oculus website litteraly tells you developers, to don't use more then these triangle counts, yet you completely ignore this.

So no wonder that when players are at or under these triangle counts, they have amazing framerates, which is sadly never the case without customizing the view distance to redude triangle counts.

Edited December 22, 2022 by ShadowDoggie

[NineLine]

57 minutes ago, ShadowDoggie said:

https://developer.oculus.com/documentation/unity/unity-perf/

Note: 

Platform	Triangle Count
Quest 1	350k-500k
Quest 2	750k-1.0m

 

The official Meta/Oculus website litteraly tells you developers, to don't use more then these triangle counts, yet you completely ignore this.

So no wonder that when players are at or under these triangle counts, they have amazing framerates, which is sadly never the case without customizing the view distance to redude triangle counts.

 

Another graphics engine has no bearing on anything we are doing. It is not valid for this bug report sorry. 

They are not creating what we are trying to create. You cannot compare framerates with anything they are doing because they are not doing anything like we are so please stick to DCS World. Thanks.

[ShadowDoggie]

5 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Another graphics engine has no bearing on anything we are doing. It is not valid for this big report sorry. 

They are not creating what we are trying to create. You cannot compare framerates with anything they are doing because they are not doing anything like we are so please stick to DCS World. Thanks.

We can most definitely compare these framerates, because these triangle counts go for ANY engine/game engine.

When are you going to lower the triangles for all the models in the game, for vr?

This is what i asked in the post, and i, and many other people would like an answer which you have refused to give to us, for many years.

It is the ONLY and most obvious solution for your dev team, to fix vr performance, and any vr game developer knows this, and i am sure your developers also know this, so i am really confused why you have been ignoring this question all this time.

If anything your game engine can handle those triangles even worse then Unity can, definitely not better.

p.s 

If i as an average joe, that only has alot of hardware knowledge and barely any game engine/development knowledge, know that these triangles are VERY important from my own experience making vr projects in multiple game engines, then why haven't you taken care of it yet?

Edited December 22, 2022 by ShadowDoggie

[NineLine]

We are not going to lower triangle counts for VR, this is not a VR only game, you can look at VR only games and see the types of graphics they go for that is not us.

We are a 2D and VR game, we are making core improvements right now that will improve performance for many I believe, but making DCS look worse is not the answer people want. It is not what we are going to do. I hope that answers your question.

Thanks

[ShadowDoggie]

1 minute ago, NineLine said:

We are not going to lower triangle counts for VR, this is not a VR only game, you can look at VR only games and see the types of graphics they go for that is not us.

We are a 2D and VR game, we are making core improvements right now that will improve performance for many I believe, but making DCS look worse is not the answer people want. It is not what we are going to do. I hope that answers your question.

Thanks

 

Less triangles does not mean worse looking as seen here as an example:

 

You just have an insane amount of triangles which many of them aren't even optimized by LODs.

But i am gonna end it here, because you know how to fix the performance, and if you don't, then you simply don't, and there is nothing i can do about it, because you know what the issue is now, and so does your whole team.

I hope you're gonna take the steps to reduce the triangles, and if not, you would come up with an alternative like Nanite is for unreal engine.

But us players will have to see after all these years.

[razo+r]

Is there even a big difference in performance if you compare the normal map with one that has most of it's objects removed?

[XCNuse]

5 hours ago, ShadowDoggie said:

https://developer.oculus.com/documentation/unity/unity-perf/

Note: 

Platform	Triangle Count
Quest 1	350k-500k
Quest 2	750k-1.0m

 

The official Meta/Oculus website litteraly tells you developers, to don't use more then these triangle counts, yet you completely ignore this.

So no wonder that when players are at or under these triangle counts, they have amazing framerates, which is sadly never the case without customizing the view distance to redude triangle counts.

 

Dear OP, your understanding is laughable at best.

 

GPUs from prior to 2010 have been able to handle over 1mil triangles all day.

You're posting stats about cell phone CPU; quite specifically, the Snapdragon XR2, which already has LOTS of other tasks that it has to do, such as motion tracking, self tracking, ... being a CPU, AND graphics.

 

This thread is bogus, and OP doesn't understand what modern hardware is capable of.

 

HOWEVER, I digress about OP's understanding on this topic, and will state, that ED absolutely needs to be making LODs, and mipmaps, every time any model is put into DCS.

Having been a user of the software ED uses for 3D modeling, I know quite literally how little time it takes to produce LODs that are "functional" in DCS, which is quite frankly ... seconds (seriously). Mipmaps literally just taking also a few seconds in photoshop as well, to downsize the file.

Is it a perfect solution? Absolutely not! But that can be dealt with down the line. But not producing them for models until further notice? Absolutely not acceptable in the gaming industry, and whoever is in charge of letting this happen... needs to be informed that this is not acceptable; and how they got to this stage of not understanding that this is quite frankly a basic requirement in the gaming industry boggles my mind.

 

But OP... sorry to say your'e just hilariously wrong but you clearly don't seem to fully grasp where the issues are.

This thread should be locked.

And whoever handles modeling and textures for Eagle Dynamics needs to have a sticky note on their monitor stating "don't forget the LODs" (we don't care if they're ugly... we just want something)

[ShadowDoggie]

54 minutes ago, XCNuse said:

Dear OP, your understanding is laughable at best.

 

GPUs from prior to 2010 have been able to handle over 1mil triangles all day.

You're posting stats about cell phone CPU; quite specifically, the Snapdragon XR2, which already has LOTS of other tasks that it has to do, such as motion tracking, self tracking, ... being a CPU, AND graphics.

 

This thread is bogus, and OP doesn't understand what modern hardware is capable of.

 

HOWEVER, I digress about OP's understanding on this topic, and will state, that ED absolutely needs to be making LODs, and mipmaps, every time any model is put into DCS.

Having been a user of the software ED uses for 3D modeling, I know quite literally how little time it takes to produce LODs that are "functional" in DCS, which is quite frankly ... seconds (seriously). Mipmaps literally just taking also a few seconds in photoshop as well, to downsize the file.

Is it a perfect solution? Absolutely not! But that can be dealt with down the line. But not producing them for models until further notice? Absolutely not acceptable in the gaming industry, and whoever is in charge of letting this happen... needs to be informed that this is not acceptable; and how they got to this stage of not understanding that this is quite frankly a basic requirement in the gaming industry boggles my mind.

 

But OP... sorry to say your'e just hilariously wrong but you clearly don't seem to fully grasp where the issues are.

This thread should be locked.

And whoever handles modeling and textures for Eagle Dynamics needs to have a sticky note on their monitor stating "don't forget the LODs" (we don't care if they're ugly... we just want something)

Do me and yourself a favor and go into a mission with just one module and look from the cockpit towards hangars and then away from it, and look both at the triangle amount difference aswell as framerate difference, because quite frankly i can't even be bothered providing any more proof since these kind of testing scenarios would be the same for any hardware setup, even in desktop mode.

Maybe that link i provided is only for standalone (android apks), for the quest, but even if it is, it doesn't take away the whole point that i am making here, which is that there are too many triangles.

 

Edited December 23, 2022 by ShadowDoggie

[razo+r]

6 hours ago, ShadowDoggie said:

Do me and yourself a favor and go into a mission with just one module and look from the cockpit towards hangars and then away from it, and look both at the triangle amount difference aswell as framerate difference, because quite frankly i can't even be bothered providing any more proof since these kind of testing scenarios would be the same for any hardware setup, even in desktop mode.

 

I look into a direction with 0 tris I get 49 FPS and then I look into a direction with 3 million tris and I get 50 FPS. 

 

Or in the cockpit of a module:

750K tris = 39FPS

 

1.8 million tris = 46 FPS

 

Edited December 23, 2022 by razo+r