3D models poly count ranking

[golfsierra2]

Many 3D-Models have been developed for Lock-On / FC in recent years, and some of them have an impact on the computer performance due to higher or lower poly count compared to the original models. This especially shows during missions, were several modified 3D models are operated in close proximity.

 

Can we make up a list with all the models with a poly count ranking?

It would be useful to optimize the computer load.

 

Does anybody know the poly counts of the original models ?

[TOMCATZ]

Hi,

 

that could be a very very interesting thread:smilewink:. Well, "Ctrl+backspace" show us arround 6000 triangles for a normal LOMAC aircraft. That should be arround 2000 Polygons only- ED did a very good job.

 

Very best wishes,

TOM

[Vekkinho]

However, 3GO Su-27 model has more polys than default Flanker but it also scores more FPS!

[czarnyolek]

I dont understand this kind of concernes. I play mostly with 3rd party models, as Mig-21, Gripen, Rafale, VNAO F-18E or F-15E( this one is low poly thou) and i don't see any significant drop of performance by my computer, and i gotta say i use a laptop!

More trouble i get with fog or heavy clouds, so i don't see a reason for concerns with plane models high polycount. In fact i wish Tomcatz could make smoother models of his planes, especially F-15E, but i know its against his philosophy of making as much accurate model with as low polycount as possible.

My 2 cents :)

Edited December 20, 2009 by czarnyolek

[Vekkinho]

More trouble i get with fog or heavy clouds, so i don't see a reason for concerns with plane models high polycount.

 

Quite contrary with me, I remember Su-25T being a FPS killer with clear skies but with fog and overcast LOFC FPS were better...

[Alper22]

I heard that su-25t until 50.000 triangles. Its real?

[Distiler]

Su-25t in LockOn:FC has 52000 polys according to http://lockon.co.uk/?end_pos=9&lang=en&scr=list&page=2#413

In comparison, ia F-18 has 15800.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Distiler

[VireVolte_tigrou]

About Gripen :

LOD0 : 35600 faces

LOD1 : 26600

LOD2 : 17800

LOD3 : 3400

[golfsierra2]

I dont understand this kind of concernes. I play mostly with 3rd party models, as Mig-21, Gripen, Rafale, VNAO F-18E or F-15E( this one is low poly thou) and i don't see any significant drop of performance by my computer, and i gotta say i use a laptop!

 

Well,

 

the impact on the FPS rate depends on the CPU, RAM and video card combination. Older systems with single core CPU (like mine, AMD Athlon 6400+) suffer from high poly models. I remember severe FPS drops when we tested Tomcatz' early Eurofighter models. One was fairly OK, more than one almost degraded my graphics to a slide show.

[Agg]

Im not very concerned about poly counts to be honest, if someone can make a model look good with a low poly count then that's fine, but it all comes down to how the final model looks. I dont use the low poly third party models because I dont see the point of replacing low poly models with other low poly models.

[monotwix]

It’s not exactly a narrow corridor between a high poly model and a low poly model, if you have a 10k poly compared to 20k poly model and then 30k model, IMO the noticeable difference between 10k and 20k would be greater than 15k and 30k and possibly to an untrained eye the difference between 50k and 100k would be even harder to see.

 

A good model comes in a package which consists of nice poly distribution throughout its geometry and throughout its LODs’ also mapping and texturing and other workings of the sim, and like a magical aspect it is the needed elements that make it work just like power to weight ratio.

[john_X]

good models can be done with 15k polys... my iar-93 is almost 17k and the f-16 modified from tomcatz is 16k and both look smooth. all that counts is the modeling tehnique and the skills..

[TOMCATZ]

Hi,

 

basecally I allways trye to use less them 7000 Polygons. When I started to build objects for LOMAC I buided an Eurofighter with about 160k polys. It was just like you eat a borrito before you will having sex with your girlfriend- a complete desaster.

My friend Cola showed me how it is possible to build a good looking Eurofighter with 6000 Triangles. That opened my eyes to another view of modeling.

Yes, it`s madness to replace a low poly model with another low poly model. So it have to look better, to be another aircraft (version) or to give us new options (two seat, Version, damage model, lights, textures).

 

I think, a good model have to be a good combination about polycount, textures and animations so that overall the result looks good.

 

Here I have some of my works and the actually triangle count:

 

 

 

F-4F Textures by Mitch

Pilots by Cola

 

so that was a small little overview overhead my work the last 2years. At overall I think that 50.000 Triangles + LOD`s should be the limit for actually hardware course the processor architecture didn`t much better the last years.

 

Hope it wasn`t to boring:book:

Very best wishes,

TOM

[Grimes]

You guys do realize in the world of zbrush and mudbox anything below 200,000 polys is considered "low" by todays standards?

 

IMO texturing makes or breaks a model. You can have insane poly counts putting all of the detail in, but if the texture looks terrible, so will the model.

Edited December 21, 2009 by Grimes

[TOMCATZ]

Yes I agree. But 200.000 polygons for one model is much to heavy. It won`t work in LOMAC.

I could be nice to use more polys to model with much more details as we have right now. But my experience told me that this isn`t FSX. So it have to run still good while you fly against 10 or 20 enemy fighters in package 10 or 20 firendly fighters.

What I try to say is, that one 200k model wouldn`t a problem but 10 of them in same time should frozen every actually system.

 

It`s easy to find out. Join "Editor" in LOMAC and set 16 (4x4) Mig29s with full weapons against 30Klicks away flight about 16 F-18Hornets (allthough full weapons) und press "Fly". Watch out your frames

 

Very best wishes,

TOM

[Agg]

good models can be done with 15k polys... my iar-93 is almost 17k and the f-16 modified from tomcatz is 16k and both look smooth. all that counts is the modeling tehnique and the skills..

The F-16 looks smooth enough, but it doesnt really look a whole lot like the actual thing to be honest, and so I wont use it... I would rather use the default low poly F-16...

[john_X]

The F-16 looks smooth enough, but it doesnt really look a whole lot like the actual thing to be honest, and so I wont use it... I would rather use the default low poly F-16...

 

 

never say no... i bet you'll change your opinion. i started to remodel it already..

[czarnyolek]

never say no... i bet you'll change your opinion. i started to remodel it already..

 

Sounds interesting, but do the double seater version, for god's sake!!! :)

[john_X]

agg, i checked the f-16 profiles with ones from real photos and they match perfectly. can you tell me what doesnt look like real jet?

[Vekkinho]

Sounds interesting, but do the double seater version, for god's sake!!! :)

 

With vast skin selection!

[Agg]

agg, i checked the f-16 profiles with ones from real photos and they match perfectly. can you tell me what doesnt look like real jet?

Certainly. The first obvious error is the base of the tail section which is way to "thick" and the shape is all wrong compared to the real aircraft. The engine is way to small, and so it looks all wrong, the shape of the antennas on the nose is all wrong, the pylons on the wings are all wrong, both the ones underneath the wing and the ones on the wingtips, its a bit hard to see from the render posted here, but the gears look to be much too long, the speed brakes look too short and too fat, allthough that might just be because the engine is too small, I dont remember what they are called, but the "pins" on the tail, wings and elevators that direct the static electricity away from the aircraft are too long. Do you need more examples?

[rattler]

Agg

 

Perhaps you could make an F-16 and correct all these errors. You seem to have a vast knowledge of what is correct and what is wrong. Give us a nice F-16 to fly. Not saying your wrong but you seem to have a good handle on shapes etc. Would be a waste if you can Mod an F-16.Cheers.

[cubanace]

You guys do realize in the world of zbrush and mudbox anything below 200,000 polys is considered "low" by todays standards?

 

IMO texturing makes or breaks a model. You can have insane poly counts putting all of the detail in, but if the texture looks terrible, so will the model.

you my friend just said a perfect point.

[SkateZilla]

did you realize this thread is 7+ years old and does not apply to any of today's standards?

[Neldrion]

Do not resurrect the dead !

 

No good will come from this !

 

lol :)