Dr.9

Just me, or are the models used in spacewar needlessly huge in dimenisons and in vertex count

In wireframe render mode it's easier to see - the ones with gun barrels that have cooling holes are individually modeled that way - it's not like you can see that level of detail. The flying saucer one has an enormous number of verticies can could have been welded away.

I haven't seen anything as to what's 'right sizing' a model for xbox360 but these have got be excessive for the level of detail that's shown in game.




Re: XNA Game Studio Express Spacewar .fbx models.

Jim Perry

I don't believe the models are meant to be examples of optimal conservation of vertices/polys. The kit was constructed in a small amount of time so optimizations probably weren't of primary importance. It was also created before the final codebase was set so there's bound to be small things that aren't perfect.




Re: XNA Game Studio Express Spacewar .fbx models.

Dr.9

It's just a shame. I'm sure like a lot of people, i first got the xna kit and built the sample - the game seems slugish on my PC (which admittedly is far from top of the line AMD64 3000, 1GB DDR, Nvidia 5300 (don't laugh).

I started playing around the spacewar content for this...

http://www.dreambuildplay.com/

Maybe for XNA release 2, if they're goning to ship spacewar again (which you can bet they will... how many directx version has has 'tiger.x' been shipped with ) You figure by including even slightly optimized meshes you could get some 'free' FPS. Or is there some progressive downsampling built into FBX that I'm missing






Re: XNA Game Studio Express Spacewar .fbx models.

mattguest

XNA allows regular joes create for a next-gen platform. Including high polygon models with beautiful custom shaders helps show off the power of the 360.

My thought on this is that since the spacewar starter kit is meant to be a launching point for your own games they may have created the high poly models to allow them to be used in any situation, including close up where the detail would be evident.

That said, in the future it would be nice to see a LOD example with a low poly versions for long distance viewing. But as others have pointed out the spacewar example was put together in a short amount of time and I think they erred on the side of detail.

Besides, if you need low poly models for some reason then it will be a lot easier to model them based off the high poly ones than if you needed high detail and they only provided low.





Re: XNA Game Studio Express Spacewar .fbx models.

Dr.9

I'll post a picture of what I'm talking about.

It's not super high poly count models done well, but pointlessly high number vertexes where many of them can't be seen they're occluded by other parts of the mesh.






Re: XNA Game Studio Express Spacewar .fbx models.

Nick Gravelyn

So far my complaint with their models isn't the complexity but the sheer size of them. For my game I had to write a custom processor that scaled them down by .01 to even start to get the size I would need. I guess, though, for SpaceWars, the large models were fine and allowed high detail, so it does make some sense for them.




Re: XNA Game Studio Express Spacewar .fbx models.

cronholio

I may have an idea why the models are so gigantic. I do know that 1 XNA unit = 1 meter, which is the default scale in most 3D apps, but some apps are 1 unit = 1 cm. It didn't make sense in spacewar for the models to be this big because the camera is only 700 units from the origin and the models are bigger than that. What probably happened was the models were built at a resonable scale, and the unit conversion got set to centimeters when the model was exported to fbx (the model is about 100 times bigger than it should be).

As for the desinty, the ship models are only around 16,000 triangles. They aren't deforming, there's not much else in the scene, and I think the sample requires SM 1.0. Given all that, 16,000 triangles is not unreasonable even on a lowly GF 5200. Unless you are trying to run spacewar at over 1,000 frames per second, optimizing these ships isn't going to do much for your performance; there really is nothing to them.





Re: XNA Game Studio Express Spacewar .fbx models.

Dr.9

http://www.flickr.com/photos/83003783@N00/397075140/

Screen cap... 16,000 may not sound like much - but consider maybe you want to have more than one ship on the screen.  If they could look identical and use maybe half the number of triangles that would worth it.  The fastest triangles are the ones you never draw.

My nvidia 5300 is in no danger of running 1000 FPS I assure you :)

Ok, enough whining.  Don't get me wrong, XNA is a _great_ start.  Some features needed, and the demo's are a little lack-luster.   Hopefully the xna team takes some advice (and maybe submissions!   from the community.






Re: XNA Game Studio Express Spacewar .fbx models.

cronholio

Well in the Spacewar context, 16,000 isn't much for a static object on SM 2 hardware. If you want to draw a lot of unique ships in your own game you may have a problem. Consider this though, The characters in DOA on the XBox were upwards of 16,000 triangles and were being deformed by two bones per vertex on what is essentially a GeForce 3 with a Celeron 733. If you are having performance problems on a 5 series Geforce there with these models there may be other issues at work. For Spacewar, the context these models were built for, 16,000 triangles is perfectly acceptable, I think.



Re: XNA Game Studio Express Spacewar .fbx models.

mattguest

 Dr.9 wrote:
Ok, enough whining.  Don't get me wrong, XNA is a _great_ start.  Some features needed, and the demo's are a little lack-luster.   Hopefully the xna team takes some advice (and maybe submissions!   from the community.


I agree. So far it seems as though they've been very open to the community and their suggestions. I'm looking forward to more great content and examples, hopefully within the next few months.





Re: XNA Game Studio Express Spacewar .fbx models.

Dr.9

True, although DeadOrAlive has just two models in play as well.

The crux of it, is that to me 'spacewar' is as much a demo of xna as it is a tool to kickstart learning. Demo's should impress upon people their strengths, and 'sell the idea'.  Poor content doesn't help.  (You see the multi-gun powerup in wireframe ).  Why do it in 16,000 when you could do it in a fraction (I mean, not like they've got super detailed or ornate textures to go along with it). 

I can accept "my video card is teh suk", but don't burden it needlessly.

Look at the screen cap.  Now imagine Peter Griffin's voice 'c'mon!  caaaa'mon.... ca'mon....C'MON!' compelling argument isn't it