RE: [Algorithms] CLOD vs Static landscape?

[Tom F. <to...@mu...>]

No, the two are NOT identical. What he said was that popping ruins gameplay
(not just for FPS games, but I agree the problem is worst in them), and he's
absoloutely right. What does _not_ ruin gameplay is smoothly degrading
quality while avoiding popping. Which is whay you would use some sort of
continuous-LoD method, rather than a static-LoD one, even though static-LoD
can obviously pump polys better.

I guess we just disagree on what constitutes "popping". If it pops, it's bad
CLOD - don't do it. There are very few games around with good CLOD
algorithms - most still pop. But there are some good exceptions
(ProjectIGI's landscape is rather good, though I still think their
tesselation is too low in the forground - you could get better).


Tom Forsyth - Muckyfoot bloke.

What's he up to now?
http://www.muckyfoot.com/startopia/cam.html



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Javier Arevalo [mailto:ja...@py...]
> Sent: 16 March 2001 16:45
> To: gda...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Algorithms] CLOD vs Static landscape?
> 
> 
> From: "Daniel Vogel" <66...@gr...>
> 
> 
> > > but IMO popping is never as bad as having a game which 
> can only run on
> >
> > Disagreed. Popping completly ruins gameplay as it draws away your
> attention
> > and you can't focus on moving things that are worth your attention
> (enemies
> > ;)) - yet again talking about FPSs.
> 
> 
> "Popping Ruins Gameplay"...
> The same could be said for highly-detailed environments.
> 
> Which if you think about it, are the reason one would need 
> LOD at all. Wait
> a second, did you just advocate not worrying too much about 
> LOD and simply
> pump all the polys to the card?
> 
> Sorry about the irony, it's not meant to harm... you are 
> quite right, the
> "best" terrain-engine architecture depends on the specifics 
> of the game, not
> on some "generic" goodness criteria.
> 
> Javier Arevalo
> Pyro Studios