Nvidia Fermi GF100 working desktop card spotted on Facebook

[gumballguy]

for some things, maybe the spikes, without the right polygons, the textures wont line up right. its one thing to show off 2 models one with and without uber amounts of polygons, its more important to do it right when you actually use it in a real game/benchmark with textures and lighting

for the small things, bump mapping did ok, for larger items, you kinda have to put in enough minimum polys for the textures to look right. tessellation isnt going to be a quick magic wand that makes them all go together perfectly. otherwise the result will be without tessellation, games will be as piss poor at B:AA is without physx (being that they could have easily done something, not just remove everything)

+1

Isn't that basically what I said? Scaling between low detail and high detail with one set of content.

I didnt take manicdan's comment to be what you said. Thats probably just interpretation. Anyway, semantics aren't important. In a nutshell:

I was delineating between adding polys to scale, and polys that should be there to start with.

The spikes should be there to start with. And werent. They are required to make the dragon look like it is supposed to and would have been included by any rational game developer. Imho this breaks the comparison between with/without tesselation for the dragon and makes me suspicious about what they've done.

The roof should be done with tesselation. And was. This is perfectly fine for comparison.

Have you seen Tesselation with/without pictures from confidential AMD PDF ? The difference is obvious there as far as I can tell, but I'm not supposed to show it... You can't just put more polygons there dude.

No, I don't have access to this. But again, and as in manic dan's post, tessellation cannot logically be the answer to low poly counts. Where you know you need them, you need to put them to start with. For anywhere where it isn't necessary to make it look right, use tesselation, provided it makes it look better (ie: turn it on for ancillary objects like roofs if no undesirable warping/texture effects occur).

There was some interesting weirdness happening with blockwork in a building too (not the dragon scene) where thickness was added to specific blocks on the edges of a building & near the windows. This screwed up the textures royally by stretching them. As an aside, blockwork wasn't extruded to that degree in real life, so it looked outright wrong. But again I suspect that it went past extrapolation into being a different polygon model (but reused textures). Why? If there's no information on varying block thickness to start with, you can't just imagine it and produce the very specific effect that they did. I can acknowledge there may actually have been some depth info to do this with, but crikey, they would have had to scale slight differences in object depths * 3000% to make it look that way - which is not a serviceable example of how tesselation should apply. A generic algorithm can't do 3000% scaling everywhere... it'll make an unintelligible mess.

The pictures I were looking at when I noticed these were on [H], but you can find them anywhere if you wanna look..

I have little respect for Unigine and what I believe is a mockery of a bench. This is because I believe they are using two completely different models for with/without tesselation. You don't have to agree with me there. In the very least they are being very selective with the way they construct their models so that it exaggerates the difference in an unrealisitc, unreasonable fashion.


I'm sure people will hate my entire post for the extremity of suggesting they were two different models. Be objective:
1) Look at the pics I'm talking about.
2) Even if you dont believe most of my post, you can't deny that textures need to consider depth.

Geez this post started out nice and to the point. Now I've really overdone it