How about a TOMI with DX11 and Tessellation?
I was wondering how TOMI could be with tessellation...
It can be an interesting feature to add to TT tool, isn't it?
Expecially Tessellation: it's a feature that retrieves data from textures and converts them into polygons. Look at those screenshot:
Without Tessellation:
With Tessellation:
Without Tessellation:
With Tessellation:
Please note that those are not separate models: these are the same models & textures, only with tessellation added!!!! WOW!!!!!
Another Example:
and you can found a video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkKtY2G3FbU
.......imagine it applied at TOMI!!!!!!:)
It can be applied on the foliage in the jungle, on the wood pavement on the ships, on
It would be wonderful to have a TOMI Deluxe Edition with dx11&Tesselation support! Wouldn't it????
P.S.: Another thing TT tool needs is realtime soft-shadows... we are waiting for new graphic generation TT tool!!! :P
It can be an interesting feature to add to TT tool, isn't it?
Expecially Tessellation: it's a feature that retrieves data from textures and converts them into polygons. Look at those screenshot:
Without Tessellation:
With Tessellation:
Without Tessellation:
With Tessellation:
Please note that those are not separate models: these are the same models & textures, only with tessellation added!!!! WOW!!!!!
Another Example:
and you can found a video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkKtY2G3FbU
.......imagine it applied at TOMI!!!!!!:)
It can be applied on the foliage in the jungle, on the wood pavement on the ships, on
the tongue of the manatee
, and everywhere in the game to make it all nicer!!!!It would be wonderful to have a TOMI Deluxe Edition with dx11&Tesselation support! Wouldn't it????
P.S.: Another thing TT tool needs is realtime soft-shadows... we are waiting for new graphic generation TT tool!!! :P
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
I gotta say though, it's a highly impressive step forward for graphics. It kind of reminds me of the first time I saw bump-mapped graphics.
The examples shown are exaggerated to the nth degree to highlight the differences between a low-poly model and a tesselated one.
IMO, in actual use, you're going to see much more subtle visual differences, and probably the best use of this is going to be to round out the angular look of curves on low-poly character models and then only secondarily to possibly add some depth to textures as was shown in the house example.
Of course, considering how many people are trying (and failing) to run TMI on essentially Radeon 8500s and lower, it's going to be a very long time before this technology has enough marketshare that it would be worthwhile to go through the trouble of writing code for it.
Then the question becomes whether the low-end graphics processors will even bother to do tesselation in a worthwhile manner. Unfortunate, because IMO an efficient tesselator would help low-performance graphics more than the top-end parts which can simply brute force the geometry.
Because I just bought one, lol
Ack! LCD flashbacks man... Lucy in the sky with diamonds...
My PC think otherwise I'm afraid.
Ummm, I hate to point this out but the best reason ever: Very few people can use DirectX 11, the ones who can use DX10 are a lot more. While DX11 can do everything DX10 can DX10 cannot do what DX11 can, which means that by developing in DX11 you lose all DX10 users, even if you only use DX10 features in DX11. Backwards compatibility means that you can use a DX10 application in DX11 with the same result.
Yeah, maybe you are right, but think about these screenshots:
TT did a great work, but now look at the rocks, the pulley, all the wooden things or the eyes of Elaine: wouldn't it be great to see those screenshots with tessellation? Dont' you think that sometimes there are too edges that could have been smoothed by tessellation? I see room for improvement here.
Well, DX11 has more important features than DX10. And this features will surely became more popular, so it's only a matter of time. The important thing is that tessellation has only to be applied to existent textures, it's not a lot to work in. TT can take advantage of this, and use it soon to have a top-notch technology applied at their great tool (IMHO a tool that is a little constrained by Wii performance - just look at the new CSI: they try to reach photo realism but they don't even have realtime shadows)
Do you think? I think that the people who try to run TOMI on old machines are more visible and evident, because they usually ask help. But to me there are a lot of people who runs the game fine at maximum detail. And I've read a few reviews who says that TOMI has a low polygons.
BTW, also the original MI games had top-notch graphics at the time, and there was CGA version for the ones that can't afford the EGA. So now we can have DX9 version for the ones who can't afford the DX11.
After all they're called GRAPHIC adventures!
displacement mapping requires fully unwrapped and textured characters. i want to see he technology in a moddable game engine soon so i can start learning what WILL be an industry standard in 5 years, it does however mean every building must be made in programs like z brush. and that workflow is counter productive to telltale's sales model.
tesselation simply increases the geometry count. you put in a 5000 quad model and get 800,000 out.
the effect your talking about is displacement mapping which when applied to the tesselated geometry makes things like the images you've posted.
tesselation would just make everything look like toystory
ATI/AMD premiered the first mainstream DX11 card THIS MONTH. Needless to day that the XBox and Wii can't do it and neither can 99.9% of the PC's atm.
Not even the FPS games for the hardcore gamer scene go so cutting edge. Adding DX11 support right now for an adventure game would be ..not sane. There are a million other things TTG would better off spending their resources on.
People love to stir up these frenzies over "new features" with each generation of graphics card and API, but few of them ever amount to much.. They tend to take up so many processing cycles and rendering passes they're only ever much use for tech-demos and whizz-bang youtube videos.. It's all just guff in the wind.
As an example, take a look at these 2 wireframe shots from Morrowind.. see if you can guess which one has TruFrom enabled, and consequently runs at about 3 frames per year:
This has been a rather geeky first post. I shall now address this balance in the time-honoured tradition:
ZOMG WHENZ EP4 OUT LOLZ?!!?!
In those examples, he models were made to look diferent with tesselation. they made something like this 3 points.
.
. .
so wen its low poly it skips the middle one and stay.
. .
making the players who look go all "DA SHIT!"
but no one gonna make spikes and stuff just to appear with tesselation.
Also as also already been sayed, most of it can be done with displacement or normal maps.
However most people don't, so it can't happen yet. On a purely visual basis, the Telltale Tool hasn't yet proven it can match the Source engine version used for Half Life 2's in terms of visual fidelity. I'm not saying TOMI should look like HL2, but that version of Source could do some great things and probably closely mirror TOMI's style while looking better.
Purely basing this on what the TTT has done so far - it could well be scalable enough to do better. The point is, TTT needs to be lower end so it can scale, and unfortunately that needs to remain the case - as people upgrade, the TTT upgrades, but you can count on it remaining around 3-5 years behind AAA titles in terms of raw power.
Not that it's a bad thing, it lets more people enjoy their games. However I don't think we'll be seeing hardware tessellation or DX11 in the TTT for at least another 5 years.
In that exact order?
Why? Adventure players don't have eyes? :rolleyes:
I don't think that you will ever lower the TOMI graphic quality to minimum if your PC can run it well at maximum detail just because you "don't need cutting edge for these games".
I know that the story and the puzzles are the focus in this kind of games, and it's right, but that doesn't mean that they should look ugly or dated. Under a Killing Moon was a masterpiece and it had cutting edge graphic at the time.
Not that i'm saying that TOMI looks bad (it looks great IMHO), but i'm saying that the current tecnology can improve rendition of the art that these people are creating.
And - the most important thing - we talk about DX11 as an additional option: if you or your computer can't stand it, you just have to disable it!
And you know why? Because they think that 2d looks better!!!! Now you see that visual quality is also important?
I admit that talking about DX11 and Tessellation could be a little early, but how can we go further if we don't explore? Someone has to track the new technology path. And you can be the first and rememberes forever...like Guitar Hero, Doom, Rebel Assault, Dragon's Lair... or - regarding adventure games - the Tex Murphy series, Myst or Blade Runner, just to name some.
Technology is the brush you use to paint a game.
Good Points, I am definitely not advocating that the games look dated. I know technology is a big thing with games, and the newest and more glittery win. I guess my main grudge is the DirectX proprietary stuff. These companies have a choice of what "Brush" to "Paint" their games with, and DirectX only makes sense since over 90% of the computers run Windows in some from or another. For technology to REALLY take a step forward we need to get away from using the same systems, and have people create their own "Brushes".
I haven't yet investigated into the "tesselation"-effect. In its extreme, as shown in the pictures, it might just make an "over the top"-impression. After all, the screenshots look pretty cartoon-like. Nonetheless, I really think that, applied in very moderate doses, it could really and probably easily enhance graphics which are necessarily geared towards low-res textures.
I'd really say TTG should go for it. Of course, the option to play without this effect and keep compatibility with, say, my old machine, is a must also. But TTG would never forget this (and cut about 95% of their customers out of the equation).
No offence, but no thanks.
Dont get me wrong, tales looks great (a lot better then EMI where they just learned how to use 3D) but nothing tops CMI.
Well, my PC plays the Unigine Heaven demo that those screenshots were taken in, and I'm rocking an i7 with a 5870. So....I'm pretty sure it can.
see that's why it's only a demo. There is not much around these seemingly single objects. Try running it with a detailed world and at least 50 additional objects all rendered like that...
Also I hope people realize that this isn't blanket effect that you just plop into a game and it automatically makes everything puffy. Just from looking at the examples, I'm sure that the people making the models must have to create a sort of invisible layer to each texture that indicates the desired depth, similar to how bump maps work. So if Telltale wanted to use it, they could make it as subtle or as crazy as they want. This is the sort of thing that could be pretty helpful for Telltale in the future because it would allow them to present more detailed-looking models with smaller filesizes, ultimately.