Crysis 2 Tessellation & You

Author Topic: Crysis 2 Tessellation & You  (Read 6064 times)



Here's Crysis 2 rendering a single drop of water.
that looks nothing like a drop of water

Here's Crysis 2 rendering out a single electron:


The reason behind this is not CryTek. The ones who did this stuff is nvidia. They wanted to show how good the tesselation on cards are and also probably make AMD cards explode. They overdone it.

The ones who did this stuff is nvidia.
Prove it, because right now it sounds like you're speaking out of your arse.

The reason behind this is not CryTek. The ones who did this stuff is nvidia. They wanted to show how good the tesselation on cards are and also probably make AMD cards explode. They overdone it.
It was probably Nvidia that threw money at Crytek for it to pump up the game with a billion tessellation models, and Crytek internal managers probably told modelers "okay do a bunch of tessellated models now that they want us to showcase their tech."  So they probably scratched their heads and were like "alright let's just blow up whatever the hell we can."

Tessellation, in the short order, really adds little.  You might get nicer fine details but at the end of the day who really gives a stuff about a closeup of a brick wall?

Here's Crysis 2 rendering out a single electron:
p accurate tbh imo fam

nice
DirectX in general is stuffty and proprietary. The industry needs to either move exclusively to OpenGL/Vulcan or just implement both DX and GL.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2016, 12:43:48 PM by TristanLuigi »

Tessellation doesn't really matter if the models weren't interesting before tessellation.

It was probably Nvidia that threw money at Crytek for it to pump up the game with a billion tessellation models, and Crytek internal managers probably told modelers "okay do a bunch of tessellated models now that they want us to showcase their tech."  So they probably scratched their heads and were like "alright let's just blow up whatever the hell we can."

Tessellation, in the short order, really adds little.  You might get nicer fine details but at the end of the day who really gives a stuff about a closeup of a brick wall?

I believe it.

this is probably what my gt730 is having nightmares of


DirectX in general is stuffty and proprietary. The industry needs to either move exclusively to OpenGL/Vulcan or just implement both DX and GL.
Actually, no. I find that DirectX to be far more stable and historically just better.

For some history on the subject;

https://personanonymous.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/a-brief-history-of-opengl-vs-microsoft-directx/
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/60544/why-do-game-developers-prefer-windows

It should be noted, I tend to be a little biased towards professional, closed-source things rather than open-source, but I think the facts are clear. Either way, they both need to exist because they both push each other to include new features and get better.

DX is objectively superior to openGL. It's just faster. Saying it's better than vulkan however is more of an opinion rather than a fact



Here's Crysis 2 rendering a single drop of water.
No way seriously?

I really like topics like this, really is an interesting read