The problem lies not in actually showing the results of damage or tire treads etc, but in the amount of memory dedicated to preserving that detail, and what it takes to reliably synchronize that data between players.
Yes, computing power has increased over time, but limitations are still very real. Different systems have differing amounts of memory available for persistence ( PS3 vs 360 vs PC vs etc ). You could write data to disk, but there is no guarantee that there is disk space available. What percentage of available resources do you dedicate to bullet X, fired by player Y, Z minutes ago? How much of that data do you transmit to each player in a networked game, to ensure that their playing field is equivalent to yours?
The problem lies not in actually showing the results of damage or tire treads etc, but in the amount of memory dedicated to preserving that detail, and what it takes to reliably synchronize that data between players.
Yes, computing power has increased over time, but limitations are still very real. Different systems have differing amounts of memory available for persistence ( PS3 vs 360 vs PC vs etc ). You could write data to disk, but there is no guarantee that there is disk space available. What percentage of available resources do you dedicate to bullet X, fired by player Y, Z minutes ago? How much of that data do you transmit to each player in a networked game, to ensure that their playing field is equivalent to yours?
this is how I've always understood the issue. It's about RAM. What would be nice is to see game begin offering options for more persistent decals, mush as some games offer the option of how long bodies or other artifacts stick around after they are created.
I remember playing GoldenEye back in the day for the N64...but looking back on it now. There really hasn't been much improvement for "decals".
I have a feeling though that if a game company looks at how much decals are slacking; they'll implement a new engine with the soul purpose of giving realism to decals.
It's about time some one stepped up to the plate and said "Are graphics are good enough but the realism sucks balls"
Instead of simple decals I would like more extensive use of destructive environments. Destructible trees and bushes are fine and dandy, but I want whole buildings to topple. I want to be able to create a small hole in a wall and be able to look through and see the any enemies or whatever on the other side. Hopefully Red Faction: Guerrilla will be able to deliver a strong enough impression on the gaming world that it will spread more. Crysis definitely started the new age, with the original Red Faction as the initial spark, now its time to expand and improve upon the system.
Instead of simple decals I would like more extensive use of destructive environments. Destructible trees and bushes are fine and dandy, but I want whole buildings to topple. I want to be able to create a small hole in a wall and be able to look through and see the any enemies or whatever on the other side.
It's funny how many games promote a completely destructible environment and fail to produce much destruction at all. Namely I'm thinking of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed and Crysis. Sure it's cool that I get to knock over a small tree, but what about that big one right next to it? If I launch an RPG or swing my Lightsaber I want that sucker coming down. The decals are lacking though... Maybe FEAR 2 will push the industry in the direction it needs to go.
I heard that the next Nintendo system, the Nintendo Decal, will fix this problem.
Games include:
Super Mario Decal
The Legend of Decal
Decal Crossing
Mega Decal Man
Sonic the Decal
ExciteDecal
Metroidecal
RBI Decal
Decal Icarus
Decal Kong Country
Pilot Decal
Street Decal II Turbo
Super Smash Bros. Decal
Cruis'n USDecal
Resident Decal 4 (Gamecube/Wii Port)
Decal Hero: Aerosmith
Nintendecals
It's not a time limit, it's a number of bullet holes limit. TF2 does the same. If you keep shooting a wall with the mini-gun for example, you'll see your old ones disappear pretty quickly as you continue firing, but if everyone stops shooting the existing ones will stay.
The problem lies not in actually showing the results of damage or tire treads etc, but in the amount of memory dedicated to preserving that detail, and what it takes to reliably synchronize that data between players.
Yes, computing power has increased over time, but limitations are still very real. Different systems have differing amounts of memory available for persistence ( PS3 vs 360 vs PC vs etc ). You could write data to disk, but there is no guarantee that there is disk space available. What percentage of available resources do you dedicate to bullet X, fired by player Y, Z minutes ago? How much of that data do you transmit to each player in a networked game, to ensure that their playing field is equivalent to yours?
Good point, but for the sake of tech discussion, lets throw out the option of multiplayer (as most games dumb down graphics on MP as is). Decals are very much limited by memory, both in random access or hard disk. And knowing how much memory a system will have is a crap shoot when regarding PC gaming. But why shouldn't developers take risks and push the technology? Crysis did it with shader and raster graphics in general. By making a game that literally couldn't be played to it's fullest potential by current hardware the bar was raised. Sure it was risky, but gamers stretched their systems, hardware continued to break boundaries, it refined what the enthusiast gaming PC looked like.
Technology is progressed when the current limitations are challenged. The limitations on decals are, in my opinion, not being challenged, thus remaining stagnant.
We have to assume that the standard amount of memory is larger than it was 5 years ago. Almost every system out there has at least 1 gigabyte of ram. Yet many current games still do not have better decal lifespans than games did 10 years ago, when the memory standard was closer to 128MB. There's more memory out there, yet simple 2D textures don't persist much more than they did a decade ago.
And Koreish has a good point, why do so many devs that promise full destructibility fail to make the mark? I had such high hopes for blowing away EVERYTHING in Crysis, yet thick trees still remained steadfast. Why were there only certain types of vegetation that would break procedurally? Shouldn't that algorithm be applicable to all types of foliage in the game?
decals are just single polygons added to a scene in an x,y,z+normals fashion, plus they are generally instanced which means less resources are needed becuase they (ie bullet holes) are all the same. how much memory is really needed for a small texture, on one polygon facing whatever direction? How much network usage is needed to send that peice of info to other players per bullethole? I don't think it would be much at all on a per bullet basis, but some games with 64+ players with thousands of bullets and other decal creating objects flying every which way. It does add up sure, but I think this is something that has no excuse being as far behind the tech as it is.
I've constantly been let down in games that claim the whole destrucable terrain and only 15% is actually destructable. LIES!
I was playing in TF2 the other day and I decided to do an experiment for fun. On Goldrush, the section where it starts out with the tunnel, if you go up to the rocks and just bash the same place with your (wrench, machete, bat, etc.), not only will the textures just layer on one another, if you go long enough, you can see the whole square the decal's on get lighter and lighter until it's a bright yellow against the rock, heh.
And then, of course, if you bash somewhere else next to it for a while, you can slowly see a layer disappear each time you add it to the other one. Le sigh.
I totally agree with this article. I understand that decals take up memory, but at least make an option for those with faster machines to keep the decals. In games where it is based on a bullet whole limit, let the user set the limit. To be honest, I prefer not to render the decals in the first place than to see them fade out of existence. it just looks stupid. I have managed to tweak a few games to keep bullet holes. Email me on the-trob [at] hotmail [dot] co [dot] uk if your interested, the games are: ghost recon advanced warfighter, red orchestra, HL2 (increased limit)
Comments
I have often wondered the same question about decals. It is an obvious problem that needs to be addressed if immersion is to advance.
Yes, computing power has increased over time, but limitations are still very real. Different systems have differing amounts of memory available for persistence ( PS3 vs 360 vs PC vs etc ). You could write data to disk, but there is no guarantee that there is disk space available. What percentage of available resources do you dedicate to bullet X, fired by player Y, Z minutes ago? How much of that data do you transmit to each player in a networked game, to ensure that their playing field is equivalent to yours?
this is how I've always understood the issue. It's about RAM. What would be nice is to see game begin offering options for more persistent decals, mush as some games offer the option of how long bodies or other artifacts stick around after they are created.
Most people can't run the graphics at 2560 X 1600, but they happily boast that.
An excellent read sir!!
I have a feeling though that if a game company looks at how much decals are slacking; they'll implement a new engine with the soul purpose of giving realism to decals.
It's about time some one stepped up to the plate and said "Are graphics are good enough but the realism sucks balls"
*hopes Crytech makes a decals engine*
It's funny how many games promote a completely destructible environment and fail to produce much destruction at all. Namely I'm thinking of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed and Crysis. Sure it's cool that I get to knock over a small tree, but what about that big one right next to it? If I launch an RPG or swing my Lightsaber I want that sucker coming down. The decals are lacking though... Maybe FEAR 2 will push the industry in the direction it needs to go.
Games include:
Super Mario Decal
The Legend of Decal
Decal Crossing
Mega Decal Man
Sonic the Decal
ExciteDecal
Metroidecal
RBI Decal
Decal Icarus
Decal Kong Country
Pilot Decal
Street Decal II Turbo
Super Smash Bros. Decal
Cruis'n USDecal
Resident Decal 4 (Gamecube/Wii Port)
Decal Hero: Aerosmith
Nintendecals
Good point, but for the sake of tech discussion, lets throw out the option of multiplayer (as most games dumb down graphics on MP as is). Decals are very much limited by memory, both in random access or hard disk. And knowing how much memory a system will have is a crap shoot when regarding PC gaming. But why shouldn't developers take risks and push the technology? Crysis did it with shader and raster graphics in general. By making a game that literally couldn't be played to it's fullest potential by current hardware the bar was raised. Sure it was risky, but gamers stretched their systems, hardware continued to break boundaries, it refined what the enthusiast gaming PC looked like.
Technology is progressed when the current limitations are challenged. The limitations on decals are, in my opinion, not being challenged, thus remaining stagnant.
We have to assume that the standard amount of memory is larger than it was 5 years ago. Almost every system out there has at least 1 gigabyte of ram. Yet many current games still do not have better decal lifespans than games did 10 years ago, when the memory standard was closer to 128MB. There's more memory out there, yet simple 2D textures don't persist much more than they did a decade ago.
And Koreish has a good point, why do so many devs that promise full destructibility fail to make the mark? I had such high hopes for blowing away EVERYTHING in Crysis, yet thick trees still remained steadfast. Why were there only certain types of vegetation that would break procedurally? Shouldn't that algorithm be applicable to all types of foliage in the game?
I've constantly been let down in games that claim the whole destrucable terrain and only 15% is actually destructable. LIES!
And then, of course, if you bash somewhere else next to it for a while, you can slowly see a layer disappear each time you add it to the other one. Le sigh.