Larian Studios Forums Beyond Divinity (English) General RR Quality Concerns.

I am concerned about quality loss, I hope it is worth it.




Both images were 1:1 scale cropped from 1024 x 768 screens.
The Avatar selector IS the benchmark of comparison and I would have loved the character in the game to be that perfect.
What worries me is that the smaller DD looks better than the bigger RR avatar.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/question.gif" alt="" />

On the big screenshots the graphics ,including the avatar, seems very good.
But the first screenshot is the one where you choose your character, and i think that they made for that the characters very detailed. And the avatars from DD were in 2D, and those from riftrunner are in 3D.
To have more detail about the avatars read the peek of the week number 2.

peek of the week number2

If you look at the sceenshots of the avatars, I can say that they look very high detailed.

Merendrious, it is really nice of you to defend RR, but I am a sincere fan here not a new visitor.
It is after the second POTW and the seemingly final screenshots that I became concerned.
The RR image I cropped is from that last review with Marian.
I included the avatar selection screen because those characters were superbly rendered and breathing.
Yet for fairness, I included an in-the-game fully equipped ranger to compare with the axe wielding warrior from RR. I have the eyes of an expert and I can tell the difference. I cropped both being compared frames from the same resolution screens and I discovered an advantage and a disadvantage. The advantage is that we shall have a bigger sized avatar (mainly for compensating the lower polygonal definition of the character). The disadvantage is sacrificing curvature details by dropping the number of polygons for real-time-rendering. If this is too much technical for your tastes we may leave it there but if not then please show me where I was unfair.
Cheers.

Ok, the avatar is maybe less detailed, but remember that there are still months where there can still change a lot.
But if you check the avatars from the peek at the week number 2, i have to say that those look very high detailed.

Ok. Now I have cropped both avatars exactly from head to toes and DD’s avatar is 5 pixels taller than RR’s avatar, thus they must be of same origin but the new avatar is lower on polygonal count to ease the real-time rendering speed.

No <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/question.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

What do you mean with "same origin"?

By measuring the avatar’s height in identical screen resolutions for both DD and RR I concluded that the original 3D model being modified must be identical; thus having the same “Origin” not coordinates origin but in the sense of the source model. The final number of pixels per avatar’s height exposed this information to me.
Of course, one avatar could be wearing a different head cover that increases the height than one without such a head cover or with a different style. Most probably, in DD, the female warrior’s model was taller than the female mage’s model but within the world’s standard doors’ clearances.
Therefore the only obvious difference I could see was a bit lower polygonal count per character definition to keep T3D rendering time of frames within the allowed time intervals.

It is not a big deal during animation at all, but during standing still for taking screen shots it makes all the difference.
I was hoping that since you have decided to support higher resolutions such as 1600 x 1200 that the characters shall be modelled from the same models used in the DD’s avatar selection screen because the current 100 pixels on “768” vertical-resolution would be only 64 pixels on the “1200” vertical-resolution, which would be rather unacceptable because the head would be two pixels high. Now if you took the basic measure to be 100 pixels / 1200 you would get 156 / 768, which is a superb quality. With 800 x 600 screen resolution the character would be 200 pixels high or 1/3 of the screen, which is a fabulous zoom in resolution and we are all very happy to zoom in and out on three steps. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />
Is this possible to implement Marian?

I'm glad somebody mentioned it before I did. Thankx DAD.
It's been on my mind awhile. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shame.gif" alt="" />
I do agree with DAD.

To keep it simple... they just don't look so nice/balanced as the <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/div.gif" alt="" /> ones.

The character models would not necessarily have to have the same origin to use the same scale, though they may if it was easier to extend them than start from scratch.
I would think Larian has already adjusted the scale of the avatar for higher resolutions, unless zooming all the way out is meant to get a wide overview of the land. In the Evil Islands demo, zooming out is good for traveling, but doesn't show much detail for fights.

I'm all for higher quality avatars (I plan to use Riftrunner to justify upgrading my video card, even if that is not actually a necessity <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> ), but the latest pictures are fairly detailed. The game is still a few months away from release, so I would think/hope the 3D engine will be further optimized to improve quality (Larian doesn't want poor quality avatars any more than we do). 3D will not be as good quality as hand optimized 2D renderings, but the animations will be more fluid and have much greater variety. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

This is precisely what raised my concerns, if DD’s 1024 character had the same number of vertical pixels like RR’s characters then there is no adjustment made at all for 1600 x 1200.

The previous generation of games was set for (640 x 480) x 256 colours specifically for pallet animation.
Backwards compatibility have set the middle range at 800 x 600 such that 640 x 480 would still be applicable while the high end is at 1024 x 768.

Now the tides had changed and I do not know any one who is still using a 640 x 480 screen any more.
Therefore, the true bottom resolution becomes the 800 x 600 and the top resolution becomes 1600 x 1200.
This sets 1024 x 768 as the standard middle. Almost all if not all PCs today support this resolution.

That is why adopting the scale of the DD’s character selection screen would be the wise choice for the 1024 x 768 resolution.

There might be a problem though because it is not only a matter of number of polygons but also the number of pixels being calculated because the polygons are textured and not just plastic flat LEGO.

I already said that quality can hardly be compromised if during motion texture was dropped for an average colour. Only during stand still and breathing is where a full textured character would make such a difference.

Also I gave the comparison between renderings on the fly all the time and rendering before hand at the assembly panel (self-inventory). 16 directions are fair enough, but if too many action sequences were designed rather than walk, run, die, defend, special move, duck, crawl, climb and attack using many weapons, such as back-summersault and an assortment of sward fencing tricks with different style of attack with axe and definitely different animations for Long bow rangers and cross bow darters, then most definitely no one would give any head to resolution loss as long as the character details stay intact.

Here is my benchmark criterion:

If at the 1600 x 1200 resolution I can still see (not imagine) that my unequipped avatar has two eyes and two ears, a mouth and a nose, then that would be fine. OTOH, if at that resolution I see a ball of sponge then it is not fine at all.
Let us put a single pixel pair for each vertical facial feature:
The chin, the mouth, the nose, the eyes, the brows, the forehead, the head hairline.
Then we have a total of 14 pixels that are 1/6 of the total proportional body.
The minimum height of the avatar at any resolution should never be less than 84 pixels and we are talking about the least quality here.

Think about it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/idea.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

Cheers.


.....172.......110.....84....64

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />

I have uninstalled the Evil Islands demo, but IIRC the size of the 64 pixel Divinity avatar was close to or a little more than size of those characters when zoomed all the way out.
Actually, fighting with the 64 pixel character wouldn't be too bad (you would be able to distinguish major moves and see differences in techniques), but loot would be fairly difficult to see without using the alt key. At this scale, higher resolution would probably need to be zoomed in a bit most of the time.

I guess we need to see <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/riftrunner.gif" alt="" /> in motion. It's hard to compare just the screenshots of both games. I remember before the first video (with the new interface) was out and the people just looked at the <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/div.gif" alt="" /> screenshots they all complained about how (dated) bad they look. After they saw it in motion, their mind changed.
The advantages of 3D characters is also a thing, we have to look at. If you wear a hat in <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/riftrunner.gif" alt="" /> for example , you'll see the hat graphics actual in the game, not a "replacement" helmet graphic which was the case in <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/div.gif" alt="" />.

Has anybody taken into account that there is a zooming finction implemented in RR , so that the avatar-picture DAD has presented might look not as good as the "original" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/div.gif" alt="" /> avatar because of two facts : a) that the resulution might be notably higher and b) the zooming function is not used ?

Another point :

You do know what happens when you apply a high compression method to JPG pictures, do you ? Things like "pixilating" and "creating pixel artifacts" ?

Letz's imagine a 2 MB Bitmap picture, and someone wants to make is considerably smaller. He or she applies a *strong* level of available JPEG picture compression, thus creating artifacts in the picture itself.

We must know the source of the picture itself, the applied compression method - and, better, the original picture itself.

The best would be a picture, zoomed down to the char as near as possible, and that without *any* compression method applied.

THAT would be a good basis to judge from.

We may consider this for future shots... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />


I'am impressed. You just hit the spot... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

We'll just have to wait for the first in game video, i guess.
But if you see the screenshots on the riftrunner site, the avatar and monsters seem to be very high detailed.

look at this screenshot screenshot ,and then tell me that the avatar, his companion, and the evil men, still doesn't look good.

Now try to imagine the same screen at 1600 x 1200.
Can you?

looking at the static images in 'peek of the week' at rpgvault, i guess it's ok. may not be as good as DD but if this means better animation fluidity, then it's ok in my book. after all, i think RRR's animation as well as pix quality won't sink as low as lionheart, i hope.

still, i'd like for DAD's idea 2 come true if it's proven 2 be the one that can make RRR graphically better. fyi, DAD's idea is to have high quality avatar when not in motion(e.g. standing, crouching) & relatively lower quality when in motion. this is 2 ease the job of rendering for the hardware & software & therefore CPU cycles can be diverted 2 more meaningful processes such as AI or other stuff.

marian didn't say anything about this. is this because graphics dept is almost done with their job therefore not going 2 change much except maybe higher resolution support & zooming features? this can mean the ideas most probably will be KIV.

hope marian can enlighten us on this.

There is something very messy concerning the screen shots on previews.
Some are 720 x 540!
Some are 800 x 600.
The last two at the imps’ village are 1024 x 768
Ok, so to test the quality I set my desktop background as one of those last two and adjust my resolution accordingly. At 1600 x 1200 the avatar is too small and unacceptable. At 1024 x 768 the size is not bad but the details are washed out into limbs and torso identification only (no features whatsoever). Even by setting the resolution at 800 x 600 and centring the 1024 x 768 screen I get a bigger avatar with the same bad details.

Some of you posted that the details were very good, but I am left reeling to such declarations. What is the meaning of good or bad details unless there were some technical benchmarks? It is not a matter of personal taste or polite favours. I would consider myself to be a liar if I declared that the avatar details are wonderful or fabulous. I would be misleading the Larians. I said before that creating the screens at 800 x 600 and zooming out is a bad technical choice. To support high resolutions the avatar must be created at the highest supported resolution with full details so that zooming in makes no difference else than size enlargement while keeping the good details intact.

To cut it very short, I have concluded that the polygon count of the avatar was severely cut down beyond necessary thresholds to enable T3D rendering in real-time and fast game speed. I would rather suggest fixing the game speed at 24 fps to allow time for better rendering than to cut down on details to allow a 100 fps, which is hardly required. It is not true that a difficulty level should be such that the avatar must perform reflexes in a crazy speed. Hit points and the number of generated foes should be quite enough for difficulty levels.

We might have all missed the fact that in some screens there would be a horde of foes which all demand rendering in real time. I would rather limit the maximum number of NPCs per screen than limit the detail resolution of each NPC. We also have particle effects of casting spells and glowing items etcetera, so time is really valuable but mathematics is there to solve those problems by setting priorities and calculating limits accordingly.

Think about it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/idea.gif" alt="" />

"It is not true that a difficulty level should be such that the avatar must perform reflexes in a crazy speed. Hit points and the number of generated foes should be quite enough for difficulty levels." DAD

i agree that difficulty shouldn't translate to severity in twitch factor. however increments of hit points & number of generated foes means that most of the time, unless the characters we play have means 2 counter that. i mean ways other than mass killing. which is why AI is important. more cerebral(less number of enemies & a hell lot smarter) rather than visceral fights(a lot of dumb boggies). plus damage locations(head, torso, etc) & critical hits can make fights more tactical than hack & slash.
sorry, <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/offtopic.gif" alt="" />

it'll be mighty helpful if marian can address the issues that dogs DAD. the dude has problem sleeping already. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" />

just joking.

marian, please don't make RRR animation suck as much as lionheart.