This is the time for "techno-superstition" indeed!

"Fake" tessellation, understood as the works of an internal graphics processor inside the video card is not exactly what is going to make higher detailed renderings!

High tessellation levels are useful at the creative phase. When the artist is creating a 3D model and he has a LOT of polygons to work with, he can add relief details, or can use it to generate normal bump maps to simulate detail.

Artificial tessellation at rendering time is not a "canned wise guy, genius artist" .- What it will do in the best possible case, is to compute smooth surface transitions from one edge to another. It will actually create smoother curved surfaces but will NOT ADD detail of any kind!

Let's say you have a sphere with 64 edges around. Or a typical iClone head with it's bumpy squarish skull shape. Then hardware tessellation will smooth the coarse curve on the sphere or skull surface, making it render smoother and even.

But not with higher detail. On the contrary. It might end up smoothing out surfaces which intended to be coarse!!!!!

Higher tessellation is desirable but at the input point. iClone should be (and actually is) capable of handling higher polygon counts so the ARTIST can CREATE a higher detail mesh.

It would be VERY disappointing to invest in a high price video card, expecting it will do "wonders" with iClone objects. It will do something certainly. At extreme closeup it will smooth those angular surfaces to make them look better, but... that is it!

Higher memory capacity and higher polygon process features are more desirable to improve overall results.

Higher "fake tessellation" is OK if the above requirements are satisfied first!

Capish?

Mike Aparicio-Reallusion Certified Innovative Content Developer

I don't know why, but I have a feeling this is kind of a responce to my DX11 thread.

Well tesilation is useful, but there are othe things such as lighting and more complex shaders. A better GFX card could handle more complex shaders and lighting a bit smoother.

Although, I think iClone could have better coding for it as I loaded a pretty high poly model and it ran fine. But as soon as I started creating the material it got laggy... it was refractive with a reflective channel and some other things. Everything was made from maps aside from the refraction... HDR was on too though.

Oh well, the point is, I think a better GFX card (and anew iClone) would make lighting and shading (and other things) a bit better.

----------------------------------------------------
***BEST OF THE CORE**
:A music reel demonstrating the different types of music I produce for multimedia. Hope everyone enjoys.


Player not working? Use this link.

My other audio work.

Facebook page:

Creation begins at the core.

Sorry Mike but what do you mean about fake tessellation? In dx 11 , the tessellation is real, it will subdivide the model as you get closer to it and it will displace the geometry based on a height map if there is one. So I dont get your post here.

The smoothing you are describing is just one of the many benefits of dx11.





Product Specialist

My iClone 7 gallery

My IMDB

Maybe he was talking about the current method of tessilation for DX9c.

----------------------------------------------------
***BEST OF THE CORE**
:A music reel demonstrating the different types of music I produce for multimedia. Hope everyone enjoys.


Player not working? Use this link.

My other audio work.

Facebook page:

Creation begins at the core.

Thanks for participating in this discussion, folks!

This is what the forum is, and not for plain, annoying constant advertising of products.

Let me explain. By "fake" I mean something the original object has not. Something "added" by the hardware which was not part of the creative process. Certainly it is some sort of fake addition.

No matter it is a product of clever engineering, it is an arbitrary modification to the original element subject to the hardware process. Agree?

I appreciate you help me, and all visitors, to understand better the features involved in "artificial" tessellation. (Like the term better?) Mainly regarding the displacement map feature. It seems to be a good idea in principle, but I would like to see it applied and the problems involved in creating a normal map suitable for it, which would attain the correct displacement proportions.

My point is: Why resorting to "artificial" enhancements when the easiest, purist, under the creative control approach, is simply to allow higher mesh densities? Of course improvements in light, rendering and other features are in Reallusion developers possibilities.

Automatons are trying to get control of the World. Now they are trying to get control of the creative process. It seems they are reaching a dreadful degree of success, at least in public opinion...

Among the artificial enhancements I would like iClone to be able to use is PhysX, which does not alter or "enhance" the original mesh but adds the required flow and collision detection so much desired. It is already available in most current nVidia and other brand cards.

I would say it is the next, logical step for iClone.

Anyway; all above and below are plain opinions, including mine!

Mike Aparicio-Reallusion Certified Innovative Content Developer

Hi Mike,
Now that i know what you are talking about, I could not disagree with you more. What you call "fake" I call it "smart". IT is pointless to be a purist on a realtime engine. Why throw polygons at it just because it can or it cant handle it? The "smart" thing to do is tessellate the object when it needs to. Example"
a Knight of the round table is in the distance at the far end of a long hallway. Why be stuck with a 40000 polygon object when the same could be done with a 4000(or less) one at that distance, and have it increase resolution as it gets closer? so that if you want, you can do a close up of the eye and see why he had a tear on his cheek because of a bee sting on his upper lip. Without dx11 you would require multiple models, because the 40000 poly one would not hold up to the close up. But with dx11 the model would have auto tessellate itself to 100000 so that it could. See my point?
One thing i do agree with you, if the model is not well done from the beginning, then dx11 is not going to make it more beautiful, but if the model is created with the proper edge flow and great looking in its native source then dx11 would be able to enhance it greatly.

Cheers,

Stuckon3d



Product Specialist

My iClone 7 gallery

My IMDB

OK StuckOn3D!!!

I guess we both are "stuck" on 3D!!!!

Your explanation on adaptative resolution (automatic tessellation if you want to), does have a point.

What I would have to disagree is in the observation about "why throwing lots of polygons to the render engine"...

Maybe I cannot make my self clear enough and I feel sorry for it. What I mean is: If the Graphics Engine is capable of handling lots of polygons, even "manufacture" lots of them to adapt for lower resolution needs when objects are far, then:

Higher polygon counts at input time, objects with more polygons allow the artist to create characters which are more realistic and not only based on "fake" (allow me the term, please) bump generated detail and texture simulation.

We can see most iClone Avatar clothing is flat as a "tortilla", no matter how much "detail" is placed in the bump and texture maps. Coat lapels and shirt collars are a good example. They look totally body painted!!! (except for MagicSuit, of course! )

Higher level 3D programs, use polygons for the clothing details too. Not to say about hair, ears and even facial details and such.

I would like to see how, one of those new, expensive "smart tessellating" cards would miraculously fix such flatness. I am affraid actually it would make them even flatter!!!!

Anyway, if you or me have the chance of actually using one of those little monsters, then examples and tests will speak for ourselves!

EDIT: After reading carefully again your last post, I see you are thinking on terms of a "Real Time Engine"... Ohhhh!

That is different! I am NOT a real time advocate at all. Worse in a production program. OK with video games... OK!

Then... All what you say is correct. Then all I say is correct too!!! But in terms of production. VIdeo production. NON real time rendering!

I can see you think in Real Time engines. OK! Interesting!!! We are BOTH right although impossible to disagree more.. As you said... Ha,ha,ha

I enjoyed this good chat!

Mike

Mike Aparicio-Reallusion Certified Innovative Content Developer

Edited
14 Years Ago by Apparition

Hey Mike... The tessilation thing would probably be like subdeviding. So in order for a shirt choler to be there, it has to be modeled in the object from the start. But reallly, how many polygons could that take up... maybe 7 to 10? So when you got closer, the card would just add more to that and make it nicer and smoother.

And the tessellation doesn't add off any random figure, it goes by the normal and bump maps for guidence... kinda like Zbrush. In Zbrush, you can use "HD Geometry" That's over a billion polygons to have that PERFECT crack in that stone pole on the side of the forgotten temple in the middle of nowhere. ... even in a non-realtime engine, no one's going to want to sit there and wait for that or even work with that in a normal OpenGL preview when they could have it be a normal or displacement map.

Displacement maps create polygons at render time. In this same way, DX11 creates the polygons when needed and puts them where the artist tells them to go based on the normal map. When you get close to an object, you can still have Level of Detail so when your close, that 40000 model gets replaced with an artist-created 80000 poly model and that could get tessilated even further... or maybe it just gets replaced with a model that has more detail in general and that would get tessellated.

Oh, and the reason we keep mention realtime graphics engines is because iClone uses a realtime graphics engine (Drect X 9c)!

Now I'm all for non-realtime engines. I know they have better lighting, but I've said it before and I'll say it aga; I... HATE waiting... LONG PERIODS of time to render to see how ONE TEXTURE looks on an object.

That's really quite annoying to me. This is why I'll settle for realtime. It's not perfect, but it's close.

That being said, I agree that non-realtime does look much nicer. I just don't like re-rendering an object 10 times to see how that ONE SHADOW falls on it. Let's not forget that each time is about a 30 second or a minute wait... So that's 5 to 10 minutes I've taken just to wait and see how a material interacts with a light. THAT is very annoying.

Also, with non-realtime software, when animating objects, it doesn't move very smoothly so I don't get a real idea of how it'll move when it's finished. A good example of this is with Carrara or sometimes even DAZ Studio. I asked how to make things move smoother and they told me to use bounding boxes... You try animating with nothing but colorful blocks as your person and tell me how that goes.

All in all though, I understand both sides of the argument.

----------------------------------------------------
***BEST OF THE CORE**
:A music reel demonstrating the different types of music I produce for multimedia. Hope everyone enjoys.


Player not working? Use this link.

My other audio work.

Facebook page:

Creation begins at the core.

Hi DreamCube!

I was wondering why you did not come up before!

At this point I feel so diluted in arguments! I feel all my experience since 3Dstudio R1,2,3 and 4, all my work doing one of the earliest 3D creation programs, R2Tor, which was written for the CP/M platform!!!! All my work with all versions of MAX, Poser and the rest of software junk, has been for nothing....

Oooops! I've been so much mistaken! Wow!

No! Let me get serious! Don't take me for a stone, incapable of understanding your views. Nevertheless more than anything they are subjective... "boring, tedious, lazy, impatient, etc. as to wait for a result! I agree... I agree!

But, let's face it. What iClone and similar programs are :WYSIWYG !!!! We prefer to live with "what we see as what we will get" just for not having to wait for an outstanding render. It's like having a date with an incredible, glamorous femme fatale, just to accept a little good might kiss! But a quick kiss from Sophia Loren!!!!

I think there is some logic in what I say: The more polygons the artist has to build details, the more "realistic" the model will be. (Nature uses quadrillions of quarks, electrons and protons even to make a nail! ... With all its imperfections!

Fake tessellation should work the other way: Inverse Adaptive Degradation. The farther the object is, the engine should REMOVE unneeded polygons. Oh! That's fair and clever!

Displacement maps.... Hummm. If you worked with those, you will know they are capricious, demanding and unpredictable.... VERY prone to aliasing unless first you have zillions of vertex to push at the right place.

But... Let's make an agreement: If someone "loves" the Ultra-Smart-fake-but-not-so-fake tessellation idea... Salud! Enjoy! be amazed at those unpredictable results. They are fun anyway.. Just like the not so sexy girlfriend which, rather than saying "bye bye now, have this quick little kiss", invites you for a last minute shot... To last 7 hours!!!!!

Mike

Mike Aparicio-Reallusion Certified Innovative Content Developer

Hm, I'm afraid I dont' have any data on Sophia Laren... Sorry.

I was the first person to reply to your original topic. lol

Well the hardware tessellation works good on things that are standard or "generic" like water or grass or trees or something. If it's an actual character, I understand your meaning.

However, even in a character or a building, it can't enhance the physical model, but say there's a large lizzard monster up ahead RAAAAA!!! So when you walk up to it, and get close enough, the skin looks WAY more detailed. The tessellation is only for small and standard details... like the wrinkles on the skin. Now you can see EVERY LITLE BUMP and spec of dirt.

To be more simple, if you just have a single cube, it's not going to make the cube look like more than it is... a cube... it'll just be a VERY smooth nonblocky looking cube... or maybe a rounded cube if it was set to be that way. ... Kind of like you said in the beginning.

Now since I'm more from the interactive/video game end, I enjoy not only seeing the results, but actually MOVING around in realtime in the world.

It's like watching a movie with a beautful girl in it... versus actually being able to talk to her in real life. With the movie, she looks WONDERFUL... but you have to wait for the movie to get produced and edited and then released... with the girl in real life, as soon as you knock on her door, she is there, ready to go out for a fun night on the town!

...er... anyway...

I'm sure you've used Vue before, right? THAT takes a LOOOONG time to render, but the results are usually very good. It took around 30 minutes for one 640x480 frame to render of just a terrain, a few trees, and asky.

After doing some research, I found out that it renders faster on a better system. Now before, I've stated that if people are complaining that they don't want iClone to have this or that because they don't want to get a better card, they should stop complaining and get the hardware needed. It's their movie, they should invest if they want the quality.

So in the same way, Vue and non realtime 3D apps do take longer, but if I want to speed thigns up, it is up to me to make it do so.

That being said, non realtime software is better for pictures and thigns, but it's a little harder to work with.

Even though the DX11 tessellation is kind of hit and miss, it's good enough to fool most, so it works.

----------------------------------------------------
***BEST OF THE CORE**
:A music reel demonstrating the different types of music I produce for multimedia. Hope everyone enjoys.


Player not working? Use this link.

My other audio work.

Facebook page:

Creation begins at the core.