I’ve looked at my game assets from various stores… and I see that I have rocks from 20 triangles to around 20k. (Discounting megascan nanite meshes which have millions).
Why few hundreds? Why not keep it at few k? Or go full retopo and bring it even lower?
I suspect people making asset packs pick a size they like. there must be a range of potential users from mobile to proper pc games and the sizes wanted can vary.
Hed does say at the start of that cogitation, that the 4000 he has is not much, then goes on to reduce it, probably as he feels he can. It probably reflects what he has been asked to do himself as real work.
What I find hilarious is Grant saying A Tribute, instead of ATtribute. Time after time. 
Yeah, after giving it some thought and discussing this on discord… The conclusion is: it depends. It would be best if Grant did provide his rationale for the choice though…
To make it more realistic when zooming in on details in an animation?
Yes, that would be a reason to keep it higher poly… Also if they will be small or barely visible in the scene, you could keep them lower poly. Or if this is for a game, you could add level of details (as you don’t really control what player will zoom on in)… Or if you plan a game for mobile, maybe one should go even lower poly… or if you plan to have 100k of those the poly count should be low, etc. etc.
I think I’m just asking if anybody has a mind reading device that could read Grant’s mind to have explanation why he choose this range of triangles instead of any others…
I saw an (old blender) video, about the technical difficulties of zooming in from space onto a tiny detail on earth. All sorts of switching on and off objects with more detail when the previous object became blurry (out of vertices).
This rock video in the course made me play with megascan rocks… those nanite ones… with millions of triangles… it surprised me how smooth and how fast it works…
This topic was automatically closed 24 hours after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.