Renzatic on 12/12/2010 at 22:30
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
If you need more than 2000 polys for a prop object, you're doing it wrong.
What LarryG said. For some things, 2k polys is overkill. But what if you want to do a detailed fountain? What about architectural details? A statue? In some cases, it'd be nice to use a few more polys than what Dark allows.
Nameless Voice on 12/12/2010 at 23:20
Quote Posted by LarryG
These are two very different statements. The first is a statement which is verifiable as incorrect.
Not that incorrect. There's nothing stopping you from having very detailed terrain made out of objects, except that objects are not lit properly and don't have proper polygon-based physics models (both unrelated to complexity). The limit of ~2000 polygons per object isn't such a huge deal in most cases - consider that ideally objects should be built of as few polies as possible, but with efficient use of those polies. The onscreen object limit of ~128 is a much more significant issue, in this case. And it should hopefully be quite easy to remove that particular limit.
LarryG on 12/12/2010 at 23:48
I stand by my statement that objects with too many polys cause DromEd to crash immediately. This was made abundantly apparent when making my OEM bone replacements. The quality of the ribs in particular were severely limited by by the per object poly restriction. I had to do a lot to bring down the polys in some of the larger skeleton pieces, and I was never able to get a truly satisfactory spine modeled within the poly limits. The whole skeleton objects I didn't even attempt because of the limit.
Nameless Voice on 13/12/2010 at 01:44
That is true, though generally speaking it's only very complex (organic) shapes that need that many polygons. Accursed organics and their bones.
Yandros on 13/12/2010 at 03:01
...unless you're Saturnine, in which case you make a fancy bed with 2300 polys that crashes Dromed. :D
He wasn't happy with having to lower the polys.
MoroseTroll on 13/12/2010 at 08:26
nickie: Alas, Eidos still haven't released the source. So our crusade isn't over.
AFAIK, both Thief 1&2 are DX6-applications (i.e. with no Hardware T&L in DX7+), so, in case of increasing of polygon count, a CPU will handle all of them, not a GPU. And since the Dark Engine is a single-threaded application, its upgrade will take a significant amount of time, IMHO. Perhaps, OPDE is much more optimized. If it so, maybe we'd use the Dreamcast-talk.com materials to complete the OPDE, not to build the Thief 1&2 fixed executables?
Syndy/3 on 13/12/2010 at 13:38
I don't see why everyone's making such a big fuzz about Eidos getting in on this. After all they were already considering to release the code, but stuck on the legal implications, god bless 'em.
Although at this point they might simply not know about the leak yet, when they learn, Eidos may well be relieved that this isn't their problem any more and further on ignore it.
What's in it for them when they came crashing down on this, except annoying a bunch of potential THI4F and DX:R customers? It's not harmful to them and they certainly will understand that they cannot reverse the leak anyway.
voodoo47 on 13/12/2010 at 14:00
they simply hate it,just like they hate it when people trade 2nd hand games (or,god forbid,fileshare).they somehow feel their holy rights are being violated,and their just retribution must be swift and deadly.no logic or reason in this,it is simply how things are.
just like when (
http://www.mpelletier.net/temp/dead_letter/) EA stopped the SS2 remake-there was no way how this project could have been harmful to them in any way,yet,they destroyed it as soon as they could..
Myagi on 13/12/2010 at 14:02
Quote Posted by Syndy/3
After all they were already considering to release the code, but stuck on the legal implications
Maybe it's just me, but I think such companies will always say they're considering something, because it gives them goodwill "oh look how nice they are, they're thinking about releasing the source/editor/sdk", even if they internally immediately thought "no way in hell". I wouldn't put too much weight on such statements made, only actions count on this matter, and on that front there has been painfully little.
Syndy/3 on 13/12/2010 at 14:40
Quote Posted by voodoo47
just like when (
http://www.mpelletier.net/temp/dead_letter/) EA stopped the SS2 remake-there was no way how this project could have been harmful to them in any way,yet,they destroyed it as soon as they could..
That was a long time ago, before EA had decided to make Dead Space instead of System Shock 3.
I think you should put a bit more trust into people, even if you're bound to get disappointed by some. Because if I was an Eidos employee (which I'm not) and read how many here are snickering about Eidos having no clue yet, the perceived need to go underground, because Eidos will do this and that and was "sitting on the source code" and all that - then I'd be pissed.
As some have suggested here, I'd just go and inform them that we have it. They might say:
Oh well. They might say:
We cannot allow you to distribute and use it. - but not do anything. And finally they might send those cease and desist letters. In that case it would still be an option to work underground.
But at least we knew then what their stance is and we could say with a clean conscience that we tried our best and showed goodwill, even when we didn't had to, and not just when we wanted something from them.
The fact that they haven't released the code themselves yet, says nothing about their attitude, it might very well be a complicated legal issue. And one that's understandably not very high on their priority list. But that still doesn't make them the devil worshipping bastards from hell that some paint them as here.
In any case, the way it's going now, you're provoking them to come down on this by acting like snickering smartasses yourselves.
