it sort of doesn't for your player character unless you take the piss - and by take the piss I mean you have triangles that are smaller than a 2x2 pixel area of the screen or are a giant mess. geometry is significantly cheaper to render than almost anything else you can think of not saying you should. just saying you…
Any describtion liek "modern" AAA or "next gen" game.. is somehow very "unprecise". It depends on the overal used geometry in the whole scene how "big" the game assets and world "needs" to be. Games which are only running on 1500+ $ cards.. does not sell so well i guess and also are very expensvce in the developement…
Any number anyone gives you is meaningless nonsense. If you make sure the mesh is well optimized you can pretty much ignore triangle count. Re anims@ You rig the actual model? I haven't done much animation work but I remember *always* using low-poly proxies.
It's best to put enough polys in to a character so that it does not look low poly/chunky. why make extra polys where they are not needed? I mean a mesh that has 60,000 tris is not going to look a lot different if it is has 100,000 tris , unless there some particular details that would need to look extra smooth or if he has…
Hi Neox.. lol Yeah i was probably too non specific. Third person AAA, but there will be close ups in cinematics. Example, Mass Effect. Genre, Sci-Fi I'm doing the sculpt retopologizing now... and that's where the question came up
@thomasp woo! nice! yeah that range seems good to me too. One thing that keeps me from going higher is that I use 3d Max to rig, and it's extremely painful to rig in max with hi poly things (at least for me) In fact, I've been thinking of using primarily weight maps based on the UVs rather than go the traditional painful…
My advice is, make a prototype and find out :) Every game is unique. There are too many factors that you need to consider. And the bottleneck isn't the tri count anymore, as mentioned before. Shading, textures, game logic code, particle effects in the scene, and so on.