[Nonsense] - An optimization idea for games

If it's not ZDoom, it goes here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Darkcrafter
Posts: 564
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:42 am
Operating System Version (Optional): Windows 10
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support

[Nonsense] - An optimization idea for games

Post by Darkcrafter »

There is one idea that came to my mind and I can't forget about it for some real while. No, no, no it's not about just doom. It's about decreasing the load on both CPU and GPU in huge environments rendering.

There is a good old trick of culling anything behind a certain distance and then putting fog so that culled "nothing" can not be seen. What if a game engine would utilize pre-rendered 360' panoramic spheres or boxes and use them as skybox or going a much more complicated way - rendering such panoramas not just as a diffuse texture but ones also having depth-buffer info so the game objects in the far could be sorted by depth and occluded by those skybox "objects" correctly, like monsters other players, cars etc. If went even further there would be like 2 - 5 spheres one inside each other to enhance the parallax effect being constantly updated but not as often as the main screen does so the performance on the main screen doesn't drop down that much... :laff:

Of course there must be a big load of such panoramas scattered and tied up closely together in the 3d space grid, pre-rendered or rendered in the game process.

Some modern games substitute distant 3d models with sprites, like Far Cry 5 does it with trees and it worked pretty nicely as far as I remember.
User avatar
Kinsie
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:22 am
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
Location: MAP33
Contact:

Re: [Nonsense] - An optimization idea for games

Post by Kinsie »

"Optimising" by creating more huge skybox textures filling up already-taxed memory and disk space?

Would also take up the time of artists and QA to make sure all of these pseudo-skyboxes look right at every part of the world.

Seems like a solution in search of a problem, frankly.
User avatar
Darkcrafter
Posts: 564
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:42 am
Operating System Version (Optional): Windows 10
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support

Re: [Nonsense] - An optimization idea for games

Post by Darkcrafter »

Yes that would take some memory, perhaps with such technique it's better to render them in the game process. Like if player had a volumetric grid around itself of certain size that would describe a potential of movement but if there is a teleport in front of the player then that system would also need to pre-render at least 1 panorama around the teleport target.
User avatar
Kinsie
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:22 am
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
Location: MAP33
Contact:

Re: [Nonsense] - An optimization idea for games

Post by Kinsie »

...what?
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49067
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: [Nonsense] - An optimization idea for games

Post by Graf Zahl »

The "Nonsense" tag is very aptly chosen. Sorry, this simply cannot work.
User avatar
leileilol
Posts: 4449
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 10:16 am
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her
Location: GNU/Hell

Re: [Nonsense] - An optimization idea for games

Post by leileilol »

I 'get' the idea and having depth involved with a few baked frames about a distance cubemap would look horribly poppy. To do this "best" would mean rendering a whole scene in a tiny buffer which can clip in, and that'd only really benefit 6th gen console hardware (PS2 etc) as a makeshift depth of field effect/optimization given the architecture. This would only ease up on the overdraw and wouldn't ease the CPU any.
Darkcrafter wrote:Some modern games substitute distant 3d models with sprites, like Far Cry 5 does it with trees and it worked pretty nicely as far as I remember.
You may want to look at Trespasser....
Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic”