Originally Posted by adam
Hey, I remember having silly questions like this when I was learning too. Relax a bit guys, he was only wondering and now he knows.
Noidea, I like your user name.
It might not be a silly question if it leads somewhere.
I agree, be friendly to new people and ideas is a good way to go. But when they get a little uppity... well polycount only has so many cheeks.
Some of the best innovative ideas start off as hair brain ideas but then turn into something great because someone has the follow through to keep vetting and refining the idea.
You could actually be doing more harm than "us buzzards" by calling it a silly noob idea. It might very well be just that, but we could see where it goes by asking questions and brainstorming.
Asking someone to defend their idea isn't picking on them, its helping them to refine it.
Sooo... Knowing you can fit a quad inside of a tri, how can we use that in game development?
The only idea I have so far is to use slightly larger triangles instead of quads when doing simple things like particle FX or possibly grass, leaves, bushes maybe even decals? There is a chance that you could double the tri count of bushes, leaves and particles which could be a pretty significant impact visually?
That brings up new questions:
1)To get a quad you have to use a pretty big triangle, which means some wasted space? Maybe stretching and distorting the UV's would utilize more of the space? Maybe scale the tri up so it covers 3 tiles putting 3 particles on one tri? For some effects that could be helpful.
2) The opacity map isn't all that tight, meaning you could have large alphas causing a lot of sorting because they aren't as tight.
3) More particles probably means more behind the scenes math, tracking their birth, death collision if any, that could get heavy with more?