Map FPS affected more by polygons or scenery + bouncy polygons.

[Mr. Domino]

I'm trying to create a map right now, but I want to know before I go further if it's better to use polygons or scenery to create things and how they affect the game's FPS. Is it better to use, say, 20 pieces of scenery to recreate what I can do with 100 polygons? I'd think scenery would be worse since that'd add to the total map file size, though I wonder if multiple polygons loading textures would offset that or be worse.

Also, is there any sure fire way to create a bouncy polygon? I'd read Chakra's guide to elimate them and another thread saying more overlapped polygons create the bounce effect, but it seems so hit or miss and it's getting old having to constantly test the environment I want bouncy.

[-WildBill-]

depends on the scenery. lets say you have 20 sandbags. thats gonna run fine compared to 20 of like amb_cloud.png or some other massively detailed .png file. polygons are fairly simple to register, since its just three lines filled with a simple texture. I would think scenery would be more graphically demanding, but I honestly dont knwo for sure... it'd be interetsing to test/find out.

as for the trampoline effect, Ive tried it too, and Ive found you just hafta place polygon after polygon after polygon on the same spot, and after litterally 150+ tries itll be bouncy (though it depends how much bounce you conisder to be enough). if it were me, Id put like 5 or 10 on the same spot, then drag a box around em to select each one, then hit Duplicate, select each vertex, and drag it onto the desired location. then maybe select that whole new polygon made of 10 overlapping ones, dupe, wash, rinse, and repeat. g'luck!

[Mr. Domino]

depends on the scenery. lets say you have 20 sandbags. thats gonna run fine compared to 20 of like amb_cloud.png or some other massively detailed .png file. polygons are fairly simple to register, since its just three lines filled with a simple texture. I would think scenery would be more graphically demanding, but I honestly dont knwo for sure... it'd be interetsing to test/find out.

Yeah, I would like to see some kind of stress test to see what really strains a CPU in rendering the map. Is the 500 scenery limit there because it is more taxing than polygons, which can number into the thousands? I don't know.

if it were me, Id put like 5 or 10 on the same spot, then drag a box around em to select each one, then hit Duplicate, select each vertex, and drag it onto the desired location. then maybe select that whole new polygon made of 10 overlapping ones, dupe, wash, rinse, and repeat. g'luck!

Thanks for the help. My concern relating to both is doing a large bouncy area and the constant overlapping raising the polygon count by quite a bit. I was wondering if it'd be better to use scenery to cheat and fill in holes normally used by textured polygons since I'd be burning through so many creating the bouncy objects. Guess I'll have to continue along and find out in the end.

[Avarax]

from my experiences, these things have a very bad effect on fps:

-highly stretched scenerys
-many transparent scenerys
-more 300 polygons overlapping
-more than a total of 2000 polys on a map

[Hootie hoo]

from my experiences, these things have a very bad effect on fps:

-highly stretched scenerys
-many transparent scenerys
-more 300 polygons overlapping
-more than a total of 2000 polys on a map

Yeah, I can confirm all of that...
But using scenery doesn't really add much at all to the filesize of the map, as far as I can tell, using one bit of scenery only takes up a tiny bit of space so the mapmaker knows the
-Directory of the file to use (eg, C:\Soldat\scenery-gfx\rocks.bmp)
-Color
-Position
-Rotation
-Stretchyness
-Depth