Greetings. THe purpose of this thread is to identify correct (and incorrect) mapping checkstyles, i.e. establish what are good practices in making a map designed for Halo, and what aren't. This is not a thread where I blab on. Instead, I need advice from those who have experience here.

As an example, Bungie likes to add additional polys to surfaces for the purpose of adding extra detail, bitmap-wise. These faces are nothing more than placeholders of sorts, and do not change the visible appearance of the geometry. Examples include the tunnels of a30, where a ring is used to apply a bitmap for style reasons only. To clarify: these faces do not change surface detail in 3D space. Bungie only uses these to put a wider palette of bitmaps in a single area.

These 'placeholders' can be thought of as extra faces in terms of geometry. They are nice additions for sure, but as I design Requiem and import various pieces from Bungie's work, I often remove these faces, because I would rather forgo the extra prettiness than have a higher poly count.

My question is this: since these polys don't require a change in 3D space to be displayed, but only serve as markers for when one bitmap stops and another begins, is it 'bad' mapping style to include them? Will using them, and subsequently a higher poly count, cause unwanted lag (as compared with not using them)? Or can I use them anyways, knowing that the only thing they really do is tell the game what bitmap to render?

Questions such as these could surely benefit most people here, and I'm looking for ways to optimize the amount of detail in Requiem while still keeping the poly count at sane levels so people can actually play on the map.

EDIT:

To clarify, here is what I mean by placeholding faces:


The 'ring' of faces is used to add some detail via bitmaps, but does not affect 3D space of the surrounding area. As such, that entire wall could be optimized, saving on poly count, but at the cost of detail.
Edited by CAG Gonzo on Apr 7, 2011 at 07:12 AM

You can always use an empty to project the texture onto the mesh and then bake it into the bitmap.
-Zekilk

They add such a low number of triangles, like 12? You wouldn't even notice a lack of performance. To be honest with you, if the Bungie artists saw fit to add them, then by all means you can do it.

Did I mention that you could also use two UVWs?
-Zekilk

No. Not sure what you mean there.

Another point: I've noticed Bungie sometimes splits polys into several smaller polys. Optimizing the two will not change the 3D shape of the object, nor the overall mapping (obviously, you'll have to rescale, but unlike the 'ring' of faces mentioned above, optimizing does not take out any faces that display a different bitmap).

Basically, they appear to be support polys, to reduce the size of large polys, possibly for easier rendering. I personally disagree with them, coming from a relatively strict mass-optimization outlook. Is the inclusion of such faces considered 'bad'? Would optimizing them produce negative effects on in-game rendering, because there is now one large poly in place of several smaller ones? Or, can I go ahead and optimize, knowing that I'll sleep well tonight because I saved myself that many more faces?

The smaller polygons allow for more precise lightmapping, it's not so much to do with rendering.
Edited by The Cereal Killer on May 2, 2011 at 11:51 PM

Would optimizing out these faces produce lighting issues and/or anomalies?