"Want To Post A Picture But Don't Want To Make A Thread" - Thread V6: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP POSTI
4,910 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Joazzz;50574624]it's far from rich when it's poorly done
the fucking thing doesn't look like it even has a bump map. are you going to make a rock with geometry only? this isn't the next Pixar film, this is the damn Source engine. seriously look at this shit, are you going to let this slide:
[img]http://i.cubeupload.com/cwHY3y.png[/img][/QUOTE]
There's two props for the ground I used, the one you're highlighting is an experiment where I thought of just pasting over the original texture on it (the one on the walls). I'm surprised it caught your eye. I guess I won't do that one anymore.
yeah that doesn't work, the texture needs to fit the geometry somehow
If the texture is generated from geometry it would look less distorted from grazing angles.
May be worthwhile to create a tiling ground highpoly and bake it down in order to achieve that.
[QUOTE=BlueFlytrap;50575732]If the texture is generated from geometry it would look less distorted from grazing angles.
May be worthwhile to create a tiling ground highpoly and bake it down in order to achieve that.[/QUOTE]
I didn't completely understand what you just said. New to modelling. What is grazing angle? Second sentence I'm having difficulty understanding as well. how does one "bake it down" exactly?
So... I wanted to see if I could make lasers..... ehhhhhhhhhhh. I think I am 1/10th of the way there.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/6FIfEVg.jpg[/img]
what is that guys face
did he shit himself?
[QUOTE=Crazy Knife;50576195]I didn't completely understand what you just said. New to modelling. What is grazing angle? Second sentence I'm having difficulty understanding as well. how does one "bake it down" exactly?[/QUOTE]
Excuse the wall of text I just spent an hour making.
I consider a grazing angle informally as an angle closer to the surface itself than the surface normal.
Basically looking at something angled away from you. The side of a sphere for example.
Baking in this instance would be the transfer of information from one set of geometry to another.
Something similar to this in a sense.
[T]http://i.imgur.com/CXgyxKV.jpg[/T]
The best way I can put it is making a little scenebuild out of geometry rather than just shifting the height of a plane around. That comes later.
Doesn't have to be all one model either. Litter it with as many little bits as you need. Cloning and clipping geometry is allowed since at no point will it be viewed from below. Just make a nice little patch of what you need.
Defined shapes are more important than tiny details so don't bother trying to model in stuff like slight noise in something like dirt. That can be added later with some math anyway.
From there you have a few options depending on what you made. An example being you could bake a heightmap of your highpoly and then apply that to a tessellated plane. Doesn't need to be all that accurate or highpoly so long as it's relatively similar in shape.
Or you could model the lowpoly manually. Whichever works for you.
You can then bake ambientocclusion as well as a normalmap from the highpoly to the lowpoly. What you do with those is up to you.
The heightmap from earlier can then be applied in a similar fashion to some deformed geometry. That way you aren't limited to just little tiling squares.
Get's a little more complicated if the lowpoly was made manually but it can still be deformed into whatever shape you need.
It would get you the best results in terms of visual quality rather than fidelity.
Alternatively some slight edits can be done to some of your existing work.
[T]http://www.wduwant.com/index_uploads/uploads/5dab64c4.jpg[/T]
Generated normal right? Your normal was made for use on a flat surface but isn't applied to one.
Given how tangentspace normalmaps work what I see happening is that the deformations from the geometry and the deformations in the normalmap are being added together.
Gives it a somewhat blobby appearance as as the geometry normals greatly soften pretty much everything.
It would be possible to generate a normal [I]of[/I] a flat surface for your geometry and merge it with your generated normal to solve that if you're up for it.
Has to be done on a per model basis though so if you're sharing that material across multiple models I wouldn't bother.
[QUOTE=Luxuria;50572367]How many WW1 screenshots have you honestly seen here without trying to passive aggressively make a point that's already been done to death?[/QUOTE]
pages and pages of them? it's nice to see varation from different artists rather then the same era repeated consistently only with different camera angles / models.
[QUOTE=Elite Phazon;50580858]pages and pages of them? it's nice to see varation from different artists rather then the same era repeated consistently only with different camera angles / models.[/QUOTE]
Please link me the 'pages and pages' of WW1 poses then since the most I've seen in recent memory is 2.
[QUOTE=Luxuria;50580902]Please link me the 'pages and pages' of WW1 poses then since the most I've seen in recent memory is 2.[/QUOTE]
They're more frequent then original scenes, it's not like there's an entire page dedicated to WW.
[img]https://my.mixtape.moe/iodutd.png[/img]
Watch out. The gap in the door…
it’s a separate reality.
The only me is me.
Are you sure the only you is you?
Hey Rama, I noticed you on the Espionage Wars Thread, you always leave a Post rating, but you never actively participate.
[QUOTE][IMG]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/263840145951116917/F525872FC20C2EC5D4831B9C212342DDF5E85F90/[/IMG][/QUOTE]
This was for ESP. wars.
[QUOTE=Elite Phazon;50581161]They're more frequent then original scenes, it's not like there's an entire page dedicated to WW.[/QUOTE]
Sure, it's not like most people are doing non-WW stuff right ?
[editline].[/editline]
If you don't like WW themed stuff, just ignore it for fuck's sake, people here make the content they want to.
[i][b]Sunday Sunday Sunday, come on down to the MetroDome and watch as tough trucks compete in the big air event![/b][/i]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/evSyetc.png[/t]
Not really a pose per-se, I was playing around with one of my trucks on a LAN server and this was one of a handful of screenshots taken.
THIS SUNDAY ONLY, TRUCKASAUR VS THE TRUCKINATOR. A ONCE IN A LIFETIME BLOOD BATH.
THE BIG TRUCKS IS GONNA EAT THE LITTLE TRUCKS.
[QUOTE=BlueFlytrap;50579285]
It would be possible to generate a normal [I]of[/I] a flat surface for your geometry and merge it with your generated normal to solve that if you're up for it.
Has to be done on a per model basis though so if you're sharing that material across multiple models I wouldn't bother.[/QUOTE]
So to prevent the blobbiness there's a way of doing it by generating a normal of the flat surface and merging it with the generated normal? Not 100% sure how to do that? Any tips? Yea, I think it's gonna be just a model per model basis that I'm gonna do it as.
Here is a little scene build I made a bit ago.
[IMG]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/277345873851581223/7D1EB80E55D0D381C25584996759AD1CDD390A4A/[/IMG]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/QfZQYFP.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Crazy Knife;50586728]So to prevent the blobbiness there's a way of doing it by generating a normal of the flat surface and merging it with the generated normal? Not 100% sure how to do that? Any tips? Yea, I think it's gonna be just a model per model basis that I'm gonna do it as.[/QUOTE]
The normal should be generated from 2 bits of geometry. The lowpoly being your wall and the highpoly being a plane along where your wall is facing pretty much. Doesn't have to line up all that much.
As per baking itself; xNormal is generally the tool of choice for pretty much everyone. Just generate a normalmap from the two and move on to the next step.
Or if accuracy is of absolutely necessity, render out an object space normalmap instead by unticking tangent space in the normalmap options. From there take that normalmap into a separate (and thankfully now freeware) application called handplane. It allows for baking of tangentspace from objectspace for use in specific game engines. Source included.
Accuracy matters when doing very lowpoly modelling so if you ever get around to that I highly recommend the object to handplane method.
With almost no errors uv seams are effectively invisible.
[IMG]http://orig08.deviantart.net/df0b/f/2016/161/f/3/th6jrs_by_blueflytrap998-da5se6f.jpg[/IMG]
From here there is no right answer as to what to do next. Merging tangentspace is tricky business math wise as tangentspace is not a universal format. There are dozens of ways to do it.
The best results I've gotten were with crazybump but overlaying the red and green channels in photoshop works well enough. Just be sure to generate a new blue channel and lower it a bit so it's no brighter than 248.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/zRtbEvV.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/IzcZ0kI.jpg[/IMG]
originals
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/dDg2fX2.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PRuiGr8.jpg[/IMG]
lighting testerino
i tried new lighting techniques and i fucked up on the post-processing im sorry for hurting your eyes im so sorry
[QUOTE=justinl132;50582403]Hey Rama, I noticed you on the Espionage Wars Thread, you always leave a Post rating, but you never actively participate.[/QUOTE]
I don't believe I'm obligated to actively participate to watch/follow the actions and leave a rating, or am I?
[editline]25th June 2016[/editline]
I'm also going to join at some point so I've been following the action pretty close
[editline]25th June 2016[/editline]
and have some content because I haven't posted anything in a while
[IMG]http://wduwant.com/index_uploads/uploads/1a7726465bdf.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=VIoxtar;50574504]He really shouldn't tone down the geometry - textures should never be prioritized over geometry, especially in ground models and even more so when the goal is for poses and non-gameplay purposes. He just needs to tweak the textures to better suit the geometry. [URL="https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6069/6096869714_0820775a6d_b.jpg"]Good, rich ground[/URL] [I]always [/I]has complicated geometry, it's what makes it rich. rule of thumb. bumpmaps/textures are just not enough
[B]
e: for everyone that disagrees with me: as someone who works with ground modelling as part of his profession, I can assure you you're wrong, take it or leave it. And I didn't mean that CK's models were rich or perfect[/B][/QUOTE]
imho the ground has too much significant vertical variations in a too small space. Yes ground tends to be very detailed, but a lot of the variations tends to happen in a relatively small vertical distance which is why it tends to be simulated with normal maps.
On top of that a lot of that vertical variation happens due to different materials. A solid rock sticking out of mud. A sandier patch somewhat taken down by rain.
Water runoff.
That's another thing - lot of the ground variation comes from erosion patterns and plant matter interrupting them. These erosion patterns can be due to a multitude of factors - wind, water etc.
I will agree with Joazzz that the ground looks significantly more unrealistic than the walls. The walls can easily fit a former sea chasm, water flow eroding them, mollusk and algea discolouring them.
The ground is completely off though. It would either fairly sandy | have a similar look as the walls | be changed by human interaction (cobblestone rather than those weird stones) | have a mud runoff of some sort | be overgrown by some form of algea.
Overall it should result in good and believable transition zones as hard borders are fairly rare in anything but spotless environments. Borders even get softened in less often cleaned constructed environments - dust gathers in edges more than on flat surfaces as a good exmaple.
Look forward to seeing ya in the Thread Rama
Thanks, I should be in by the next month, I'm still thinking if I should use more models, since I already have some and a backstory too
Some stuff I made for esp wars recently
[t]https://my.mixtape.moe/gzubeo.jpg[/t][t]https://my.mixtape.moe/roxpon.jpg[/t]
[t]https://my.mixtape.moe/pplgcy.jpg[/t][t]https://my.mixtape.moe/iwxyyy.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=wraithcat;50595710]imho the ground has too much significant vertical variations in a too small space. Yes ground tends to be very detailed, but a lot of the variations tends to happen in a relatively small vertical distance which is why it tends to be simulated with normal maps.
On top of that a lot of that vertical variation happens due to different materials. A solid rock sticking out of mud. A sandier patch somewhat taken down by rain.
Water runoff.
That's another thing - lot of the ground variation comes from erosion patterns and plant matter interrupting them. These erosion patterns can be due to a multitude of factors - wind, water etc.
I will agree with Joazzz that the ground looks significantly more unrealistic than the walls. The walls can easily fit a former sea chasm, water flow eroding them, mollusk and algea discolouring them.
The ground is completely off though. It would either fairly sandy | have a similar look as the walls | be changed by human interaction (cobblestone rather than those weird stones) | have a mud runoff of some sort | be overgrown by some form of algea.
Overall it should result in good and believable transition zones as hard borders are fairly rare in anything but spotless environments. Borders even get softened in less often cleaned constructed environments - dust gathers in edges more than on flat surfaces as a good exmaple.[/QUOTE]
I agree with everything you said. my (maybe unclear) point was that Joazzz was wrong if he meant CK should lower [B]polygon count[/B] (which he did - i asked him). I agree the ground doesn't look very good, and that variations and extrusions must be as joazzz said 'toned down'. He should play with the shape and variety to make it look more realistic and apply appropriate textures, but [I][B]without[/B][/I]​ touching polygon count, which should stay high
[QUOTE=VIoxtar;50597218]I agree with everything you said. my (maybe unclear) point was that Joazzz was wrong if he meant CK should lower [B]polygon count[/B] (which he did - i asked him). I agree the ground doesn't look very good, and that variations and extrusions must be as joazzz said 'toned down'. He should play with the shape and variety to make it look more realistic and apply appropriate textures, but [I][B]without[/B][/I]​ touching polygon count, which should stay high[/QUOTE]
Ah, happy to see we agree. Imho the polygon count itself is questionable. When given a choice between a high poly count and getting an almost same result with a good application of maps, I'd say go for the maps. But it's always a question of optimisation and control since you can sometimes get weird results if detail in the normal map is also present on the mesh itself. If you ask me - large height islands ought to be modelled in, smaller details baked in. This goes out of the window when you need sharp angular lines, in which case a high polygon count works well, with a weak nrm, definitely generated from the mesh.
It's a shame that props don't support SSbumpmaps. Stuff like this ground would massively benefit from it.
"Want To Post A Picture But Don't Want To Make A Thread" - Thread V6: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP POSTI
