New texture, created by me:
Comments?
The dark thick green is ok but.....hm, I might want to replace that..not too sure....
flying it on wings feield (renamed the texture at my end) looks pretty sweet
New Spaceship model texture - Opinions?
New Spaceship model texture - Opinions?
Current texture - (as seen on wings field)
New texture, created by me:
Comments?
The dark thick green is ok but.....hm, I might want to replace that..not too sure....
flying it on wings feield (renamed the texture at my end) looks pretty sweet
New texture, created by me:
Comments?
The dark thick green is ok but.....hm, I might want to replace that..not too sure....
flying it on wings feield (renamed the texture at my end) looks pretty sweet
...and if you look you'll notice I said back, not black. The prongs at the back of the model.
Impossible to be 100% sure about the mapping without having the original model file, but those back bits (and also a couple of bits on the underside) show the smearing typical of an improperly mapped model: applying a chequerboard tex to it confirms that for me with at least 95% certainty :)
f
Impossible to be 100% sure about the mapping without having the original model file, but those back bits (and also a couple of bits on the underside) show the smearing typical of an improperly mapped model: applying a chequerboard tex to it confirms that for me with at least 95% certainty :)
f
I don't see what the problem is... Nearly every model has some sort of smearing. It's that way simply because in the case of the back bits, the area is just to small to be worth a 8x32 strip of pixels on the graphic, anything less would look equally as smeared, and anything more wouldn't be noticable.
The underside I would agree with, but can see how it was considdered less important because people would rarely see it long enough to take a look. Sure, it looks less professional, but if that area was textured right, it would probably make the image file larger, or risk having the bottom mirror the top... Almost as bad.
The underside I would agree with, but can see how it was considdered less important because people would rarely see it long enough to take a look. Sure, it looks less professional, but if that area was textured right, it would probably make the image file larger, or risk having the bottom mirror the top... Almost as bad.
Heh. Thus spake someone who obviously doesn't know a lot about the subject :)
Let's look at it in more detail: not because I'm trying to show anybody up, but because if more people took time over mapping we'd have much better quality content in the game.
The area we're talking about - let's just take the top edge of those "prongs" - is significantly larger than other parts of the model that do have proper mapping, and are positioned such that they're much less likely to be seen by the player controlling the ship. For example, the "weapon" prong/nozzle/barrel bits (whatever they're supposed to be) on the wings.
Smearing is horrible and should be avoided at all costs. The fact we can see it in a low-res jpeg screenshot at a size significantly smaller than you'd see it in-game is proof that it is indeed important. Perhaps I'm more sensitive because I build models, and mapping is a huge part of that - but equally, it just looks plain ugly. And it's totally avoidable. That 8x32 strip would be sufficient, and with careful arrangement of uvws would not impact the rest of the texture. Hell, even 4x16 would be better than what's there, which is...nothing. 0x0. Those back bits of the model have obviously been planar mapped, so the main flat edges are absolutely fine. But that's lazy when you have such a large surface joining the two major planes on each side. It should have been unfolded properly, or those smeared top bits should have had their own planar map to fix the problem. Again, we can see it, so it ought to be fixed.
Finally, suggesting that mirroring is bad is just wrong: mirroring is the basis of most game modelling. Much better to have some of the bottom mirror bits of the top than to miss out other bits of the model on the texture entirely.
Maybe zar has the original file in a format that can be remapped... it'd take 10 minutes to fix these problems, tops, and it'd mean Nigel and other artists don't have their good work compromised by sloppy mapping.
This has been a public service announcement :)
f
Let's look at it in more detail: not because I'm trying to show anybody up, but because if more people took time over mapping we'd have much better quality content in the game.
The area we're talking about - let's just take the top edge of those "prongs" - is significantly larger than other parts of the model that do have proper mapping, and are positioned such that they're much less likely to be seen by the player controlling the ship. For example, the "weapon" prong/nozzle/barrel bits (whatever they're supposed to be) on the wings.
Smearing is horrible and should be avoided at all costs. The fact we can see it in a low-res jpeg screenshot at a size significantly smaller than you'd see it in-game is proof that it is indeed important. Perhaps I'm more sensitive because I build models, and mapping is a huge part of that - but equally, it just looks plain ugly. And it's totally avoidable. That 8x32 strip would be sufficient, and with careful arrangement of uvws would not impact the rest of the texture. Hell, even 4x16 would be better than what's there, which is...nothing. 0x0. Those back bits of the model have obviously been planar mapped, so the main flat edges are absolutely fine. But that's lazy when you have such a large surface joining the two major planes on each side. It should have been unfolded properly, or those smeared top bits should have had their own planar map to fix the problem. Again, we can see it, so it ought to be fixed.
Finally, suggesting that mirroring is bad is just wrong: mirroring is the basis of most game modelling. Much better to have some of the bottom mirror bits of the top than to miss out other bits of the model on the texture entirely.
Maybe zar has the original file in a format that can be remapped... it'd take 10 minutes to fix these problems, tops, and it'd mean Nigel and other artists don't have their good work compromised by sloppy mapping.
This has been a public service announcement :)
f
Sure, as long as I know which area's need texturing, but you can do that just be making the model one colour shade and making the texture file yes?Fooli wrote:Oh, and Nigel - if you wanna have a crack at one of the work-in-progress spaceship models we've got in the "to be textured" pipeline, mail me (fooli at theuniversal dot net)
f
existing textures are easier to work with because you can directly "see" what effects what, if I dont know where to texture. it's like texturing blind, and i've done texturing like that before, and it's a nightmare
And i'll email you the texture shortly zar.
Btw, in my first post, the back tails of the original model texture were done by me in the pic, I posted the wrong one, they were previously a plain grey I think, just letting ya know.
One thing I despise about doing this stuff, is that I tend to lose people on about the first line of my wittering.
To continue my earlier diatribe... properly mapped models can then be used to produce clear texture templates, and by notating those templates it's blindingly obvious which bits of the tex affect which bits of the mesh :) Texturing "blind" is basically pointless.
In other words... yes. I can send u a complete template with the various bits outlined and identified. Which oughta make things a bit easier :)
f
In other words... yes. I can send u a complete template with the various bits outlined and identified. Which oughta make things a bit easier :)
f