Model Requests? (or help)

Post by **Fooli** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:42 pm

LoDs are essential if you want nice looking models, especially in a MMOG where you don't know how many people will be using the same vehicle, or building the same building in the same place.

We don't have a particularly complicated LoD system compared to many games (surprise surprise), where you might have 5 or even 10 different LoD levels, or for very recent stuff very funky automagical dynamic level of detail reduction.

However, even with 3 levels of detail it helps massively to bridge the gap between high spec PCs and lower spec machines... if they're done properly.

Possibly we haven't explained enough about this to world owners. When I make a model with LoDs (and I think I'm the only person to have done so) I have to set the distance at which the game will switch between LoD models. I do this by guesswork and based on what I've found works ok for me... but my machine (in terms of graphics capability, the resolution I run at and the size of my monitor) is naturally different from other people's... so where I might not notice a switch from high to medium LoD, maybe someone with a bigger screen would. Or just better eyesight.

Also, a lot of the models still kicking around (eg the old oil refinery building) were built with LoDs about 6 years ago or something... when a) we all had lower spec machines and b) I probably didn't know what I was doing, as much.

The solution is simple if you're running a world... change the LoD settings on your local world copies of models, so you can't see the detail being reduced. The aim is to have the model switch just at the point you can't tell the difference.

As for my comment... well yeh, still agree with that. But eventually we also have to accept that we need to change the content (ie models and their LoDs) to keep up with progress, too :] It doesn't matter how powerful your PC is, 20 people using a 10000 poly vehicle model without any detail reduction is still gonna pose problems, with our engine anyway.

f

fhko · Post by **fhko** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:30 am

I've been working on a texture modification process to try and get it more realistic without too much trouble or use of additional programs.

Let me know what you think.

Before:

After:

Bumped_ale

Before:

After:

Can you really tell the difference? Have I just ruined a perfectly good texture? Any suggestions?

zaroba · Post by **zaroba** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:40 am

honestly?
i can't tell the difference except for the fact that the 'before' ones are more vibrant in some spots

Post by **Fooli** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:00 pm

Zar you need your eyes testing :) For the barrels, anyway. I can't see much difference in the house. The barrels look loads better in the "after" shot - there's more apparent depth to the wood. Only thing I'd say (well I've already said to fhko) is that the banding on the barrels looks indented when I think it should look like its standing proud of the wood. The shadow should be on the outside edges, not inside. Otherwise it's very nice I think.

I'm not sure what happened with the house - those tiles and the rendered wall are quite blurry textures anyway, and maybe that just meant the effect was lost somewhat.

f

fhko · Post by **fhko** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:15 pm

The problem is that it would require me doing this process independently for each groove to make sure that everything is more or sticking out at the right direction. Very time-consuming as it would mean a whole lot of rotating, copying, pasting, re-aligning, negative imaging, etc. For these I merely did a simple apply all for the effect.

Keep in mind I only just started this. I might be able to perfect it with time.

The stone shack sort of highlights the fact that this effect has its limits. I can't really create an edge where there wasn't an edge to begin with.

edit: This might work well for land textures as well.
Before:

After:

It also doesn't ruin the seamless nature of a texture...

Before:

After:

By the way. I'll demonstrate the technique if anyone is interested. I managed to figure it out in about 20 minutes so it really isn't hard.

Post by **Fooli** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:42 pm

I don't know Pixia so I'm not sure what's possible, but a quick Google shows me it does support layers.

So one approach is to create a layer and paint the shadows by hand; potentially do the same for highlights on another layer; and then use the layer blend options (if there are any) to burn/darken/multiply the shadow layer, or dodge/lighten the highlight layer.

Another approach is to use quick n dirty tools like drop shadow and bevel, which you may not have in Pixia but certainly get in PSP, Photoshop and Gimp among others.

Doing this stuff is usually a bit time consuming, but shouldn't involve quite as much fiddling about as you imply. I know I keep going on about it, but maybe it'd be worthwhile learning to use something like The Gimp, just for the pro or near-pro features it has (and, it's free). Or saving up for Photoshop, which is what almost everyone uses (except me, obviously, cos I'm awkward)

I still think the tiled roof texture is the problem, though... you shouldn't really need to go back to it and add the detail, it ought to be there in the texture in the first place.

f

fhko · Post by **fhko** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:57 pm

Hehehehe!

Before

After

It took me an hour of fooling with my image programs, but I finally got the grunge-mongering process worked out. Is that enough black sh*t for you Fooli?

(And yes, I have messy hand-writing...)

Post by **Fooli** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:14 pm

Cool ;]

Don't spend too long worrying about this stuff though. The energy would be better spent convincing mit to put the time in to code multipass rendering, and giving us the ability to have bump maps and the like. I've been trying for a while :)

Even in a still shot the value is obvious:

Moving, it's like night and day.
f

fhko · Post by **fhko** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:48 pm

Yes. Very cool Fooli. I'd definitely set aside more time for modeling if I had a hope of creating something like that.

-------------

But in the mean time, don't you think it would be really cool to have something like this as a wall texture for a building. The possibilities are endless.

morbydvisns · Post by **morbydvisns** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:54 pm

fhko · Post by **fhko** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 3:46 pm

That's pretty.

Does this mean you're taking up modeling as well?

Post by **Fooli** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:53 pm

I hope those petals aren't modelled :]
f

morbydvisns · Post by **morbydvisns** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:02 pm

ive got a few various models ive put togeather, for ariya.. was just piddling to add some depth to the landscape. the stems are a bit poly heavy. its just piddling.

fhko · Post by **fhko** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:23 pm

I did some searching around the web recently and it turns out that in some small regions of the globe that I'm worshiped like a god.

----

I'm just having too much fun with this stuff.

fhko · Post by **fhko** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:40 am

Southeast New Zealand Cave Painting Circa 3500 B.C.

What else is there to say but: Intergalactic Grape Monster!!

World's of yesteryear.

The Shroud of TUrin?

------

Just had to get these out of my system. Now I'll stop with this foolishness and do something productive.

fhko · Post by **fhko** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:03 pm

On to more serious matters...

Fooli I've been meaning to ask you what you think is the best method to match the coloration of different parts of a model if the images those parts originally came from were different (or even in the same image but lighted differently). I've tried in the past to simply use the color adjust setting until I thought they were close, but it always seems like even the slightest variation in overall color is immediately apparent in the final model.

Obviously I could do a grayscale and then set everything to a particular hue, but that takes out all the natural hue variation that you would find in more realistic textures.

Do you have any methods you like to use?

Post by **Fooli** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:15 pm

The short answer is that the basic technique is colour matching.

The long answer is that you need the right tools and you need to know how to use 'em :]

The difference between doing it successfully and unsuccessfully lies in your skill and experience and the tools you use. I'm no expert, I just mess about until it looks ok. I don't know what capabilities you get in Pixia but in PSP I rely on basic hue/saturation/contrast/brightness controls for simple stuff, through to more detailed control over RGB balance and histogram functions and so on. In Photoshop I suspect you get even more control.

But really I just guess. Sometimes it just isn't possible to get a perfect match - so you have to make do, or find different source images. When I can't use an existing photo "as it is" I often look for the next best thing - a seamless texture or something I can use to make one - and fill with that instead of the original photo or whatever. All just depends.

f

fhko · Post by **fhko** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:52 pm

Alright.

At some point in the oh so distant future. I'm planning to devote a lot of time toward perfecting the Greek house model I'm currently signed up to build as sort of a culmination of everything I've learned to do thus far.

When and if I ever get that time to devote to it is another matter. This week is looking to be hellish from my view of things.

other f

fhko · Post by **fhko** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:17 pm

Give me use of .png textures and I'll give you some wicked nice trees. I can't do leaves otherwise. Blue-255 has always been a terrible limitation.

Post by **Fooli** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:08 pm

I thought we did support png, but if not you can still use tga. Don't use bitmaps for, er, that thing we were discussing. We need proper alpha stuff going on... it all starts with a very nice hires pic of a tree branch or two in tga format, a nice bark texture, and the rest is mostly fiddling around with placement of planes on a cylindrical trunk/branch model, trying to copy the way trees actually grow. It's a lot harder than it sounds :]
f