Hard Light Productions Forums
Hosted Projects - Standalone => Fate of the Galaxy => Topic started by: brandx0 on May 10, 2011, 05:27:51 pm
-
Here we are folks! Been working on this for maybe a month or so now on and off, figured it's about time to show it!
(http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/3249/falconwip001.jpg)
EDIT: Update here, it's done!
(http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/4601/falconwallpaper.png)
-
Will it do .5 past light speed?
-
more like brandsex0
-
naughty, naughty brandx0 you have been holding out on us, just make sure it dont escape your hard drive before you finish ;)
Seriously though its looking good so far, cant wait to see what else you can do with it
-
nice! Roughly speaking, how much of what's left detail-wise will be textures as opposed to greebles?
-
Weren't there different Falcon models in the movie?
-
can it do the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs
-
Will it do .5 past light speed?
can it do the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs
Srsly?? I dunno; check the ships.tbl :P ;)
-
Weren't there different Falcon models in the movie?
Yeah, there were about 4-5 in different scales. The best ones were a 5 foot model built for ANH and then a 32 inch version built for ESB and RotJ. I'm going off of a combination of the two, mostly the 32 inch one, filling in the details I don't have shots of with the 5 foot version
-
Piece of junk (never looked so good)
-
You're modeling that thing? You're braver than I thought.
-
You saw it a couple weeks ago in IRC chief, didn't you? Don't act surprised =P
-
Yeah but that was the first quote I thought of to rip off, and no one else knew I saw it, until now :P
-
Moar:
(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/7278/falconwip002.jpg)
-
Awwwwwwww-suuuuuuumm. :nod:
-
What a picece of junk. :)
Excellent work, Brand.
-
Will the radar dish be a destroyable subobject?
-
Haha, this thread is full of win and makes me smile. This was about the last thing really lacking to round out the basic required iconic Star Wars ships - look forward to seeing it complete!
-
What have you done with my ship?
and yessssssssss!! finally!
-
And another!
(http://img863.imageshack.us/img863/2555/falconwip004.jpg)
-
Will the radar dish be a destroyable subobject?
:lol: I hope so.
-
Aaaaaaaweeeeeesoooooooomeeeee!!! Seriously, keep it up! :yes:
-
What the hell is a Aluminum Falcon?!
-
I think it's related to the Maltese falcon.
-
"You gots da black boid?"
-
I got your promise, not a scratch on that texture?
-
Doubtful...
By the way, update time. Didn't feel like doing a render so we'll just have to make do with a viewport screenshot
(http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/98/falconwip005.jpg)
-
The thing looks enough even without render. :eek2:
-
I most make an update!
(http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/5094/falconwip006.jpg)
-
Excellent.
-
What software is that done in?
-
That's 3DS Max.
And that's a gorgeous Falcon right there.
-
Shadows in the viewport? Lucky...
-
Apparently, the newest 3DS Max is a friggin' beast. You can actually get a decent viewport render it seems.
-
Heh I remember the first(?) mission in TIE fighter involved inspecting a bunch of ships moving through a transit hub near a Imperial station and spending quite a while ogling the YT-1300 that was passing through.
-
And another update, I'll get around to doing a render at some point I'm sure, but Max's new nitrous viewports are pretty enough as is!
(http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/9270/falconwip007.jpg)
-
Will FotG be using the 'new' looking version as a civilian freighter?
Apparently, the newest 3DS Max is a friggin' beast. You can actually get a decent viewport render it seems.
I've been playing around with it, it's pretty neat, but I think I'll stick to blender for now...
-
Not quite. What I'll be doing is finishing the falcon, and then stripping off some of the greebles and modifications to make a stock YT-1300
-
Time to do the Kessel run. :)
-
Man - this already looks far more realistic than most in-game models we've seen before, and you're still far from done! Amazing - keep it up!
-
Figured I'd do up a render for everyone.
(http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/6499/falconwip009.jpg)
-
That is, with the reasonable exception of the unfinished-looking bits on the starboard quadrant of the disc, one of the most perfectly awesome things I've seen all
week month year.
-
But there is one question left:
Will it blend?
Now, seriously it is looking awesome. Looking almost better than most free models that fly around in the net (and this is still WIP) :yes:
-
And another update, I'll get around to doing a render at some point I'm sure, but Max's new nitrous viewports are pretty enough as is!
(http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/9270/falconwip007.jpg)
Brand, I do have to say that the front profile looks a bit too square...
(http://brainsyndicate.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/millennium-falcon-iii.jpg)
I believe the docking ring fairings should slope downward a bit.
-
Nope:
(http://i55.tinypic.com/qx9wxt.jpg)
(http://i56.tinypic.com/4h2qzt.jpg)
-
Umm.. there's definately a subtle slant downwards. Use a straightedge if you have to.
-
Actually after some analysis of my reference shots, there is a very very slight slope, looks like around 2 degrees. I've updated it to reflect this.
Also note that in those images, the falcon is squashed horizontally, I did some correction on this image to pre-empt people going on about how my falcon isn't fat enough =P. Also of note in that department is that the 5 foot falcon is a bit fatter than the 32 inch falcon, which was my reference for this model (As seen in ESB and RotJ, the 5 footer was used for ANH)
(http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/9494/anglesy.jpg)
(http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/2914/falconwip011.jpg)
Also, why am I justifying myself? :P
-
Hmm, but the round part has more of a slope than the "arms"... when viewed from certain angles, it looks like the arms are part of the circle and there should be more slope than there actually should be. However, maybe the arms themselves need more slope; I'll leave those calculations to you. ;)
-
I'm pretty sure it won't be noticeable in-game, so don't worry about it.
-
[/lurk]
In case it is of any use to you, here are some reference images (http://www.3dscifi.com/reference/starwars/MilleniumFalcon/index.html) of the 5 foot model (thank this guy (http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/showthread.php?75906-Star-Wars-The-Millennium-Falcon&p=488828#post488828) for originally posting the link over on scifi-meshes.com)
[lurk]
-
Thanks for the link, I've already got all of them, however, but thanks!
-
You managed to make this even better than the one I remember from the movies.
Thanks. Now finish this, sooner rather than later.
-
Update!
(http://img863.imageshack.us/img863/3624/falconwip013.jpg)
-
Can you answer this question?
Will the radar dish be a destroyable subobject?
The reason I'm asking this is because if it is a destroyable subobject, I can remove it completely in FRED, "converting" the Falcon into a traditional YT-1300.
-
I don't see any problem with making it a destroyable subobject, easy enough to do. The issue, however, would be that the AO would still be baked on the texture, so there'd be a big black spot where the dish used to be. I'll be converting this into a stock YT-1300 after I'm done this, so it's just a matter of waiting for it.
-
And another quick update
(http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/8748/falconwip014.jpg)
-
Could you do an Wireframe Ortho render please?
-
Like so?
(http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/7356/wireframet.jpg)
-
perfect! thank you
-
Don't mind me, I'm just gonna go ahead and EEEEEEEEEEEEEE over here.
-
And another progress update
(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/5892/falconwip015.jpg)
-
Sooooo... awesome... :eek2:
-
wowowowowowow thumbs up!!
-
Keep it going! Love your work!
Very - Very - Very nice !
-
And another update, this time a little bigger
(http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/3290/falconwip016.jpg)
-
How long does it take to render the Falcon?
-
These shots don't take any time, they're not renders, that's Max's new real-time viewport
-
Yeah, I know. How long would it take to render though? Looks good enough already though...
-
that's max realtime, with radiosity and all? pretty cool.
-
Yeah, I know. How long would it take to render though? Looks good enough already though...
How long it takes to render depends mostly on the hardware, the number lights, the number of objects and polys/ tris in a scene, but also what kind of render one does as well as which renderer is chosen.
For instance, on my PC, with Win XP SP3, a clayrender with a model that has ~10k polys, took less then a minute in Max 9, same scene in Max 2011 took around 2-3 minutes.
The same hardware and same model with Win 7 PRO, the clayrender takes 8minutes in Max 9 and ~35-38 minutes in Max2011.
-
The scary thing is that viewport screencaps look better than his renders did with his old hardware and older versions of Max.
-
Wow, the amount of detail in the normal maps is gorgeous :yes:
For instance, on my PC, with Win XP SP3, a clayrender with a model that has ~10k polys, took less then a minute in Max 9, same scene in Max 2011 took around 2-3 minutes.
The same hardware and same model with Win 7 PRO, the clayrender takes 8minutes in Max 9 and ~35-38 minutes in Max2011.
Wait... so the same render can take up to 38(!) times longer, depending on software only? :shaking:
-
Wow, the amount of detail in the normal maps is gorgeous :yes:
For instance, on my PC, with Win XP SP3, a clayrender with a model that has ~10k polys, took less then a minute in Max 9, same scene in Max 2011 took around 2-3 minutes.
The same hardware and same model with Win 7 PRO, the clayrender takes 8minutes in Max 9 and ~35-38 minutes in Max2011.
Wait... so the same render can take up to 38(!) times longer, depending on software only? :shaking:
Win 7 is more hardware demanding then XP. And Max requires also decent hardware. My system is simply way to old (~6-7years). On an average PC, one shouldn't have such rendertimes for a simple clayrender.
-
That seems a very, very strange case. I've never heard of anything like that before to be honest.
Either way, it very much depends. The last render I posted (first post on page 3) took about 8 minutes to render. That's Vray using some pretty high AA, full primary and secondary indirect illumination as well as displacement mapping. A simple Ambient Occlusion render without the displacement would probably take around 2-4 minutes, depending on AA settings and whether I use the displacement or not. And for reference, without displacement the model is at 8300 polies. With displacement the model's polycount is effectively unlimited.
-
Yeah, that's mostly a memory problem. I'd guess you have installed 1 GB of RAM, which win7 almost takes up everything for itself.
-
Oh, and for reference, my system specs, or the only ones that matter for rendering anyways.
AMD Phenom 2.4GHz Quad-Core
8 GB Ram
-
I'm on a 32bit Win 7 pro and a Socket 604 Xeon 2.4GHz with 3GB ECC DDR Ram and an ATI Radeon HD 2600XT.
-
And another update here:
(http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/4670/falconwip017.jpg)
-
this is going to beat the moviemodel by at least one ISD length. Pure awesomeness.
-
Very cool, can't wait to see it all rusty and dirty.
-
And a render, considering the upper surface is almost complete (minus the dirt of course)
(http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/4766/falconwip018.jpg)
-
Holy God. The detail. :eek:
-
Need new pants.
-
THE GREEBLES
-
"What the hell's an Aluminum Falcon?"
-
"What the hell's an Aluminum Falcon?"
Because I haven't heard that about 20 times in the last couple weeks since I unveiled this -_-
-
You haven't heard it in here, though. So there's that.
-
What the hell is a Aluminum Falcon?!
Sorry but I Gregor Clegane'd that horse on the second page.
-
Well...crud.
-
the dirt will be 100% as seen on screen, correct?
-
Sorry, our ships will only support prequel-level dirt. Allowing your monitor to become dusty is a good post-processing alternative though.
-
What the hell is a Aluminum Falcon?!
Sorry but I Gregor Clegane'd that horse on the second page.
So we're using 'The Mountain that Rides' as a verb now?
-
What the hell is a Aluminum Falcon?!
Sorry but I Gregor Clegane'd that horse on the second page.
So we're using 'The Mountain that Rides' as a verb now?
I think its pretty versatile especially depending on the context...
-
Used to be that barely anyone knew about him...
Anyway, figures that a WIP of the Falcon garners attention the fastest.
-
GURM: THE MOUNTAIN THAT WRITES
-
Are there plans to make the antena able to rotate? Is it possible to fight with the ship's upper turrets like in the movie?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHOrjo3hB2I
I don't know if it is possible to ask the diaspora team for their asteroids because if all the relevant ships are available someone will certainly recreate the asteroid chase scene (from ep. V)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rnyWNoFb58&feature=related
-
There's currently no way for the player to directly control a turret, but it could either function under AI control or be locked forward like a normal primary weapon, though that might require separate table entries.
We will definitely have a set of asteroids, ISD II, TIE/ln fighters and the Falcon for the first release, so yeah, that most of that scene would probably be doable, though it might be hard to force the player to make the same decisions that Han does in the movie.
-
[/lurk]
There's currently no way for the player to directly control a turret
Erm... it's entirely doable with Lua scripting. Talk to Nuke, or just check out the scripts he posted in the Scripting board. He's done it.
[lurk]
-
Also, BP has capship command script. I'm currently learning to adapt it for other mods, so once I'll be familiar with it, I could implement it for FoTG. Also, there's even more direct (XWA-style) turret control script on scripting board.
-
That's right, I had forgotten about that nukemod video.
-
Frankly, I don't think the Falcon should have direct turret control, but rather a convenient way to give orders to the gunners. Meaning, for example, that you could target something and tell the upper gunner to attack it, then target something else and tell the lower gunner to attack that, or lock the turrets into the "front" position and use them as regular primary weapons, etc.
The turrets only rotate some 180 degrees or less horizontally, so player control would likely end up being pretty frustrating when the AI just wouldn't fly the ship so that you could shoot at what you really want to. IMO the turrets would be much better suited to be AI-controller turrets you can give orders to and having the player's role be flying in a way which allows the gunners to take their shots.
-
Kinda like how flying Capships in other FS mods? Sounds good to me. So we will actually get to fly the Falcon in the campaign?
-
In the campaign? No plans for that yet, but if it gets into the game, I will FRED a mission where you fly a YT-1300, which may or may not be the Falcon.
-
Will that sensor dish be destructable in-game?
-
Yeah, it will.
-
Yay!
-
And another update, now working on the bottom:
(http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8260/falconwip019.jpg)
-
Is it just me or does the Falcon's cockpit look really flimsy from that angle? Never notice that before...
-
Might just be because of the unfamiliar camera angle. The Falcon was almost always photographed from a low 3/4ish angle
-
And another!
(http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/1812/falconwip020.jpg)
-
Looking good so far.
-
And another update here:
(http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/1000/falconwip021.jpg)
-
Boy oh boy, she's looking so good! :nod:
-
Is it going to have that hidden turret that can pop out and blitz stormtroopers?
-
Hmm, doubtful. It's only ever used in that one scene, suggesting it's either too weak to be of any use in a space battle, or there's some functional reason it can't be deployed in space, maybe it's not sealed for use in a vacuum?
-
My bet is it's an anti-personnel blaster... however, it'd come in handy if (in the waaay distant future) you had ground missions etc. IIRC Goober was slowly working on rudimentary support for some of that stuff. Or I'm going crazy. :lol:
-
And another update here:
(http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/461/falconwip022.jpg)
-
It's a beauty :-)
A question: Will the standard YT-1300 have one or two quad laster turrets? IIRC the 1300 in XWA had only one turret and the Falcon (and also the YT-2000) had two turrets.
-
As far as I know, the original YT-1300 had only the top mounted gun, and it was of a different make, smaller and double barreled instead of quad.
-
Okay here we go, texture is done except for the dirt, which will be coming next, but here's what the Falcon would look like if Solo ever washed her and patched up the holes!
(http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/1183/falconclean06.jpg)
(http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/294/falconclean02.jpg)
(http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/4452/falconclean05.jpg)
(http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/59/falconclean04.jpg)
(http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/8177/falconclean01.jpg)
(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6764/falconclean03.jpg)
-
Excellent job. :)
-
Brand, you're a rockstar. I can't wait to see this in-game.
-
Amazing, it most likely looks like that when Han is going to a date with Leia. :)
-
SHWING!! :lol: Epic, Brand. So epic. :nod:
-
The falcon was originally white? o_o
-
The falcon was originally white? o_o
Get rid of the 12 tons of dirt on it and yea :P
-
And now with said 12 tons of dirt.
(http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/7213/falcondirty01.jpg)
-
Oh that is SHINY. It ready for a wallpaper render?
-
Top notch as ever!
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
That's frakkin' epic. I'm so going to make an Cutscene as soon FoTG is out.
Also, can it be Falconz Wallpaper tiem?
-
Holy. Crap. :eek2: Well... there she is. The fastest hunk a junk in the galaxy. What a beaut! :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes:
Once again, epic work Brand. :nod:
Also, can it be Falconz Wallpaper tiem?
YES. I'm with him. ;)
Also, Brand are you still going to do the Y-wing wallpaper? The X-wing and B-wing are epic, but no Rebel wallpaper fleet is complete without the Y-wing. :D
-
And here we go, a beauty render
(http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/4601/falconwallpaper.png)
-
Bejesus this thread should have a warning tag for heart attacks or smth! It's bloody perfect!
-
:jaw: So. Much. WIN.
-
It looks fantastic like plastic :yes: :yes: :yes:
-
How many polys?
-
8354
-
That's suprisingly low for such a beauty.
-
I can't fathom how you have so few polies but that much detail on the hull... I'd expect something 3-4x that...
Epic normal mapping?
It is amazing... though I'd put more dirt on the front half of the ship, does look a little bit plastic.
-
8354
that is impressive and additional congratulations are deserved
-
I was expecting that number more or less... the displacement that 3D studio provides works really well in your renders... how I wished that FSO worked well with them ;).
-
I can't fathom how you have so few polies but that much detail on the hull... I'd expect something 3-4x that...
Epic normal mapping?
Epic Vray displacement. Unlike a bump map, displacement will modify actual geometry so it will look a lot more realistic. Unfortunately you can't use this effect in the game, other than possibly baking a normal map from a displaced model. While I've had very good results with baking normals from high poly meshes, it's still no competition to an actual high poly mesh so there's really no way a ship will look that good in the game. Still going to look great and since most of these things move quite fast normals will do the job just fine :)
-
Yeah, we have to convert those height (displacement) maps currently into normal (bump) maps, which produces a more subtle, but still impressive effect in game. But the height map is what gives it such ridiculous looking detail. Also, that's probably not a triangulated poly count, but I don't know that for certain.
-
That is the triangulated poly count.
Here's about the best I can come up with to approximate how it'll look in game:
(http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/8448/ingameish.jpg)
No real time AO, no shadows, no reflection, just the diffuse texture with a shine map and a normal map.
-
Little flatter and more blurry, but that's still a ton of detail.
-
If the render showed the inside of the cockpit it would look frightfully close to it being taken right out of the movies. I wonder what flying it will be like with the off-center variables. :D
-
Yeah cockpits will come eventually, but our first priority is getting a full ship set. Then we'll worry about putting cockpits in.
Also, I don't think you'll notice the blur in game
-
http://starwars.com/games/playnow/soundboards/#/?theme=42
Now we can imagine it going woosh this way and that way... and the experience is complete. ^_^
-
Aren't displacement maps one of the things that was added in DX11? Or am I thinking of something else?
If so, what's the chance of seeing features like that added to the FSO code?
-
Millennium Falsehood!
-
Actually, FSO currently has displacement map support. We're just not going to use it.
-
Actually, FSO currently has displacement map support. We're just not going to use it.
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! :banghead:
-
Actually, FSO currently has displacement map support. We're just not going to use it.
waiting on the material system?
-
Ok, it's height maps, and they're not currently supported by the shaders, although I think they used to be. So there's no point in utilizing something that might not be around. But a materials system would be better. We'll probably be out before that hits though :P
-
Well, I certainly hope you guys stick around and continue to support and improve the mod after release so such things can be added if and when they're available. Thanks for this info!
Sorry for the threadjack, by the way.
-
Yeah cockpits will come eventually, but our first priority is getting a full ship set. Then we'll worry about putting cockpits in.
I can't wait for the little Han and Chewie in there. :D
-
That is the triangulated poly count.
Here's about the best I can come up with to approximate how it'll look in game:
(http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/8448/ingameish.jpg)
No real time AO, no shadows, no reflection, just the diffuse texture with a shine map and a normal map.
Ok, this is actually stunning.
-
Dangit...now I want wallpapers for all the ships with the starfield background instead of reflective surface! It looks so amazing!
-
Dangit...now I want wallpapers for all the ships with the starfield background instead of reflective surface! It looks so amazing!
...re-enacting the Rebel fleet approaching the 2nd Death Star! :eek: That would be epic! :nod:
Speaking of which, Brand aren't you still going to do the Y-wing wallpaper? :(
-
How many times have you asked me again? Quit it.
-
How many times have you asked me again? Quit it.
Only two or three times, man. But you never responded so what was I to think?
-
(http://thenextweb.com/me/files/2010/07/simpsons_are-we-there-yet.jpg)
-
How many times have you asked me again? Quit it.
Only two or three times, man. But you never responded so what was I to think?
That's kinda like asking when a mod is gonna be done. What kind of answer were you expecting?
-
How many times have you asked me again? Quit it.
Only two or three times, man. But you never responded so what was I to think?
That's kinda like asking when a mod is gonna be done. What kind of answer were you expecting?
For one wallpaper? How about, "I'm not done with it yet, but it's coming" or "I've decided to put it off to continue working on the mod". It's not that big a deal, but cut me some slack for not being in the loop.
-
For those who are complaining about the Falcon not being dirty enough, it's probably just the lighting in the shots I've posted, which have been based off of brightly lit movie stills. Here's another based off a still with lower lighting.
(http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/8818/differentlighting.png)
-
Yep. There she is. The most beautiful hunk-a-junk in the galaxy! :nod:
I think she looks gorgeous, brand. The dirt/scorch mark detail is spot on. :yes:
-
And she's my new desktop. :D
-
Ooooooh! Shiny!
Or, y'know, not.
-
LODded, converted, committed. Certainly the toughest one I've ever converted; the turrets and thrusters weren't exactly trivial to get to look and work right.
As for the turrets: you can choose whether to let the gunners fire at will or whether to fire them forward manually. You choose by selecting one of the two available primaries; if you have the "gunner control" primary selected then the gunners will operate the turrets, or if you switch to the "manual control" primary, the turrets will reset to pointing forward and you can fire them with your primary trigger. I'm going to also look into whether it's feasible to add fake comms menu entries for the gunners so you can actually easily tell them to, for example, fire on a specific target.
-
This is what it looks like in-game. Ambient lighting is 70.
(http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/5930/falconrk.jpg)
-
Here's a couple more screenshots. TopAce, I think you forgot to turn normal maps on. :D
FXAA doesn't seem to be on in mine, though.
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
Yes, sorry. I forgot I had a stupid, slow machine and I can't afford all the FSO graphical enhancements.
-
For those who are complaining about the Falcon not being dirty enough, it's probably just the lighting in the shots I've posted, which have been based off of brightly lit movie stills. Here's another based off a still with lower lighting.
(http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/8818/differentlighting.png)
This has become my new desktop at work! :)
-
Is it just me, or does the FSO rendering engine not do Brand's model proper justice?
-
Hmm, nice work on the thruster. That must be a whole lot of thruster points, hmm?
Is it just me, or does the FSO rendering engine not do Brand's model proper justice?
Probably the resolution of the maps, they seem to have been significantly scaled down from the render.
-
Hmm, nice work on the thruster. That must be a whole lot of thruster points, hmm?
Fifty-nine. ;) Unfortunately, it can't be a lot less without the glow turning all bumpy when seen from above or below.
-
A slightly better shot here showing some more detail and the like, I don't think it looks too bad at all...
(http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/7137/falconw.jpg)
-
Ooooooh... in game? Me likey! It looks damn good. :nod:
-
Much better. :D That first set of screenshots just didn't bring out the details as much as that last one. Also, love the shadow from the Falcon's main dish. *props to Val*
-
Hmm, nice work on the thruster. That must be a whole lot of thruster points, hmm?
Is it just me, or does the FSO rendering engine not do Brand's model proper justice?
Probably the resolution of the maps, they seem to have been significantly scaled down from the render.
It also looks like the FSO version isn't using the height maps that the rendered version gets so much of its detail from. IIRC heightmaps look very good for that type of detail at anything less than maximum resolution.
-
Renders use displacement mapping. FSO uses normal mapping which is computationally cheaper to achieve, but doesn't quite give the same quality or detail.
Of course the real-time rendering will not be quite as good as the static renders, but recent advances (shadows!) will reduce the gap quite a bit.
-
Does displacement mapping has anything to do with parallax mapping?
There's a -height launcher flag, which enables the use of height maps. I heard that it's meant for parallax mapping.
-
No, displacement mapping creates actual new geometry, while parallax mapping just further simulates height by sliding around bits of the maps depending on the angle, when used in conjunction with normal maps.
-
Perhaps you could experiment with height maps a bit. My ventures into using them were unsuccessful, but you'll most likely do much better. Perhaps with parallax mapping and more pronounced normal maps, you could get more "render-like" effect.
-
I thought height maps weren't supported anymore?
-
They should be, I don't seen any reason for them to be removed (afterall, they work, they're just not used much). It's just an obscure feature, requires a custom flag and from what I heard, is considered barely useful by those who know about it (for terrain models and asteroids, mainly). Maybe you could prove them wrong, I believe that there's a way to exploit this feature for ships. Type -height into custom launcher flags and it should work.
-
I tried it out, all it did was disable normal maps entirely (along with shadows)
Disabling the height map brought back shadows and normals.
-
Did some tweaking on the shinemap:
(http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/6474/falcon2f.jpg)
-
I tried it out, all it did was disable normal maps entirely (along with shadows)
Disabling the height map brought back shadows and normals.
That's weird, especially about normal maps (shadows are not final anyway, so this should be fixed by the time they go final). I'd have to ask on SCP if the height map implementation works correctly. Also, try a non-shadow build. There's a chance you ran into a bug caused entirely by the implementation of shadows.
-
Height maps don't work, period. The necessary code isn't in the shaders anymore.
-
Rats. Though the "shaders" part sounds like they're not hopelessly broken within the engine itself. Would that be difficult to re-add the code for them?
I recall it being mentioned that there were things (Asteroids, mostly), in which they could be quite useful. I have a feeling that they could be even used for ships, but nobody had yet fully exploited them.
Anyway, in that case, I think that this detail could be partially done with a more pronounced normal map.
-
I butchered the model a bit to produce a stock YT-1300 model, using only the original textures. I pretty much just put cover plating on the exposed innards, removed the bottom turret and the sensor dish, made the remaining top gun into a weaker two-barrel gun and modified the engine section slightly.
(http://swc.fs2downloads.com/media/screenshots/Support_Trans/YT1300/yt-1300.jpg) (http://swc.fs2downloads.com/media/screenshots/Support_Trans/YT1300/yt-1300.jpg)
-
Nice, very nice.
-
Fantastic.
-
Looks great, but perhaps the paint and hull damage should be scrubbed off the stock model?
Although I guess if you just want to stick to the original texture that might not be an option.
-
It doesn't need to be pristine, but it should have less damage than the Falcon. It might still look like an old beater, but not one that's been in fights.
-
Inevitable YT-1400 spinoff comment.
-
Looks great, but perhaps the paint and hull damage should be scrubbed off the stock model?
Although I guess if you just want to stick to the original texture that might not be an option.
I actually suggested this to Zookeeper when we were in the process of throwing it together, but it may be more work to modify the texture than it's worth. If someone on the team has the time and energy and desire to do it, maybe, but I've mentioned before that the one thing we're really lacking right now is talented texture artists.
-
by the time of ANH are they still building the 1400? even if they are most have been around since around the back end of the clone wars era so any outside of corporate fleet ownership they are probably carrying a few scrapes and marks from life on the trade lanes
-
wau, really beauty ... :nod:
-
Looks great, but perhaps the paint and hull damage should be scrubbed off the stock model?
Although I guess if you just want to stick to the original texture that might not be an option.
I actually suggested this to Zookeeper when we were in the process of throwing it together, but it may be more work to modify the texture than it's worth. If someone on the team has the time and energy and desire to do it, maybe, but I've mentioned before that the one thing we're really lacking right now is talented texture artists.
So on a slightly related note, what will the policy of the mod team be toward submods for campaigns and stuff when the mod is released. Would it be acceptable to kitbash a model/texture for a campaign submod? Making YT-1300 variations is probably a good example. Would that sort of thing be ok, or would the team prefer that sort of thing didn't happen?
-
Creating assets to be donated for future inclusion in this mod will be encouraged, we haven't had any major discussion on how we will handle that, perhaps we will release a fan pack or just help with hosting various assets for download within our hosting solution somehow.
-
Eh... I can't imagine we'd want to tell people what kind of things we want them to not do in their mods.