Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: TrashMan on February 28, 2010, 08:29:56 am
-
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=2c937bcb38ef65c1ab1eab3e9fa335ca05286d19202081d0
WHAT IT HAS:
64 laser turrets
12 beam cannons
10 (double) missile launchers
6 engines
2 fighterbays
4 docks
fully pathed
WHAT IT DOESN'T HAVE YET:
- debris
- other lods
- glow points
- a nameplate
Speaking of which - anyone willing to add glow points to it?
-
And I thought my jokes were bad...
25 textures? Honestly?
-
Ugh...there are 4 unnecesary textures...duplicates, but different name and 2 textures that I can remove and replace with one of the existing ones, but I missed it.
With tweaks, I can get it to 17-18.
Good catch. Keep the feedback coming.
-
Hmm, the model itself is good, but the texturing (besides being horribly inefficient) doesn't do the model justice. Proper UV-mapping and less texture tiling could do wonders for it.
While I'm impressed at how complex models you crunch out with Truespace... the greeblies on this model show how TS is limiting creative modeling. Especially on the engine section the greeblies are just a seemingly random group of boxes, with no "functional" feel to it. The things with the boxes and pipes are a notable exception, but it's basically 13 times the same thing.
Also, EVERYTHING that's not a separate subsystem/turret should be part of the main mesh! You've got dozens of nameless subobjects just for greeblies... each subobject needs a separate render pass, making this POF horribly inefficient for no apparent reason.
-
To be honest, I really wasn't feeling inspired when it came to greeble. It's not TS.
Greeble normally doesn't make much sense and usually feels off to me.
As far as texturing goes, that thing is 6 km long. I really don't see it as possible to texture this thing without some hefty tiling - at least not with the texture I have. Panneling the size of a carrier doesn't give hte feeling of size, regarldess ofh te small windows.
As far as subobjects go - I always start working like that so LODs are easier to make once the mesh details are finalized.
For the final release I do plan on merging all the subobjects into just 3 main groups
-
(http://1.2.3.12/bmi/photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs433.snc3/24953_1332963039622_1097428014_998418_4168635_n.jpg)
This is a beta of your MK2 Colly?
I like that model. But if it's undergoing beta i'll wait for the finished product. To do it justice, ya know?
-
Take a look at it and tell Trashman what to improve (it's not the beta like in campaigns, as it will work well, but your feedback may make it work better).
So far: It has too many textures to be FPS effective (fortunately for most of the time there will be only one) and for some reason uses a few retail textures.
Also, a lot of required textures are not included in the pack (they're all in FOW: COTS though).
-
Learn how to UV map, Trashman, because tile mapping looks awful. Not only will the game run faster, the ship will look much better.
-
You can tile even if you use a UV map - just tile a section of it - it saves texture count while preserving detail on larger ships.
For example, you could probably combine the tiled textures you use for a lot of the turrets/greebles/engines onto a single map. Something of a fusion like the retail Typhon would be better than having 20+ textures.
-
You can tile even if you use a UV map - just tile a section of it - it saves texture count while preserving detail on larger ships.
For example, you could probably combine the tiled textures you use for a lot of the turrets/greebles/engines onto a single map. Something of a fusion like the retail Typhon would be better than having 20+ textures.
Yeah, that's very true. It's similar to how the new Iceni was done, if I remember correctly.
-
Just be careful of what shaders you use. Some don't like it when you go beyond (0,0)-(1,1).
-
So far: It has too many textures to be FPS effective (fortunately for most of the time there will be only one) and for some reason uses a few retail textures.
Also, a lot of required textures are not included in the pack (they're all in FOW: COTS though).
Frak...double entries.
2 minutes in PCS2 and I could reduce the texture count
The "light" texture is that black strip with yellow windows - the same light used on the Deimos and Hecate...tcovsomething
awactile1, 2 and 3 can all be replaced with raytile3 (methinks)
ThrusterCone is supurflus, as I planned to map the engine core with the same texture the rest of the engine uses (WYellow), but it slipped my mind.
I'd fix it ASAP, but I won't be home till the weekend again.
Yup..there's lot's of place for improvements here.
-
Isn't it possible to turn multiple tilemaps into a single UV map via using a certain script in Blender?
-
Really? Too bad I don't use blender...
-
Yes it's possible via texture baking in most programs, but in general.....don't.
You combine the worst of both worlds - the hideousness of tile mapping with the high memory usage of a UV map. You can then put AO onto it, but IMO that alone does not save it. ;)
The overall massive quality boost you can get out of UV mapping I reckon makes it well worth using over tiling, but at the same time it does mean you need to spend a much much larger amount of time on the textures, and that time spent goes up drastically with the UV map size, which goes up drastically with ship scale.
Sometimes you can get away with hybrid approaches as has been suggested, but those can be exceedingly difficult, and more often than not the overall result isn't spectacular. You sorta have to design the model for it I reckon.
-
Technicly, it is a hybrid currenlty.
Some bigger, boxier parts use simple, box mapping, while others use planar or curve mapping, with different map settings.
I'll see if I can spice the greeble a bit more...but visual help might help ya know...like they do it on the Infinity forums - paintovers over the renders/images.
EDIT: On a related note - destroyed subsystems? Yes or no?
-
Yes, please.
-
Planar or curve mapping isn't the same as unwrapping to form a UV map - that's still texture tiling. An example of hybrid would be the retail lucifer - which used a big UV map for lots of it, and tiled textures for the rest.
Visual help you mean like greeble inspiration pictures and stuff? Suggestions drawn onto those previous untextured renders?
-
It works the same in the end - specifc poligons applied to very mall portions of a texture. Or should I say vice-versa? Planar mapping I mean.
Unwraping is a more precise and direct approach. Certanly far better for complex maps and smaller ships.
If I have a texture that has griders for he hull, barrels for the turrets and fences and pipes for some greeble? I can use planar mapping to get the same result as unwrapping.
-
Unwraping is a more precise and direct approach. Certanly far better for complex maps and smaller ships.
You mean for bigger ships right?
-
It works the same in the end - specifc poligons applied to very mall portions of a texture. Or should I say vice-versa? Planar mapping I mean.
Unwraping is a more precise and direct approach. Certanly far better for complex maps and smaller ships.
If I have a texture that has griders for he hull, barrels for the turrets and fences and pipes for some greeble? I can use planar mapping to get the same result as unwrapping.
excuse me for butting in but doesn't it sound better if you create a texture after the UV mapping then the other way around? to be serious with you in my opinion all detailed meshwork should be uvmapped no matter the size of the ship. If you work with the model instead of trying to fit a specific 512x512 (and such) texture on it you'll get so much better results. :)
Also if can work around the subject of haveing multiple maps of geebles by forming it after one uvmapped texture. It's a pity that so much detail of your ship gets lost with the current textureing.
edit: in hindsight this might create a extra mosterious workload but for the sake of teh pretties I think it could very well be worth it. :p
-
excuse me for butting in but doesn't it sound better if you create a texture after the UV mapping then the other way around?
Depends. I don't really do it exactly that way, not even for fighters.
For fighters I split them into parts, arrange them, then render that in wireframe and I get a nice outline for my fighter/bomber texture. Then I use that map and 3D Max to UV map it.
I guess I could unwrap them, but I never really learend to unwrap properly - the resulting wireframe map, even for something simple as a face, allways ended up looking ugly.
I certanly won't make a new texture if I have perfectly usable ones allready. A good example for large ships would be the Orion. Take for instance the big turret - uses 1 or 2 textures, but mapped very differently on different polygons. Usually done in 3D Max with UV mapping. But I did it in TS with planar mapping - and it ended up the same thing. You can even compare my Orion turret and Bobs Orion turret.
[/quote]
-
Unwraping is a more precise and direct approach. Certanly far better for complex maps and smaller ships.
You mean for bigger ships right?
No.
Well..I guess it is better if the textures are really large and you're not going to be skimming the surface of the ship.
Works great for something like Nexus.
But for something like FS and a ship as big as the Collie? I don't really see it.
-
I certanly won't make a new texture if I have perfectly usable ones allready. A good example for large ships would be the Orion. Take for instance the big turret - uses 1 or 2 textures, but mapped very differently on different polygons.
I can UV map, so if youd like send me the model in 3ds or obj and ill clean it up for you :)
-
Unwraping is a more precise and direct approach. Certanly far better for complex maps and smaller ships.
You mean for bigger ships right?
No.
Well..I guess it is better if the textures are really large and you're not going to be skimming the surface of the ship.
Works great for something like Nexus.
But for something like FS and a ship as big as the Collie? I don't really see it.
Exactly Because it is a big ship like the Colly. You usually won't see half the detail on a fighter in game but a large stationary object like the Collossus will draw eye attention and it comes far more noticable if it has been tiled.
-
If you don't tile, then you need MASSIVE maps so that when you're up close, the textures aren't pixellated. On smaller craft ypu can get by with much smaller textures.
I don't find textures being tiled drawing too much attention, when just about everything else is. Sure, you miss AO and stuff I guess, but that's better than have like three 4096 x 4096 maps that weaker GPUs just refuse to load.
-
Right.
I'll be working on improving the collie Mk2 (naturally).
Any comment on the weapon placement?
-
Perhaps it could use a forward (nose mounted) cannon, but it's mostly OK.
Also, the reason why I like tile-textured ships:
(http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/6861/tdreadnought.th.png) (http://img408.imageshack.us/i/tdreadnought.png/)
-
Because it's really easy to make them even uglier?
-
Lordie. I gotta go with The_E here, no offense.
It's good to see new big warships, and this isn't a commentary on the original model, but that reskin doesn't work for me. It's very...well, tiled.
-
If tiling was good enough for FS1 it's good enough for you.
-
If tiling was good enough for FS1 it's good enough for you.
So everything these people have done is completely meaningless? Ok. I'm down with that. :) (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?board=120.0)
-
I wouldn't say the tiling itself is the problem, more the texture chosen for the tiling. Or in this case, probably both.
-
Right.
I'll be working on improving the collie Mk2 (naturally).
Any comment on the weapon placement?
Two more fighterbays for even faster takeoff of all its launch mass (which for its size, I doubt it would still be able to launch fighters as fast as a full-on carrier, but I haven't had time to look at the beta release model yet.)? XD
Weapons, idk, maybe not too near the engine pods. Maybe somewhere in between the engines in the case of defending the rear quarter? There was this up-gunned Hecate somewhere, no offense to the modder who did it but it struck me as a bit... "odd"... that a heavy beam cannon could be right on top of a full-sized engine. :doubt:
I can't think of anything else apart from that 86-turret Colly at the moment tbh. Apart from fighterbays (considering the size of, well, this Terran flagship?).
-
I know I said I'd fix the Collie2 over the weekend...but I kinda got my hands on King Arthur...and I kinda wanted to give it a spin..and one thing led to another and....ya know... I haven't done anything :(
Forgiveth me. :shaking:
-
Right.
I'll be working on improving the collie Mk2 (naturally).
Any comment on the weapon placement?
Weapons, idk, maybe not too near the engine pods. Maybe somewhere in between the engines in the case of defending the rear quarter? There was this up-gunned Hecate somewhere, no offense to the modder who did it but it struck me as a bit... "odd"... that a heavy beam cannon could be right on top of a full-sized engine. :doubt:
No, no, no! :ick: The rear should stay mostly undefended, as it was meant to be. Maybe some AAA beams, but that's it. The undefended stern of the Super-soaker could be an interesting tragic flaw in some mod. Sorry.
-
The rear is where the engines are.
Logic dictates it will be less armed then other parts of the ship, since the engines take up much of the space/surface.