Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: Omniscaper on February 27, 2004, 03:55:11 am
-
Danube Runabout v2.0
Model/Textures - Sean Kennedy
Mesh Modifications - me
I've been busy with school lately its tough keeping up with you folks. Anyways I'm finishing up on some weapons placement on this baby. I don't care if she's small, she deserves all 11k polys.
Old....
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/omniscaper/ReleasePics/Danube.JPG)
New....
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/omniscaper/WIPS/run01.jpg)
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/omniscaper/WIPS/run02.jpg)
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/omniscaper/WIPS/run03.jpg)
Version 2
-
Fantastic. :yes: Oh man... we totally need bump mapping... :)
-
I don't mean to be offensive but... where the hell are those 11000 polys?
-
On the rounded edges, I guess.
-
even tho, I could hardly see 2000 polys in there.
-
I'd say 3k:p
maybe he has a true cockpit too?
-
11k polys mayby with planet on baground;) :p :p
-
I never said it was an efficiently put together mesh from the looks of it. Much went into it for accuracy purposes. If anything I removed at least 800 polys already.
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/omniscaper/WIPS/run04.jpg)
-
mmm to me the only thing you can do with this model is to redo it;)
I'm not kidding, it doesn't look like a difficult mesh, and this model has too many poly wastings that it will take actually longer to fix em than to make a new mesh
-
Or find a copy of max and try the optimiser tool....although I've no idea if the damn thing works, I normally wouldn't touch any 'automatic' tools with a 10 foot clown pole.
-
the optimizer tool sucks, but I found recently a cool way of cleaning out meshes w/o messing them :)
try it: convert said mesh to poly ( right click, convert to: editable poly ).
select the verts you don't want, right click, "remove". Hop! it deletes all the verts, the useless edges, w/o deleting the face, w/o even messing up the UV mapping ( all that unless you remove some strategic vertex, of course, like the corner of a cube ). magic! I just love that.
-
well actually it's pretty similar to how truespace works.
I'd suggest more in truespace that you boolean substract a non intersecting object from the model with delete edges selected as first thing:
this way most of the unuseful edges will be deleted (the amount will depend by the boolean precision, wrong settings could screw your mesh). Unuseful edges are those that subdivide faces: this operation will create only flat faces, usually saving the uvcoords (in ts6 at least, btw it is something better to do before uvmapping).
After this operation triangulate back: I think you will cut around 2-3k polys in 2 minutes w/o screwing the uvmaps if you're lucky.
Then, you'll have to go manually: TS works in a pretty similar mode to what nico desscribed for max, just select an edge and delete it: it'll delete the verts if useless (if it is a colinear vert not connected to other edges). It should save the uvcoords too if you don't delete critical edges. But I think you don't use TS, so..
-
Karma, do you ever say anything constructively positive about anything? I'm starting to wonder what is fueling many of your negative QUASI-constructive critism. Especially with many of my ports and addons? You are starting to sound rather condescending with the way you constantly criticize my way of working. ( large meshes to large textures ) I'm starting to see as a personal attack.
Quote Karma:
"mmm to me the only thing you can do with this model is to redo it
I'm not kidding, it doesn't look like a difficult mesh, and this model has too many poly wastings....."
In your OPINION!!!
But you know what.......
......DEAL with it !
Personally, I think its great to see that FS2, a game 4 years older than BC can handle graphics beyond its design. I also believe SCP could use such poly-pushing models and uber-sized texture handlings to see what THEIR hardwork has been allowing people to do. This could give them an better idea of where to go next with every new build. I hope the team keeps going all the way up to version 1 million. In addition to that, I make this stuff for ME to begin with. I just share the fruits of my labor and love to anyone else who might have the PC means and would like to have ships of a different sci-fi universe in their game.
Sean Kennedy is the skilled artisan of the BC community who made it. I simply convert, improve upon, and reduce what is necessary for it to run in well Freespace. In this case I thought reduction would take away from its nicity. If your computer can't handle next-gen caliber models, you have no one to blame but yourself for not upgrading. Just don't tell people that their hard work is worth a "REDO."
::end defensive mode for Sean::
::cools off::
Sorry, I just needed to get THAT off my chest. I've been following Sean's progress for the last month. Thats the LAST time I let anyone see inside my digital studio.
ANYWAYZ.......
Every game company make games that push PC limits, because they have next generation technology in mind. I'm simply have the same progressive mindset. If low end PC owners can't handle it, OH WELL. Technology progresses and either you keep up with it or get left behind. Choosing the latter usually sparks moaning and groaning for REGRESSIVE new games but its not gonna happen for the most part. You don't see Mr. Carmack targeting Pentium 3 users and their TNT2 cards with his DOOM3 do you?
Time for food.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Karma, do you ever say anything constructively positive about anything? I'm starting to wonder what is fueling many of your negative QUASI-constructive critism. Especially with many of my ports and addons? You are starting to sound rather condescending with the way you constantly criticize my way of working. ( large meshes to large textures ) I'm starting to see as a personal attack.
well, sorry about that. I didn't want you to take it personally nor it was my intention. In future I'll not tell you in your posts a single word more than "look nice" when it'll deserve it and I'll shut-up in any other situations.
Actually I'm _always_ critic, with my work too, and I keep quite only when stuff is almost perfect or when it is so crap that don't deserve attention.
And I _never_ just say "it suck, trash it!", but I _always_ try to explain WHY it suck and WHAT can be done to solve it.
If you feel that's negative criticism, then sorry, but be sure that you will not have to worry about it anymore.
Quote Karma:
"mmm to me the only thing you can do with this model is to redo it
I'm not kidding, it doesn't look like a difficult mesh, and this model has too many poly wastings....."
In your OPINION!!!
no, it's not an opinion, in this case it is a fact, that's been highlighted by other people in this same thread.
And if you don't see it then it's your problem, not mine.
The amount of USELESS edges, and I repeat, USELESS edges in this mesh just would give me a terrible headache if I'd have to fix em. Not to mention the oversmoothing.
While this may excusable for a mesh built for rendering purposes, this is _NOT_ justifyable for a game mesh.
A game model HAS to be EFFICENT. A game model MUST not have USELESS edges. A game model SHOULD not have USELESS details. I hope you know the difference between them.
This model has USELESS edges, and many of them
This model has USELESS details, and many of them
This model is MISSING many details that could improove it's quality, but that can't be added because it's polycount is too high due to polywastings in USELESS edges and USELESS details.
While this mesh look nice, and may be a good CG model (well, not really), it SUCK, and repeat, SUCK, as a game model. As it is.
And since I can make an around 3k mesh looking as good as this one, and probably with _MORE_ details in 2 or 3 hours, and others from those who replyed in this thread can make the same in less that 1 hour, then it is TRUE that it'd just take less to make a whole new mesh than to spend hours fixing this one cleaning edges, which is a boring job.
But you know what.......
......DEAL with it !
[/b]
that's exactly what I'll do
Personally, I think its great to see that FS2, a game 4 years older than BC can handle graphics beyond its design. I also believe SCP could use such poly-pushing models and uber-sized texture handlings to see what THEIR hardwork has been allowing people to do. This could give them an better idea of where to go next with every new build. I hope the team keeps going all the way up to version 1 million. In addition to that, I make this stuff for ME to begin with. I just share the fruits of my labor and love to anyone else who might have the PC means and would like to have ships of a different sci-fi universe in their game.
Sean Kennedy is the skilled artisan of the BC community who made it. I simply convert, improve upon, and reduce what is necessary for it to run in well Freespace. In this case I thought reduction would take away from its nicity. If your computer can't handle next-gen caliber models, you have no one to blame but yourself for not upgrading. Just don't tell people that their hard work is worth a "REDO."
::end defensive mode for Sean::
::cools off::
[/b]
after all this blah blah the problem is NOT wether my computer can handle it (actually It can barely hand even my own artwork) but if an 11k poly runabout looking like if it has less than 3k polys has some vague SENSE, and it hasn't at all. No needs to search for other arguments that have nothing to do with THIS model, from what SCP can do or what computers can handle it.
But again I'd just repeat what I said above about why this GAME model suck, and since you haven't understood what many people were trying to say before, I doubt you'll understand now.
But you said at least one right thing:
YOU, and nobody else is doing this conversion work, which is an hardwork, that may give benefits to all the community, and therefore deserve respect, and like all the modders, me too, you are doing this firstable for fun and for yourselfe above all others. Therefore you ABSOLUTELY have the rights to do whatever you want, without critics or suggestions if you don't want em, and since you don't want them, you'll not hear them anymore, from me at least.
Sorry, I just needed to get THAT off my chest. I've been following Sean's progress for the last month. Thats the LAST time I let anyone see inside my digital studio.
ANYWAYZ.......
Every game company make games that push PC limits, because they have next generation technology in mind. I'm simply have the same progressive mindset.
[/b] That's for true. But pushing up the limits just doesn't mean to make a lowpoly mesh and press the polysubdivision button 2 or three times, just for the sake of doing it.
Pushing up the limits just mean to ADD somethings.
Which could be what you did with the earth model, which IS not this model.
Pushing up the limits just doesn't mean to forget about EFFICENCY
If low end PC owners can't handle it, OH WELL. Technology progresses and either you keep up with it or get left behind. Choosing the latter usually sparks moaning and groaning for REGRESSIVE new games but its not gonna happen for the most part. You don't see Mr. Carmack targeting Pentium 3 users and their TNT2 cards with his DOOM3 do you?
Time for food.
As I said above, well sorry if you get offended by my replys. I tryed, as I did in most of your other threads, to help you with many suggestions about possible ways to do things, and critics when I thought they were necessary.
I see now that they got wasted or misunderstood, and since it wasn't really my intention to offend you, then I've to complain for any clue I could have given you in my posts which bringed you to this feeling, and ask for excuses.
Be sure that it won't happen again
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
In your OPINION!!!
isn't that why you posted ?
to get opinions ?
gotta take the rough with the smooth Omni.
-
all those "useless" polys give the model vastly superior lighting, specular lighting likes lots and lots of verts to sample. if this was redone useing 3000 polys it's lighting would be about 1/20th as good
-
magatsu1, I have nothing against negative opinions. I take 'em all the time in my art critiques. But there if there is one thing I HATE most in all the responses I get, its the response that starts with,
"I don't like it, if this was my project, I would....".
Thats the point where I cut them off and get someone else's opinion. Critiques are not made to posture aesthetic preferences. If there is a dislike for something and its voiced out, back it up with facts and not personal preferences. Its not constructive.
I just got tired of seeing Karma's name next to many of the nitpicks and negatives I get. If a fellow student in my class is always giving flak, critique after critique after critique, and that individual is voicing nothing more than just personal preferences, I confront them and vent.
-
I think it's a fair technical judgement.
-
A technical judgement on what basis? He never tried it in game yet has he? He bases his OPINION on 4 screenshots. Now if this model crashes Freespace or impacts performance to 3 fps, then its justified. It hasn't crashed freespace, it runs pretty well with 10 models on screen, and games of a next generation are using them ( Bridge Commander).
Lets face it folks, we live in a time where high poly models are becoming a gaming standard. Lets not sit idly while SCP is allowing us to progress.
-
I think you guys need to take a deep breath - the model is very impressive and while constructive critism is good - it's nice to say what you like about the model as much as what you don't like. Constant negitivity rather destroys a creative impulse I find.
-
Finally someone who understands where I'm coming from. Thank you. Maybe I could have just said what you said and avoided all drama.
-
No drama intended. I just thought you took Karma's reply a little personal.
-
ITs been brewing for awhile now. When pigeons peck at your toes long enough, you tend to kick it. =)
...time top get back to work on my 11K version of the HercII. 11k 11k 11k. With 4096x4096 textures.
-
BTW, does anyone know a good tutorial to read on texture baking? This model has 35 seperate textures that I believe can be squeezed into 5. I know how to bake textures in Lightwave, but 3dsmax and Truespace is a mystery to me. Using 5 textures is bound to improve performance.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
all those "useless" polys give the model vastly superior lighting, specular lighting likes lots and lots of verts to sample. if this was redone useing 3000 polys it's lighting would be about 1/20th as good
but that's an engine pb, a flat thing is a flat thing, no matter how many times you subdivise it, a plane is still a plane, and so, the ligthing shouldn't change. That's a code flaw which definitively goes against mesh optimisation.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
A technical judgement on what basis? He never tried it in game yet has he? He bases his OPINION on 4 screenshots. Now if this model crashes Freespace or impacts performance to 3 fps, then its justified. It hasn't crashed freespace, it runs pretty well with 10 models on screen, and games of a next generation are using them ( Bridge Commander).
It's just based on the picture and the wireframe... it is a fair judgement in my opinion, cos I agree - the model could be a lot less polys and still look the same. I'd imagine you'll understand what he (and I) mean when you LOD it, anyways.
You should take it as a compliment, anyways - the better you get at stuff around here the more people nitpick at it. :)
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
BTW, does anyone know a good tutorial to read on texture baking? This model has 35 seperate textures that I believe can be squeezed into 5. I know how to bake textures in Lightwave, but 3dsmax and Truespace is a mystery to me. Using 5 textures is bound to improve performance.
No idea. How do you bake textures in Lightwave?
-
In the modeler, have the object you want to bake isolated in its own layer. Press the "T" in the bottom right. CLick new. Pick "atlas" in the dropdown selection. It will unwrap the mesh. You can see it unwrapped when you switch to UV view.
Open layout. Go to surface editor. Under shaders add "surface baker" Go to its properties and choose the UV map you created in the modeler. Pick which shading style you want baked: Diffuse, color, illumination, or other. Give the map a name and choose its size and just hit render.
At that point you can replace the object's texture with your new map using the same UV coordinates made in modeler.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
BTW, does anyone know a good tutorial to read on texture baking? This model has 35 seperate textures that I believe can be squeezed into 5. I know how to bake textures in Lightwave, but 3dsmax and Truespace is a mystery to me. Using 5 textures is bound to improve performance.
Um.... to be honest, I tend to UV the thing before I texture it, so not sure. The UVUnwrapper could be handy, but you'd have to assemble the textures into a single file and map them back on.
-
in max, you go to the render menu ( top bar, the usual windows top bar, not some max toolbar ), render to texture, and then fiddle with the options to your liking.
Oh, and set up the lightning beforehand, coz it'll be taken into account.
best choice is probably to switch to light tracer and drop a sky dome light in the scene.
You'll get only one map, tho.
edit: oh, yeah, can't do it with max older than max5.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
In the modeler, have the object you want to bake isolated in its own layer. Press the "T" in the bottom right. CLick new. Pick "atlas" in the dropdown selection. It will unwrap the mesh. You can see it unwrapped when you switch to UV view.
Open layout. Go to surface editor. Under shaders add "surface baker" Go to its properties and choose the UV map you created in the modeler. Pick which shading style you want baked: Diffuse, color, illumination, or other. Give the map a name and choose its size and just hit render.
At that point you can replace the object's texture with your new map using the same UV coordinates made in modeler.
Thanks. I'll have to give that a try