Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: DaBrain on April 20, 2004, 04:03:18 pm
-
Da improvement Pack 2.0 will bee ready soon.
Part of it is my High Res Pack.
But I would like to hear your opinions.
So I may improve it even further.
All textures are 2x as big as the orignal one. (More would use up too much memory).
You might need up to twice the memory to get enough fps.
(http://www.ystart.net/upload/20040420/1082494475.jpg)
(http://www.ystart.net/upload/20040420/1082494872.jpg)
(http://www.ystart.net/upload/20040420/1082494898.jpg)
-
Could you post before and after shots, instead? I htink that would help my eyes tell the difference more than just seeing the newer product.
-
That Hecate is quite a bit sharper.
How did you make them, you haven't had long enough to redraw all of them.
-
Hmmm, i never thought of using a texturizer...
-
Didn't he just have to resize them, like the first post said? Or does that mean he has to draw them twice as big?
EDIT: Oh! What's the difference between these and the ones from FS1? Or did you only do the FS2 ones that weren't in FS1?
-
Looks like they've been enlarged and had a grain / bmp effect type thing added to them.
-
One issue I've found is that it's tiled less , which can sometimes take away from the original look of a ship. Take a look at the lights on the Hecate, they're just bigger, and they look a little odd. Some work perfectly, however. It all confuses me. In the end (It doesn't even matter) *cough* when we all have lots of high-poly ships and textures mapped to properly go with them and rigs that can handle it, we won't have this problem
-
Yeah, the day people actually start working on more hi-poly canon ships is the day pigs can masterbate while frying... errr, nevermind.
This is actually a good idea til those hi poly ships can be born.
-
Is it allowed to release altered standart ones ?
I know that was a problem with quake 1.
But I saw altered textures for FS2.
Here some shots. (before - after)
(http://www.ystart.net/upload/20040420/1082497373.jpg)
(http://www.ystart.net/upload/20040420/1082497344.jpg)
Edit: I dont see the textures less tiled.
-
They wouldn't be. We've had this discussion before, larger textures have exactly 0 effect on UV mapping, they just look sharper up close. The Hecate has likely always looked like that, it's just being noticed now. I like the darker Demon, by the way.
Oh, and does anyone else see an error with the rendering of the Hecate/Orion shot? Specifically, where the main hulls of the two ships meet. Are those stock models?
-
Yup. All stock ones.
Oh I see it. That is just an bad made mission. The ships actually are in each other :) My bad...
More screens:
(http://www.ystart.net/upload/20040421/1082499467.jpg)
(http://www.ystart.net/upload/20040421/1082499496.jpg)
-
Looks like you just resized the images and put it through a texturizing filter.
I'm afraid making hi-res textures wont be as easy as running a filter over it. Most of them will have to be properly redone.
Also, the texturing is messed up with the upped size (due to tiling maps) - look at the two demons. The stock one, despite the less resolution maps looks better, because the tiling parts match up perfectly, whereas the high res version has seams and theres less tiled maps than in the original.
-
I can't see hardly any difference between these before and after pics... if anything, the top pic from each set looks better. No point in high res textures if the gain is minimal or negative
-
Actually, LS, the size of the map is negligable for the mapping. Tiled or not. It doesn't matter. But if he really wanted to help the game along, he should merely do what I did, and resize every pcx file to a standard 2^ size. I made all of my maps 1024 x 1024, and everything runs smoothely... save the Ursa, for some reason. But the H.P. Fenris runs excellent.
-
Its not that easy to create these textures as you think. (LS)
Just using a texturizer will give you horrible results. (There may be some exceptions)
You will need to work with at least 3 layers (in most cases more). And there ist much you only can do by hand.
As better shading. Since the original maps a 256 color images...
If you just resize them you won't see any difference at all.
And this one is also for people who don't own a super comuter.
So doubled texturesize will be enough. (As you can see)
They are better, but how can I make them even better ?
Is there something you don't like ?
Originally posted by J3Vr6
Yeah, the day people actually start working on more hi-poly canon ships is the day pigs can masterbate while frying... errr, nevermind.
This is actually a good idea til those hi poly ships can be born.
That is exactly what I was thinking.
The ships in FS2 are huge. But somehow most people don't "feel" them as big as they are.
With these maps its different. The ships seem to be heavy and much bigger.
At least I get this impression when flying around them.
But its kinda disapointing to read that there is somebody who doesn't even see the difference. :(
-
Originally posted by Raa Tor'h
Actually, LS, the size of the map is negligable for the mapping. Tiled or not. It doesn't matter. But if he really wanted to help the game along, he should merely do what I did, and resize every pcx file to a standard 2^ size. I made all of my maps 1024 x 1024, and everything runs smoothely... save the Ursa, for some reason. But the H.P. Fenris runs excellent.
Perhaps I don't understand what you mean, but what is the point in just resizeing the maps ?
-
It stops the game from resizing them to a power of two and thus makes it run better because it doesn't have to do that..
-
Now I get it.
But it also increases the amount of used memory. Or is the resized map in the memory if you use the stock maps ?
Anyway it would make a downloadable packge more then twice as big...
-
four times, actually, if you double each length on all of the maps. But the longer download is preferable to the terrible lag that non-standard sized textures can create.
-
So far I dindn't had any problems.
And perhaps this isn't important, because I don't have an ftp anyway :(
-
I like it alot, actually...
Since you can't make the models bigger, make the textures bigger, creating a kind of optical illusion:D
-
I have to admit I don't see that much difference in the ships, except Demon. Maybe I have to see them ingame.
The Demon looks much better, much more mencaing. I like it :nod:
-
Originally posted by Raa Tor'h
Actually, LS, the size of the map is negligable for the mapping. Tiled or not. It doesn't matter.
Technically, no. But in fact, say you resize your map with photoshop, well, it WILL have an effect. Why? Coz photoshop blurs the pixels ( radial area ) when you scale up. And the blurring on the edges, obviously, will not match together, and that'll lead to a seam.
-
okay, can somebody give me a sample texture, i can provide an artificial "bumpmapping" effect that may sharpen the texture somewhat.
-
specular ( shine ) maps already do that job, and I think it's enough for the standard FS2 ships.
-
Originally posted by DaBrain
And perhaps this isn't important, because I don't have an ftp anyway :(
that can be fixed.
but TBH, i don't really like most of the results here. as people mentioned, if you made everything a ^2 (2,4,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,2048,4096) size, it would help performace too, now, it just looks a bit odd while only slowing down more.
-
Originally posted by DaBrain
Its not that easy to create these textures as you think. (LS)
That's a good one. Ask any of the TVWP stuff - been doing a lot of texturing myself so I know it's hard business :D
And about the tiling issue, Raa.... just look at the two demon screenies. It DOES change the tiling frequency.
-
there are slightly diferent angles on them is all, I can tell you with detailed knowlege of how texture mapping works that texture resolution has absolutely no impact on the scale of the textures applyed to an object, UV coordanants go from 0.0 to 1.0 wich is relitive to the resolution of the texture
-
I explained the pb, but since people deliberatly ignore me, heh :p
Bob, don't waste your time, it was difficult enough to explain to people while resizing a map would not mess the UVs on a ship, so... :p
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
there are slightly diferent angles on them is all, I can tell you with detailed knowlege of how texture mapping works that texture resolution has absolutely no impact on the scale of the textures applyed to an object, UV coordanants go from 0.0 to 1.0 wich is relitive to the resolution of the texture
Its not UVmapped, it's tiled.
-
Ghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
"laughs hysterically".
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
Its not UVmapped, it's tiled.
All texturing, be it single or tile mapped, requires things to be uvmapped, but that's kind of irrellevant.
Perhaps the best way to explain this is to get people to start changing their terminology. Go into TS (If you don't have TS, pretend). Open up the map applier thingy (I haven't tried tile texturing in about a year, and never really got it, so my memory is fuzzy on names). TS will allow you to set the number of repeats fot the texture. Repeats. The number of times the picture repeats itself on the surface. It doesn't matter if the picture is 256x256 or 2048x2048 - it will be repeated the same number of times.
-
Originally posted by Nico
I explained the pb, but since people deliberatly ignore me, heh :p
Wait, guys, you hear something? Oh, sorry, Nico, were you saying something? :p
-
Originally posted by kasperl
that can be fixed.
but TBH, i don't really like most of the results here. as people mentioned, if you made everything a ^2 (2,4,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,2048,4096) size, it would help performace too, now, it just looks a bit odd while only slowing down more.
It's limited to 64*64, 128*128, 256*256, 512*512.
There are only 2 or 3 textures wich actualy have an odd res. (like 512*x)
x= some odd number :)
But the release could delay a bit, because there is much work to do in the next weeks.
But I'll try to complete it this month or early next month.
(Status: 127 textures)
Also I have to improve many things from the last pack...
Today I only have time for 2 or 3 maps :(
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
Its not UVmapped, it's tiled.
:lol:
...sorry.
But as BW said:
Originally posted by Black Wolf
All texturing, be it single or tile mapped, requires things to be uvmapped, but that's kind of irrellevant.
Perhaps the best way to explain this is to get people to start changing their terminology. Go into TS (If you don't have TS, pretend). Open up the map applier thingy (I haven't tried tile texturing in about a year, and never really got it, so my memory is fuzzy on names). TS will allow you to set the number of repeats fot the texture. Repeats. The number of times the picture repeats itself on the surface. It doesn't matter if the picture is 256x256 or 2048x2048 - it will be repeated the same number of times.
Either by using the repeat function, or by scaling down the 'UV projection type' (I mean like applying a cubic mapping, and resizing the UV cube down, will also tile the maps) But everything else is spot on.
-
Okay, me stupid, I thought it would tile without a specific number of repeats - don't mind me, i'm no modeller ;)
Well, if that's the case theres something odd with his textures. Look at the 'intestinies' of the two demon images. The stock ones look good, while his ones look way too large and rough.
-
I do think that dark demon looks rather badass.
perhaps because it looks like it is all shot and banged up :p
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
Well, if that's the case theres something odd with his textures. Look at the 'intestinies' of the two demon images. The stock ones look good, while his ones look way too large and rough.
But if you take the time to actually look ( dunno , take references with the mes, where does which part of the map ends ), you'll notice they're the same size, and the tiling isn't different.
-
The textures just appear darker... but thats just me.
-
I don't see any difference.
-
If he doesnt see it then I dont know what kind of significance its going to play on the current ships. It just looks darker...
-
I know the shots are bad, but I can't believe you, if you say you don't see the difference.
I'll try to take better shots, but I'm not very good at doing so...
-
(http://www.ystart.net/upload/20040421/1082568708.jpg)
(http://www.ystart.net/upload/20040420/1082494475.jpg)
-
Looks like:
Normal map
+Brightness - 30 %
+Emboss filter
+Texturizer
-edit: and now i see the problem with the looks.
The seams are the texturizer filter that creates a non-tileable texture, and the emboss filters on the dark demon parts where theyre completely unsuitable as it is a faint grey set of pipes and stuff, and has the emboss lines and way upped contrast with your maps.
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
Looks like:
Normal map
+Brightness - 30 %
+Emboss filter
+Texturizer
Uhm wrong.
Actually it wasn't even my intend to make it darker.
It happend while I was playing around with it.
I like it very much that way. Looks dangerous...
And again 3 steps won't do for creating a texture. Not even for modifying it.
It's not very professional to guess the way it was made without seeing the actual map.
Originally posted by Lightspeed
Looks like:
The seams are the texturizer filter that creates a non-tileable texture, and the emboss filters on the dark demon parts where theyre completely unsuitable as it is a faint grey set of pipes and stuff, and has the emboss lines and way upped contrast with your maps.
Wrong again. Just increasing the contrast will give you funnny colors all over the image. (Never forget: It had only 256 colors before)
Look at the old shading. It's ok, but it was limited to 256 colors. So the shading is far away from being smoth an the highlights on it are pale. (But it's good for only 256 colors)
The changed contrast is my attempt to improve the old shading. (It's done by hand, and has nothing to do with the contrast)
And also an attempt to get rid of the ugly look when a shinemapped ship is neither in the sun, nor in the dark. (When it's practically unaffected by the shinemap.
-
Yea, ok, you like it, but the thing is, no one sees a difference besides a texturized and darker map. And the texturizer isn't even the right-looking one, there'sa different one that looks much more like pitted metal.
-
I always thought it should be some bone-like hull. Or at least somehow organic.
Originally posted by Unknown Target
no one sees a difference besides a texturized and darker map.
That's not true. There are only 3 people (if I include LS) who don't see the difference.
But somehow I don't belive you... It's just too easy to see.
-
In those screenshots I see no detail-difference. The maps are darker, more embossed and have this texturizer thingy. I don't say you didn't put significantly more effort into them....but looking at those screenies, the difference is marginal.
The memory drain outweights the smoother maps. Have you doubled the textures in width&height ? If yes, they use 4X the memory space as the [V] ones !
-
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/cargo05normal.jpg)
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/cargo05big.jpg)
S-Spline makes a spirited attempt at it, though this probs wasn't the best texture to pick :)
-
Some actual maps.
Edit: No release. No pictures that might be used.
-
The second one looks pretty nice, the first one looks like it's on a security camera to me I'm afraid :(
Oh yes, another S-Spline effort :)
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/capital01.jpg)
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/capital01big.jpg)
-
@ DaB: and two points go off to FS2retail.
They look exactly like embossed & texturized originals.
Only thing is you resized them bilinear filtered and the retail images you posted unfiltered. Theres no inch of extra detail in the maps.
And using the 'brick' texture for the texturizing filter of the first map looks most odd.
Flipsides look exactly like the originals, resized, and they look better so --- uhm... :rolleyes:
-
Yet they are too colorless and have very bad shading.
-
Yet the shading's better than that embossed and texturized version.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
The second one looks pretty nice, the first one looks like it's on a security camera to me I'm afraid :(
Oh yes, another S-Spline effort :)
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/capital01.jpg)
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/capital01big.jpg)
Edit: No release. No pictures that might be used.
The old one looks too comic-ish...
-
S-Spline takes the original and breaks the shading down using spline curves, then it can adjust the curves more smoothly when enlarging than standard pixel enlargement.
What you see the is just a straight in-out process, my only complaint is that I think contrast could go up a fraction, but I think it doesn't do a bad job at what it does :)
I like some of the colour enrichment stuff you are doing as well, but I personally try to leave the FS2 textures looking exactly the same, but it's a matter of personal choice :)
-
the new one looks so 'brickwall' and overpowered contrast-ish.
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
the new one looks so 'brickwall' and overpowered contrast-ish.
Well I don't think they used a scyscraper-big metallplate...
Wich one do you personaly like more ?
@Flipside Staying with the old textures is ok.
After my first try with my improvement pack, I realized that the most people want to stay near the old look. Yet they want improvements... So I decided to stay closer to the original look. But it seems that there a few people who don't like this either...
So what should I do ? I really want to do something for the community.
-
The retail one.
Actually, I did a little experiment since my last post. It took me exactly 1:30 minutes to be precise.
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/SCP/texturized.jpg)
Guess what this is?
No, its not your image.
I did the following:
- open the retail graphic in Photoshop
- resize it to double size
- add a texturizing filter (Relief: 1, Size: 100%, texture 'brick')
- Contrast +22, Brightness -16
Now, compare that to your image:
(http://www.ystart.net/upload/20040421/1082575355.jpg)
Shocking how identical they look isnt it?
And I just ran three filters over it. Granted, your version boosts the contrast a bit more even, but its hard to find your exact settings.
-edit: to do proper high res maps the maps will have to be rebuilt completely - I could probably try to get one map done to show what I mean. Resizing and applying filters really isnt the way to upgrade anything at all.
-
I agree with you there Lightspeed, you cannot 'create' detail, you need to rebuild the entire texture, and doing all of them would be an utter nightmare :(
-
I'll redo one of them these days as to show the difference.
-
Do miner02vtile03 ;)
-
Hmm.... if you could turn your "crash your PC for free" model of it into something actually playable I would consider doing hi-res textures for it. :)
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
The retail one.
Actually, I did a little experiment since my last post. It took me exactly 1:30 minutes to be precise.
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/SCP/texturized.jpg)
Guess what this is?
No, its not your image.
I did the following:
- open the retail graphic in Photoshop
- resize it to double size
- add a texturizing filter (Relief: 1, Size: 100%, texture 'brick')
- Contrast +22, Brightness -16
Now, compare that to your image:
Shocking how identical they look isnt it?
And I just ran three filters over it. Granted, your version boosts the contrast a bit more even, but its hard to find your exact settings.
-edit: to do proper high res maps the maps will have to be rebuilt completely - I could probably try to get one map done to show what I mean. Resizing and applying filters really isnt the way to upgrade anything at all. [/B]
That's nowhere near my texture. Sorry, but it looks much more grainy, less smooth, yet less sharp (look at the signs, or rust on the hull). Also you messed up the colors. I see much too blue spots. And you used the texturizer on the whole image, not just on certain areas. The shading is also bad. I can't see a single real black area and no highlighs on the other side.
This is a bad first step. Now the real work would have to follow.
(http://www.ystart.net/upload/20040421/1082580990.jpg)
This is what you see ingame when you get near the ship. This is important.
-
If you do the right one LS, you'd nail a bunch of ships without trying hard.:D
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
Hmm.... if you could turn your "crash your PC for free" model of it into something actually playable I would consider doing hi-res textures for it. :)
Really? You're uber PC couldn't handle it? My weak GF2 looved it. ;)
Anyway, I've been considerring smoothening it out, but I've been so lazy about actually lining everything back up, and doing the proper poffing... That and I have to make a bullet. And give some ships the 'Nico effect.' And work on my Little T... Meh code talk is hard...
-
Well this was fun. So it's been concluded that they would have to be done from scratch? Lightspeed, when do you think you'll have time to do that example with just one of them? I'm sure we'd all like to see it.
-
@LS To be honest I would even use this one over the stock one. (Well perhaps blur it better before :D )
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/SCP/texturized.jpg)
Beacause it has more detail. I think brick fits to the style map. You overdid it, but even tough it's better then the old one.
That's because of the limitation in colors and size(due to computerspeed at that time). Tho stock ones look to drawed. They miss rust, shading and scratches. This is what makes them feel more realistic.
And if you create a new texture don't forget that the most people don't want too different things. (This is what makes it this difficult)
Originally posted by Flipside
... you need to rebuild the entire texture, and doing all of them would be an utter nightmare :(
That's the problem. There is nobody who want to do this.
And even if sombody would do it, it cost so much time that there might be nobody who is still interessted in them, when they are finished...
Originally posted by Flipside
I agree with you there Lightspeed, you cannot 'create' detail, ...
You can. Using texturizer is ok. They don't really create detail, but if used right, they can give the map a more realistic look.
The orion map here was propably intended to look dirty, as you can see (the black rusty thing). Why not sharpen it a bit and add a bit too ?
And if we are at it, lets redraw all the lines, to make them draker and sharper. Because those are the things which look most ugly ingame if you get near them.
(The stuckture on it is not just "bricks" :) )
-
Originally posted by DaBrain
it cost so much time that there might be nobody who is still interessted in them, when they are finished...
Umm... No, but there are not very many people willing to do this
-
Originally posted by DaBrain
That's nowhere near my texture. Sorry, but it looks much more grainy, less smooth, yet less sharp (look at the signs, or rust on the hull). Also you messed up the colors. I see much too blue spots. And you used the texturizer on the whole image, not just on certain areas. The shading is also bad. I can't see a single real black area and no highlighs on the other side.
This is a bad first step. Now the real work would have to follow.
This is what you see ingame when you get near the ship. This is important.
Thats cause you applied a 'sharpen' to the image first.
Sorry to say but you didnt do ANYTHING but apply standard filters to the map.
@raa: I never tried it since you said its around 14k polygons. I'd accept 6k at most.
@j3vr6: yes, they would have to be redone from scratch. I think I could possibly throw together an example in one day (i.e. tomorrow) if I get enough time to work on it. I'll have to see what life has prepared for me.
@upgrading textures: I had planned to make hi-res textures of all FS2 textures - but it is scheduled for after my nebula and weapon effects, so its gonna be a while till you will see any of that. While it does take a while to properly upgrade the textures it is no excuse to make cheap and dirty hi res ones where the only thing they do is drain lots of performance and look just as bad or even worse than the stock ones.
I remember people going 'who will ever take the time to make all shinemaps - thats soooo much we wont make it if its not gonna be a community effort'. And I finished those off in a few months. Go figure.
Of course jobs like that look like a huge thing to accomplish in the first place. But it isn't too bad if you slowly do it step by step and look at what you have already done, instead at what lies ahead of you.
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
Thats cause you applied a 'sharpen' to the image first.
Sorry to say but you didnt do ANYTHING but apply standard filters to the map.
"Sharpen" doesn't help much. And don't tell me that's the only difference between our maps. But I'm pretty sure you know that.
And just by looking at it you should be able to see there is much more in it then only some filters. By just using texturizers you will never reach anything. (Neither as by using the standard lensflares, as some newbies think)
It will take quite some time until your map reaches mine...
Especialy because grainy maps will cause heavy aliasing. But you know that either.
So why criticize my map ?
Perhaps you don't understand it. If it takes 2 hours to create a map, you will never see more then 10 new maps.
Even if you create a complete new one that won't change. And it's pointless too.
Let's concentrate on something that can really be done. There will be something better all the time, perfectionism won't help.
Edit: Shinemaps are only standard maps, with the dark areas cut out. That can be done without even using one painting tool.
New textures are something different.
-
you know, if someone were willing to pull the textures out one at a time and feed them to me, I bet I could spit them back out at a higher res with more detail w/o losing the original design of the texture :) and I'd be happy to do it too, looks like it'd be a fun challenge.
But that's the catch, someone else has to pull the texture and give it to me, then recompile the textures as I finish the high res ;) I'll do the art if someone else does the work, lol =^_^=
-
honstly LS, from here it looks like you just dont like him taking some of the attention away from you as photoshop texture redo god. Gezuz, even i can recognize thats a little more than just a few filters in place. Give the man some props dammit....
-
Really, those textures look like they just had some filters run over them. I suck at texture manipulation in PS, and even I think that.
And if they're more than that, well, they should look like they're more than that, shouldn't they?
-
I agree with Unknown Target. To me both look like just filter jobs, no real work to them, and the brick pattern on both just looks horrible as a flat image, I can only imagine how they look in game
As I said before, I would be perfectly willing to redo all the original art in a larger size, from scratch, keeping the same designs so it just gained detail, if someone else is willing to coordinate the work. I imagine I could fix up a texture every day or two (at WORST one a week, but I doubt I'll get that far behind)
-
Originally posted by Drew
honstly LS, from here it looks like you just dont like him taking some of the attention away from you as photoshop texture redo god. Gezuz, even i can recognize thats a little more than just a few filters in place. Give the man some props dammit....
I'm starting to think that too.
LS you didn't even give a singe constructive advice (And that is the reason I opend this for).
You seem hate work that isn't done by yourself.
And this is not the first time you didn't post anything constructive...
Originally posted by Lightspeed
I still think they look like the originals with messed up colour.
Except for the afterburner trail of course, which IMHO looks crappy as it's cut off and obviously flat, as can be seen in this picture:
(http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/9841/c1.jpg)
Originally posted by Lightspeed
Call me a moron, but I prefer the stock effects.
And with your influence (You are somewhat known here), you not only make the people stop giving me positve feedback, but to stop them giving me any real feedback at all.
(Afterwards you steal my ideas and try to copy what I did.)
Originally posted by Lightspeed
You've inspired me to play around a bit with explosions...
Lightspeeds high-explosive compilation™ (http://www.penguinbomb.com/lightspeed/FS2-HighExplosive.zip)
Includes the following:
- High Res ANIs (from FS1 and FS2)
- LODs for explosions removed for clearer distance views
- New flak explosion (from FS1)
- Smooth Explosion Technique™ (15 FPS explosions looked a bit stuttery)
Try it :) [/B]
First you told me that even the idea is bad (without saying anything constructive), then you copied it, but you never admited that it's a good idea. Seems to be rather unfair.
-
you 2 done with the piss fight?
I like this whole idea of a high res texture pack, and I'm even willing to redo some textures myself. But I agree that they need to be redone from scratch and that's gonna take a bit of time. But I'm up for the challenge anyway if you 2 will stop fighting, just ignore each other and lets get something a little more serious done already, good grief!
-
jesus.
aside from the blaming eachother of IP theft, can we please take a look at the problem at hand?
filtering texes won't help. i played around enough with PSP (similar enough to PS) to learn that. someone will have to redo it, either with a paint brush or something, or with a tablet.
and as for Ls not offering constructive advice, he simply said that this method won't work, whatever way you play with it.
and the thing he whipped up, the original, and your work, it's mostly the original that wins. the brick thingy, while perhaps realisitc, doesn't do it. if we want realism, we would be seeing large black boxes firing invisible beams at eachother while passing at gigantic distances at high speeds.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
jesus.
filtering texes won't help. i played around enough with PSP (similar enough to PS) to learn that.
That's perfectly right, and I never said anything else.
But as there are a few people who like this, it would be a good idea if this continues under the aspect of my first posting (What should be changed ?).
-
DaBrain:
I don't think simple textures or texture-like effects is the right way to go, because you're not really adding anything that will be visible in game under most circumstances. I think redrawing the textures using the originals as a template would be far more effective, allowing for greater detail and clarity.
That's my suggestion
-
c'mon guys!! Whip them out, lets see whos is bigger!!!
-
you know the 'added detail' I see in most of those could be acheaved via a detail texture in game, with far less video memory taken up.
-
Really, those textures look like they just had some filters run over them. I suck at texture manipulation in PS, and even I think that.
And if they're more than that, well, they should look like they're more than that, shouldn't they?
I agree with Unknown Target. To me both look like just filter jobs, no real work to them, and the brick pattern on both just looks horrible as a flat image, I can only imagine how they look in game
As I said before, I would be perfectly willing to redo all the original art in a larger size, from scratch, keeping the same designs so it just gained detail, if someone else is willing to coordinate the work. I imagine I could fix up a texture every day or two (at WORST one a week, but I doubt I'll get that far behind)
---
Posted by DaBrain
I'm starting to think that too.
LS you didn't even give a singe constructive advice (And that is the reason I opend this for).
You seem hate work that isn't done by yourself.
And this is not the first time you didn't post anything constructive...
And with your influence (You are somewhat known here), you not only make the people stop giving me positve feedback, but to stop them giving me any real feedback at all.
(Afterwards you steal my ideas and try to copy what I did.)
First you told me that even the idea is bad (without saying anything constructive), then you copied it, but you never admited that it's a good idea. Seems to be rather unfair.
Okay, I think i'd need to clarify myself a bit.
First, I do NOT hate work that isnt done by me (actually, i'm highly sceptical towards my own work too) - its just that i'm a goddamn perfectionist and lately we've had a lot of stuff done which simply is far from perfect. Now, if you think a while back we had Carl's impact effects, Bobboaus original trails, GE's FS1 shinemaps which were all high-quality jaw-dropping work. Heck, and of course we have Venom who doesnt stop to impress us with his texturing and modelling skills.
However, just running a few filters over an image (and its really NOTICEABLE you did that) is the wrong way to go. I can't give any constructive feedback, since the whole method of simply running it through a few filters will not work. You will not see any good difference in game, and the extra memory space will go away wasted. And it's not like you edited in any details, the armour plates are just as blurry as on the original resized textures - the contrast is even messed up and the whole thing simply looks like a 2 minute 'amateur' PS job. (UT and Shadow put it quite nicely, thats why I quoted their posts)
While I appreciate your efforts, I think they are the wrong way to go for Freespace. I wouldnt want FS2 to end up as a really cheap looking game like X². Freespace 2 is an amazing piece of work, and I have great interest that this will stay true for the future. And you certainly will not reach that level by using some 1 minute filter job.
When did I steal your ideas? As you quoted my post so nicely I stand by what I said, I was inspired by your explosion stuff, as I already said in your thread, I had expected the performance loss to be greatly stronger of effect, that's why I thought it was a bad idea at first. I still think it can be quite harsh but works fairly well on modern systems. I then noticed there's some things that are not quite to my liking in your release, but that can be changed quickly (like setting the frame rate, removing LODs for normal explosions, too, etc) - so I just stepped up and threw together a quick zip. I could have kept the stuff here (as I made it for myself, and not for the community, actually) but if I have made it anyway, why not share it with you?
Last for this thread here - all I wanted to show with the image I posted is that what you did is nought but a filter job - and don't tell me it isnt because it just keeps screaming 'filterr!!!!' to me. I really do *not* see any difference besides a few brightness, contrast filters and the sharpen along with texturizer.
Summarizing my thoughts I agree 100% with ShadowDrakken - If you want high res textures the only way to go is completely rebuilding the maps. While that might take a while it will actually ADD detail.
Perhaps you don't understand it. If it takes 2 hours to create a map, you will never see more then 10 new maps.
Even if you create a complete new one that won't change. And it's pointless too.
Let's concentrate on something that can really be done. There will be something better all the time, perfectionism won't help.
Edit: Shinemaps are only standard maps, with the dark areas cut out. That can be done without even using one painting tool.
I do perfectly understand it. And two hours is a great underestimation. Working properly you can calculate about 4 hours per texture, at least. Just for your info, I spent at least about 12 hours of work for every TVWP fighter texture I made - and probably more than 30 hours of work on my nebulae and weapon effects. Still, they're there, they're up for download, and seem quite real to me. It's all a matter of patience and time. It CAN be done, and because I know it can be done, I will not endorse any imperfect solution. And your knowledge seems to be lacking quite a few things, as there again is the difference between a slopped together shinemap that just wastes texture space (instead of using the base image as a shine map) and a shinemap that actually adds details and special effects that have a big boost on visual quality. I could post some screenshots if you want.
I hope you understand my point of view now. I have no (none at all) personal problems with you or any other HLP member.
-
texturising is nothing, here's what a few tweaked emboss layers can look like.
(http://users.bigpond.net.au/Turnsky/images/texture.jpg)
-
Oh please!
ANyway, the whole thing is wrong, coz curse me if you want, but V tiles maps are... "breathe" ****TY? BUTT UGLY and CRAPPILY THOUGHT "expires". So you can up the resolution all you want, add all the details you want, the Hecate will still look like an orc turd, and the Orion like an ill kidney, because the maps are, well, randomly tossed together ( well, I can tone that done on the Orion, just that blue doesn't fit to that ship imho ). They need to be changed, not redone.
-
Originally posted by Nico
Oh please!
ANyway, the whole thing is wrong, coz curse me if you want, but V tiles maps are... "breathe" ****TY? BUTT UGLY and CRAPPILY THOUGHT "expires". So you can up the resolution all you want, add all the details you want, the Hecate will still look like an orc turd, and the Orion like an ill kidney, because the maps are, well, randomly tossed together ( well, I can tone that done on the Orion, just that blue doesn't fit to that ship imho ). They need to be changed, not redone.
I think a good mix of redoing and changing wouldnt look bad at all. Of course it would look even better if someone actually baked and modified the cap ship textures so they dont look like a bunch of thrown together tiled textures :)
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
texturising is nothing, here's what a few tweaked emboss layers can look like.
(http://users.bigpond.net.au/Turnsky/images/texture.jpg)
......a pixelized mess?
no offence, but even i can see the pixels in that.
edit: on further examination, it looks pre-lit with spec already aplied.
this is bad, since light in FS can come from all directions, and should be dealth with with good, different colour, spec mapping.
-
DaBrain, regardless of whether you did or did not use a procedure as simple as the one Lightspeed says you did, the fact remains your textures still look like that. If they don't look better, then what's the point of a more complicated procedure if it looks just as good as a much simpler one?
I don't see the point in a hi-res texture pack unless there's a hugely noticable difference, and I'm not seeing anything hugely noticable in-game with this pack.
-
Edit: No release. No pictures that might be used.
(The old one is resized bicubical.)
Wich one do you think is better ?
-
Originally posted by Nico
Oh please!
ANyway, the whole thing is wrong, coz curse me if you want, but V tiles maps are... "breathe" ****TY? BUTT UGLY and CRAPPILY THOUGHT "expires". So you can up the resolution all you want, add all the details you want, the Hecate will still look like an orc turd, and the Orion like an ill kidney, because the maps are, well, randomly tossed together ( well, I can tone that done on the Orion, just that blue doesn't fit to that ship imho ). They need to be changed, not redone.
I got one word for you:
Fenris.
On this ship they got it right - hands down. Its military and its grey and it's all good. More please.
-
DaBrain, looks like you upped the colours, threw some sort of blurred noise layer over it, and used some kind of "leather" filter.
-
Don't worry DaBrain, I've been artslapped by LS myself, don't take it personally, I've found a lot of his advice really useful. A lot of people here can be very open with their opinion, personally, I like that, it means I'm not going to release something crap because everyone was busy trying to be nice to me.
Like LS' own effects etc, just carry on and do it if you want to, and those that want to use it, can download it. As long as it works for you, that is what is important :D
-
That one DaBrain just showed was pretty cool, I think.
Nico is right, though, the textures don't have to be resized or upped in resolution. They gotta be redone. I really don't know how hard that is to do.
-
DaBrain: between the two, I like the first one best. The darker color seems better and is smoother the lighter one looks kind of solarized.
However, I would take the time to thin out those black lines a bit, if you have to redraw it to do that, that would work best. In game those thick black lines will be too blatant and defined I think
I wouldn't go down to 1 pixel thick, just like half their current thickness
The crackle effect is OK, but not the best, it's a bit too obvious as beign a filter
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
I got one word for you:
Fenris.
On this ship they got it right - hands down. Its military and its grey and it's all good. More please.
yep, and it's not tiled either :)
-
DaBrain: Just taking a second look between my work here, if you could put the second one's texture onto the first one's color and brightness, that might look better :)
-
you can't make the vasudan tiles any bigger, they won't look right. see if you can improve what's already there in the same size. or just re-UV map all the Vasudan ships
Edit: But otherwise, very good!
-
actually Turambar, that's not exactly true. They would look almost identical to the way they look now.
[broken record] UV mapping does not depend in any way, shape, or form on the size of a texture file, and a panel set to repeat 10 times will show 10 repeats if the texture is 16x16 or 1024x1024. [/broken record]
To DaBrain: I've avoided getting in to this debate because everything I would say has been said already. Lightspeed has effectively demonstrated that what you are doing can be done in nothing but a few photoshop layers and it shows. I tend to agree, but that's not my point. All I'm saying is that rather than deny that you are using filters or try to hide that fact, take his advice, sit down when you have a lot of time, and try to rebuild a texture at a higher resolution without starting from a :V: map. There's a reason why Lightspeed's stuff is awed by many around here; the time and effort he puts in to each of his releases is apparent. Don't expect the same response for a batch job, because it simply isn't and can't be as good.
-
the tiled textures get bigger when you increase them, I know because ive tried! Hatshetsput, Diemos, Orion, and Colossus all had issues when i made the textures bigger and sharper. I stopped, because of that, and because the difference was tiny and the whole thig seemed pointless
-
I am Turambar, master of...wait...absolutely nothing!
-
Turambar, this argument has been made a whole lot recently, and ultimately it's something wrong on the texturer's end if the mapping appreciably changes on a tiled ship when textures are simply enlarged. There is no way that the mapping can change on a ship without changing the number of repeats per a single tile. I've tried it too, and I model; it doesn't change.
-
I concur, the texture map is exactly that, just a map which is placed over the texture, regardless of the textures' size. The repeat means how many times that tile is repeated under the map.
Remember locations in Texture maps read from 0-1, 0 being the leftmost/top pixel of the texture (depending if the value is U or V), and 1 being the rightmost/bottom pixel. So the map really doesn't care what size the texture is :)
-
while the lack of colours from the original vasudan map is not as visible in your version, it does not look vasudan anymore.
It looks like some leather jacket - something you probably wouldnt want to see on a space ship.
-
LS: I dunno, I always got this feeling of the Vasudan ship hulls being sort of organic. I think the texture is fitting towards that feeling, no?
-
At least, not unless it's late at night and you've been in space a looong looong time.......
:nervous:
-
I think the problem is that the scales look like they are supposed to be smooth rather than leathery (aquatic rather than terrestrial based). Like the bricks, it may seem like the best option in reality but it doesn't seem to work on the textures. Also, there's some blatent color-banding in the original textures; if you're uberfying them, you've absolutely got to kill the bands.
-
Now that I can agree with, just resizing and adding a texture isn't going to work, as stated several times before. The color banding is one very good reason why. Also, the lines end up beign too thick IMNSHO :)
-
Originally posted by Turambar
I am Turambar, master of...wait...absolutely nothing!
WTF!?! I didn't say this! (probably my little brother or something (I hope))
-
*points and laughs*
:lol:
-
Originally posted by ShadowDrakken
Now that I can agree with, just resizing and adding a texture isn't going to work, as stated several times before. The color banding is one very good reason why. Also, the lines end up beign too thick IMNSHO :)
But they aren't. Ingame, they are as thick as the stock ones.
And scaling the stock one to the res og my one is ok, because (depending on you distance to the map) the map is scaled to this size anyway (using bicubical is even overdone, because the game only scales them bilinear.)
A admit that just modyifing all maps won't do.
But for many maps it works pretty good. (Or makes them at least look better than the old maps.)
Perhaps we really need to redo some of them. (especially the most used ones.)
Bu I want to make clear something too: Just because somthing doesn't take hours, it's not bad. I'm 100% sure there are many things that could improve FS2 in only a few minutes or perhaps even seconds. Sometimes a good idea can be better than even the hardest work.
-
Originally posted by DaBrain
And scaling the stock one to the res og my one is ok, because (depending on you distance to the map) the map is scaled to this size anyway (using bicubical is even overdone, because the game only scales them bilinear.)
This is what we're complaining about, as it defeats the purpose of a texture upgrade. It will look exactly the same blurry.
-
That's for the stock one only. The new texture doesn't look blurry.
In the contrary, it perhaps looks even too "crisply".
-
Ok, maybe you all should check out the Freespace: Reborn project from a few years back. That is how you are supposed to upgrade textures. Apparantly, however, the link was removed, but a shining example was the Ursa model. Check it out if anyone can find it.
-
DaBrain, the stock ones look too thick in the game too, but it couldn't be helped with such low res textures
I'll redo one or two this weekend to show what I can do, but someone else will have to figure out how to get it into the game cause I've got no clue there
-
Hmmm One other interesting point is that, should we wish to release updated rather than recreated textures with the SCP, wouldn't they have to look like this?
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/capital01bigc.jpg)
-
Originally posted by DaBrain
Is it allowed to release altered standart ones ?
I know that was a problem with quake 1.
But I saw altered textures for FS2.
Why didn't you say that in the first place ?
So this Freespace: Reborn project did do something illegal ?
If so there is no way I will release this.
-
I don't know if [V] will put up with it or not to be honest DaBrain, I didn't say that in the first place because I only just thought that the way the SCP needs to go is to have as little [V] stuff as possible in it. Altering textures for people to use on models for a game they already own is one thing, making those textures available for download as part of a complete, installable, working package may be another matter entirely, but as I said, I don't know for sure :)
-
if we make it all anew, only for the better.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
if we make it all anew, only for the better.
But you will need all at once. Only some high-quality maps will look weird when mixed with the old ones...
So this is it. No release for this. Only a last screenshot. :)
(http://www.ystart.net/upload/20040424/1082829784.jpg)
(http://www.ystart.net/upload/20040424/1082829749.jpg)
Edit: All links to actual maps (jpg) are now deleted.
Take a look on the front part (right), you should be able to see a bigger difference in sharpness, and (im my oppinon) better choosen color.
-
Hrm, first pic looks better, second pic looks like the only difference is it now has pinstripes... talk about UGLY
if that's all the more you're gonna do is putting poorly chosen filters on an otherwise unchanged image, stop wasting your time and everyone else's
Edit: oh cute, didn't like my comment so you switch the images around to make the ugly pinstripy one the first pic... I had been supporting you DaBrain, just offering suggestions, but I think now I'm gonna redo the texture just to show you up...
-
Originally posted by DaBrain
Why didn't you say that in the first place ?
So this Freespace: Reborn project did do something illegal ?
If so there is no way I will release this.
I don't think [V] particularly cares. After all, there are zillions of mods out there with [V] textures.
-
Even if they don't care it seems pointless to release, because there are only a few people who like it.
Plus it would be (somehow) illegal.
Why aren't there links anymore... Perhaps that's related with that.
-
Originally posted by ShadowDrakken
Hrm, first pic looks better, second pic looks like the only difference is it now has pinstripes... talk about UGLY
if that's all the more you're gonna do is putting poorly chosen filters on an otherwise unchanged image, stop wasting your time and everyone else's
That's nice, DaBrain does try to improve the textures and does not deserve comments like that. He seems to be a beginner in all this; do you think something like that will encourage him to better his work? :rolleyes:
I do agree with you, though. The textures on Orion look weird, to say the least.
-
Lt: he was told repeatedly it wouldn't work, he was given many honest and polite suggestions on what could be done, but instead he insiststhat it's the right way to go, and posts the earliest PoS he made on a few screenshots, knowing full well that it wouldn't go over well because the people offering suggestions could tell what it would do in game. He got what he deserves
-
LT, I agree that [V] probably wouldn't care, but everything that's been released up to this point has required FS2 to be installed already for it to work. If SCP is to become viable as a download, we need to remove as much [V] stuff as possible, since we are giving them the game AND the content this time :)
If there were a time for [V] to take exception, it would be then. I'm not saying that they would, just that they could.
-
I find it pretty stupid that some people choose to criticize what is obviously a well intentioned and to a point - effective, push to renew the textures.
I for one like the new Orion textures. New textures would be preferable, but the revised ones by DaBrain show a visible improvement. Same with the other pictures posted earlier in the thread,
You can expect someone to open Photoshop and immediatly top Lightspeed. Textures are hard to do from scratch, and it takes lots of practice. I fully support whatever effort is made to make FS2 newer and shinier. If someone gets around to doing new textures (I hope so), great. But putting down someone's work when you haven't done anything yourself (ShadowDrakken) isn't helpful.
DaBrain, I hope you continue with your work on the textures, despite what some people have said. If you want to look into learning how to do textures from scratch, I say go for i, but if not than this is still a greater contribution than many here have made.
-
Personally I like the textures that Volition did on their new ships. I thought the the Fenris and the Orion are both just ugly ships. But that's just me.
-
Rictor: oh I'm sorry, we'll just forget that I'm employed as a graphics artist, I haven't EVER done any of this kind of thing. Thank you, you've set me straight for sure. Yes, we'll just pinstripe all the textures and call it better for it's obvious superiority. And we'll forget that not only have I offered to redo textures on my own time and at a fast pace, but that I also promised to have some out this weekend. obviously that's not welcome however and I'll just delete mine because there's no pinstripes making them look better than the originals
-
SD, tone it down a bit. You may be all that and a bag of chips, but that doesn't give you the right to desparage someone of less skill than you. At least he's trying something and learning to do better. Your ego won't allow you to see past the end of your opinion, which is apparently rather short indeed.
I don't care if you are God incarnate with PS, knock it off.
-
Those last few comments are oddly reminiscent of 12 Angry Men.
DaBrain has contributed quite a bit recently, and every time (to my knowledge) he's been kicked in the face in return by a fair few people. His work might not equal Lightspeed's, but he deserves at least some recognition for having a go, which is more than a lot of people here have done, including myself.
-
yes, but you shouldn't praise someone for there work when it simply isn't good, if somethng is ugly you should say so, otherwise you wont get any better
-
Originally posted by ShadowDrakken
Rictor: oh I'm sorry, we'll just forget that I'm employed as a graphics artist, I haven't EVER done any of this kind of thing. Thank you, you've set me straight for sure. Yes, we'll just pinstripe all the textures and call it better for it's obvious superiority. And we'll forget that not only have I offered to redo textures on my own time and at a fast pace, but that I also promised to have some out this weekend. obviously that's not welcome however and I'll just delete mine because there's no pinstripes making them look better than the originals
So what, because there's pros around ( according to them, of course ), does this mean they have to shut the beginers? I'm a 3d artist myself ( tho unemployed at the moment ), maybe I should consider some "slaying n00bs" party?
For god's sake, what an elitist way of thinking :rollreyes:
-
BTW I see no point actually even in redrawing the maps from scratch using the originals as templates.
Most if not all of the ships needs not only BETTER maps, but also DIFFERENT maps and DIFFERENT uvmaps without countless tileings.
that's my 2 cents
-
As I said before, some people here are extremely blunt, it's not a failing, just in their nature, and shouldn't be taken so personally.
Whether we like it or not, there is no room for artistic temperaments around here, from anyone.
-
Uh, guys - would you all please be a tad more considerate of others? Everyone has a different level of skill and style that they like to work with - this community should be inspiring the best of people and helping them to improve, certainly not insulting them.
Keep in mind that some people take criticism better than others - certainly if I'd worked hard on something and thought it was really good, I'd be pretty peeved and put off to be told "how can you create that POS?"
ShadowDrakken, I appreciate the fact that you may feel frustrated that your work hasn't been taken up immediately. Perhaps if you created an example on a ship of your choice and showed everyone what you were capable of - they'd be much more receptive to the offer. Around here people are generally happier to support ideas if they have at least an idea of what they're looking at... so make up an example and show what you can do.
However, stop your attitude right there. For all I know you could've been resposible for the textures in use in Half Life 2 or Far Cry. But as nice as it is - it won't get you a free ticket to mistreat others around here. By all means offer advice - harsh advice if need be. But please don't throw insults and such at others from here on - especially considering how recent a member you are to the community.
With that in mind, continue - and best of luck to all involved with creating some new textures. There's certainly some good ideas coming to the front.
-
I was never interested in a fight, but I WILL defend myself if I'm attacked. I WAS being helpful, but you know, DaBrain asked for help then ignored every last bit of it, THAT'S why he got trashed, not for trying, but for NOT TRYING
But hey, it's cool, DaBrain keep working on it, plenty of people here like what you've done. I'll keep my stuff to myself since that's what the consensus is.
-
no, no, not at all. We wan't the high-quality products of a graphics artist or whatever it is you do, just dont be so harsh on everyone else. Post some screenies and make people happy
-
Even though I thought it wouldn't be necessary, it seems that I have to show this picture.
Perhaps now somebody can guess the actual idea behind it (my first attempt was even less time-expensive, but also less effectiv).
(2x size)
(http://www.ystart.net/upload/20040425/1082905964.jpg)
As I don't have much time, I try to support FSSCP with good ideas.
But if I have time to do something, will try to do it (But it's not my top priority)
@ShadowDrakken Sorry you got no answer, but I think you didn't really took a look on it. And your comment only refferd to one map. As this is a matter of personal taste, there was nothing for me to answer. (So I tried to take it with humor :) )
Redrawing only one map is pointless. Try to concentrate on the fighter maps, or perhaps the most used ones, or perhaps the ugliest ones.
It would be helpful if you could tell me what exactly it is that you don't like. I only know it's "brick-ish look" for one map, but I really can't understand why.
(I'm working now on a method that doesn't need the old maps, but won't need that much time. Even though it gives me new problems it should "create" allnew and different textures. It's only hard to realize it for all textures...)
Edit: I need to do new shinemaps too, so don't expect anything soon.
-
Turambar: I havent' the foggiest idea how to take textures out of the game or put them back in, I just offered to make higher res ones. Soemone else gets to get them back in the game. But I've lost interest now, and it's probably better if I avoid threads like these because I'll only get people too hot it seems
-
heres what you do, download vpview from the old original Freespace 2/ Descent 3 website. Then you open up sparky_fs2.vp and go to maps and everything is right in there. I've tried making hi-res textures, but i ended up just putting filters on things, so i stopped myself
Edit: Just do a google search for vpview, you'll find it
-
for any other questions, i refer to the wiki. the welcome mesage is not in place here, but that tag is easier then looking up the link
[wiki]....[/wiki]
-
Or click on my FAQ. Both my Directory Structure page and GE's VPView tutorial have instructions on how to use it.
-
http://www.descent-network.com/cgi-bin/descman.cgi?module=vpview
download this one and browse inside the *.vp archive, select a file and extract it.
that's it
-
SD, if you want to, would you be able to make a shot at a high detail version of the one I posted (Page 3)? Then I can do some in-game shots with the Orion and show how it looks?
I'm interested to see what people have in mind for these :D
-
And will it be uber maps (1024x1024, 2048x2048) ?
Or more moderate ones, which can be used by more people ?
-
if you make them very large, you can always scale them down.
i think we proved that scaling up isn't an easy option.
-
btw personally I think that any texture redrawing shouldn't come alone, but should instead depend by the models.
I mean that if I'll make an high poly model of, say, the Deimos, I'll not use the same textures, or if I'll use them I'll change the way they're used.
This means that, in my example, if you redraw the deimos' textures, it could be a waste.
This, assuming that someone will remake the Deimos model of course....which should be nonetheless necessary since she suck as she is and will continue to suck even with high res textures;)
you should stick to the models already done, like for example the mjolnir, or at least the herc or the fenris, althought those two already use high res textures so it isn't that necessary for them
-
See ShadowDrakken, we don't hate you :)
-
If your card isn't capable of 2048 x 2048 maps, then you really need to upgrade your card, their hasn't been one in production that can't handle that resolution for a fair while. Even old low-spec ATI cards can handle 1024 x 1024 :)
I agree that common sense is required, but I agree with Kasperl, I'd rather scale down some huge texture than try to scale up some tiny ones :)
Also, if they are stored as DDS, they won't take up much room in memory, and should (hopefully) be more compatible with DDS' compression technique than Nebula etc.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
If your card isn't capable of 2048 x 2048 maps, then you really need to upgrade your card, their hasn't been one in production that can't handle that resolution for a fair while. Even old low-spec ATI cards can handle 1024 x 1024 :)
I agree that common sense is required, but I agree with Kasperl, I'd rather scale down some huge texture than try to scale up some tiny ones :)
There is no doubt about that. I ment the size they will be released with.
-
also, don't waste colour depth, I mean that, talking about game models' textures, you will not need very often 24 bits instead of 8 bits, greater size and more details are many times more important than colour depth in bumping the quality of textures
-
Well, we would probably just follow Volitions example there and release two packs, one with a max size of, say, 1024 x 1024 and one with a max size of 512 x 512 with everything scaled down appropriately. That way we can accomodate as wide a variety of users as possible.
It might even be worth considering a mix and match of various peoples work, yours, Lightspeeds and ShadowDrakkens if he's willing and other peoples stuff as well to form the final set, but we will wait and see what happens, right now, I'm pretty depressed at the rate this thread is driving off willing helpers :(
16 Bit texture depth may be a good idea for ship textures actually, since the lighting will be rendered onto it in 32 Bit anyway.
-
Meh, why not stop discussing things for now and just go out there and try a few things out, get the ball rolling and see how things can be improved? As much as I know nothnig about texture creation - I do know that nothing will be done by talking. Even if you're not sure people will like what you do - at least try it out and see where it can lead.
-
Kal, do you have the old stuff for the Freespace: Reborn project? Those were how the textures should be done. Maybe you could locate the Ursa pic?
-
The old stuff? Whatcha mean?
-
Originally posted by Flipside
It might even be worth considering a mix and match of various peoples work, yours, Lightspeeds and ShadowDrakkens if he's willing and other peoples stuff as well to form the final set, but we will wait and see what happens, right now, I'm pretty depressed at the rate this thread is driving off willing helpers :(
Oh, I'm cooking something up - just not sure when it'll be finished as I didnt have any time this weekend :)
-
That's good news :) I'm pretty sure that this project, if it gets off the ground properly, more than any so far, is going to need as much help from as many people as possible. As I say, if we mix and match between the best of everyones, we might see something pretty impressive emerging :D
Looking forward to seeing what you come up with when you have the time :D
I might even have a crack at one myself at some point, though I'm not sure how my efforts from scratch will match up to others, but hey, I'll give it a go :) I'm assuming the best idea would be to keep an enlarged version of the original texture in the base layer, and reconstruct using that as a basic guide?
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
The old stuff? Whatcha mean?
Well it was a couple years ago.
-
Freespace Reborn? Wazzat? :)
-
My mind.. it burns. I really can't remember what it was about though it must have existed (I can't be senile at 19 can I?).
-
I suppose he's meaning the project to upgrade fs2 textures with emboss and similar effects.
Nothing THAT much better than what we've seen here in my opinion.
Personally I think that if you guys can substitute the original textures with new better ones, it'll be good and it'll surely make the original models look many times better, so be free to go for it.
But as I already said, the reason for the :v: models look crap, is not only due to sucking maps, which can be said mostly only for fighters and other models with custom low res textures: the tile textures aren't that crap usually, the problem is the way they are used.
The reason for the :v: models look crap, is because they're lowpoly for today standards and, probably more important, because in many cases they look like if they have been uvmapped in a hurry by a drunken mokey. The whole texturing strategy of many ships, and therefore the uvmapping job, just suck.
This mean that if you want to upgrade the aspect of the models, making new textures is surely important, but even more important is to re-uvmap and possibly rebuild the models, and in this case many textures should be trashed/changed/adapted to the new models.
My fear is that you may start a very very huge hard job that will come somewhat useless whenever someone will rebuild a model.
It'll be better in my opinion if this project will come not alone, but inside a bigger project regarding models and uvmaps too, so that the new textures will be created specifically for the new models and their specific needs.
Also I don't know you, but it takes me an incredible amount of time to draw new textures, and even if you'll be able to put together 3 or 4 good texturers it'll remain an incredibly big project to substitute all the original textures with new ones.
good luck anyway;)
-
yeah, be that as it may, with the enhancements done to the fs2_open engine, some day some of us have to start doing this, otherwise the whole point of upgrading the engine is a waste of time...
-
Will the shine and glow maps need to be completely redone when FSO becomes standalone ?
-
If the textures are changed from what they are now? Yeah, they will. But from what I gather - creating shine and glow maps is a relatively simple process compared to creating a brand new texture... though Lightspeed is really the one who should be saying that - he's responsible for the current shine maps most people are using :nod:
-
Well, I ment beacause they are based on [v] maps...
-
Well the shinemaps are wholly dependant on the texture they are intended to be used with, as are glowmaps. So if the base texture is redone, the auxillary textures must be changed as well. Regardless of whether FSO becomes stand-alone or not.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Well the shinemaps are wholly dependant on the texture they are intended to be used with, as are glowmaps. So if the base texture is redone, the auxillary textures must be changed as well. Regardless of whether FSO becomes stand-alone or not.
-
IT does, however, give an opportunity to create the shinemaps whilst creating the texture, thus allowing them to be far more customised towards that particular texture :)
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Well the shinemaps are wholly dependant on the texture they are intended to be used with, as are glowmaps. So if the base texture is redone, the auxillary textures must be changed as well. Regardless of whether FSO becomes stand-alone or not.
This is for the case that the new maps are finished before FSO becomes standalone...
If this acually happens is hard to say. There are just too much maps.
Anyway, the shine and glowmaps are technicaly not legal.
-
it'll never become standalone because you'd have to substitute all the sounds, all the animations, all the textures, all the interface, all the models, and the missions too... and don't forget that :v: (or/and interplay) owns the rights over the concepts and the story too...
so forget about it until someone buy the rights from :v: and interplay, or they say that they don't own the rights anymore, or they give permission to the community to use their artwork
-
don't we need to figure out who -has- the rights first? and we should just ask them, I doubt they would care. Just send an email that says: "Hey, can we use your stuff, we'll put you in the credits"
and they'l leither say "No" or "Sure" and if they say "No" then we'l lalter it sufficiently to create the "Value Added" part (my IB Extended Essay has to do with Copyright Law) aand i'm clueless
-
technicly, all of the mods here would be pretty much illegal.
practicly, well, what do you think?
-
If we change the names we could use the story :)
Perhaps Admiral Dosh and the vadusans :)
The sounds will be no problem as there are incredible many free sounds (somewehre out there in net). Will be a hard job to find good ones, and an even harder job to find fitting ones.
I know a little bit about sound creation, but I don't have the right equipment. (It's really only a litte bit)
But you are allowed to give FS2 copies to your friends. So we don't really need a standalone.
Note: The texture creation takes more time than I imagined, even the (new) way I do it.
-
To be honest, I don't think [V] could give a monkey's as long as we aren't trying to make money off of it, however if Interplay DO own the rights still, and are hard up on cash...........
Theres been lengthy discussion on the board about defining 'friend', I'm not sure what the outcome was :)
-
Originally posted by KARMA
I suppose he's meaning the project to upgrade fs2 textures with emboss and similar effects.
Nothing THAT much better than what we've seen here in my opinion.
It made all the textures much sharper, and the emboss effect was better done, IMHO. The Ursa pic was the best.
EDIT: FOUND IT! It was called Freespace REALIZATION!
Here:
http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/realization/index.htm
Not as good as I remembered, but it looks much sharper than the usual textures :)
-
As far as I understand these pictures were taken form a 3d render programm. They created a material based on the map with an bumpmap. Take a look a the ships. You will notice the odd light on them, wich is propably a lightsource in the software.
That is what creates the structurized effect. The prove is the ravana. Look at the areas in the dark. They are bumpmapped.
Well I might be wrong.
If I'm right, there is no improvement in the game...
These maps wouldn't add detail either.
EDIT:
" These can then be used to make more realistic renders. With the progress on the Freespace 2 Source Code Project, the ships may even be implemented into the game one day. "
-
I like the reskin work, though Icouldn't help but notice that a lot of it was just bump mapping the textures like this :-
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/CapBump1.jpg) (Massive overkill on the heights here ;) )
It looks nice, I guess, but I'd rather wait for the real thing in-game ;)
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
EDIT: FOUND IT! It was called Freespace REALIZATION!
Here:
http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/realization/index.htm
Not as good as I remembered, but it looks much sharper than the usual textures :)
I've never seen this before. It looks both good and tacky. Amazing.
Too bad LS is so busy with all that we make him do. I'd love to see these made better.
-
Yes, TVWP owns my soul :)