Hard Light Productions Forums
Community Projects => The FreeSpace Upgrade Project => Topic started by: Enioch on February 17, 2009, 11:07:14 am
-
:pimp:
Sorry about the crappy Anti-Aliasing. My new GPU (Gforce 9500GT :ick:) is hiccoughing quite a lot, lately. Am switching back to my trusty X1950Pro, especially now that the new 9.1 drivers are out... (love!):D
Anyway, model at ca 10000 tris. Diffuse and normal maps still WIP, after a week or so of photoshopping, but nearing completion now(and YES, I KNOW they're a bit cartoony, but I'm no texturer, and I intend to release it with the UVW template included, so any aspiring texturer can enjoy themselves).
Next in line, glow and shine maps.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Another one?
-
I thought the last HTL one was broken...collision errors and so on :nervous:
I didn't find any other tries...
-
Well, continue anyway...
-
I'd like to see other angles of it.
Tbh, apart from the cartoony textures and the fact that the tanks are a texture instead of an actual model, I like this model more
-
About the other angles: Sure, just not now. Maybe tomorrow.
And the tanks are a texture, but the 'ribs' over them are modeled.
And thanks, of course. :D
BTW, I must admit that I like these textures, although they are not (I know) that freespace-y. I'll probably let somebody else worry about that, as soon as I upload the final version. But, just out of curiosity, how do I go about texturing a model from scratch and retaining that freespace feel?
-
Texture it freespace-y :P
If you watch carefully, most of FS's textures aren't clean, on the contrary, they are full of grit and stuff, that's what you gotta simulate.
Basic mistake nº1 that I see on all kinds of texturing work nowadays (which is what makes them look cartoonish) is that people don't understand how reality is like.
Take for instance a grey metal plate: it ain't just a plain grey colour, it shouldn't be. If you colour pick the good textures, you will find out that even on what seems just a grey plate, you find pixels that are more bluish, others that are more redish and so on. Those little colour variations give life to the texture.
Also, gritiness and "polishness" cannot be evenly distributed either. Some places are more keen to getting more environment damage than others. Other places are more keen at taking lil colisions, so they have a more irregular texture than others, and so on.
You also have to take into account that depending on the functionality of the spots of a ship, some places have a certain kind of metal, while others have other kinds of metal. For instance, near the engines you probably will have a more polished, heat resistant metal (which will have more damage than the metal on other parts of the ship of course, due to extreme heats). Parts that are more heavily armoured may have more rough materials (so they spread the energy of a weapon impact).
So basic thing is: study :D
-
if your talking about materials that have not been made yet, how can you say a rough surface can get rid of energy better? From what I have seen in the aviation field I work in, composits made of a blend from metals, ceramics and resins and more likely nano carbon materials will be what the future holds.
Most Nano carbon materials I have seen are quite smooth and a very dark Gray-Black. Will this be how materials be in the future? maybe, maybe not. I also think we will not see panel lines as such has been made here for our models. In my case, I only made them such as well..because most like to see them and gives the mode some character.
Late fighters today when they are painted rarely have visible panel lines showing farther than 20 feet. Will you see them from wear and tear? Possibly and all depends on what and how the material used to make these fighters are done. As an example, lots of welding is done on high stress parts using what is called friction welding. It's nearly seamless and far stronger than traditional welding is but currently cost more. Some panels are also being friction welded and when painted, will not have any panel lines as well. But I do agree, study up on current and the latest technology being used and researched and you will have a slight idea of what the future holds.
-
if you're talking about materials that have not been made yet, how can you say a rough surface can get rid of energy better?....
For GOD's sake, nobody answer that. :D It borders on thread derailment...
Let's keep it on how to stay true to the original freespace style. Not how the original freespace style should be.
And let's stick to the model. That's why I'm posting this here. To get some feedback.
-
Ok, I'll try to explain this as simple as possible so you can understand what I wrote.
Enioch asked:
But, just out of curiosity, how do I go about texturing a model from scratch and retaining that freespace feel?
I replied:
Texture it freespace-y :P
If you watch carefully, most of FS's textures aren't clean, on the contrary, they are full of grit and stuff, that's what you gotta simulate.
blah blah blah
Notice the bolds. We're talking about Freespace craft, not real craft...
But since you brought it up, and I'm not claiming I'm a material\aviation expert like you obviously... I take it that you've seen those grey-black carbon materials after prolongued exposure in stress situations, like the ones you get in a military theater.
I actually already had a rough idea how military planes are built and how they are plated, same goes for a space shuttle, and boats... however I believe you're missing some points:
- in Freespace ships are made to be used in space only. It makes sense in a plane or the space shuttle that the plating is only some cm thick (which makes for very small, if any, visible seam lines), since they need to fly in the air and as such have to be light enough. However in space-only flight you aren't bound to make compromises with weight (except when it comes to inertia, and accel\decel forces), and as such the plating can be much thicker=more resilient. That way I'm pretty sure that seam lines would be more visible.
- Freespace is an entertainement product. As such, although we do however should transpire a certain level of realism on the ships, we don't have to do it full real (which makes sense, since there aren't any real spaceships)... coolness, shape "reading", and sticking with the FS universe is however needed.
It's all fine and I respect it if you want to make ships that resemble what future spaceships would be like and pretend they would work. However, that wouldn't be Freespace-y.
-
And let's stick to the model. That's why I'm posting this here. To get some feedback.
Teeth.
-
And let's stick to the model. That's why I'm posting this here. To get some feedback.
Post those pics I asked and some more work and you shall get it :P
-
All I've got to say is, it's about time. First high-poly Zephyrus I've seen and I'll be glad to see it added to the list of completed ships.
-
Oooh its already textured somewhat :D Looking good :yes:
EDIT: though looking at the other one with the transparent girders and tanks underneath, that old one looks epic... Maybe make the tanks into a model like the older one....
-
That's nice. My only suggestions might be to make the tanks actual geometry and maybe do something with the area where the docking point is (put some sort of dock there)
Wait ... did you say 10000 triangles? :eek2: That's a bit high ... can we see a non-textured version just so we can gauge how much detail it has? EDIT: What am I thinking? :wtf: 10000 isn't THAT high. Would still be nice to see the untextured version though...
-
Preferable showing the wireframe too :)
-
those tanks should be modeled in
-
those tanks should be modeled in
Agreed.
I'm glad to see someone else picking up this model - my Zephyrus had its pros and cons but was ultimately unusable. I would invite you to pick through my old model (http://pjfoliver.googlepages.com/Zephyrus.zip) and use whatever parts you need--I'm particularly proud of my gas tanks.
-
those tanks should be modeled in
Whew, for a sec I thought I was the only one.
You rarely see more than two of these in a mission anyway.
-
those tanks should be modeled in
I agree, folks, but I wasn't sure how I should manage it. After downloading Galemp's model and leafing through the sub-objects, I think I've got it. Galemp, many thanks for letting me pick through your model; I'll model some tanks for myself, and try both yours and mine, to see what fits better.
About those extra pics: my 9500 did a RIP today and I have to re-install my X1950. So it will take some time, but I think that, by tomorrow I'll have all the pics you asked and more.
Oh, and @Snail: "Teeth"? :confused: wtf? Please, elucidate while I ruminate.
-
I think he means the part at the very front should look like it has teeth.
-
Voila. Those are Max renders, with the 4096^2 TGA texture (Normal & Diffuse). I'd post in-game views, only the AA is crappy and my X1950 is spitting the normal maps back into my eye.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Ok, the texture definitely needs a fair bit more wear and tear, and the gas cannisters definitely need to be modeled in, but aside from those minor things:
WOW!
Excellent work - especially on the texture greebles. :D
-
Well, modelling wise, I'd say the theeth and the tanks are a must.
Still haven't seen a shaded wireframe shot, or the engine view so won't comment on those
As for the textures, the tubes don't appear to be textured. And like VA said, it needs more wear and tear
-
@VA: Thanks! :D
@Raven: Teeth are out. :blah: I know that for sure. Sorry, but at this point they're too much for me. But I agree that the tanks are a must and I'll do a submodel ASAP. And yes, most pipes are yet untextured.
Following: Shaded but non-textured 3/4 view, Shaded but non-textured rear view and Wireframe shot. I'm not posting a textured shot of the engines because the aft texturing is still very WIP (I haven't touched it yet ;)) I kept only the two big thrusters; the smaller ones will be normal mapped, along with the very many textured greebles I'm planning to squeeze into that engine recess.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Aren't the fins on the back wider? Also, this is :v:s fault, but I just realized, what a ridiculous design for a spaceship... what with the 50 or so exposed fuel tanks and all...
-
Aren't the fins on the back wider? Also, this is :v:s fault, but I just realized, what a ridiculous design for a spaceship... what with the 50 or so exposed fuel tanks and all...
It's a gas-miner. It's not supposed to be shot at.
-
And no, the fins' width is right. Their angle is a bit off, but not very much so.
Working on the gastank submodel now
-
Working on the gastank submodel now
w00t!
-
Aren't the fins on the back wider? Also, this is :v:s fault, but I just realized, what a ridiculous design for a spaceship... what with the 50 or so exposed fuel tanks and all...
In appearance it would make a nice looking light cruiser. :D
-
You know, I actually think it would.
BTW, has anyone ever tried to use the Zephy as a kamikaze cruiser? You know, fill it up to the brim with deuterium, have it jump in very close to a destroyer and ram it...
(Cruiser or so mass)+(deuterium)+(jump in speed)=big BA-DA-BOOOM!+ :D
-
You know, I actually think it would.
BTW, has anyone ever tried to use the Zephy as a kamikaze cruiser? You know, fill it up to the brim with deuterium, have it jump in very close to a destroyer and ram it...
(Cruiser or so mass)+(deuterium)+(jump in speed)=big BA-DA-BOOOM!+ :D
That's a very good idea actually.
-
Why deuterium? Hydrogen isn't going to produce a big bang by Freespace's gigaton standards.
-
Why deuterium? Hydrogen isn't going to produce a big bang by Freespace's gigaton standards.
Well canonically the amount of deuterium on the Zephyrus does create quite a sizable bang.
-
Right! :pimp:
Had to model each tank by hand ( :shaking:), to make sure there are no holes in the mesh after a boolean operation. It turned my nerves to tatters, but here's the final result (Max rendered, with no textures for the tanks -yet!) for the bow tanks. I'll fix another sub-object for the aft tanks (where the dockpoint is), but , right now, you'll excuse me while I go put a cold wet towel over my eyes... :snipe:
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I admire your dedication. The results are brilliant. :yes:
But why aren't you doing the teeth again?
-
I dont understand why you had to model each tank by hand... You could've just model one of them, UV it and then clone away
-
I dont understand why you had to model each tank by hand... You could've just model one of them, UV it and then clone away
For a multitude of reasons:
a) I like every sub-object (in this case, the tanks) to be one single poly/element. If that mesh is unified and simple (there is a proper word for this...manifold? I think), it eliminates all kind of collision errors. The alternative would be to make each tank a sub-object, but that would be ridiculous-we're talking 70+ tanks here...
b) There will be different strips of metal, girders and so on overlaying the tanks (textured). If I used a single UV template for all the tanks, they'd come out exactly the same. Do not want.
c)Final 'tank' subobject: see below. That's a single mesh and element.
I admire your dedication. The results are brilliant. :yes:
But why aren't you doing the teeth again?
Thank you. Again, for a multitude of reasons, the main ones being that a) if I did, I'd have to re-UV the bow and change the normal maps ( :shaking:) and b)I kind o' like it this way... :P
I know it's not strictly conforming to :v:'s Zeph, but please allow the artist some artistic license... :)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I think I speak for all of HLP when I say "Holy crap, you poor soul"
-
If that was sympathy, it is much appreciated. If, however, you think I'm mistaken in anything, please point it out.
-
I don't get why this exists. I'm not saying it's a bad model, or that it won't be (possibly) better than the original or the one Galemp had, but a model having collision errors doesn't mean you have to completely remake it. It might be as simple an issue as flushing the bsp cache and reconverting it.
Also, (personal preference) I like the more retail-like shape (x-lattice) over the blobby tubes.
-
I ran the previous model (by Galemp) through a cleanup program, and it turns out it was a manifold (I found the right word! :D) mesh, which means certain messyness in game meshes. No matter how many re-conversions, there would always be a part of the mesh where the collision 'normals' (for lack of a better word) would be inverted, leading to big collision problems.
This model is non-manofold. Any (if any) collision problems can be fixed by re-exporting/ re-converting. And it's got more polies (now at any rate -the modeled tanks knocked the polycount up to 14k tris)
-
And it's got more polies (now at any rate -the modeled tanks knocked the polycount up to 14k tris)
Not necessarily a good thing given they have similar amounts of detail.
-
Not necessarily a good thing given they have similar amounts of detail.
They don't. The aft section is more detailed on this one.
-
The main hull, with the pipes and greebles, is much more interesting here. I especially like the texturing job--the red painted striped on the fin are inspired.
I don't know what you're doing with the gas tanks--it seems like a ton of duplicate work and to me they look a little disproportionate--but I wish you the best of luck.
-
Where are the teeth?!
-
that was sympathy.
looks much nicer, but I really think you should put the 'teeth' in, it was one of the more noticeable details of this ship and it was one of the things I first thought to look for when this model was mentioned, the lengthwise running panels at the front of the ship are very distinctive and play a significant role in the ships character. and it is only a texture mapping issue, you don't have to actually model them in.
IMHO
you should add some forward facing antenna arrays coming off the lower boom thing.
-
@Bobb & especially Hades: Jeez! Relax... :lol: I'll get the teeth done, if you insist, but we'll meet halfway: you'll have to settle for a texture job. I'm not going back to the mesh at this point. And I'm not going to change it right now; I'll leave it for later, when the tanks are finished, textured and tested in-game.
@Galemp: Thanks a lot. I did think the red stripe was a nice touch, if I may say so myself. It's nice thatsomebody agrees. :D
And yes, I figured a quicker (and cleaner :doubt: ) way to do the tanks, without any complications; sleeping over a problem does help. I'll scrap the current sub-object and start work on another.
As for antennae in the fin: there are some, but they're thin, untextured and they don't stand out (yet). As soon as I chrome and brighten them up, they'll be more visible.
That's all for now, I think.
P.S. Oh, BTW, Bobboau, there are a few questions I got for you, concerning the animation codes. Can I PM you?
-
unless the admins have done something wierd with your permissions, you should be fully capable of sending me a PM, though if it is a technical question it might be better done in public because you might not be the only person with the question. and it's been a few years seance I worked on the animation code.
-
Right.
We seem to have encountered a leeeeetle problem...Or not. See below:
A single tank 'panel' (3 tanks, each next to the other) consists of a minimum of 260 tris. I can't reduce them any more, without the smoothing getting shot to hell and back. Which, after some hurried calculations gives us:
For the sides: 2(both sides)x3x5x260=7800tris
For the bottom: 5x260= 1300tris
For the aft top: 3x260=780tris
Which gives us a grand total of 9880 (say 10000) tris. Just for the tanks. So the whole mesh would be around 2k tris. Is this acceptable?
And @Bobboau: My question is this. Can I have a continuously 'swinging' subsystem? For example, can I have a radar dish rotate 60deg at the beginning of a mission, then stop, then rotate back 120 degs, then stop, then rotate back 120 degs and so on and so forth until the end of the mission and without resorting to any extra scripting, but using only PCS2 and table entries?
-
Take a closer look at the Zef I posted. Put it in FRED and fly around it if you have to. I only modeled the outside surfaces of the tanks, and cleverly filled the inside with a single trapezoidal prism.
-
I would say shoot for 1k, but 2k will work ok.
as for the animation you wanted, I did at one point have it possible to insert a small script into the table for animation purposes, but I don't think it can be done without any sexp or scripting.
-
Ooops...typo. Not 2k. 20k. :blah:
And I realize how you did it, galemp. That's how I'm doing it as well. Did you really think I would model the whole tanks? I'm only doing one half of them. And if they were cylinders, they'd be 8-sided, but now they're half-cylinders, so they're 4-sided :ick:. Still, the smoothing looks acceptable... :blah:
And, again, sleeping over a problem helped. I think I can knock off about 3k tris, just by using another configuration for the tanks. I did me some hurried calculations in my noggin', and I think that I can reduce the total tris for the tanks to about 7k.
So the whole of detail-0 (without any turreets :() would be 17k tris.
It's a lot.
But tell me what you think anyway...
-
Can be 17k for Lod0... the tanks could be detail boxed
-
ok, those tanks should only be like 2200 polies.
im figuring 21 polies per tank 3 per panel, 7 panels times 5 rows
-
Actually, they're less. :D
The new configuration works like a charm! The port and starboard tank 'packs' are each 1.4 k tris, which brings the total polycount to ~13000tris. Still need to do the bottom and aft tanks (again, separate subobjects) but they wont bring the polycount over 14k tris, which I think is quite reasonable for a ship of that size and a model of such detail. :pimp:
Still have to texture them, though. I'll probably use another, small (512^2 or 256^2) texture for them. Galemp, if it's OK with you, I'm thinking of 'stealing' yours... :P
Renders up shortly
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Still have to texture them, though. I'll probably use another, small (512^2 or 256^2) texture for them. Galemp, if it's OK with you, I'm thinking of 'stealing' yours... :P
Well DUH. That's why I put the texture in there.
In BMP form.
With a template for a normal map.
-
Looks good to me - 20k polies is high, but detail boxing will be your friend there. The textures are brilliant 9but please, don't put any teeth on it, that'd be ridiculous).
-
Who sez anything about 20k? Did I say anything about 20k? I don't think so... :P
I think I'll stick with this model version (see att.)
The front tanks (port, starboard and bottom) are 3.5k tris and the rear (changed, improved and retextured!) rear is ~700tris.
Which gives us a grand total of 13.3k tris (for the whole model). I think it's fine. Don't you? :pimp:
About the rear: I considered the fact that the docking port (possibly for pumping out the gas) is there. So, I deviated a bit from the canon model and textures. I put no tanks there. Instead, I did an internal submodel with a pipe matrix. There are two 'big' pipes (which are a continuation of the two other big pipes at the rear) running down the entire length of the glowy part and twisting up to end under the first 'square panel' where the dockpoint will be. And then there are a few smaller pipes, barely visible, snaking around.
All in all, I like it. :)
@BlackWolf: You know, you're the first (with the exception of VA, who liked the textured greebles) who likes the textures as they are. :lol: But they'll change quite a bit before this tub is released...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Where is the docking point going to be? :nervous:
-
There.
And yes, I know the texture doesn't show any docking stuff. Trust me, it'll be there.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
New antenna 'boom', as yet un-mapped and -textured.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
What are these "teeth" evryone is talking about? Oh, and sweet model by the way :D .
-
Look at the other HTL Zephyrus's prow.
Its got 'teeth'
-
Look at the other HTL Zephyrus's prow.
Its got 'teeth'
And so will this one, albeit textured ones... :blah:
Sorry for the long wait, but I had some issues with my new 9800GT. Got it running fine now. (BTW, that thing is a monster! I never was one for the 'big' GPUs and this one is easily the most powerful brute I have ever seen... :D)
I am toying around with the texture. Is this better than the 'cartoonish' stuff I have been showing off? Quite honestly, I don't think I can do better...
BTW, the 'wiring' is unaffected. I'm just talking about the panels.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Getting much better on the texture side :)
You know, 80% of what defines if a texture renders realistically or not is actually the shine map not the difuse... in fact the specular map can make or break a texture. So keep that in mind
-
Getting much better on the texture side :)
Right. It's good to hear that. :D
You know, 80% of what defines if a texture renders realistically or not is actually the shine map not the difuse... in fact the specular map can make or break a texture. So keep that in mind
About that...Where can I find a decent tutorial on how to do shine maps? I mean, I have found some tuts for shinemaps in other games, but I dunno how to make them for FSO. :confused: I'm particularly confused about that alpha-channel-being-environment-map thingamajig.
-
Its basically the same as in other games.
I never did enviro maps for FS, but iirc, in photoshop, if you create an extra channel (besides R, G and B ones), it will determine where the the texture will be reflective like a mirror (white= full reflection; black= no reflection).
So in this case you don't have to worry about that.
You don't need tutorials to create spec maps for FS, since everything is metallic :P What I usually do is grab the difuse texture, raise the contrast (levels in photoshop), apply a small noise and voila. Sometimes I have to reduce the saturation a bit after all that.
But the rule of thumb is, in the spec map, the brightest a pixel is, the more shiny it will appear in-game... don't fall in the error of doing grayscale spec maps though
-
Like this?
In game, with the tanks in their full glory!
I know, they're a little too shiny. I'll fix that soon.
And the antenna boom is still in early WIP.
BTW, is there a way to get decent quality in-game shots?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Nice work on the model overall :yes: Though I think the textures could use some work... They look a bit "cartoonish" right now, more like plastic than like metal.
-
Nice work on the model overall :yes: Though I think the textures could use some work... They look a bit "cartoonish" right now, more like plastic than like metal.
SILENCE! I KILL you! :D
BTW, the second screenie is wrong. :nervous: I selected an older version by mistake. I am going to fix0r it...
EDIT: Fix0red... :)
-
About the only way to get a good screen shot is to have it in a mission. Launch the mission and fly up to the ship, hit SHIFT+O and your HUD will dissappear so you can make a clean screen shot. Take your screen shots and when done, hit SHIFT+O again to bring back your HUD. :yes:
-
The engines look kind of like a Hercules was jury-rigged for the position, but it still looks well-made to me. I like what you're doing with the gas tanks in the front of the miner, by the way. If there was a way to make it look as if there was really colored deuterium gas inside of those containers, that would be perfect.
-
The only way I can think of is animated glow maps. :blah: Doable, but I remember reading something about them not working right in3.6.10? :confused:
I could be wrong. Talk to one of the big guys.
And you're right about the engines. Blame :v:
-
Cool... really glad to see it in-game and everything.
Are you forgetting glowmaps? I don't see any windows, or the trademark yellow glow of the aft docking port.
An animated texture and/or glowmap could go well on the gas tanks, especially if they're mapped using a separate texture from the main hull. I know for a fact they do work; just look at the belly of the GVG Anuket.
-
Are you forgetting glowmaps? I don't see any windows, or the trademark yellow glow of the aft docking port.
Yep. No glowmaps yet. The diffuse texture is still WIP, so...yeah. I only exported it to make sure I get how the shinemaps work.
I get it, BTW. :D
I know for a fact they do work; just look at the belly of the GVG Anuket.
YES! I'll make sure and animate stuff...
-
Can you guess...
(http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/1994/tailglow.png)
...what this is? :P
Yellow glow for the kicks. I'm too bored to play with the diffuse maps right now... :blah:
-
YES! I'll make sure and animate stuff...
Enioch, although animated texture are great, they use a lot of memory (in fact you are using n textures). So I would recommend:
- Make a static good looking version. This would be the standard one.
- Then make an animated eff version. This would be the enhanced one.
- (Try to use the SMALLEST possible size for your animated, (and then multiplied), textures. Maybe a 2048x2048 is OK for the base texture if needed, but it's hard to justify ten 2048x2048 glow map frames. Use smaller sizes here).
-
Duly noted.
The tanks (which will be the only animated bits) are separately textured, with a 512^2 map (which I might knock down to 256^2). That's the size of the animated texture as well...
-
Duly noted.
The tanks (which will be the only animated bits) are separately textured, with a 512^2 map (which I might knock down to 256^2). That's the size of the animated texture as well...
Remember you can have different mixed texture sizes and nothing happens. Example:
- Base map: 512 x 512
- Glow map: 256 x 256
- Optional animated glow map: 10 frames with 128 x 128
It's up to you, who is the author :yes:. Just remember to find a good balance between quality and resource usage.
-
Can you guess...
<snip>
...what this is? :P
Yellow glow for the kicks. I'm too bored to play with the diffuse maps right now... :blah:
Nice new texture for the Zephyrus's rear :D
-
While you _can_ have maps of different sizes, it is usually recommended that all basic textures all be the same size.
This prevents any possible distortions that may occur from stretching one map to match the others.
In any case, any normal maps should always match the base map size for the best results.
I would also recommend making a version that is larger than you may strictly need, for use in the Advanced VP. You can scale/resize down from those for the basic resolution maps for general gameplay. Much easier than us up-scaling the release textures or bugging you for the master files. :D
And try to limit the number of textures used. 1 per type is optimal. There are, IMO, to many ships that have multiple texture segments when they don't need to.
Also, would it be possible somewhere on the model to place a rectangular section that could serve as a nameplate texture? Not strictly necessary, but I think it would be for the awesome.
-
Currently (and I think this will be the final version as well), I'm using 3 textures:
One is the big 2048^2, for the hull (I painted this 4096^2 and downscaled, for better panel anti-aliasing)
One is the pink tanks.
One is a texture from the Orion (Capital something-something) with a lot of pipes and wires, for filling up the 'in-between' of the tanks.
That's it.
And yes, I guess I can reserve something for a nameplate. How do I do that? And where do you want it? I'm thinking somewhere in the rear...?
-
And yes, I guess I can reserve something for a nameplate. How do I do that? And where do you want it? I'm thinking somewhere in the rear...?
Use standard nameplates rather than Orion-like ones.
I mean the nameplate.dds texture is mapped OVER some part of the hull (which already have its own proper texture). I don't know if you also need an auxiliary modelled square (2 triangles) in order to achieve this. As nameplate.dds is transparent, unless there's an in-mission texture change, your ship won't show any real nameplate. (The only little problem is that nameplate.dds is somehow visible under certain lighting/viewing angle conditions, ie. it isn't actually "fully" transparent).
-
I'm willing to nameplate the ship, but I'm kind of jittery with it, so I'll need step-by-step instructions. Send out a distress call please, and see if you can figure out how it works -I'll do the same. Then we'll sort of compare notes...
-
New in-game screens. :pimp:
New & Old (retail) side-by-side...
(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/8449/screen0014.png)
(http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/5720/screen0015.png)
(http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/5237/screen0016.png)
(http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/152/screen0017.png)
The last one is meant to show the normal & shine maps. I have upped the contrast on the normal, just to be sure that it will be visible. I'm going to tone it down now...
BTW, note the slight pink-ish hue of the hull next to the gas tanks, and the Xmas-light-glowies all over the (textured) pipes and wires? New glow maps there. I'm gonna change them a bit as well...
EDIT: Oooops, huge images. Sorry... :nervous:
-
Those engines could be fattened up a bit, IMO.
-
Bigger, you mean?
-
Yes. They seem too small as it is.
-
Actually, their radius is pretty much the same as that of the original Zephy's (textured) engines. So...yeah. I don't think I'll return to the model at this point. :doubt:
-
The engine texture doesn't look quite right...
-
How about you make them wider on the outer sides? What I'm suggesting is basically, from a top-down view, take the outermost corners of the engines and pull them a little further out to the sides. It'll give bigger engines without making them pinch inward or look like the old ones, and it might be nice.
We won't be able to tell 100% if the current engines are great or not until we see the babies fired up. Other than that, this model's come along excellently and I really like what you've done with it. Nice work.
-
That would involve reconverting and retexturing the entire model... :doubt:
-
That would involve reconverting and retexturing the entire model... :doubt:
That's why it's called a "suggestion," see?
-
That would involve reconverting and retexturing the entire model... :doubt:
That's why it's called a "suggestion," see?
:P
-
Currently (and I think this will be the final version as well), I'm using 3 textures:
One is the big 2048^2, for the hull (I painted this 4096^2 and downscaled, for better panel anti-aliasing)
One is the pink tanks.
One is a texture from the Orion (Capital something-something) with a lot of pipes and wires, for filling up the 'in-between' of the tanks.
That's it.
And yes, I guess I can reserve something for a nameplate. How do I do that? And where do you want it? I'm thinking somewhere in the rear...?
Is it possible at all to consolidate any of those textures or optimize the placement of the texture elements to reduce that number at all? Even if it is just to copy the wiring details from the orion map to the tank map would be great if at all possible.
If not, understandable. However, I would recommend copying the texture used by the orion and renaming it to something specific to the Zephyrus in the event the orion model or textures get changed. If you have not done so already, that is.
A nameplate texture is 512x64, currently. Science Vessels use 256x128. Black background, White Text. The text is then repeated in the Alpha channel at roughly C9C9C9 grey. Current format is in DXT3, but being re-evaluated.
Model wise, you just need a rectangular section that loads "nameplate" as it's texture. Good models to example from would be the Deimos, Fenris or Leviathan.
As for where to put it, a possible place would be the mid-section that the dorsal comes down off of. You have the recessed mechanical section and just below it appears (from the provided shots) a great place. If I had a direct side shot of the textured model that was solid lit (F3 Lab, No Lighting selected) then I could guess better.
-
Very cool. I love the way you baked the yellow glow onto the other nearby parts of the texture.
However I would strongly suggest editing that section; the inside surfaces that are actually glowing don't transition at all at their edges. Perhaps have the glows wrap around into the recessed engine surfaces, or else have the glowing lines follow the geometry of the polies they're mapped to. There's no point in UV mapping a model when you don't take advantage of making the texture actually fit the model.
I also strongly encourage you to try and map the 'pipes and wires' to a small, unused portion of the main Zephyrus map rather than use a third texture. Always try to use as few textures as possible; there's a sticky thread on this forum about modeling from a coder's point of view that you should read.
Nameplates are very easy to do. Just create a rectangular polygon with 1:8 proportions, map it with a texture called 'nameplate', and place it somewhere on the hull just above the surface. Mission designers can then replace that nameplate texture with the specific ship's name.
Finally, I would recommend either doing your normal map from scratch, or letting someone else handle it. Right now the strength of the grain of the panels is almost as strong as the panel lines themselves. It doesn't enhance the model, it only obscures the beautiful work you've done on the textures. The effect is nice on the reddish-brown areas on the sides of the back but for most of the hull plating, it ought to be toned down.
-
If the glow is baked in, what happens if the engines are disabled?
-
If the glow is baked in, what happens if the engines are disabled?
Nothing, actually :doubt:
The Iceni would suffer from the same problem...
-
You probably shouldn't bake the glow, then...but if it's a real pain don't worry about it. (That said, no expert, so weigh other people's advice more heavily.)
-
Huh? Its not engine lighting that's baked on, it's lighting from the yellow stuff.
How it looks like right now is how it looks like with its engines disabled (no engine glow).
What problem would there be at all?
-
Huh? Its not engine lighting that's baked on, it's lighting from the yellow stuff.
How it looks like right now is how it looks like with its engines disabled (no engine glow).
What problem would there be at all?
Oh, okay. I think I misinterpreted something. Consider my comment retracted!
-
Wow, lots of replies... :D
@Zacam and Galemp: thanks and thanks again for the nameplate help. I'll start working on it at some point. And I think I know where to put it.
@Snail and FoxTango: The model will be re-converted anyways, so I still might change the engines a bit, but I suggest you wait and see them textured first.
@Galemp (again :P): The textures are not finished yet.
Firstly, as you will see if you check my post with all the images, I toned 'up' the normal maps to make sure the new 'smaller-panel-lines' would be visible. They are on a separate layer on the heightmap .psd, and they will be heavily toned down on the final version
Secondly, the back 'panel' of the engines (the part where the thrusters actually stick out of) has NOT been textured. No diffuse, no normal, no shine, nothing. So, of course it looks like $**t. And the yellow glows are still WIP. They are going to extend to the top and bottom of the Hercules-like engines (possibly -I might not do this, as it is not alike the retail Zephy) and to the rear 'thruster' panel (this I will definitely do).
I think I answered everybody. :nervous:
Oh, and about the three textures: It's possible to bake the Orion one onto the 'base' diffuse one, but there's a small voice in the back of my mind advising caution. If I do it, it will be the absolutely last thing I do
-
How about this spot?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Meh, I'd prefer it on the back segment where the engines are, above the greebles. Sort of where the nameplate on the Hecate is.
But that's just me.
-
Like this?
(http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1849/name2l.png)
And I started work on her butt... :D
(http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/1716/engines.png)
-
She's got a nice ass.
And do I spy a little tattoo? ;7
-
Too dark... >_<
Take your screenshots into Photoshop or Gimp and run a Normalize pass on them, it would help tremendously.
That said, yeah, I like it there. :)
-
Very nice work.