Hard Light Productions Forums
Community Projects => The FreeSpace Upgrade Project => Topic started by: bobbtmann on March 17, 2011, 12:49:49 pm
-
UV mapping is done, thank goodness, so I started texturing today. I'm thinking of reducing the number of lit port portions, and instead have it spilling light over the rest of the hull. Sort of like the lit portions are inside, showing through chinks in the armour.
[attachment deleted by ninja]
Corrected topic spelling
-
This is seriouslah awesome.
The more the merrier. :nervous:
-
I like the shape of this much more, including the nose. The beam arms and engine section could use some extra work, but I'm very much going to look forward to the end results.
-
I do have to say I'm loving this version a lot, it's a little more sinester than Rga's one (both are great btw).
Keep going please, I would really like to see this one finished as well :yes:
-
I really like it! Only thing that really bugs me would have to be how the arms (especially the forward spike parts) still look a bit too low-poly and retail-like. Other than that, nice job.
-
Man, it's not fair. Eventually I'll probably have to decide which one I like more and which one I'll keep.
(Or we could make them like Dark Templars in SCII, where both models are used for Sathani. Does clash quite a bit with FS lore though :P)
-
Ooh, cool, I was just going to ask if anyone had shots of this version, since the attachments in the old thread went poof. I really like your take on things too, especially the front of the main body. :)
-
I wounder how will it look in a smaller size, like a baby sathanas destroyer-cruiser :P
*just me trying to think of ways to have both awesome models in the same mod
-
There was some discussion about possibly finding a way to incorporate both designs somehow.
-
I wounder how will it look in a smaller size, like a baby sathanas destroyer-cruiser :P
*just me trying to think of ways to have both awesome models in the same mod
Different ships of the same size with different roles, alternative realities/timelines, different shivan factions are a few others
-
Fed different energy when they hatched. . .
-
I really prefer this version. The other Sathanas, while more majestic, kind of did lose its, well, scaryness.
-
How many textures?
-
There was some discussion about possibly finding a way to incorporate both designs somehow.
Cutscene cameos! :D
-
Here's what I said on IRC, I thought it fair you hear it as well.. since comparing is inevitable at this point.
I like your overall design. It's definitely a little more abstract. But the problem I see is that it is really lacking in fine detail. Rga's Sath is bound to feel bigger when you get it in-game and fly up next to it because there are so many parts. His is definitely a large ship. Yours seems pretty smooth throughout.
This observation comes from testing the Colossus. The retail colossus had all its detail in its texture and, sadly, it never looked like the big destroyer it's supposed to be. The new HTL Colossus, however, feels HUGE. Absolutely massive. Rga's preview video he posted shows the same thing. When he is flying along side the Sath.. oh man.. it's overwhelming compared to the retail because of all the fine detail. VA's new Hades does the same thing. These juggernauts need all the small detail to feel much, MUCH larger.
So.. take that for whatever you wish and keep up the good work.
-
I still like RGA's better, sorry. this feels too scaly, it's a spacebug, not a machine of terror.
-
To be honest, I think the rear fuselage doesn't look very much like the original Sathanas - or, well, how should I put this? It does look "like" it but it doesn't have quite the same feel or impression to it. Especially when looking at the side profile, this model feels somewhat more "slim" than the original model.
It might be my memory tricking me, but that's the impression I get from this model.
However, it is an awesome model in its own right, and with some changes to the layout of the beam arms could result in a very useable original design, such as improved Shivan corvette - the Moloch is just not very capable compared to Terran and Vasudan corvettes.
-
(http://www.merzo.net/images/10mppfsshivansathanas.gif) (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=75125.0;attach=15807;image)
Original sath is definitely bulkier at the back, yeah. Plus the downward slope of the tail on bobbtman's affects the way it looks as well.
That sad, I don't dislike it as a model... but I guess the duplication of effort bothers me. But hey, at the end of it, we'll get a mediaVP Sath or two, and I'm certain that creative campaign designers will come up with ways to use both models.
-
Well to be air, RgaNoris had kept his Sathanas under wraps so no one not in the FSU knew about it, which is why Bob started on it in the first place.
-
Rga_Noris: There will be four textures when this thing is finished. I had to tone it down a bit, originally I was going to have more.
It's true that in order to establish a sense of scale, a high level of detail may be necessary. This being a shivan ship, the cues that would be available in a terran ship (ie windows) are not there. I'll see what I can do to.
The backend of the ship is what I imagine Volition would have done if they had spend more time on the model. Not being best buds with the designers at Volition, I had to guess at the ship's intentions. For the most part, the Sathanas is a boring ship. It's very static and looks like a block of wood that someone started carving but never finished. There's a suggestion of legs, but no legs. There's a suggestion of layers, but no layers. So I worked with that, trying to bring life to an otherwise very inanimate ship. I'm actually quite pleased with the results.
On a more important note, where were you guys when I was posting WIP's? Don't tell me some overarching formal problem with the ship after I'm done UV mapping, cause I'm probably not going to touch it. There's a time for that type of criticism, and that was in December. So for future reference, when someone posts an early WIP, don't talk about there not being enough detail. Talk about the the shape as a whole, because that's the best time to do it.
This last bit applies to every WIP on this forum. There are too many instances where modelers post early WIPs, and the only criticism they get is that there isn't enough detail. This makes them more likely to wait until later to show people their work, and by then it's too late to change anything without a serious hassle.
-
You had to know about the FSU's Sath when you made this thread. You must have known the only thing that would come of it would be tons of controversy over which is better. I'm not saying you should scrap it, but theirs is much farther in development and was made with the input of many experienced FSU personnel.
-
He's not going to let all his work go completely to waste.
-
Uh.
When Rga's Sathanas was being made incognito, Bobbtmann made the inital thread with his Sathanas, then Rga put his model in the public spotlight. Oh and Bobbtmann isn't FSU, so it's not very likely he would've known another model was being made in secret to say the same about the majority of members who are non-FSU personnel.
-
Nope, I thought I was making a contribution to the community when I started this.
And Asteroth, I'm not complaining because people are criticising it or I feel it's unwanted. I'm just saying that there is an ideal time for certain criticisms, and complaints about the overall form are better at the beginning of a project, rather than when the mesh is UVMapped.
-
:doubt:
I guess I assumed back then that you were going to continue adding detail, which is why I was surprised to see this so far into the mapping process at this point.
-
The model might not have the fine details that the other Sathanas has, but the shape to me is so much more appealing, if the texture comes out with a bang, that lack can be easily forgiven, I'm not all that bothered with it lacking minute spikes and armor plates to begin with, it's still a massive improvement over the Retail Sathanas.
-
Thanks Comander Zane. Even still, there might be more detail coming. I usually end up attaching things to the surface after the texturing is nearly complete.
-
The model might not have the fine details that the other Sathanas has, but the shape to me is so much more appealing, if the texture comes out with a bang, that lack can be easily forgiven, I'm not all that bothered with it lacking minute spikes and armor plates to begin with, it's still a massive improvement over the Retail Sathanas.
I think you are in for a big surprise the first time you fly your fighter up to this version (if it stays as is). The current MediaVPs Colossus is proof that textures just can't cut it on a ship of this size. The screenshots don't show that fact off well. When we have Cruisers (http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m173/c914/Cain_HTL_12.jpg) and Capital (http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l494/PJFOliver/HTL%20Typhon/quickshot1.png) Ships (http://a.imageshack.us/img576/2360/screen0061.png) detailed like those and bombers as detailed as the Medusa (http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/3520/geh.jpg), I suggest that lack of geometrical detail is too big of a compromise if for the only reason of matching the rest of the newer FSU assets.
I think the shape of this one is really cool. I would be interested to see what bobbtmann comes up with for detail work.
-
Yes I know about the Retail Colossus, yes I've seen the Sathanas in-game teaser, yes the detail wows me, but the shape as a whole does not, and that's what draws me away from it.
And Bobbtmann just said extra detail might be added later, so no worries, there's still more suprises to wait for.
-
In any case, there is room for both versions to be used. While I am not making any firm promises, I can say that I would like nothing more than to use both Saths in BP; since as bobb pointed out, they have slightly different design aesthetics.
-
They are both scary beasts and I personally really dig the sleek styling of bob's and the cathedral esq aesthetic of Rga's.
But people need to seriously chillax about artists working on the same subject matter. I don't recall anybody signing a contract when they registered on HLP that states they need to do whatever other forum members want. Sure would it be nice if there isn't any redundancy but if somebody wants to model and a certain ship power to them I don't think they are beholden to any community expectations. The attitude some people take on this issue really comes off as being pissy and entitled.
-
I agree with Mixael, but to be less hash, I can easily see this model being used in campaigns as far away ships doing massive damage, but where you don't get personaly "there".
And Asteroth, you couldn't be more wrong about your chronology.
Anyways, it's good modelling, and if I were you and had the time and patience, I would definitely finish the project and give it a sense of closure. The model is fun, go at it!
-
Yeah, my actions caused the big "announce early" statement n Media VP assets thread. I was literally prepping a thread to reveal mine when I noted a PM from bobbtman. Although some say I waited too long to announce mine, both myself and bobbtman waited until nearly identicle points in time to announce ours: Mesh completion.
I think we both are enduring the stress of realizing that the massive reveal/wow factor of finishing our projects will now be divided. Also, without question, the mere existence of another Sath will draw critique based on what people see in the other, as opposed to an objective look as how it could look replacing the current Sath. For example, the shape of mine was not an issue until bobbtman's came along. And no one even mentioned detail on his until my video popped up.
From the outside, bobb may seemed to have over reacted. But I see where he is coming from, and I understand it totally.
-
:(
Sorry, I really was trying to word my posts to try not to sound harsh. It's tough to communicate tonality in a forum post.
And I really understand where bobbtmann is coming from. I really did think we were going to see more updates on his before he started texturing. He is absolutely correct though that mesh critiques belong in that phase and not later. Heck.. even when I was texturing some Shivan craft and said I was not going to work on the mesh, people still critiqued the mesh and not the texture! All this to say.. my bad.
-
Well the texture is still quite bland, so in all fairness, what else could you critique? ;)
-
Both of the models are nice, but I prefer this one because it looks truer to the original; that is to say, more Shivan, whereas RGA's version looks more like a pimped-up flagship variant that would be kept back for defense or other similar purposes. The crown jewel of the Shivans, if you will.
-
I propose a battle to the death between the two models! Once they are both done, we'll slap them in a mission and let them have at it. Winner takes ALL! :lol:
-
I like the model a lot. I think it should definitely become a new Shivan corvette or destroyer for making gas giants into brown dwarfs or something XD
The quality is very good. It's just not quite as detailed at the other Sathanas,. I think they're both excellent, but the more detailed one is going to make a better Juggernaut.
-
This version would actually be really beneficial to an idea for a campaign I have mudding around...
-
And Asteroth, you couldn't be more wrong about your chronology.
I'd like to point out that the only statement I made about the chronology is that this thread was created after Rga's Sath thread, which is correct.
-
I think you should remake it into the SD Imp or some such. It really is very awesome. I think it would be a shame to not use it for something cool.
-
Nothing saying that they both can't be a HTL Sathanas, people can choose whichever one they'd like, you know.
-
But, ultimately only one of them can go into the MVPs, it's not like the game can switch out between the two, and whichever one is chosen is going to be seen and known a lot more.
-
Actually, both can be used.
-
Actually, both can be used.
Wait, how?
-
I suggest we deal with "how" and "which one" when we ACTUALLY have 2 finished HTL Sathanas POFs. Until then, I vote this thread get back to discussing bob's work.
-
Actually, both can be used.
Wait, how?
The same way we can have Shivan missiles. You put them in.
-
This one looks more FS2ish to me. RGA's almost seems like a FS1 version...I want both of them!
-
Until then, I vote this thread get back to discussing bob's work.
Seconded.
-
I love the improvements, and was wondering if spikes could be added to the arms. There are so many of them throughout the hull, and IMO they make the arms look as if they don't really belong to the ship. I hope you got what I mean.
-
I love the improvements, and was wondering if spikes could be added to the arms. There are so many of them throughout the hull, and IMO they make the arms look as if they don't really belong to the ship. I hope you got what I mean.
Yes, that does sound like a good idea. The original concept art had some spikes on the arms. I've also considered putting layers like the sheaths on it's back. Maybe covering the claws.
-
And Asteroth, you couldn't be more wrong about your chronology.
I'd like to point out that the only statement I made about the chronology is that this thread was created after Rga's Sath thread, which is correct.
It did seem to imply that Bob only showed this project after Rga showed his. If I were Bob, I wouldn't mind that much that Rga is building his own version, with all the blessings of trusted personnell, and went on and finish it.
-
The thing is though, Bob made another thread before Rga showed his in the first place.
-
The thing is though, Bob made another thread before Rga showed his in the first place.
Exactly.
-
The timing of the announcements is not important. This thread is about bob's work. Can we keep it that way?
-
The timing of the announcements is not important. This thread is about bob's work. Can we keep it that way?
It becomes important if the question that arose over there was about the futility of bob's work, or his lact of "tact" (or common sense or wtv) on creating this thread.
-
The timing of the announcements is not important. This thread is about bob's work. Can we keep it that way?
It becomes important if the question that arose over there was about the futility of bob's work, or his lact of "tact" (or common sense or wtv) on creating this thread.
Try this is a free community for ppl to do what they want, look. Stop *****ing about if bob should do this and support him in making suggestions on how things could be improved and generally be nice about it if you have no suggestions.
By limiting what is created we limit the options for creating mods
-
I hadn't realized that creating a new thread was tactless. I made a new one because my old thread had become full of images of Rga_noris' stuff. It was on my thread that he unveiled his ship. I felt it was no longer mine anymore, so I made a new one.
As to the futility of the work, it doesn't bother me much. It has became apparent that my take on the Sathanas will probably never amount to anything more than another entry on freespacemods.net.
-
I think it deserves a better place than that, and I think your creative work is awesome.
-
I hadn't realized that creating a new thread was tactless. I made a new one because my old thread had become full of images of Rga_noris' stuff. It was on my thread that he unveiled his ship. I felt it was no longer mine anymore, so I made a new one.
As to the futility of the work, it doesn't bother me much. It has became apparent that my take on the Sathanas will probably never amount to anything more than another entry on freespacemods.net.
The_E expressed interest in it being in Blue Planet. Don't put down your work so quickly.
-
It wasn't meant as a putdown. It's just that the discussion of competition between Rga_noris and myself is not worth making. I am not a member of the FSU team, so I haven't commited the time to upgrading FS2 that actual members have. I can't just parachute into the board and expect them to prioritize my model over anyone elses.
-
I hadn't realized that creating a new thread was tactless. I made a new one because my old thread had become full of images of Rga_noris' stuff. It was on my thread that he unveiled his ship. I felt it was no longer mine anymore, so I made a new one.
As to the futility of the work, it doesn't bother me much. It has became apparent that my take on the Sathanas will probably never amount to anything more than another entry on freespacemods.net.
I've already said before I'm sure as hell using it if you finish it.
-
Further more, FSU is about community. It doesn't matter if a Staff member makes a model, that's not automagic inclusion if another version comes along.
Everything get's evaluated to the same criteria. The only thing having an FSU Badge means is that you have less room for mistakes to be made in.
I encourage everybody to do any amount of awesome work that they can. Even if -you- (generic sense usage, encompassing) don't think your work is awesome, you've done something, and that's pretty awesome right there.
So, let's just put this "who did what when for how many cookies" to rest, have a glass of milk, and see how bob progresses on his work, since this is his thread for HIS work. Which I for one appreciate and can't wait to see what sort of details will emerge from the texturing, if I'm correct in assuming that it is in that phase.
-
The timing of the announcements is not important. This thread is about bob's work. Can we keep it that way?
It becomes important if the question that arose over there was about the futility of bob's work, or his lact of "tact" (or common sense or wtv) on creating this thread.
Try this is a free community for ppl to do what they want, look. Stop *****ing about if bob should do this and support him in making suggestions on how things could be improved and generally be nice about it if you have no suggestions.
By limiting what is created we limit the options for creating mods
You got me backwards. I was defending Bob. And no, Bob, it's not tactless at all, albeit I got that feeling coming up from some posters back there. Pay no attention, and please continue the good work ;).
-
Just to be clear, bobbtmann and I both waited until we had committed a significant amount of time before revealing our projects. Sure, I revealed mine after his, but we were both in the same spot development-wise at the same time.
So he developed his in secret no less than I did. What I am guilty of is hi jacking his thread a little bit, which is why I created a separate thread, and why he created this one.
-
Just to be clear, bobbtmann and I both waited until we had committed a significant amount of time before revealing our projects. Sure, I revealed mine after his, but we were both in the same spot development-wise at the same time.
So he developed his in secret no less than I did. What I am guilty of is hi jacking his thread a little bit, which is why I created a separate thread, and why he created this one.
Good summary... can everyone move on now please?
-
This one definitely looks more menacing which I very much like. It also looks more like the :v-old: concept art version which is cool. :yes: Can't wait to see more!
-
I really like the more 'out-there' design of this Sath. It looks dirty, ragged and horrible, just as it should. I do really like RGA's version as well, which is more like the retail model broght up to modern standards, but this one just oozes evil. I can't see this model fading into obscurity if it doesn't go into the mvps, you can already see a lot of people prefer this one to the other. It's a bit too striking to be forgotton.
-
:bump: :nervous: Any updates?
-
Coming up shortly :)
-
Sorry for the long break between updates. I've been working a lot (12+ hour shifts, 15 days a week), and it doesn't leave much time for modding. This weekend is the first time I've been home for a while :(
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
I do say, this looks absolutely ****ing awesome.
-
That looks nicely.[/understatement] :)
-
Love it
-
sw33t!
-
That is one bad ass ship :yes:
-
Outstanding!
-
Damn that's awesome.
-
**** yeah!
-
We're gonna have pair of epic Saths :)
-
That's amazing! I want this one soooo much! Keep up the fantastic job!
-
Stunning! :yes:
I have a suggestion. Please, keep the textures similar to standard ones. For me, textures of Rga's Sath are too different from orginal ones.
-
uhh... IMHO the paint job doesn't look shivan at all. It's line-y, shivan ships should be swirly :P
-
The glowmap looks FS1 Shivanesqe
-
The glowmap looks FS1 Shivanesqe
Yeah, it hearkens back to those fond days where Shivans ships had simple paintjobs/textures.
To make some general comments, I like the simplistic style of this Sath. It's consistent, ragged, scaly, and like others have mentioned, looks a lot more evil. Whilst Rga's says "Get near me and I will **** you up with my uber lazorz and flax and sup3rnova cannonz", this one is more "Get near me, and you'll regret it. I won't tell you what I'll do, but you're not going to like it". It looks menacing without looking like it bristles with firepower (even though it does). Just keep doing what you're doing, bobbtmann. I know it'll turn out brilliant.
-
The glowmap looks FS1 Shivanesqe
Hmmm... campaign ideas.... ;7
-
Great work BTW; nice counterpart to RNorris' work.
BTW can you change the spelling of this thread's title? "Existance" should be spelled "existence". :nod:
-R
-
Nope.
-
Well that's embarrassing. So it isn't possible to change the spelling?
Nohiki, so you mean swirly like this? The original texture is in the new one. It's just more subdued.
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
Well, I do like that swirl you have there... very nice. :)
:yes:
-
@bobbtmann: You can change the spelling by hitting "Preview" in quick reply (so you get full reply window) and changing the title.
EDIT: That's IIRC. And I think you have to do it. All the other posts will still stay the same, but the thread title and any new posts will change.
-
jr2, check your dictionary. "Existance" is a perfectly valid word to use.
-
I don't know, E. It doesn't look right, and it's not in my dictionary...
edit: It doesn't seem to work jr2, all it changes is the title of my single post.
-
:lol: I didn't even mentally check the word or look it up. I was too busy answering his question. Although I do remember a split second of feeling puzzled when I read his question before I proceeded to switch to problem-solving mode. :rolleyes:
EDIT: Google says "do you mean existence (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&ei=OBy8TejMJMTr0gHL9vzIBQ&ved=0CAQQBSgA&q=define%3A+existence&spell=1)", but then proceeds to give me definitions for existance (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define%3A+existance). (Which HLP's or Google Chrome's spellchecker, IDK which, says is not a word cause it's underlined in red.)
EDIT2: Which, the definitions for existence are all either saying it's a common misspelling or a completely different definition than the one called for.
-
I think it should be existence, unless this is a Brit spelling thing I'm unaware of.
-
jr2, check your dictionary. "Existance" is a perfectly valid word to use.
Check yours first.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/existance
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/existance
-
Huh. Ok. I'm wrong.
Sorry.
-
Even the French spelling for it is "existence". Yay for transparent words.
-
Wow, I'm really, really liking this version a lot. Imagine seeing that floating through space, you'd piss in your space pants.
-
Applied spelling correction to main Topic. Already made replies will still carry the old spelling however.
-
I really like the current texturing. I think it should be as different from Rga's version as much as possible. Striped claws look very Shivan.
-
It's not uvmapped, is it?
-
It is UV Mapped
-
Damn...now that makes the Sathanas look scary. The Retail version just looks kind of...meh in comparison.
-
Question:
1: In 3ds max, how does one bake a light map using the luminance feature of the architecture material?
-
In 3ds there's a thing I think called "Render to Texture" in the Render menu (you have to select the object first), where you can bake all kinds of stuff into the mapped texture.
-
But do any 3ds max users know if there's anything special about using light emitting material? It renders, but doesn't bake.
-
Screenshots please ;)
-
Sure, but it's probably not the kind of image you want to see...
Image 1 is what it looks like when I make a render, and image 2 is what the baked map looks like. Note how it looks different, and doesn't even seem to respect the UV's
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
Bobbtman, you do not want to bake a luminance map because fs2 doesn't handle glow maps that way. If you want to bake a glow map what you should do instead is set the ship as you want it to look like then bake the glows as a "complete map". Use that in fs2 and the ship will light up they way you wanted it to. You may want to further tweak the result in photoshop and remove any parts that don't have glowing/illuminated parts on them. But that's pretty much how you light ships up in fs2..
-
Not the kind of image we want to see? Are you kidding? That is freaky awesome. :eek:
-
You may find it awesome but he wants it more awesome. Meaning making image 2 (in game) look like image 1 (render). And that means not baking any luminance maps and using a complete map instead. FS2 basically does an override when it comes to glow maps..
edit: I forgot to mention that light baking this way won't play nice with tiling UV's. You will need unique UV's at least on the parts that are illuminated (light being cast on them). If you have several identical parts that are illuminated and share the same uv's you'll want to detach just one and bake that. I tend to save separate versions for baking so I don't feel bad about butchering the meshes when I have to.
-
Maybe my language was imprecise. Normally I bake a light map using omnilights placed where I want the windows. That then becomes my glow map in-game.
This time around, I've used an architectural material with the red glowy bits emitting light. When I render a still, it comes out the way I want. For some reason, I can't capture it to the texture. :(
I'm not sure why.
-
I've never tried using an architectural material this way but your problem could still be trying to bake a luminance map: just having a black/white map for windows is not the same thing as a fancy glow map that has illumination cast at bits of the hull baked to it. For that you still need to bake a complete map. So I guess the question is, what type of a map are you using in the render to texture dialog?
Sorry if I misunderstood something again, but if you're using anything other than complete map this is still most likely the cause of your issues, architectural materials or not. A luminance map will attempt to capture just the lighting information into a texture. A complete map will do what the name says.
For example: say you have a a window glowing in a hull. The only thing you need from a glow map here is a black map with a white rectangle where the window is. But say you want a spotlight illuminating parts of the hull with a nice falloff effect? If you bake a luminance map you'll get weird results in the game. If you bake a complete map it will pretty much bake what you see in the render to the corresponding uv's of your texture. The game will pretty much override your diffuse/specular and make your lit parts look like in the render this way. If you attempt using a black/white glow map there you'll get a weird white non-transparent spotlight instead of a nice realistic looking one.
-
Hmm.. we'll get there eventually.
I'm not baking a luminance map. I'm baking a map that makes lighting a permanent part of the texture. Shadows, hotspots etc. Then I'm making it my glow map. I've done it before (with omnilights) to great success.
The difference this time is that, instead of omnilights, my light source consists entirely of light emitted from the glowy bits on the hull.
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
Right, just checking if it's something as simple as using a wrong map type. No such luck I guess. It could be that rendering to texture just doesn't play nice with light emitting / architectural materials, but as I've never attempted this before it's just guesswork.
-
Oh well. Light emitting maps seemed too good to be true. I'll probably have to do this the hard way, using many area lights.
Thanks anyways.
-
Offtopic: I can't wait for FotG. OMG that HUD is sex.
-
Not entirely sure. I do know that some material types don't work right with rtt. I even found some that crashed max when trying to rtt every time. Don't remember trying it on your particular combo with architectural materials though.. wonder if you could find someone who had the same issue on a related forum or something. It's a long shot but sadly, apart from that I got nothing :P
-
Offtopic: I can't wait for FotG. OMG that HUD is sex.
I will not derail another of bobbtmann's Sathanas threads, but I must point out that that one is just the crappy stopgap 1024 × 768 HUD--all other resolutions are way sexier :)
-
I've decided to stop procrastinating and bite the bullet. I'll be baking my glow map by arranging many little lights, a process during which I generated this image. It's just a test to see how the hull was being illuminated, but it looked neat. Note the abstraction of the form, and the indeterminate nature of the depth. It's hard to determine which areas recede and which advance which is cool.
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
This one is a bit more illustrative of what the actual geometry is.
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
While I'm not exactly sure what part it is I'm looking at, it is very dark and creepy.
-
Love the baked glowmaps. :yes:
-
Looks pretty...evil, like inside of a Shivan ship.
-
Well.... you're going to multiply those omnilights like ten times to make those tiny light dots disappear....
.... right?
-
Nope. Those tiny little dots are on the glowy red portions of the ship. In photoshop I'll put the predesignated red bits over top of my baked map, hiding where the lights were exactly. You won't see the points.
-
Ah righto. Well you are the experienced man!
-
oh, this baby is gonna be mean!
-
[/lurk] Awesome! [lurk]
-
Wow. That looks simply fantastic.
-
This should bake right this time. Won't find out for a while, though.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc433/bobbtmann/SJ%20Sathanas/sath21.png)
-
that's realy... red. May look kind of weird ingame.
-
There are a few lights I might change up at the front, make it more subdued.
-
The big red glow on the bottom of the ship is too big and it don't fit to the rest of the this. Anyway, it's f***ing amazing! Looks very dark and pretty scary as the Sath should look, in the difference to RGA's cartoonish Sathanas. Can't wait for your version ingame :yes:.
-
For the first time I'm having to debate with myself over which I want in my AoA folder
-
That would be scary to see in-game shooping some Destroyers. :D
-
Definitely one of the better ships that use baked lighting into the glow map. At the top face of the neck, it is a tid bit overdone though :P
-
May I direct your attention towards this thread:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=77199.0
The response on the modding board was a bit underwhelming, and I'm no closer to finishing this. Either I get messages about instances of geometry not found, or PCS 2 just crashes.
-
bah, just do the stupid firepoint **** in PCS2.
reset x-form on everything, set up hierarchy right, export, global import firepoint data from the retail model >.>
you need them to be pretty much like that anyway.
-
Either I get messages about instances of geometry not found, or PCS 2 just crashes.
Either you have some bad geometry or forgot to reset x-form (more likely) on something.
-
No, it was the hierarchy that caused the problem. I no longer get that message.