Originally posted by FireCrack
The old threadprobably went into the future and will apear at the most iconvinient time.
Originally posted by FireCrack
The old threadprobably went into the future and will apear at the most iconvinient time.
Originally posted by Setekh
Or, it might have been like Babylon 4, whisked into the past to fight a decisive battle for the future of FS and HLP as we know it. :nervous:
Originally posted by Cobra
eh. it sure looked like a galaxy...
Originally posted by Trivial Psychic
WMCoolmon: Haven't you ever watched "Babylon 5"?
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Incredibly enough, no. Not a whole episode anyway. The only knowledge I have comes from playing through TBP a few times. Maybe if I'd seen the first ep I'd think differently, but it seems pretty big and difficult to just jump in to.
Originally posted by Grimloq
No offence, Raa, but all of your HTL ships have no real visible difference between them and the old ones...
Originally posted by FireCrack
Update on erynies progress
Completed, but awaiting conversion and release.
VA, I have your high poly aeolus on my computer and i have no idea why if you havent released it, didnt you release it at one point but make a recall or somthing?
Originally posted by Vasudan Admiral
Indeedy - it was really just a 3d WIP at that stage. TP added the nessecary pof data to get it ingame, which resulted in a few cool pictures, and that was cool. :)
Cute! :D
Its been out for a while.
It's one of my favorite screenshot ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freespace_2). ;)
It's in the media.vp files. Just extract it from there.
It's in the media.vp files. Just extract it from there.
Thanks man. I would, except I don't have the disk space to download it. I use a seperate computer when online, and any downloads go to a memory stick... which ATM only has 13mb free (14mb total) The mv_models file is well and truly over my limit.:hopping:(54mb! :eek2:) Though I admit I seem to recall lots of bad talk about the media.vp...
I think I already have at least half of those models already (as seperate .pof files.), but... :sigh:
Karnak has nothing to do with canon though O.o
blueifiy the pharos, you made me do it....
what is HTL???
Hardware Transformation and Light.Well, not exactly. All pre-geforce cards could just do the drawing of triangles. CPU calculated where these triangles should be drawn and what color should they have, according to where lights were. Geforce was the first accelerator with HTL, which allowed it to could calculate position of models and their lighting by itself, so CPU had more time to do other things.
As far as I remember the technology made its debute around the same time when Vodoo died out (....and some of us still had 3D-Accelerator cards hooked onto our videocard!). It's an efficient manner to draw complex geometry by sending the card all the data in prearranged batches.
Hardware T&L is not required for most games out today, but for games like TRON 2.0, regarded outdated in today's terms, T&L is needed for certain effects.
Hey, wikipedia says somthing weird:somebody royally ****ed up that article.Quote from: WikipediaHardware T&L is not required for most games out today, but for games like TRON 2.0, regarded outdated in today's terms, T&L is needed for certain effects.
So how do other games have hi-poly models?
Yep, it really did, will somone who understands HTL please correct it? All HTL means to me is a new graphics card and pretty games.
The first cards with programmable shaders were the geforce 3 and the radeon 8500
well, the shader instructions in pixel shader 1.x were alot shorter than they were in ps 2.0x up, but i mean, come on, they were'nt fixed function. they were definately programmable.
well, i'm a C# programmer. I learned C# as my main language and I understand Java mostly. But C++ is confusing for me. There's all kinds of things that are done completely differently and things I don't understand. I spend a weekend looking at the CVS code and it was like looking into the eye of Sauron. I definately need more C++ experience before I could even attempt any decent changes. Adding shader support to the current codebase would be a big task even for an experienced coder. Just ask Taylor.
<-- makes note to one day learn HLSL.If you're doing that for FS2_Open then be sure to learn GLSL, not HLSL. HLSL is for DirectX and GLSL is for OpenGL. NVIDIA's Cg can be compiled into both, but since we're probably dropping D3D support, I'm not making a big deal about the new shader code for OpenGL using GLSL instead of Cg.
<-- makes note to one day learn HLSL.If you're doing that for FS2_Open then be sure to learn GLSL, not HLSL. HLSL is for DirectX and GLSL is for OpenGL. NVIDIA's Cg can be compiled into both, but since we're probably dropping D3D support, I'm not making a big deal about the new shader code for OpenGL using GLSL instead of Cg.
well, i'm a C# programmer. I learned C# as my main language and I understand Java mostly. But C++ is confusing for me. There's all kinds of things that are done completely differently and things I don't understand. I spend a weekend looking at the CVS code and it was like looking into the eye of Sauron. I definately need more C++ experience before I could even attempt any decent changes. Adding shader support to the current codebase would be a big task even for an experienced coder. Just ask Taylor.
At my current path(school dictated) I'll end up a C# programmer but I intend to have a good grasp of C at the least. Too much is still based on that.
that, and HTL is Hardware Transformation and Lighting. not that any of them make use of that.....
Also ITs spelled Demon not Deamon.
The Cobs don't show up in the Truespace 3.2.I think i need better version :doubt:.
Also ITs spelled Demon not Deamon.
Why don't you try to HTL something else?
This thread needs an update...BADLY....
We need to re-do the list of HTL ships - who's doing them, whats their status, and what ships are left to do!
If you do make one, DO NOT ADD EXTRA MAPS, EXTRA TURRETS or other stuff PLEASE.
You can have some artistic license with it, but please don't do what you usually do with your HTL models. :sigh:
The Orion is a beam boat. It has so many big beams that it's not unreasonable that it has weak anti-fighter defenses.
However IF I make it I MAY have to add 1 or 2 extra maps...there's only so much you cna do with the basic ones collie is made of...
The Orion is a beam boat. It has so many big beams that it's not unreasonable that it has weak anti-fighter defenses.
the link to download dabrains manticore is messed up.it says i cant acces that section...
The Orion has an insane amount of firepower from 3 BGreens and 3 TerSlash. It doesn't need more guns, unless it's a really comprehensive refit.The Orion is a beam boat. It has so many big beams that it's not unreasonable that it has weak anti-fighter defenses.
20 terran turrets is just as weak as 6 terrans turrets and 4 AAAFs.
Having roughly the same number of turrets as other GTVA destroyers (and a more sane number for it's size) doesn't necessarily make it that much stronger...depends whats in those turrets
The Orion has an insane amount of anti-capitalfirepower from 3 BGreens and 3 TerSlash. It doesn't need more guns, unless it's a really comprehensive refit.
I think that the actual Collossus' specs should match the cbriefing ani specs if at all possible. Oh, and the extra heavy beam was made when the C overcharged its beams, in FRED IIRC it just switched to BFGreen instead of BGreen.
I think that the actual Collossus' specs should match the cbriefing ani specs if at all possible. Oh, and the extra heavy beam was made when the C overcharged its beams, in FRED IIRC it just switched to BFGreen instead of BGreen.
The Iceni was converted, I have it.
Well the Iceni and former Ravana were the only ones I noticed glitches (then again I dont hunt for them :P )
On the Iceni the fact that the lightning isnt hitting right is bearable, but when it gets hit by a beam, the frigate spins like if it is on Disco Inferno :P
The Satis, Aten, Ares, and most of Raa's models were slightly messed up.
On the Iceni the fact that the lightning isnt hitting right is bearable, but when it gets hit by a beam, the frigate spins like if it is on Disco Inferno :P
I gotta try that...
Are Vasudan Admiral's available publicly? He posted renders ages back in various places of his models bumpmapped, but I've not seen the files available for download.He had sent me a test pack that contained maps for the Aeolus, Loki, Lucifer and Triton, but I believe that he was going to still work on them a bit more before releasing anything official. I don't want to post them myself unless he says so.
Right, here we go: http://www.freewebs.com/twisted-infinities-va/HTL-Loki/LokiHTL-normal.zipCould you please double check the file VA? I'm having hard times tryin to unzip this..
So I just downloaded the new 3.6.10 build with normal maps and I'm overjoyed!
Both of those download links fail with I click on them or right click and select "Save File as", when I'm in Firefox. They worked when I tried Internet Explorer on a hunch though.That's odd. I just retested both and they worked. With Firefox.
To clarify: The links to the updated Loki normal map wouldn't work when I tried them this morning at home using Netscape 8, which is built off of Firefox and generally works with any site that's compatible with normal Firefox (even if it complains that it doesn't support your browser). Your links though were fine Lobo. I just tested the second link to the Loki on my work computer running a standard Firefox installation and it worked, so it was probably just me (or Netscape). Could be a side effect of some anti-3rd party linking scripts I have that route some information into a black hole, or any of the other things I screw around with.Both of those download links fail with I click on them or right click and select "Save File as", when I'm in Firefox. They worked when I tried Internet Explorer on a hunch though.That's odd. I just retested both and they worked. With Firefox.
These normal maps look fantastic in general, but does anyone else think they make the models look far too dark? That Zeus in particular looks almost like a different ship, more like the Zeus DH that Black Wolf made some years ago.Turning on "no emissive light" and setting the ambient light very low will do that. You probably play with a much higher ambient then DaBrain was using for those shots.
Wow its like you don't even have to do a hi poly model anymore.
Other way round - putting on more polys is preferable to adding a normal map in cases where either method would deliver the required detail. ;)
But you're right about the balance. Some Vasudan or Shivan ships like the support ship DaB has shown there may not need a HTL upgrade if given a good enough normal map, but for most others it will be a matter of finding a good balance. On a ship like the Lucifer for example, normal mapping works very nicely, but I'm not yet sure if the HTL Arcadia will need normal maps if I can instead model in most of the detail, as opposed to making a set of huge normal maps.
Another factor is that HTLing takes a whole lot longer than making a good normal map, and so in cases where doing that would work, it would be preferable to just make the normal map and work on something that really does need an upgrade.
Question about the normal maps with Media VPs:Are the normal maps going to be in a different VP than the maps?
Because my computer can't handle them and I didn't want unneeded maps taking up my space.
BTW nice pics.
Which is actually better on system resources?That all depends on just how far you want to go in terms of detail. If you intend to have all the hull plates and other details look 3d, go with a normal map in preference to modelling in that detail, because if you modelled it all in you'd be looking at thousands and thousands of extra polys.
<snip>
Another thing that matters is engine upgrades. Since memory usage from textures and effects has been one of our biggest problems, that area has received most of the work over the past couple of years. Memory handling is now far superior to what it used to be. The problem, is that now it can't get any better.Which is actually better on system resources?That all depends on just how far you want to go in terms of detail. If you intend to have all the hull plates and other details look 3d, go with a normal map in preference to modelling in that detail, because if you modelled it all in you'd be looking at thousands and thousands of extra polys.
However, normal mapping is currently best suited to only that kind of detail. If you need larger or more complex detail, then you'd be much better off modelling it in. An example of this is the Arcadia - even its small detail is too big to accurately portray using normal mapping, so I'll be modelling it in using detail boxes and stuff.
Basically: modelling it in is far less resource intensive than adding a normal map, but only up to a point. Beyond that point you'd be wasting thousands of polys where a normal map could be used instead.
And also in addition to normal maps, take notice that Taylor has also added parallax mapping (-height). :yes: :yes:Of course, so long as it's an optional feature that isn't being enabled by default, where's the harm in including it? Some of us have the speed to burn on graphic niceties like that. Yay upgrades.
Nevertheless, I really feel that in a game like this one, a space simulator where you don't move slowly and quite near other models to look at, (opposite to a FPS and room walls as example), parallax mapping IS THE GREAT LUXURY.
Partially, I already did. ;)
(http://img3.imagebanana.com/img/43j5rg4v/Unbenannt2.jpg)
Anyway, maybe you should give it a try too.
but at this stage places that wouldn't get much light such as some recesses, tunnels, holes and other various typically dark places will still need to be shaded as such on the map.Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant by mentioning getting rid of the shading except ambience in my post. Maybe it doesn't need to be as exagerrated as it is on some of the stock textures but removing it completely wouldn't look good either imho.
If I got this right, normal mapping is best used for fighters/bombers that don't have many polies allready and for metal panel like textures.
Ahem... your motherboard got fried, and you're waiting on a replacement keyboard? :wtf:
Howdy!Here's some normal maps for the SATHANAS (http://web.njit.edu/~pjo3/sathnormaps.zip).
(http://web.njit.edu/~pjo3/normsath.jpg)
Sadly they don't make as much as a difference as I had hoped. Could have to do with the overwhelming scale of the thing.
Holy jeebus. That is what these maps were meant to do.
I think the "padded" look fits for vasudan ships, to certain extent. :) Not so much with terran ones.
it's just like when -spec was new and everything was WAY too shiny. Then we eventually got toned down spec maps and all was well. :nod:
the best way seems to be doing a new low poly mesh, then building a very high poly one and bake the normal map onto the low poly one. Its a lot of work but looks more "real" instead of added on.
the best so far is that loki on page one.
when i show off what fs2 can do now, i show people that loki (and the zeus with the asteroids)
Only question I have is are you using a separate spec map or is it in the alpha channel of the normal map (for specular).
I've looked back at all the normal mapped ships done so far, and I see no evidence of any 'parade balloons' at all. The Vasudan ships so far (with the exception of the Taurets cockpit) look excellent.
The normal mapping really brings the crab-like armour plate detail to life where the flat maps could never do it justice, while keeping the surfaces that are supposed to be flat nice and smooth. The Thoth and Ra look especially awesome. Of the Terran ships, only the Zeus has slightly over-rounded plates to my eye - all the others (especially the Herc2) look perfect.
DaB: One thing you could try is overlaying a no-paint version of the diffuse map onto the heightmap just very faintly. I did this on the lucifer and it had a far better result than I was expecting:
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/VA--Twisted_Infinities/Cutscenes/LuciferSurvivedWIP9.jpg)
Of course, this is a still unbalanced normal map, and is moreover only in blender - I'm yet to try it in-game. ;)
Looks like it's rotting.:wtf: It does look too slimy, though.
Which could be cool, but really isn't appropriate for Shivan craft.
Diffuse map, base map, color map whatever you might call it, it's just the basic texture of the ship.
While normal maps don't really have any height informations, height maps do. They're used for parallax mapping.
I don't know how exactly it works, but it seems to move texture parts of ships faster or slower (depending on the map) while you fly around a parallax mapped object.
The 'higher' parts on the texture move faster and the 'lower' parts move slower, so in movement, it looks like it really has some kind of depth.
And the main problem I found out with this is that you need a rather smooth gradient for 3d effects on this, beause otherwise you really the see the moving 'layers', but you don't always want to have rounded stuff with smooth gradients. You can either keep the effect rather weak, or use it for rounded stuff only. It will come in handy (I got some ideas already ;) ), but atm, I won't use it and continue working on normal maps only.
Edit: Damn... this one is though. The model and the textures suck. And the HTL Model even has some fun UV problems.. :(
Edit2: There is something seriously wrong with the mapping of the HTL model. There are so many problems in there, even the original model looks almost better with normal maps...
The current experimental builds suppot normal mapping and pixel/vertex shaders and I'm packing together a public beta test version of the Media VP 3.6.10 right now. I'm just not sure how to upload it.
My internet connection isn't perfectly stable and uploading 1GB won't be easy. (And will take hours with my current upstream of 15 kb/s).
I'd also like to spend one or two hours of testing the completed package before I even start uploading.
And I still don't buy that ANY current FS ships have their normal maps too strong. In fact, pretty much all the ones I've seen (and I've seen them all - went right through the whole FS fleet in the ship lab) are absolutely perfect. :pI'd argue that the Ulysses is the worst of them. It just looks silly.
I think what you're running into here is not a problem of them being too pronounced... now hear me out:That's exactly what it looks like, nicely described. It's like you took a malleable surface and smushed it down until it was about the right shape. While all the indentations look correct, it's like it's a blurrier copy an original painting, and it doesn't quite have that manufactured feel. Doing what jr2 suggested should fix that.
I think that the problem is the transition of the edges between the height and base are rounded.. instead of sharp. Some of these need to be sharp. Of course, some should be rounded, but not all of them. I'd imagine the Vassy vessels would tend to have more rounded than not, but the Terrans would have more flat than rounded.
Do you get what I'm trying to say? For example the Ulysses. The height is fine. It just needs to have the edges sharper, right now they look like it was crafted (somewhat carefully) from Silly Putty. (No offense; and it still looks better that way than without the normal maps, IMHO.)
The Uly is supposed to have an exaggerated normal map, it's the entire point. It may not look all that spectacular in the lab or techroom, but it's how it looks in a mission that really matters. At one point there was a version of the Uly map which looked much better in the lab, but it didn't work very well in-mission. The current one goes the other way, where you actually get some tangible benefit from it, other than as some basic desktop art.I don't have a problem with how exaggerated it is. It's the rounded edges I'm taking issue with. I think it's fair enough to do that to make it look a little more Vasudan, but I agree with jr2 - it's a bit too much and it creates the same sort of effect everyone complained about with Doom 3's plastic-like metal.
The Uly is supposed to have an exaggerated normal map, it's the entire point. It may not look all that spectacular in the lab or techroom, but it's how it looks in a mission that really matters. At one point there was a version of the Uly map which looked much better in the lab, but it didn't work very well in-mission. The current one goes the other way, where you actually get some tangible benefit from it, other than as some basic desktop art.
Scooby's texture looks fine, but it's almost entirely wasted. The details are simply too subtle to really work that well. It doesn't really matter if it looks better close up since you aren't even going to be able to see any of that detail at a normal game-play distance. A better test would be to show it in the lab, zoomed out at least by half. Then and only then do you get a good sense of how it really looks. If it only looks good at a closer zoom level then the normal map is just wasting everyone's time (and system memory, and CPU resources, and GPU resources).
I dunno how to make them stronger.
The Uly is supposed to have an exaggerated normal map, it's the entire point. It may not look all that spectacular in the lab or techroom, but it's how it looks in a mission that really matters. At one point there was a version of the Uly map which looked much better in the lab, but it didn't work very well in-mission. The current one goes the other way, where you actually get some tangible benefit from it, other than as some basic desktop art.
Scooby's texture looks fine, but it's almost entirely wasted. The details are simply too subtle to really work that well. It doesn't really matter if it looks better close up since you aren't even going to be able to see any of that detail at a normal game-play distance. A better test would be to show it in the lab, zoomed out at least by half. Then and only then do you get a good sense of how it really looks. If it only looks good at a closer zoom level then the normal map is just wasting everyone's time (and system memory, and CPU resources, and GPU resources).
Well, I think it's because we only got only per-pixel light. All the other lights simply blend over it. I don't know how much of a performance difference it would make to turn all lights into per pixel lights. I guess it might look pretty impressive for the laser effects.With SM 3.0 capable card requirement I guess it would be bearable at least. While at it -- environment mappind should also be done per pixel.
I dunno how to make them stronger.
Just import the (uncompressed!) normal map in CrazyBump and increase the intensity.
it'll be most visible on capships.
Honestly I don't think we'll ever see normal mapping in it's true glory because of games nature. You're not going to see walls, details and bad guys up close constantly.Yeah, you're right. So we compensate by doing exactly what you suggest:
Also the Uyl. is way over normalized. Theres a huge gap between the panels.;)
I think the problem is how mipmapping combines with normal mapping. But unless we change the normal mapping shader (at cost of performance) we can`t change it.
The problem is:
if you have two normals \ and / and you make a mipmap the resulting normal is |. And not \/ as it would be in reality. That means ,that from a distance the seams between the armor plates on the ulysses are basically faded out at the distance, so they have to be exaggerated to look right.
Maybe the problem could be solved with a shader with "anisotropic lighting" (i`m not sure whether that word is right).
Or a shader which takes two independant normals as input which represent the two most common average normals of the lower mip levels.
Well, it looks somewhat better in the launcher, but imho it does not really look better in a mission. The effect is too faint to notice.
I've developed some techniques for normal map generation myself now. It takes about as much time as creating a good specular map now, but that's still way less than to create a high-poly model for it.
I will tweak the Uly normal maps for the final MV release and I hope you will like it.
On a sidenote I'd like to mention that the heightmap is crap. I found a better way of creating them now. It will still be hard to use on terran ships, but it might work very well on vasudan ships.
btw what format does heighmaps need to be? DXT1?Yep, DXT1 is best, simply for the reduction in memory consumption. Technically heightmaps just need to be simple 8-bit images, but I figured that it would be easier for everyone to just use something a little more familiar, plus DXT1 can use a little less memory than a single channel image.
DaBrain, I think you're too focused on this idea that the bump maps should be blatantly obvious. That isn't really what it should be about. Not for the fighters. Using sensible normal maps instead of overdone ones will improve the game's overall composition regardless of whether the player can tell that they are having fancy graphical features shoved in their face at all times.
btw what format does heighmaps need to be? DXT1?
btw what format does heighmaps need to be? DXT1?Yep, DXT1 is best, simply for the reduction in memory consumption. Technically heightmaps just need to be simple 8-bit images, but I figured that it would be easier for everyone to just use something a little more familiar, plus DXT1 can use a little less memory than a single channel image.
AFAIK, normal map needs to be enabled for the height map to be rendered.Correct.
Check the normal map, then test if checking and unchecking the height map has any effect whatsoever.
Nope, i'm not seeing any changes what-so-ever.. :blah:
Okay, that would explain the cockpit.
About the height maps... check that you have -height stuffed somewhere in your cmdline string. :nervous:
Is this a command line for FSO or for whatever 3D modeling program you are running? If it's FSO, enabling now...
Two shots from same angle, same zoom, only disabling height map in the former and enabling it for the latter.If you look in the lower-left corner of the image you can see a distinct difference between the with and without pics. The without pic looks great, but there's something odd about the with pic. What I can't figure out is exactly what I'm seeing - it looks like the line between hull plates in the normal map has shifted to the left (which would be fine on its own), but has failed to take the black line in the texture map along with it, making it look like there's two seperate lines.
Without heightmap:
http://i13.tinypic.com/8ea4tok.png (http://i13.tinypic.com/8ea4tok.png)
With heightmap:
http://i9.tinypic.com/6okk0v7.png (http://i9.tinypic.com/6okk0v7.png)
Two shots from same angle, same zoom, only disabling height map in the former and enabling it for the latter.If you look in the lower-left corner of the image you can see a distinct difference between the with and without pics. The without pic looks great, but there's something odd about the with pic. What I can't figure out is exactly what I'm seeing - it looks like the line between hull plates in the normal map has shifted to the left (which would be fine on its own), but has failed to take the black line in the texture map along with it, making it look like there's two seperate lines.
Without heightmap:
http://i13.tinypic.com/8ea4tok.png (http://i13.tinypic.com/8ea4tok.png)
With heightmap:
http://i9.tinypic.com/6okk0v7.png (http://i9.tinypic.com/6okk0v7.png)
Two shots from same angle, same zoom, only disabling height map in the former and enabling it for the latter.If you look in the lower-left corner of the image you can see a distinct difference between the with and without pics. The without pic looks great, but there's something odd about the with pic. What I can't figure out is exactly what I'm seeing - it looks like the line between hull plates in the normal map has shifted to the left (which would be fine on its own), but has failed to take the black line in the texture map along with it, making it look like there's two seperate lines.
Without heightmap:
http://i13.tinypic.com/8ea4tok.png (http://i13.tinypic.com/8ea4tok.png)
With heightmap:
http://i9.tinypic.com/6okk0v7.png (http://i9.tinypic.com/6okk0v7.png)
Ok, there is no way that ship needs a heightmap - in fact it barely needs a normal map because the surface is simply flat already.
On surfaces that are flat and meant to be flat, just use a shine map.
On surfaces with medium-large detail that would be very poly-expensive to make in 3d, use a normal map.
On surfaces with large-huge details that actually protrude or recess into the surface significantly, augment the normal map with a height map.
Anything bigger than that and it should be modelled in. ;)
Remember that you want a strong normal map or it's just a total waste of resources. They are designed to be easy ways to make a lot of 3d detail that isn't actually there. Not to tweak the appearance of a ship by a few pixels close up.
Parallax mapping does not round anything in any way - it shifts the texture around to create a parallax effect. It's the normal map that is doing the rounding.
Ok we have the following:
diffuse map (duh by default)
illumination map (glow map) *-glow
spec map *-shine
normal map *-normal
height map *-height
Too many words, not enough screenshots of the new Freespace ships that'll be going into the MediaVP's.
normal map effects lighting, height map effects position.Well, it's the perception of changing position anyway. In our sense it just affects the offset of the normal map for the purposes of lighting, thereby giving the illusion of height, though no additional detail exists.
So, I redid the normal map from the scratch.
Well, it's the perception of changing position anyway. In our sense it just affects the offset of the normal map for the purposes of lighting, thereby giving the illusion of height, though no additional detail exists.
Great. This means that still leaven, normal, old-fashioned bump mapping for me to try and implement.I've wondered the same thing. ;)
the code ATM looks like a jungle, I'm gonna need a month to find my bearings :P .. shi**, I'm going to have to ask for extra time for this project.
Why the hell did I pick this in the first place? :ick:
the FS code base was designed when software renderers were important, and a Voodoo1 was the coolest thing around.
Even with lod 1, that should still be close up, hence only during flybys or close quarter combat should they kick in. Also don't use smart bumpmaps (ones with 128,128,128 background), instead use pure white background, you'll get a strong normal map right off the bat.
I'm starting to worry about that rocky texture effect when I start normalling my cap ships.
That's because your generating your normal map from a texture and when you start changing the contrast and sharpness you get that grainy texture. If you just want to paint on a normal map just do a black and white image with black being down, white up and paint in your panel lines and whatever greebling you want. When you convert it using crazybump or whatever program you won't have the base grain. OR you could take your low poly model and build up a very high poly one off of it and use xNormal to bake the normal map (or whatever program you want 3ds max etc).
You haven't played FS1, have you?I did, but for the missions after Doomsday I just used Shivan Super Lasers to rape all the enemy ships (including the Lucifer) and I forgot what happened in all the later missions.
we need moar normal maps!Every time someone says that word the internet dies a little bit.
DXT5
we need moar normal maps!
(http://pjfoliver.googlepages.com/typhon-normal.jpg)
Download capital03-01a (http://pjfoliver.googlepages.com/capital03-01a.zip) (now working!)
You haven't played FS1, have you?No. I admit. :(
I don't recall the Typhon ever looking THAT bad in terms of shape. However, the plating now looks awesome.QFT. The Typhon is, and will always be, an ugly ship IMHO. It doesn't look Vasudan to me.
No. I admit. :(And FS2. Hygeia, Centaur, Hermes...
Judging from the Wiki, it's a Vasudan transport. The colour makes it look like a Bast? (Never heard of that ship before. Hey, it's unarmed! So there ARE unarmed ships in FS!)
cargo containers...
You haven't played FS1, have you?No. I admit. :(
Judging from the Wiki, it's a Vasudan transport. The colour makes it look like a Bast? (Never heard of that ship before. Hey, it's unarmed! So there ARE unarmed ships in FS!)I don't recall the Typhon ever looking THAT bad in terms of shape. However, the plating now looks awesome.QFT. The Typhon is, and will always be, an ugly ship IMHO. It doesn't look Vasudan to me.
QFT. The Typhon is, and will always be, an ugly ship IMHO. It doesn't look Vasudan to me.'Vasudan' meaning what, here? Phalluses with tan-coloured plating?
You haven't played FS1, have you?No. I admit. :(
Judging from the Wiki, it's a Vasudan transport. The colour makes it look like a Bast? (Never heard of that ship before. Hey, it's unarmed! So there ARE unarmed ships in FS!)I don't recall the Typhon ever looking THAT bad in terms of shape. However, the plating now looks awesome.QFT. The Typhon is, and will always be, an ugly ship IMHO. It doesn't look Vasudan to me.
The Typhon looks Vasudan to me the Hatshepsut does not.
Vasudan, for me, will always be brown and blue, none of this tan and gold stuff.
But times obviously change, just look at the Orion and the Hecate.
Only the Shivans remain pretty much the same between the two games, and they have a purple freighter
Guess you're right. To me, Vasudan means Hattie-style. Probably because it's the first Vasudan ship I ever saw (except for the Satis).You haven't played FS1, have you?No. I admit. :(
Judging from the Wiki, it's a Vasudan transport. The colour makes it look like a Bast? (Never heard of that ship before. Hey, it's unarmed! So there ARE unarmed ships in FS!)I don't recall the Typhon ever looking THAT bad in terms of shape. However, the plating now looks awesome.QFT. The Typhon is, and will always be, an ugly ship IMHO. It doesn't look Vasudan to me.
The Typhon looks Vasudan to me the Hatshepsut does not.
Vasudan, for me, will always be brown and blue, none of this tan and gold stuff.
But times obviously change, just look at the Orion and the Hecate.
Only the Shivans remain pretty much the same between the two games, and they have a purple freighter
The Shivans went from freakish mechanical horrors like the Scorpion to...flying space bugs.To be fair, the Scorpion is the only one that actually looked like a freakish mechanical horror. All the others are more or less symmetrical.
To be fair, the Scorpion is the only one that actually looked like a freakish mechanical horror. All the others are more or less symmetrical.
But I don't mind the space bugs, myself. I think both design styles have their merits. Had FS1 pushed more in the direction of the mismatched style of the Scorpion, maybe I'd think different, but it didn't.
The Shivans went from freakish mechanical horrors like the Scorpion to...flying space bugs.To be fair, the Scorpion is the only one that actually looked like a freakish mechanical horror. All the others are more or less symmetrical.
But I don't mind the space bugs, myself. I think both design styles have their merits. Had FS1 pushed more in the direction of the mismatched style of the Scorpion, maybe I'd think different, but it didn't.
The Aeshma looks retarded.Another reason why I hate the FS2 Shivans is because of their textures. In FS1, practically all ships had high-resolution textures. In FS2, the some of the textures were like, half the size of their FS1 counterparts.
The Mara and the Astaroth look alright...albiet bug-like.
Another reason why I hate the FS2 Shivans is because of their textures. In FS1, practically all ships had high-resolution textures. In FS2, the some of the textures were like, half the size of their FS1 counterparts.
Aeshmas look retarded, and behave in a similar fashion :lol:QFT. However, they are good at destroying GTD Duke. Which mainly involves flying in a straight line and firing fire-and-forget missiles.
No, the mission where all the ships escape (or not, I haven't completed it) through the Knossos.