[JTK-1701-E]

Someone purdy purdy purdy please make my Ares fighter look this purdy?

[Lightspeed]

1. Never ever off topicize this topic anymore, for the sake of god

2. @DaB: I think I prefer the original textures. Your versions look way too embossed. The rough look makes them appear even more low res than the retail ones, I fear.

3. Please - let's try to stay on topic from now on. I'm sure we can keep pimping/design/whatever discussions to PMs and/or seperate threads.

---

That said, here's yet the next release:



Note that it's using the hi-poly Herc model, which is still in beta stages - wouldn't this be a good excuse for someone to actually finish that hi-poly model?

Hercules Maps

Comments, advice or flames welcome but *stay on topic*!

[Turambar]

lightspeed, if you weren't so good, i don't think we'd tolerate you...

[DaBrain]

Originally posted by Turambar
lightspeed, if you weren't so good, i don't think we'd tolerate you...

Second that.
You need to work more on your attitude, than on maps...

[Lightspeed]

And why would that be? Because people pull the thread off topic after being asked not to? See, a thread with this many release posts etc will be confusing enough *without* the off topic content. I normally don't care as the threads stay below 2-3 pages, but remembering my old shinemaps thread (which had around 20 pages, and almost no off topic) I don't want this to get a jungle beyond comprehension.

@DaB: I don't think so. Most people get along with me fine once they know me. The only people that get 'problems' with me are people who release something, and that's for a simple reason. As a darned perfectionist I don't say yes and amen to anything that appears around here. I'm sure your maps would have potential if they weren't all that 'contrast'y - and that's exactly what I've stated.

[Taristin]

He's right. Stop Hi-Jacking. That said. Good work, Lighty. I'm going to DL all of these right now.

[DaBrain]

Ok, the herc looks good. But it looks only in the pic in the left upper corner, and the in the pic below it.

Looks like the shinemap is worse than the old one.

[Taristin]

What shine mapping on the old one?

GE's Specular hilites?  They sucked. I am totally thankful for this set of revisions. And I'm begining to sound like a broken record, but if people don't like them, they don't have to use them, and are free to not say so. I'd much prefer to see why people don't like them, than "it looks ugly" or "It looks worse." [/rant]

[Nico]

well, having some light in those shots might actualy help seeing anything.

[Lightspeed]

These are the old shinemaps and textures used with the same model:



Could you please specify what's better in these maps DaBrain? I probably could fix it if you would tell me why. Personally, I don't see any 'advantage' here.

[Rictor]

Its shows off the shinemap effect a bit more clearly. It looks more...metallic I think is the word I would use. I prefer the new one, but the old one has its advantages.

[Taristin]

Eh? I think it exaggerates the shine too much. It makes it hard to see detail, and it doesn't exentuate(sp?) any of the detail on the model. Look at the top row, middle shot. The little do-dads look flat.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Raa Tor'h
Eh? I think it exaggerates the shine too much. It makes it hard to see detail, and it doesn't exentuate(sp?) any of the detail on the model. Look at the top row, middle shot. The little do-dads look flat.

Well, that's not exactly like there's actually details there, too, if you think about it.

[Taristin]

As true as that is, you can fake detail with good maps. HALO did it.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Raa Tor'h
As true as that is, you can fake detail with good maps. HALO did it.

I know that fairly well.
See how all the complaints about the ezechiel mesh being to flat disappeard after I started mapping it?
Pb is, the herc doesn't have good maps. Well, in fact, I'm pretty sure the VERY originals are gorgeous ( I suppose V didn't draw their maps on those small files ), but well, they've been cut down, etc, and what we have is blurry as hell, and just no good. That's the most frustrating, I'm sure there's damn excellent maps of all the FS fighters and bombers on some HD, somewhere in the States, but we'll never have nor see them.

[DaBrain]

The new map is too soft.
While this is ok for more organic looking surfaces, it looks odd on terran metalplates.

Soft maps would perhaps fit to vasudan ships.


I think in space (nothing to do with realistic stuff) the bright highlights should be extreme. And the shadows too.

Either bright, or not. No super-soft fading between them.


Edit: Don't you think it's unfair to give the old one the old textures ?
(Cause this is about shinemaps and not the textures)

[jdjtcagle]

New Media Vp and already new stuff...
Excellent  

[Lightspeed]

Also nothing to do with realism:

Smooth surfaces look good because you can see all important details in them, and you can still have a fair amount of shinyness - but it also highly depends on the model. Generally, the smoother the object is, the more extreme lighting can be applied and still look good.

On very boxy models like the Herc I intense lighting looks absolutely bad because it a) kills off the little bit of detail (mind you: not much) it has from the textures and b) creates ugly edges unless you use 10x+ Antialiasing

I rather prefer having a smooth 256 shades transistion instead of a practically 2 coloured model (white-black). If that's your personal taste it's okay, and certainly explains your obsession with insane contrasts in your images  - but I daresay it's not what most people would want to see (at least I don't).

[DaBrain]

Originally posted by Lightspeed
certainly explains your obsession with insane contrasts in your images  -

1. I believe that had no chance to use a good level of contrast, due to their limitation in colors. (less colors = all colors are as close as possible to each other, so there won't be ugly gradient)

2. This fightermap ins't final. I'll work on the contrast after I'm done with all layers. This contrast is a byproduct of my workingstyle.

3. Insane is a bit exaggerated... (It's not that much contrast)

4. Your previous shinemaps were grayscaled. Why ?

I think this is a much better way to be done for them.

[Lightspeed]

Please, let's not start about anything off topic again. Please.

So points 1-3 are irrelevant.

Originally posted by DaBrain

4. Your previous shinemaps were grayscaled. Why ?
 

uh, no? I never did any grey scaled shinemaps. Some of GE's shinemaps were grey scale (the Herc1 too). The current one is the first shinemap I ever did for the Hercules Mk I.