This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:21 pm :
Tron wrote:
It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
I always get depressed when I see my screen shots on other monitors, because they always look different. So with out any equipment to calibrate my monitor to a standard, I just have to hope that its ok. But just like a photographer I always adjust my screenshot levels. ie, I make sure there is a good range between light and dark. I specifically kept adjusting this maps lights to the point that I no longer felt I needed to use PS levels inthe screen shots.
Simple fact is doom3"s lighting does not favour diffused light associated with cloudy days. What does appear to work well is board daylight, so the sharp shadows dont look odd, and thats what I have in this scene. True, the darker lighting schemes suggest more atmoshphere, but I have done that and what I need is well balance shots that hopefully demonstrate effects that "some people" say doom3 cant do.
Tron@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:31 pm :
Hmm, so those earlier shots were colour adjusted?
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:33 pm :
Ah yeah thanks for the reply.
Yes, I didn't mean stylized in this sense (anime is stylized) but rather in the sense that you put, simply making these asthetic choices. Imo art, no matter what the form, to a degree is stylized. And so, when I mentioned it, I was merely refering to your choice to create the look you produced, rather then a technically, and scientifically balanced image as the one I provided you with.
I think there needs to be more of what you are doing in the modding community. So many do forget that visuals isn't only about making pretty graphics, in fact, very little of it is. More so, it is about making these visual choices dependant on the atmosphere you would like your environment to convey, and what type of what is many times described as 'feel' you are going for. I'm really quite impressed with not only your work, but your artistic integrity, or so called.
Sorry my post is getting too deeply abstract, I can't help it, I'm an architecture/art student, that's how I think
Anyway keep up the great work!
As per your color correction problem, I truely suggest you go out and buy some sort of color correction tool, it will change your life I would reccomend a huey, its what I use. Its high quility (GREAT CORRECTION), and not an insane price tag ($60-$70 I believe) It is definatly worth it. You simply run I program from the disk it comes with, and with the correction device attached to your monitor and in 1-2 min your monitor is corrected for not only color, but also brightness, saturation, and gamma. And, you can choose to have it sample the ambiant roomlight from your desk every few minutes and make minor ajustments to compensate on the fly. Its really a wonderful little gadget, especially for anyone such as yourself who is doing computer graphics work.
Anyway I would really like to help you out in the future on anything you need with this project or any future endevors. Please let me know. I'm quite impressed haha Skills I could offer:
Modeling 3ds max
Texturing (Scratch hand painted or photo ref. whichever the project calls for)
Animating
And anything photographic you need, both analog and digital, black and white, and color, single shot and panoramic, conventional and HDRI
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am :
modern, cheers for that screenshot, been extremely helpful!
modern@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:53 pm :
I used the photo as inspiration and a guide, and at no time was I trying to replicate it in doom. Particularly as the diffuse lighting conditions in the photo are hard to simulate with software rendering, let alone doom3.
Considering that the doom3 scene is using a mere 5 lights it can only produce an approximation of daylight conditions. IMO doom 3's lighting is characterised by its heavy bottom end ie. dark, even pitch black shadows which are commonly regarded as ugly, and serve to underline the lack of radiosity. To have any hope of sustaining the illusion of daylight the scene simply cannot have a predominance of darkness.
ratty redemption@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:11 pm :
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post?
Tron@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:38 pm :
The problem with the door is more that it's specular needs dropping down a little.
Also, have you seen the mod which adds basic gloss map functionality to D3?
modern@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:19 pm :
ratty redemption wrote:
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post?
The second door is my screen shot, and the third is nbrancaccio's rebalanced shot. I agree with nbrancaccio that the colour balance could be subjectively altered, but in trying to introduce more contrast into the shot he has burnt out the brick walls. The walls in the source photo are even lighter than mine.
It can be cool that blend filter makes textures darker and moodier, but in this case I have really lightened the wall textures so that they are tonaly much closer to the ground texture. I think it is a vast improvement. A slight increase the contrast in these shots could make a better photo, but I'm happy with the overall balance, and I think the only way to improve my "one size fits all" static lighting scheme would be with hdr which would dynamicaly adjust contrast.
Theres a gloss mod for Doom3? I wasnt going to shell out 40 quid on Prey just to get a specular exponent. Good news
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:53 pm :
love the corigated plastic
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:01 am :
modern, understood and although nbrancaccio's version and reasons behind it were interesting, I prefer the lighter brick walls in your version.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:21 pm :
hey, very nice looking! Thanks for atleast taking my comments into concideration. I truely do say that with full honesty, as I believe one of the most important parts of the creative process is to concider the criticism, but to definatly know when to listen and when not to, and I believe you made a good choice here.
These three shots new shots truely are comming along; they are very beautiful . I especially love the gobo-esque, almost film noir, yet much softer stripped shadows comming through in the third shot. Very nice. I saw your post in a different thread about that new transparent material, its very intreguing and nice looking. Although, one criticism is I believe it is difficult to tell what type of material you are trying to represent with it. Is it suppost to be a window with venitian blinds? or some sort of corrugated plastic? I really do find it very nice looking, though I think a little more work on the material, both in the referenced textures, and the .mtr would help define what exactly it is more. (Unless you were going for this anomosity here, in which case, you've nailed it)
Anyway just some things to think about. Having new seen your reference photo I definatly understand more where you are comming from. The only think I would add as food for thought is that the photograph may not be totally properly color corrected and such, especially if it is just a reference photo from the net or something. Now this may not be a bad thing either, basing textures off of either slightly soft photos, or just not perfect mechincally corrected may yeild very amazing results. This is actually something I am exploring at the moment. I'm going to make some QTVR panoramas with a HOLGA camera, and probably some cross processing techniques, and then I'm going to bring it into doom. In anycase, just something to think about. For further food for thought, I've gone and color corrected your reference photo to what I believe is simply "technically properly exposed" though this is again subjective, just to give your more to think about haha. Here it is:
Anyway keep up the great work!
edit: Did a second pass at color correcting, still don't know which is better. Its subtle, but here ya go(Its the one at the right above.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:46 am :
nbrancaccio, when you do color correcting on these photos or screen shots, do you apply filters to the whole image or just selected areas, and if the latter how do you select such areas as the door?
I'm only used to psp for texture creation and image manipulation, but I'm thinking of trying out the gimp, partly as I can't afford ps at the moment.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:53 am :
ratty use gimp until you can afford ps, i've just started using gimp and it works fine for me look here :
anyway, dont want to get too far off moderns topic.
nbrancaccio i think the second is better
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:24 am :
Bo$bevok: Yeah I agree looking back, the second is better.
Ratty: Firstly, I use photoshop. I use many of the ajustment tools in photoshop for color correction, and tend to do it in many subtle passes rather then one big pass. The main tools I use for this are: Levels, Curves, Brightness/Contrast, Hue/Saturation, Exposure, and Highlights/Shadows, among other.
These tools let me effect different ranges of the image. The Levels allows me to set the black clip point and white clip point of the image, as well as the grey center. The curves allows me to ajust the many different characteristics of the image at different parts of the images properties. It is a bit difficult to explain, but its probably the most powerful tool of them all. The Hue/Saturation is good for the effecting the colors well...hue and saturation without effecting the brightness of the colors (though this can also be tweeked a bit with the lightness bar in this tool). The highlights/Shadows tool is one I have come to recently love very much. It allows me to set the various options of how different areas of the image are exposed (ex: how much detail the shadows contain) To really understand these tools you simply have to play with them, but also, read about the technical aspects of each tool.
If you want, adobe.com always has a 30day trial of the latest version of photoshop availbile for download if you want to monkey around.
I hope that helps explain things. If you wanted to effect just the door in photoshop, you could either make a selection or mask to affect only the door, or you could select by the tonal and color range.
Getting back on topic however: just as another quick comment: The door looks much better in your latest version! Really starting to mesh much better. If you wanted a closer representation of your photo, I would suggest you make the red in the door lightly more towards a little bit magenta-red, rather than the yellow-red you have In your screenshots. This may also have to do simply with the color of your lighting that is falling on the door rather then the photo's. In any case, this is merely an observation/more food for thought. Keep up the great work!
mikebart@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:34 am :
rather than dropping the specular on the paint you could try just having it on the top edges of the bricks, it would be faking it a bit but it might look ok and its not like your gonna be walking around with a flash light or any thing, if you slightly blur the normal map on the bricks where th paint is I reckon it will look more like paint too.
I realy like the corrigated plastic, it looks exactly like laserlight roofing, a product used for roofs on pagola's, carport's, garage skylights etc its pretty common over here and it come's in various shades and tints
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:47 am :
thanks guys and I'll stay on topic now
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:10 pm :
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 7:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:40 pm :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:21 pm :
Tron wrote:
It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
I always get depressed when I see my screen shots on other monitors, because they always look different. So with out any equipment to calibrate my monitor to a standard, I just have to hope that its ok. But just like a photographer I always adjust my screenshot levels. ie, I make sure there is a good range between light and dark. I specifically kept adjusting this maps lights to the point that I no longer felt I needed to use PS levels inthe screen shots.
Simple fact is doom3"s lighting does not favour diffused light associated with cloudy days. What does appear to work well is board daylight, so the sharp shadows dont look odd, and thats what I have in this scene. True, the darker lighting schemes suggest more atmoshphere, but I have done that and what I need is well balance shots that hopefully demonstrate effects that "some people" say doom3 cant do.
Tron@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:31 pm :
Hmm, so those earlier shots were colour adjusted?
6th Venom@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:55 pm :
modern wrote:
This screen colors are just too good, like a photorealist day scene.
Are these screens from a test scene, a demo map, or a playable map?
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:01 pm :
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
ColdT@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:04 pm :
Excellent work and a brilliant idea! Thanks for sharing it. Just what I needed to break up some nasty tiling.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:49 pm :
First shot is an older shot that has not been balanced in photoshop. The second shot shows the levels graph wheret all the colour values are in the mid to low range. If I wanted this to be a twighlight or night-time shot, that might be ok, but often for a good well exposed photograph I would want the colours to run the whole range from light to dark. So I would adjust the levels accordingly. Third shot has had levels, and also colour re-balanced to address the bias towards red (infact its alittle too green this time). The fourth shot is the unadjusted screen shot, where I made similar changes in DoomEd to mimic the changes I made in Photoshop.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:33 pm :
Kamikazee wrote:
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
Yeah, I think there is a problem there which is to do with tonal relationships. I was taught in life classes in Art school that if you want surfaces to meet, they have to be tonally similar. Strong contrasts in tone brings things forward in the picture plane, and close tones receed into the background. Doom is difficult because it produces contrasty light that tends to flatten environments. Also this kind of incongruity is a result of there being no radiosity. I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:40 pm :
It helps a lot indeed.
Still, if I want to nitpick I feel like there is some dirt missing at the bottom of the wall. Especially when on the left side some plants are visible.
Of course, it won't be an issue once played, so take my sugestion with a grain of salt.
ratty redemption@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:03 pm :
modern wrote:
I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
if you have time, I'd like to hear more about how you set up your lighting in d3edit, even if you also use PS for the final screens.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:07 pm :
looks excellent man.
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:47 pm :
ratty redemption wrote:
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
For the black and white shots I made the adjustment in photoshop just to illustrate. I could add an extra light in the map to fake alittle radiosity.
I think somebody did this before, but you could use this blend filter technique to apply shadow maps made in a software renderer to simulate a cloudy day.
As for adjusting levels, if you were to set up a camera on a tripod at night, you might end up using an exposure that lasts a number of seconds. It would result in a photo that is well exposed, but does not look like what you would see with your own eyes. The same thing can happen with a screen shot, especially with doom and its dimly lit scenes. Infact I would hazzard a guess that levels could be applied as a post process by the Doom renderer, and that process is not a million miles away from HDR.
In this scene I was using 4 parallel lights, but its up to five now and six would not be out of the question. I could have one light pointing up wards, but I havent felt I need one yet. I guess in generall you could use six similar lights pointing in different directions, but I have just organically evolved this lighting scheme with lots and lots of tweeking. That process is informed by photoshop, because its easier to make quick adjustments in PS and see what the result is, than it is to change six lights in DoomEd.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:26 pm :
thanks modern and I think I understand.
so you add parallel lights pointing in different directions to soften the overall lighting and fill in polys that are not receiving enough light, yes?
are they all the same color or do you use opposing colors for the sun and fill lights?
modern@Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:41 pm :
Yeah, I add parallel lights pointing in different directions, and there is one main light that casts shadows. Its never ideal. I found I have to keep tweeking the direction and colour, and there is always a compromise that has to be made somewhere. I found if all the lights are duplicates of each other it just looks terrible, so I make the lights facing the sun darker.
In this scene the lights are very desaturated with just alittle colour. In general I think it is nice to use warm and cool colours, aswell as contrasts. So if I make the main light warm I would make the fill light cool, and vice versa. I did moonlight once where I had a pale blue main light shining through a window, and then I had a fill light that was a very dark, desaturated orangy brown.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:18 am :
understood and kat taught me to use similar colors to you in my lighting.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:15 pm :
This is shot is using seven lights alltogether. 4 parallel lights (1 casting shadows). 2 ambient lights effecting mid-range colours, and one fog glare which addresses the bottom end colours and increases with height. Oh, and I have made one of the parallel lights face directly upwards so that all undersides get alittle light.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:39 pm :
OMFG THATS SO F***ING AWSOME!!
keep going man it really is amazing.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:38 pm :
This really does look awesome, hurry up finish and release it so I can see framerate ^_^.
mikebart@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:53 am :
nice work, I like the window models, aw heck I like it all good stuff
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:14 am :
interesting and nice screen image
Tron@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:00 am :
This project has advanced so much from it's already impresive beginnings.
I cannot wait to run around in this...any chance of a video pleeeeeeaaaaassse?
edit: I know it's annoying to get "this would be cool to do!" comments but given that one of the major strengths here is your understanding of lighting, and that is the biggest strength (and curse) of the Doom 3 engine it would be incredible to see a day/night transition.
Set up the lights for morning/midday/evening values, then use a script to transition between the three.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:45 am :
I'm very impressed. It looks great.
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:01 pm :
This shot represents a rationalised version of the lighting system in the previous shot. It has five lights in all. 4 parallel (1 casting shadows) and 1 ambient light. All four parallel lights point in towards the center at angles of 45 degrees. The two parallel lights at the top have brightness values of 127, and the two parallel lights at the bottom have a brightness value of 64, as does the ambient light in the center.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:19 pm :
I used a similar trick in a Q4 wip map, but only with 3 paralelles lights (placed in a triangle form, with the first centered at "0,-256,-128", the second at "-128,128,96" and the third at "128,128,96), plus a 4th one paralelle to the ground casting shadows and a shadowmap, it work fine too.
The only 'problem' is with round surfaces (like heads) you got a very unnoticable "lights transition zone".
(I think the first time i heard about this technique, i think it was on a kat's test map with a big rock in the middle of a rock scene, or maybe my memory play me... )
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:34 pm :
this is probably a stupid question, but I dont think it has been asked before in this thread: Are all these lights ok on performance in Doom3? The reason I ask this is that I learned Doomedit with the idea that 1 light is GREAT 2 lights is optimal, but anymore really start to slow it down. Do you have any sort of cool work arounds to this or something?
Second, Im not sure if you saw my thread in the pimping section, but I was wondering if you were in need of any sort skybox for this, and if so, I would LOVE to help you forward with this project by providing a high quality skybox. Let me know
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:38 am :
The myth of Source²>D3 can rest in peace....
nbrancaccio@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:02 am :
EWW god! Lets all abandon Doom3 now! This truely is a testiment to Carmack's lack of ability to program
(Very beautiful stuff man! keep up the great work! And I ask again... need any sort of Skybox? If so, let me know, I've got your back )
Dinky@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:35 am :
Wow man! I was really worried about performance on this map!!! OMG!! You did a fantastic job and I want you to hurry and RELEASE THIS!!!! I wanna see these textures and quality mapping running on my comp!
And my comp is nothing like yours, it's uber (just upgraded for Crysis).
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:23 am :
modern wrote:
DoomIII's lighting is a load of rubbish! Carmack is an idiot, and everyone should start using UE3, and Crysis.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
hehe, very nice demo of your work modern, please show us more .avi clips when you can
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:38 pm :
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:20 pm :
Rayne wrote:
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
The point is however that using d3 lights you can produce a nice replica of real world outdoor ligting. People know you can use multiple lights but few people seem to do it well.
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:49 pm :
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:56 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
I still think for nighttime this would still look incredibly awesome with a day to evening transition showing the shadows getting longer and light fading. Instead of trying to beat engines like source at their own game, show off the stuff they can't match.
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:08 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem is the misleading concept that people have about DooM3 engine and its outdoor rendering possibilities...
DooM3 CAN RENDER outdoor stuff, the most problematic things you have to manage in this engine are the lack of bouncing light and the portal system. Every time I see someone posting a "doom3 can do outdoors" I only see huge terrain models, but NO-ONE cares to post a FINAL solution for these two problems. Usally people won't play demo maps created with only one purpose (showing huge terrain); people want interesting designs, outdoor and indoor locations blended seamlessy, with complex scripts, more than 5 lights in a map ( ) lots of enemies etc...
For that matter, Splash damage coded a different "portal" support for ET, the proof that vanilla doom3 it's not optimized for that kind of map type..
A demo like this it's obviously really cool, but it isn't taking into account other factors or possible variations of the scene.
I'm talking about this because I've got big problems in regard of lighting my scene. I've got a scene that's really similar to this one, an open, urban environment with lots of details... The problem arise since it's a night scene... I've got (just as I wrote in the previous post) streetlamps, and lots of other lights to manage. Normally, for a "horror style" corridor I simply can forget about bounced light (like in Id maps) but in a open environment, with the clear sky and a big moon in it totally pitch black areas looks simply wrong. The lighting of the scene is really bugging me, I can't find the right balance between good looking stuff, and a light setup that won't kill fps. I can't use the 5 lights setup showed in this thread, so my workflow it's really slow.
That's basically the only complain I have about DooM3 engine. You can't choose to use other ways to light up your map (and if you try to do things like lightmaps etc you have to do it in the painfull way).
The whole "unified lighting" stuff sounds really cool on paper, but you have to take into account considerations like "right now we can't do radiosity in real time" so we have to work around this. but simply removing all the stuff (like doom3 does) won't really produce only positive things.
That's what Ue3 and Crysis have IMHO more then doom engine: the possibility to CHOOSE! Case 1 - Hell, in my map the sun WON'T move at all, why in the world I have to waste processing power to calculate a dynamic light in the entire map when it simply stand still all the time? Case 2 - In my game the sun needs to be dynamic. Just flag the light to be dynamic.
Even more, we now have more processing power so we can use HIGH resolution lightmaps (this means no jagged lightmaps) having the normal maps still working and being 100% correctly lit in the environment.
Sorry for the rant and the thread hijack, if you want we can continue in another thread (usually people ignore me and the discussion dies immediately)..
BTW, maybe I can post my scene so you guys can help me with the lighting stuff
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:43 pm :
Using the 5 lights tek over your your scene already enlightened is not the good way to go, cause your map/scene have actually a lot of overlapping lights, that's what kill your perfs when you add the 5 lights.
Plus that's really depend on needs, but for a city night scene, you could do a good ambient with only 3 lights with one casting shadows, or 2 lights without the moon shadows:
1) parallele, centered at -256, -256, 256
2) parallele, centered at 256, 256, -256
3) parallele, centered at what you want, casting shadows. (optional)
That's just an idea...
About Visportals, Q4 have great distance visportals that fade in/out at choosen distance (in the mtr).
Only problem is that you got to use it with fog (or anything that can hide closed portals to player view).
(and it seems slow at BSP)
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:46 pm :
Using two parallel lights and an ambient light is of course very efficient. However, you can see in this screen shot that is using this three light system that some of the leaves are ok, but alot of them have far too much contrast from light to dark. That is the quintisential problem.
Ok, this second shot is using more lights, but the level of contrast over all the various leaves is far more consistent, and consistent with the suggested lighting conditions. Its an expensive system, but the quality of the render is much improved.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:43 pm :
modern, for night time scenes I too would use additive material shaders where ever possible, but I also understand why you don't feel the need to make a tech demo or playable map set at night.
I think in your last post, you demonstrate very well the harshness of the d3 engine lighting even when using ambient lights, which although the d3 engine is very cool in some ways can also make lighting other scenes quite ugly unless we over tax our processors with multiple overlapping lights.
to sum up, I think your doing a great job of showing us what can be done with an engine version that isn't optimized for a softer lighting.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:19 am :
Nice work modern, im just wondering about those plants, are they the same model? the second shot definitly looks better, but the positioning of the leaves in the first shot makes for alot of repetition, some of them are facing the same direction and right next to each other and are receiving exactly the same lighting and shadows and I think thats contributing to a bad looking image probably as much as the lighting is.
But when I look at the positioning of the leaves in the second shot it looks like they are also positioned in pretty much the same way but you've some how pulled it off with all your fancy lighting trickery , it looks good. Its a great technique.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:46 pm :
The "shrub" in the screen shots was meant to be Brambles. Really have not pulled that one off yet. They look like tree leaves to me, maybe hazel nut?
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:36 pm :
This is with 4 parallel lights, 1 ambient, fog glare, and basic fog.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:41 pm :
Is this a "Washing Machines" factory? Still look cool.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:10 am :
Very nice looking This update got buried off the front page so I didnt notice it until today.
Can't wait to see more. Keep it up! Oh and as a bit of criticism, the shine on the door is a bit too blown out imho.
Lumpengnom@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:40 am :
Great image. I find the red tint too dominating.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:53 pm :
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
Anyway take a look:
Regards
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:29 am :
Salmony pink against cobalt blue are the main act!
The other colours are the supporting cast.
Andre Derain
Fauvism
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:44 am :
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:48 am :
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Goodluck
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:59 pm :
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:58 pm :
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good?
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:01 pm :
looks excellent
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:34 pm :
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck.
6th Venom@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:38 pm :
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:46 pm :
6th Venom wrote:
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:53 pm :
Regulator wrote:
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
Don't get me wrong, as I say I agree gameplay should come first and foremost, but what we're looking at here is purely experimentation and development to enhance the artistic qualities of a game.
shaviro@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:17 pm :
Oh please.
Do you honestly believe this "gameplay" is some sort of individual aspect of a game? If so, I must say that you really don't have a clue. A game consists of many different components. The result, the MIXTURE, of these components is the gameplay. Sure, if you spend all your time focusing on graphics, the game most like won't be fun to play, hence bad gameplay....but you can't pick out gameplay as an individual component of the game. That is borderline retarded. Some games will benefit a lot from astounding visuals while others won't. It's all about the formula.
The main components of the game here in a rough list:
Video
Audio
Action/Reaction
Story presentation
Some games focus on individual components and do well, others don't. However gameplay is the result of the mixture of these components. You can't start up a game and say you will be focusing on "good gameplay". That would be like saying you will be focusing on "entertaining movie" while producing a movie.
Gameplay = fun factor = Video + Audio + Action/Reaction + Story presentation.
Entertaining movie = fun factor = Video + Audio + Story Presentation
Some games need a huge visual impact (amazing environments or beautiful characters) in order to convey the story. Others need a lot in the audio department (sounds or music). Some focus almost entirely on action and reaction department while others are mainly focusing on the story.
Saying that a game like Doom3 has "0 gameplay" (Like I've seen you do, Regulator) is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read concerning the game. No offense, but please....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in general about games.
And on topic: I really love what you're doing here, Modern. The engine really CAN look like a next gen game just by upping the media. Good job :)
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:22 pm :
Koroshiya Ichi wrote:
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
imo this thread has nothing to do with gameplay
we know the d3 engine and d3 game can be a lot of fun to play, but what most of us didn't know, until people like modern did these technology and artistic tests, was how aesthetically pleasing the engine can be at producing well lit detailed areas.
whether they be large or small areas of the game world is also secondary here to the quality of the visuals both in texture use and lighting, again imo.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:29 pm :
I also agree with shaviro's post, 'gameplay' isn't an individual aspect of a game, but these technology and artistic tests don't need any action in them if the purpose is to test what can be done with textures and lighting.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:30 pm :
Ah, I thought its a playable map, but it seems its a cutscene. My apologies.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:00 pm :
nbrancaccio
Its really frustrating to not be able to calibrate my monitors to a standard. I get depressed everytime I see my work on another monitor, because it always looks like it needs rebalancing.
I would say that the majority of video game content production involves making aesthetic choices (i would rather say that then call it stylised). The definite downside of this lighting system is the compromise made in sacrificing alot of the bottom end, or the darker range of colours inorder to get a feeling of radiosity. I noticed that this is something that Cry Engine2 seems to do very well. Where there is dense foliage there are some really good dark areas, which I would guess is something along the lines of ambient occlusion. Unfortunately, ambient occlusion is missing from my light setup, so I cant achieve that variance in the shadow, unless I add it with a blend filter. I experimented with adding black through vertex color in the material, but it breaks the bump and specular stages.
Koroshiya Ichi
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:33 pm :
Ah yeah thanks for the reply.
Yes, I didn't mean stylized in this sense (anime is stylized) but rather in the sense that you put, simply making these asthetic choices. Imo art, no matter what the form, to a degree is stylized. And so, when I mentioned it, I was merely refering to your choice to create the look you produced, rather then a technically, and scientifically balanced image as the one I provided you with.
I think there needs to be more of what you are doing in the modding community. So many do forget that visuals isn't only about making pretty graphics, in fact, very little of it is. More so, it is about making these visual choices dependant on the atmosphere you would like your environment to convey, and what type of what is many times described as 'feel' you are going for. I'm really quite impressed with not only your work, but your artistic integrity, or so called.
Sorry my post is getting too deeply abstract, I can't help it, I'm an architecture/art student, that's how I think
Anyway keep up the great work!
As per your color correction problem, I truely suggest you go out and buy some sort of color correction tool, it will change your life I would reccomend a huey, its what I use. Its high quility (GREAT CORRECTION), and not an insane price tag ($60-$70 I believe) It is definatly worth it. You simply run I program from the disk it comes with, and with the correction device attached to your monitor and in 1-2 min your monitor is corrected for not only color, but also brightness, saturation, and gamma. And, you can choose to have it sample the ambiant roomlight from your desk every few minutes and make minor ajustments to compensate on the fly. Its really a wonderful little gadget, especially for anyone such as yourself who is doing computer graphics work.
Anyway I would really like to help you out in the future on anything you need with this project or any future endevors. Please let me know. I'm quite impressed haha Skills I could offer:
Modeling 3ds max
Texturing (Scratch hand painted or photo ref. whichever the project calls for)
Animating
And anything photographic you need, both analog and digital, black and white, and color, single shot and panoramic, conventional and HDRI
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am :
modern, cheers for that screenshot, been extremely helpful!
modern@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:53 pm :
I used the photo as inspiration and a guide, and at no time was I trying to replicate it in doom. Particularly as the diffuse lighting conditions in the photo are hard to simulate with software rendering, let alone doom3.
Considering that the doom3 scene is using a mere 5 lights it can only produce an approximation of daylight conditions. IMO doom 3's lighting is characterised by its heavy bottom end ie. dark, even pitch black shadows which are commonly regarded as ugly, and serve to underline the lack of radiosity. To have any hope of sustaining the illusion of daylight the scene simply cannot have a predominance of darkness.
ratty redemption@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:11 pm :
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post?
Tron@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:38 pm :
The problem with the door is more that it's specular needs dropping down a little.
Also, have you seen the mod which adds basic gloss map functionality to D3?
modern@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:19 pm :
ratty redemption wrote:
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post?
The second door is my screen shot, and the third is nbrancaccio's rebalanced shot. I agree with nbrancaccio that the colour balance could be subjectively altered, but in trying to introduce more contrast into the shot he has burnt out the brick walls. The walls in the source photo are even lighter than mine.
It can be cool that blend filter makes textures darker and moodier, but in this case I have really lightened the wall textures so that they are tonaly much closer to the ground texture. I think it is a vast improvement. A slight increase the contrast in these shots could make a better photo, but I'm happy with the overall balance, and I think the only way to improve my "one size fits all" static lighting scheme would be with hdr which would dynamicaly adjust contrast.
Theres a gloss mod for Doom3? I wasnt going to shell out 40 quid on Prey just to get a specular exponent. Good news
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:53 pm :
love the corigated plastic
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:01 am :
modern, understood and although nbrancaccio's version and reasons behind it were interesting, I prefer the lighter brick walls in your version.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:21 pm :
hey, very nice looking! Thanks for atleast taking my comments into concideration. I truely do say that with full honesty, as I believe one of the most important parts of the creative process is to concider the criticism, but to definatly know when to listen and when not to, and I believe you made a good choice here.
These three shots new shots truely are comming along; they are very beautiful . I especially love the gobo-esque, almost film noir, yet much softer stripped shadows comming through in the third shot. Very nice. I saw your post in a different thread about that new transparent material, its very intreguing and nice looking. Although, one criticism is I believe it is difficult to tell what type of material you are trying to represent with it. Is it suppost to be a window with venitian blinds? or some sort of corrugated plastic? I really do find it very nice looking, though I think a little more work on the material, both in the referenced textures, and the .mtr would help define what exactly it is more. (Unless you were going for this anomosity here, in which case, you've nailed it)
Anyway just some things to think about. Having new seen your reference photo I definatly understand more where you are comming from. The only think I would add as food for thought is that the photograph may not be totally properly color corrected and such, especially if it is just a reference photo from the net or something. Now this may not be a bad thing either, basing textures off of either slightly soft photos, or just not perfect mechincally corrected may yeild very amazing results. This is actually something I am exploring at the moment. I'm going to make some QTVR panoramas with a HOLGA camera, and probably some cross processing techniques, and then I'm going to bring it into doom. In anycase, just something to think about. For further food for thought, I've gone and color corrected your reference photo to what I believe is simply "technically properly exposed" though this is again subjective, just to give your more to think about haha. Here it is:
Anyway keep up the great work!
edit: Did a second pass at color correcting, still don't know which is better. Its subtle, but here ya go(Its the one at the right above.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:46 am :
nbrancaccio, when you do color correcting on these photos or screen shots, do you apply filters to the whole image or just selected areas, and if the latter how do you select such areas as the door?
I'm only used to psp for texture creation and image manipulation, but I'm thinking of trying out the gimp, partly as I can't afford ps at the moment.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:53 am :
ratty use gimp until you can afford ps, i've just started using gimp and it works fine for me look here :
anyway, dont want to get too far off moderns topic.
nbrancaccio i think the second is better
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:24 am :
Bo$bevok: Yeah I agree looking back, the second is better.
Ratty: Firstly, I use photoshop. I use many of the ajustment tools in photoshop for color correction, and tend to do it in many subtle passes rather then one big pass. The main tools I use for this are: Levels, Curves, Brightness/Contrast, Hue/Saturation, Exposure, and Highlights/Shadows, among other.
These tools let me effect different ranges of the image. The Levels allows me to set the black clip point and white clip point of the image, as well as the grey center. The curves allows me to ajust the many different characteristics of the image at different parts of the images properties. It is a bit difficult to explain, but its probably the most powerful tool of them all. The Hue/Saturation is good for the effecting the colors well...hue and saturation without effecting the brightness of the colors (though this can also be tweeked a bit with the lightness bar in this tool). The highlights/Shadows tool is one I have come to recently love very much. It allows me to set the various options of how different areas of the image are exposed (ex: how much detail the shadows contain) To really understand these tools you simply have to play with them, but also, read about the technical aspects of each tool.
If you want, adobe.com always has a 30day trial of the latest version of photoshop availbile for download if you want to monkey around.
I hope that helps explain things. If you wanted to effect just the door in photoshop, you could either make a selection or mask to affect only the door, or you could select by the tonal and color range.
Getting back on topic however: just as another quick comment: The door looks much better in your latest version! Really starting to mesh much better. If you wanted a closer representation of your photo, I would suggest you make the red in the door lightly more towards a little bit magenta-red, rather than the yellow-red you have In your screenshots. This may also have to do simply with the color of your lighting that is falling on the door rather then the photo's. In any case, this is merely an observation/more food for thought. Keep up the great work!
mikebart@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:34 am :
rather than dropping the specular on the paint you could try just having it on the top edges of the bricks, it would be faking it a bit but it might look ok and its not like your gonna be walking around with a flash light or any thing, if you slightly blur the normal map on the bricks where th paint is I reckon it will look more like paint too.
I realy like the corrigated plastic, it looks exactly like laserlight roofing, a product used for roofs on pagola's, carport's, garage skylights etc its pretty common over here and it come's in various shades and tints
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:47 am :
thanks guys and I'll stay on topic now
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:33 pm :
Ah yeah thanks for the reply.
Yes, I didn't mean stylized in this sense (anime is stylized) but rather in the sense that you put, simply making these asthetic choices. Imo art, no matter what the form, to a degree is stylized. And so, when I mentioned it, I was merely refering to your choice to create the look you produced, rather then a technically, and scientifically balanced image as the one I provided you with.
I think there needs to be more of what you are doing in the modding community. So many do forget that visuals isn't only about making pretty graphics, in fact, very little of it is. More so, it is about making these visual choices dependant on the atmosphere you would like your environment to convey, and what type of what is many times described as 'feel' you are going for. I'm really quite impressed with not only your work, but your artistic integrity, or so called.
Sorry my post is getting too deeply abstract, I can't help it, I'm an architecture/art student, that's how I think
Anyway keep up the great work!
As per your color correction problem, I truely suggest you go out and buy some sort of color correction tool, it will change your life I would reccomend a huey, its what I use. Its high quility (GREAT CORRECTION), and not an insane price tag ($60-$70 I believe) It is definatly worth it. You simply run I program from the disk it comes with, and with the correction device attached to your monitor and in 1-2 min your monitor is corrected for not only color, but also brightness, saturation, and gamma. And, you can choose to have it sample the ambiant roomlight from your desk every few minutes and make minor ajustments to compensate on the fly. Its really a wonderful little gadget, especially for anyone such as yourself who is doing computer graphics work.
Anyway I would really like to help you out in the future on anything you need with this project or any future endevors. Please let me know. I'm quite impressed haha Skills I could offer:
Modeling 3ds max
Texturing (Scratch hand painted or photo ref. whichever the project calls for)
Animating
And anything photographic you need, both analog and digital, black and white, and color, single shot and panoramic, conventional and HDRI
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am :
modern, cheers for that screenshot, been extremely helpful!
modern@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:53 pm :
I used the photo as inspiration and a guide, and at no time was I trying to replicate it in doom. Particularly as the diffuse lighting conditions in the photo are hard to simulate with software rendering, let alone doom3.
Considering that the doom3 scene is using a mere 5 lights it can only produce an approximation of daylight conditions. IMO doom 3's lighting is characterised by its heavy bottom end ie. dark, even pitch black shadows which are commonly regarded as ugly, and serve to underline the lack of radiosity. To have any hope of sustaining the illusion of daylight the scene simply cannot have a predominance of darkness.
ratty redemption@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:11 pm :
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post?
Tron@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:38 pm :
The problem with the door is more that it's specular needs dropping down a little.
Also, have you seen the mod which adds basic gloss map functionality to D3?
modern@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:19 pm :
ratty redemption wrote:
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post?
The second door is my screen shot, and the third is nbrancaccio's rebalanced shot. I agree with nbrancaccio that the colour balance could be subjectively altered, but in trying to introduce more contrast into the shot he has burnt out the brick walls. The walls in the source photo are even lighter than mine.
It can be cool that blend filter makes textures darker and moodier, but in this case I have really lightened the wall textures so that they are tonaly much closer to the ground texture. I think it is a vast improvement. A slight increase the contrast in these shots could make a better photo, but I'm happy with the overall balance, and I think the only way to improve my "one size fits all" static lighting scheme would be with hdr which would dynamicaly adjust contrast.
Theres a gloss mod for Doom3? I wasnt going to shell out 40 quid on Prey just to get a specular exponent. Good news
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:53 pm :
love the corigated plastic
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:01 am :
modern, understood and although nbrancaccio's version and reasons behind it were interesting, I prefer the lighter brick walls in your version.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:21 pm :
hey, very nice looking! Thanks for atleast taking my comments into concideration. I truely do say that with full honesty, as I believe one of the most important parts of the creative process is to concider the criticism, but to definatly know when to listen and when not to, and I believe you made a good choice here.
These three shots new shots truely are comming along; they are very beautiful . I especially love the gobo-esque, almost film noir, yet much softer stripped shadows comming through in the third shot. Very nice. I saw your post in a different thread about that new transparent material, its very intreguing and nice looking. Although, one criticism is I believe it is difficult to tell what type of material you are trying to represent with it. Is it suppost to be a window with venitian blinds? or some sort of corrugated plastic? I really do find it very nice looking, though I think a little more work on the material, both in the referenced textures, and the .mtr would help define what exactly it is more. (Unless you were going for this anomosity here, in which case, you've nailed it)
Anyway just some things to think about. Having new seen your reference photo I definatly understand more where you are comming from. The only think I would add as food for thought is that the photograph may not be totally properly color corrected and such, especially if it is just a reference photo from the net or something. Now this may not be a bad thing either, basing textures off of either slightly soft photos, or just not perfect mechincally corrected may yeild very amazing results. This is actually something I am exploring at the moment. I'm going to make some QTVR panoramas with a HOLGA camera, and probably some cross processing techniques, and then I'm going to bring it into doom. In anycase, just something to think about. For further food for thought, I've gone and color corrected your reference photo to what I believe is simply "technically properly exposed" though this is again subjective, just to give your more to think about haha. Here it is:
Anyway keep up the great work!
edit: Did a second pass at color correcting, still don't know which is better. Its subtle, but here ya go(Its the one at the right above.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:46 am :
nbrancaccio, when you do color correcting on these photos or screen shots, do you apply filters to the whole image or just selected areas, and if the latter how do you select such areas as the door?
I'm only used to psp for texture creation and image manipulation, but I'm thinking of trying out the gimp, partly as I can't afford ps at the moment.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:53 am :
ratty use gimp until you can afford ps, i've just started using gimp and it works fine for me look here :
anyway, dont want to get too far off moderns topic.
nbrancaccio i think the second is better
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:24 am :
Bo$bevok: Yeah I agree looking back, the second is better.
Ratty: Firstly, I use photoshop. I use many of the ajustment tools in photoshop for color correction, and tend to do it in many subtle passes rather then one big pass. The main tools I use for this are: Levels, Curves, Brightness/Contrast, Hue/Saturation, Exposure, and Highlights/Shadows, among other.
These tools let me effect different ranges of the image. The Levels allows me to set the black clip point and white clip point of the image, as well as the grey center. The curves allows me to ajust the many different characteristics of the image at different parts of the images properties. It is a bit difficult to explain, but its probably the most powerful tool of them all. The Hue/Saturation is good for the effecting the colors well...hue and saturation without effecting the brightness of the colors (though this can also be tweeked a bit with the lightness bar in this tool). The highlights/Shadows tool is one I have come to recently love very much. It allows me to set the various options of how different areas of the image are exposed (ex: how much detail the shadows contain) To really understand these tools you simply have to play with them, but also, read about the technical aspects of each tool.
If you want, adobe.com always has a 30day trial of the latest version of photoshop availbile for download if you want to monkey around.
I hope that helps explain things. If you wanted to effect just the door in photoshop, you could either make a selection or mask to affect only the door, or you could select by the tonal and color range.
Getting back on topic however: just as another quick comment: The door looks much better in your latest version! Really starting to mesh much better. If you wanted a closer representation of your photo, I would suggest you make the red in the door lightly more towards a little bit magenta-red, rather than the yellow-red you have In your screenshots. This may also have to do simply with the color of your lighting that is falling on the door rather then the photo's. In any case, this is merely an observation/more food for thought. Keep up the great work!
mikebart@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:34 am :
rather than dropping the specular on the paint you could try just having it on the top edges of the bricks, it would be faking it a bit but it might look ok and its not like your gonna be walking around with a flash light or any thing, if you slightly blur the normal map on the bricks where th paint is I reckon it will look more like paint too.
I realy like the corrigated plastic, it looks exactly like laserlight roofing, a product used for roofs on pagola's, carport's, garage skylights etc its pretty common over here and it come's in various shades and tints
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:47 am :
thanks guys and I'll stay on topic now
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:10 pm :
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 7:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:40 pm :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:21 pm :
Tron wrote:
It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
I always get depressed when I see my screen shots on other monitors, because they always look different. So with out any equipment to calibrate my monitor to a standard, I just have to hope that its ok. But just like a photographer I always adjust my screenshot levels. ie, I make sure there is a good range between light and dark. I specifically kept adjusting this maps lights to the point that I no longer felt I needed to use PS levels inthe screen shots.
Simple fact is doom3"s lighting does not favour diffused light associated with cloudy days. What does appear to work well is board daylight, so the sharp shadows dont look odd, and thats what I have in this scene. True, the darker lighting schemes suggest more atmoshphere, but I have done that and what I need is well balance shots that hopefully demonstrate effects that "some people" say doom3 cant do.
Tron@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:31 pm :
Hmm, so those earlier shots were colour adjusted?
6th Venom@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:55 pm :
modern wrote:
This screen colors are just too good, like a photorealist day scene.
Are these screens from a test scene, a demo map, or a playable map?
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:01 pm :
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
ColdT@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:04 pm :
Excellent work and a brilliant idea! Thanks for sharing it. Just what I needed to break up some nasty tiling.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:49 pm :
First shot is an older shot that has not been balanced in photoshop. The second shot shows the levels graph wheret all the colour values are in the mid to low range. If I wanted this to be a twighlight or night-time shot, that might be ok, but often for a good well exposed photograph I would want the colours to run the whole range from light to dark. So I would adjust the levels accordingly. Third shot has had levels, and also colour re-balanced to address the bias towards red (infact its alittle too green this time). The fourth shot is the unadjusted screen shot, where I made similar changes in DoomEd to mimic the changes I made in Photoshop.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:33 pm :
Kamikazee wrote:
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
Yeah, I think there is a problem there which is to do with tonal relationships. I was taught in life classes in Art school that if you want surfaces to meet, they have to be tonally similar. Strong contrasts in tone brings things forward in the picture plane, and close tones receed into the background. Doom is difficult because it produces contrasty light that tends to flatten environments. Also this kind of incongruity is a result of there being no radiosity. I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:40 pm :
It helps a lot indeed.
Still, if I want to nitpick I feel like there is some dirt missing at the bottom of the wall. Especially when on the left side some plants are visible.
Of course, it won't be an issue once played, so take my sugestion with a grain of salt.
ratty redemption@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:03 pm :
modern wrote:
I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
if you have time, I'd like to hear more about how you set up your lighting in d3edit, even if you also use PS for the final screens.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:07 pm :
looks excellent man.
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:47 pm :
ratty redemption wrote:
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
For the black and white shots I made the adjustment in photoshop just to illustrate. I could add an extra light in the map to fake alittle radiosity.
I think somebody did this before, but you could use this blend filter technique to apply shadow maps made in a software renderer to simulate a cloudy day.
As for adjusting levels, if you were to set up a camera on a tripod at night, you might end up using an exposure that lasts a number of seconds. It would result in a photo that is well exposed, but does not look like what you would see with your own eyes. The same thing can happen with a screen shot, especially with doom and its dimly lit scenes. Infact I would hazzard a guess that levels could be applied as a post process by the Doom renderer, and that process is not a million miles away from HDR.
In this scene I was using 4 parallel lights, but its up to five now and six would not be out of the question. I could have one light pointing up wards, but I havent felt I need one yet. I guess in generall you could use six similar lights pointing in different directions, but I have just organically evolved this lighting scheme with lots and lots of tweeking. That process is informed by photoshop, because its easier to make quick adjustments in PS and see what the result is, than it is to change six lights in DoomEd.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:26 pm :
thanks modern and I think I understand.
so you add parallel lights pointing in different directions to soften the overall lighting and fill in polys that are not receiving enough light, yes?
are they all the same color or do you use opposing colors for the sun and fill lights?
modern@Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:41 pm :
Yeah, I add parallel lights pointing in different directions, and there is one main light that casts shadows. Its never ideal. I found I have to keep tweeking the direction and colour, and there is always a compromise that has to be made somewhere. I found if all the lights are duplicates of each other it just looks terrible, so I make the lights facing the sun darker.
In this scene the lights are very desaturated with just alittle colour. In general I think it is nice to use warm and cool colours, aswell as contrasts. So if I make the main light warm I would make the fill light cool, and vice versa. I did moonlight once where I had a pale blue main light shining through a window, and then I had a fill light that was a very dark, desaturated orangy brown.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:18 am :
understood and kat taught me to use similar colors to you in my lighting.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:15 pm :
This is shot is using seven lights alltogether. 4 parallel lights (1 casting shadows). 2 ambient lights effecting mid-range colours, and one fog glare which addresses the bottom end colours and increases with height. Oh, and I have made one of the parallel lights face directly upwards so that all undersides get alittle light.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:39 pm :
OMFG THATS SO F***ING AWSOME!!
keep going man it really is amazing.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:38 pm :
This really does look awesome, hurry up finish and release it so I can see framerate ^_^.
mikebart@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:53 am :
nice work, I like the window models, aw heck I like it all good stuff
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:14 am :
interesting and nice screen image
Tron@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:00 am :
This project has advanced so much from it's already impresive beginnings.
I cannot wait to run around in this...any chance of a video pleeeeeeaaaaassse?
edit: I know it's annoying to get "this would be cool to do!" comments but given that one of the major strengths here is your understanding of lighting, and that is the biggest strength (and curse) of the Doom 3 engine it would be incredible to see a day/night transition.
Set up the lights for morning/midday/evening values, then use a script to transition between the three.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:45 am :
I'm very impressed. It looks great.
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:01 pm :
This shot represents a rationalised version of the lighting system in the previous shot. It has five lights in all. 4 parallel (1 casting shadows) and 1 ambient light. All four parallel lights point in towards the center at angles of 45 degrees. The two parallel lights at the top have brightness values of 127, and the two parallel lights at the bottom have a brightness value of 64, as does the ambient light in the center.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:19 pm :
I used a similar trick in a Q4 wip map, but only with 3 paralelles lights (placed in a triangle form, with the first centered at "0,-256,-128", the second at "-128,128,96" and the third at "128,128,96), plus a 4th one paralelle to the ground casting shadows and a shadowmap, it work fine too.
The only 'problem' is with round surfaces (like heads) you got a very unnoticable "lights transition zone".
(I think the first time i heard about this technique, i think it was on a kat's test map with a big rock in the middle of a rock scene, or maybe my memory play me... )
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:34 pm :
this is probably a stupid question, but I dont think it has been asked before in this thread: Are all these lights ok on performance in Doom3? The reason I ask this is that I learned Doomedit with the idea that 1 light is GREAT 2 lights is optimal, but anymore really start to slow it down. Do you have any sort of cool work arounds to this or something?
Second, Im not sure if you saw my thread in the pimping section, but I was wondering if you were in need of any sort skybox for this, and if so, I would LOVE to help you forward with this project by providing a high quality skybox. Let me know
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:38 am :
The myth of Source²>D3 can rest in peace....
nbrancaccio@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:02 am :
EWW god! Lets all abandon Doom3 now! This truely is a testiment to Carmack's lack of ability to program
(Very beautiful stuff man! keep up the great work! And I ask again... need any sort of Skybox? If so, let me know, I've got your back )
Dinky@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:35 am :
Wow man! I was really worried about performance on this map!!! OMG!! You did a fantastic job and I want you to hurry and RELEASE THIS!!!! I wanna see these textures and quality mapping running on my comp!
And my comp is nothing like yours, it's uber (just upgraded for Crysis).
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:23 am :
modern wrote:
DoomIII's lighting is a load of rubbish! Carmack is an idiot, and everyone should start using UE3, and Crysis.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
hehe, very nice demo of your work modern, please show us more .avi clips when you can
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:38 pm :
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:20 pm :
Rayne wrote:
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
The point is however that using d3 lights you can produce a nice replica of real world outdoor ligting. People know you can use multiple lights but few people seem to do it well.
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:49 pm :
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:56 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
I still think for nighttime this would still look incredibly awesome with a day to evening transition showing the shadows getting longer and light fading. Instead of trying to beat engines like source at their own game, show off the stuff they can't match.
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:08 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem is the misleading concept that people have about DooM3 engine and its outdoor rendering possibilities...
DooM3 CAN RENDER outdoor stuff, the most problematic things you have to manage in this engine are the lack of bouncing light and the portal system. Every time I see someone posting a "doom3 can do outdoors" I only see huge terrain models, but NO-ONE cares to post a FINAL solution for these two problems. Usally people won't play demo maps created with only one purpose (showing huge terrain); people want interesting designs, outdoor and indoor locations blended seamlessy, with complex scripts, more than 5 lights in a map ( ) lots of enemies etc...
For that matter, Splash damage coded a different "portal" support for ET, the proof that vanilla doom3 it's not optimized for that kind of map type..
A demo like this it's obviously really cool, but it isn't taking into account other factors or possible variations of the scene.
I'm talking about this because I've got big problems in regard of lighting my scene. I've got a scene that's really similar to this one, an open, urban environment with lots of details... The problem arise since it's a night scene... I've got (just as I wrote in the previous post) streetlamps, and lots of other lights to manage. Normally, for a "horror style" corridor I simply can forget about bounced light (like in Id maps) but in a open environment, with the clear sky and a big moon in it totally pitch black areas looks simply wrong. The lighting of the scene is really bugging me, I can't find the right balance between good looking stuff, and a light setup that won't kill fps. I can't use the 5 lights setup showed in this thread, so my workflow it's really slow.
That's basically the only complain I have about DooM3 engine. You can't choose to use other ways to light up your map (and if you try to do things like lightmaps etc you have to do it in the painfull way).
The whole "unified lighting" stuff sounds really cool on paper, but you have to take into account considerations like "right now we can't do radiosity in real time" so we have to work around this. but simply removing all the stuff (like doom3 does) won't really produce only positive things.
That's what Ue3 and Crysis have IMHO more then doom engine: the possibility to CHOOSE! Case 1 - Hell, in my map the sun WON'T move at all, why in the world I have to waste processing power to calculate a dynamic light in the entire map when it simply stand still all the time? Case 2 - In my game the sun needs to be dynamic. Just flag the light to be dynamic.
Even more, we now have more processing power so we can use HIGH resolution lightmaps (this means no jagged lightmaps) having the normal maps still working and being 100% correctly lit in the environment.
Sorry for the rant and the thread hijack, if you want we can continue in another thread (usually people ignore me and the discussion dies immediately)..
BTW, maybe I can post my scene so you guys can help me with the lighting stuff
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:43 pm :
Using the 5 lights tek over your your scene already enlightened is not the good way to go, cause your map/scene have actually a lot of overlapping lights, that's what kill your perfs when you add the 5 lights.
Plus that's really depend on needs, but for a city night scene, you could do a good ambient with only 3 lights with one casting shadows, or 2 lights without the moon shadows:
1) parallele, centered at -256, -256, 256
2) parallele, centered at 256, 256, -256
3) parallele, centered at what you want, casting shadows. (optional)
That's just an idea...
About Visportals, Q4 have great distance visportals that fade in/out at choosen distance (in the mtr).
Only problem is that you got to use it with fog (or anything that can hide closed portals to player view).
(and it seems slow at BSP)
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:46 pm :
Using two parallel lights and an ambient light is of course very efficient. However, you can see in this screen shot that is using this three light system that some of the leaves are ok, but alot of them have far too much contrast from light to dark. That is the quintisential problem.
Ok, this second shot is using more lights, but the level of contrast over all the various leaves is far more consistent, and consistent with the suggested lighting conditions. Its an expensive system, but the quality of the render is much improved.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:43 pm :
modern, for night time scenes I too would use additive material shaders where ever possible, but I also understand why you don't feel the need to make a tech demo or playable map set at night.
I think in your last post, you demonstrate very well the harshness of the d3 engine lighting even when using ambient lights, which although the d3 engine is very cool in some ways can also make lighting other scenes quite ugly unless we over tax our processors with multiple overlapping lights.
to sum up, I think your doing a great job of showing us what can be done with an engine version that isn't optimized for a softer lighting.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:19 am :
Nice work modern, im just wondering about those plants, are they the same model? the second shot definitly looks better, but the positioning of the leaves in the first shot makes for alot of repetition, some of them are facing the same direction and right next to each other and are receiving exactly the same lighting and shadows and I think thats contributing to a bad looking image probably as much as the lighting is.
But when I look at the positioning of the leaves in the second shot it looks like they are also positioned in pretty much the same way but you've some how pulled it off with all your fancy lighting trickery , it looks good. Its a great technique.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:46 pm :
The "shrub" in the screen shots was meant to be Brambles. Really have not pulled that one off yet. They look like tree leaves to me, maybe hazel nut?
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:36 pm :
This is with 4 parallel lights, 1 ambient, fog glare, and basic fog.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:41 pm :
Is this a "Washing Machines" factory? Still look cool.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:10 am :
Very nice looking This update got buried off the front page so I didnt notice it until today.
Can't wait to see more. Keep it up! Oh and as a bit of criticism, the shine on the door is a bit too blown out imho.
Lumpengnom@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:40 am :
Great image. I find the red tint too dominating.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:53 pm :
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
Anyway take a look:
Regards
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:29 am :
Salmony pink against cobalt blue are the main act!
The other colours are the supporting cast.
Andre Derain
Fauvism
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:44 am :
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:48 am :
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Goodluck
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:59 pm :
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:58 pm :
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good?
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:01 pm :
looks excellent
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:34 pm :
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck.
6th Venom@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:38 pm :
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:46 pm :
6th Venom wrote:
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:53 pm :
Regulator wrote:
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
Don't get me wrong, as I say I agree gameplay should come first and foremost, but what we're looking at here is purely experimentation and development to enhance the artistic qualities of a game.
shaviro@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:17 pm :
Oh please.
Do you honestly believe this "gameplay" is some sort of individual aspect of a game? If so, I must say that you really don't have a clue. A game consists of many different components. The result, the MIXTURE, of these components is the gameplay. Sure, if you spend all your time focusing on graphics, the game most like won't be fun to play, hence bad gameplay....but you can't pick out gameplay as an individual component of the game. That is borderline retarded. Some games will benefit a lot from astounding visuals while others won't. It's all about the formula.
The main components of the game here in a rough list:
Video
Audio
Action/Reaction
Story presentation
Some games focus on individual components and do well, others don't. However gameplay is the result of the mixture of these components. You can't start up a game and say you will be focusing on "good gameplay". That would be like saying you will be focusing on "entertaining movie" while producing a movie.
Gameplay = fun factor = Video + Audio + Action/Reaction + Story presentation.
Entertaining movie = fun factor = Video + Audio + Story Presentation
Some games need a huge visual impact (amazing environments or beautiful characters) in order to convey the story. Others need a lot in the audio department (sounds or music). Some focus almost entirely on action and reaction department while others are mainly focusing on the story.
Saying that a game like Doom3 has "0 gameplay" (Like I've seen you do, Regulator) is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read concerning the game. No offense, but please....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in general about games.
And on topic: I really love what you're doing here, Modern. The engine really CAN look like a next gen game just by upping the media. Good job :)
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:22 pm :
Koroshiya Ichi wrote:
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
imo this thread has nothing to do with gameplay
we know the d3 engine and d3 game can be a lot of fun to play, but what most of us didn't know, until people like modern did these technology and artistic tests, was how aesthetically pleasing the engine can be at producing well lit detailed areas.
whether they be large or small areas of the game world is also secondary here to the quality of the visuals both in texture use and lighting, again imo.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:29 pm :
I also agree with shaviro's post, 'gameplay' isn't an individual aspect of a game, but these technology and artistic tests don't need any action in them if the purpose is to test what can be done with textures and lighting.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:30 pm :
Ah, I thought its a playable map, but it seems its a cutscene. My apologies.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:00 pm :
nbrancaccio
Its really frustrating to not be able to calibrate my monitors to a standard. I get depressed everytime I see my work on another monitor, because it always looks like it needs rebalancing.
I would say that the majority of video game content production involves making aesthetic choices (i would rather say that then call it stylised). The definite downside of this lighting system is the compromise made in sacrificing alot of the bottom end, or the darker range of colours inorder to get a feeling of radiosity. I noticed that this is something that Cry Engine2 seems to do very well. Where there is dense foliage there are some really good dark areas, which I would guess is something along the lines of ambient occlusion. Unfortunately, ambient occlusion is missing from my light setup, so I cant achieve that variance in the shadow, unless I add it with a blend filter. I experimented with adding black through vertex color in the material, but it breaks the bump and specular stages.
Koroshiya Ichi
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:33 pm :
Ah yeah thanks for the reply.
Yes, I didn't mean stylized in this sense (anime is stylized) but rather in the sense that you put, simply making these asthetic choices. Imo art, no matter what the form, to a degree is stylized. And so, when I mentioned it, I was merely refering to your choice to create the look you produced, rather then a technically, and scientifically balanced image as the one I provided you with.
I think there needs to be more of what you are doing in the modding community. So many do forget that visuals isn't only about making pretty graphics, in fact, very little of it is. More so, it is about making these visual choices dependant on the atmosphere you would like your environment to convey, and what type of what is many times described as 'feel' you are going for. I'm really quite impressed with not only your work, but your artistic integrity, or so called.
Sorry my post is getting too deeply abstract, I can't help it, I'm an architecture/art student, that's how I think
Anyway keep up the great work!
As per your color correction problem, I truely suggest you go out and buy some sort of color correction tool, it will change your life I would reccomend a huey, its what I use. Its high quility (GREAT CORRECTION), and not an insane price tag ($60-$70 I believe) It is definatly worth it. You simply run I program from the disk it comes with, and with the correction device attached to your monitor and in 1-2 min your monitor is corrected for not only color, but also brightness, saturation, and gamma. And, you can choose to have it sample the ambiant roomlight from your desk every few minutes and make minor ajustments to compensate on the fly. Its really a wonderful little gadget, especially for anyone such as yourself who is doing computer graphics work.
Anyway I would really like to help you out in the future on anything you need with this project or any future endevors. Please let me know. I'm quite impressed haha Skills I could offer:
Modeling 3ds max
Texturing (Scratch hand painted or photo ref. whichever the project calls for)
Animating
And anything photographic you need, both analog and digital, black and white, and color, single shot and panoramic, conventional and HDRI
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am :
modern, cheers for that screenshot, been extremely helpful!
modern@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:53 pm :
I used the photo as inspiration and a guide, and at no time was I trying to replicate it in doom. Particularly as the diffuse lighting conditions in the photo are hard to simulate with software rendering, let alone doom3.
Considering that the doom3 scene is using a mere 5 lights it can only produce an approximation of daylight conditions. IMO doom 3's lighting is characterised by its heavy bottom end ie. dark, even pitch black shadows which are commonly regarded as ugly, and serve to underline the lack of radiosity. To have any hope of sustaining the illusion of daylight the scene simply cannot have a predominance of darkness.
ratty redemption@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:11 pm :
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post?
Tron@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:38 pm :
The problem with the door is more that it's specular needs dropping down a little.
Also, have you seen the mod which adds basic gloss map functionality to D3?
modern@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:19 pm :
ratty redemption wrote:
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post?
The second door is my screen shot, and the third is nbrancaccio's rebalanced shot. I agree with nbrancaccio that the colour balance could be subjectively altered, but in trying to introduce more contrast into the shot he has burnt out the brick walls. The walls in the source photo are even lighter than mine.
It can be cool that blend filter makes textures darker and moodier, but in this case I have really lightened the wall textures so that they are tonaly much closer to the ground texture. I think it is a vast improvement. A slight increase the contrast in these shots could make a better photo, but I'm happy with the overall balance, and I think the only way to improve my "one size fits all" static lighting scheme would be with hdr which would dynamicaly adjust contrast.
Theres a gloss mod for Doom3? I wasnt going to shell out 40 quid on Prey just to get a specular exponent. Good news
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:53 pm :
love the corigated plastic
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:01 am :
modern, understood and although nbrancaccio's version and reasons behind it were interesting, I prefer the lighter brick walls in your version.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:21 pm :
hey, very nice looking! Thanks for atleast taking my comments into concideration. I truely do say that with full honesty, as I believe one of the most important parts of the creative process is to concider the criticism, but to definatly know when to listen and when not to, and I believe you made a good choice here.
These three shots new shots truely are comming along; they are very beautiful . I especially love the gobo-esque, almost film noir, yet much softer stripped shadows comming through in the third shot. Very nice. I saw your post in a different thread about that new transparent material, its very intreguing and nice looking. Although, one criticism is I believe it is difficult to tell what type of material you are trying to represent with it. Is it suppost to be a window with venitian blinds? or some sort of corrugated plastic? I really do find it very nice looking, though I think a little more work on the material, both in the referenced textures, and the .mtr would help define what exactly it is more. (Unless you were going for this anomosity here, in which case, you've nailed it)
Anyway just some things to think about. Having new seen your reference photo I definatly understand more where you are comming from. The only think I would add as food for thought is that the photograph may not be totally properly color corrected and such, especially if it is just a reference photo from the net or something. Now this may not be a bad thing either, basing textures off of either slightly soft photos, or just not perfect mechincally corrected may yeild very amazing results. This is actually something I am exploring at the moment. I'm going to make some QTVR panoramas with a HOLGA camera, and probably some cross processing techniques, and then I'm going to bring it into doom. In anycase, just something to think about. For further food for thought, I've gone and color corrected your reference photo to what I believe is simply "technically properly exposed" though this is again subjective, just to give your more to think about haha. Here it is:
Anyway keep up the great work!
edit: Did a second pass at color correcting, still don't know which is better. Its subtle, but here ya go(Its the one at the right above.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:46 am :
nbrancaccio, when you do color correcting on these photos or screen shots, do you apply filters to the whole image or just selected areas, and if the latter how do you select such areas as the door?
I'm only used to psp for texture creation and image manipulation, but I'm thinking of trying out the gimp, partly as I can't afford ps at the moment.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:53 am :
ratty use gimp until you can afford ps, i've just started using gimp and it works fine for me look here :
anyway, dont want to get too far off moderns topic.
nbrancaccio i think the second is better
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:24 am :
Bo$bevok: Yeah I agree looking back, the second is better.
Ratty: Firstly, I use photoshop. I use many of the ajustment tools in photoshop for color correction, and tend to do it in many subtle passes rather then one big pass. The main tools I use for this are: Levels, Curves, Brightness/Contrast, Hue/Saturation, Exposure, and Highlights/Shadows, among other.
These tools let me effect different ranges of the image. The Levels allows me to set the black clip point and white clip point of the image, as well as the grey center. The curves allows me to ajust the many different characteristics of the image at different parts of the images properties. It is a bit difficult to explain, but its probably the most powerful tool of them all. The Hue/Saturation is good for the effecting the colors well...hue and saturation without effecting the brightness of the colors (though this can also be tweeked a bit with the lightness bar in this tool). The highlights/Shadows tool is one I have come to recently love very much. It allows me to set the various options of how different areas of the image are exposed (ex: how much detail the shadows contain) To really understand these tools you simply have to play with them, but also, read about the technical aspects of each tool.
If you want, adobe.com always has a 30day trial of the latest version of photoshop availbile for download if you want to monkey around.
I hope that helps explain things. If you wanted to effect just the door in photoshop, you could either make a selection or mask to affect only the door, or you could select by the tonal and color range.
Getting back on topic however: just as another quick comment: The door looks much better in your latest version! Really starting to mesh much better. If you wanted a closer representation of your photo, I would suggest you make the red in the door lightly more towards a little bit magenta-red, rather than the yellow-red you have In your screenshots. This may also have to do simply with the color of your lighting that is falling on the door rather then the photo's. In any case, this is merely an observation/more food for thought. Keep up the great work!
mikebart@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:34 am :
rather than dropping the specular on the paint you could try just having it on the top edges of the bricks, it would be faking it a bit but it might look ok and its not like your gonna be walking around with a flash light or any thing, if you slightly blur the normal map on the bricks where th paint is I reckon it will look more like paint too.
I realy like the corrigated plastic, it looks exactly like laserlight roofing, a product used for roofs on pagola's, carport's, garage skylights etc its pretty common over here and it come's in various shades and tints
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:47 am :
thanks guys and I'll stay on topic now
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 4:10 pm :
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:21 pm :
Tron wrote:
It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
I always get depressed when I see my screen shots on other monitors, because they always look different. So with out any equipment to calibrate my monitor to a standard, I just have to hope that its ok. But just like a photographer I always adjust my screenshot levels. ie, I make sure there is a good range between light and dark. I specifically kept adjusting this maps lights to the point that I no longer felt I needed to use PS levels inthe screen shots.
Simple fact is doom3"s lighting does not favour diffused light associated with cloudy days. What does appear to work well is board daylight, so the sharp shadows dont look odd, and thats what I have in this scene. True, the darker lighting schemes suggest more atmoshphere, but I have done that and what I need is well balance shots that hopefully demonstrate effects that "some people" say doom3 cant do.
Tron@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:31 pm :
Hmm, so those earlier shots were colour adjusted?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 4:10 pm :
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:21 pm :
Tron wrote:
It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
I always get depressed when I see my screen shots on other monitors, because they always look different. So with out any equipment to calibrate my monitor to a standard, I just have to hope that its ok. But just like a photographer I always adjust my screenshot levels. ie, I make sure there is a good range between light and dark. I specifically kept adjusting this maps lights to the point that I no longer felt I needed to use PS levels inthe screen shots.
Simple fact is doom3"s lighting does not favour diffused light associated with cloudy days. What does appear to work well is board daylight, so the sharp shadows dont look odd, and thats what I have in this scene. True, the
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 4:10 pm :
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 342 Location: Melbourne Australia
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 342 Location: Melbourne Australia
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Render to texture in 3Dmax gives a template to build the dirt map on.
The dirt map can then be blended over the vertex blend with "blend filter" to give the result:-
6th Venom@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm :
Interesting method, i used it as its basic way (give different scales to all stages), but didn't use a big one (filter) over the all wall.
Thanks for the tip.
parsonsbear@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:20 pm :
What's the resolution of your texturemap for the building model? How noticeable is pixelation on the scaled dirtmap in-game?
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:04 pm :
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am :
I cant quite get my head around what you've done but the results look very nice.
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
modern@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:47 am :
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
mikebart@Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:01 am :
Ok I understand now, I'll have to give this a go, I think it would be usefull for what im working on. thanks man
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:54 pm :
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
mikebart@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:13 pm :
right, im going to have to buy this
modern@Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:48 pm :
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
mikebart@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 am :
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
modern@Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:42 pm :
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:56 am :
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
modern@Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:40 am :
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:48 pm :
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
EDIT: Slightly improved shot
Tron@Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm :
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
We need to see a video flythrough of this.
mikebart@Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:45 am :
that looks fantastic, very profesional the andrew hamilton stuff definitly opened up my eyes too.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is a technique I'm using as away of maintaining texture resolution, by using tiling textures and then scaling and blending dirt maps in one material, to lend variation and breakup the repeat pattern. The image below shows a facade with the remnants of a vertex blend (which is almost made redundant by this technique).
The tricky part of the technique is figuring out how to scale the dirtmap so that it is not tiling over the surface of the model. You can do this by trial and error, but it is easier with a modeling app. With a little experimentation I found that placing the corner of my uv map at the co-ordinate 0,1 (counter intuitive, I know) I could then divide one by the unit size of the uv map and get the numbers I need to scale the dirt map:
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
All the brick diffuse maps are 512x512, and they are designed to fit a 64 unit square. So one repeat every 64 units. The dirt map is also 512x512. My settings are on ultra quality, but still I think there maybe some anisotropic filtering going on as the dirt map just blurs and does not pixelate, so the hard detail comes from the underlying tiling diffusemap.
his windows are a 512x512 texture (w/ one window), tiled n times. his dirtmap is 512x512 (w/ n windows) scaled n times. This is so you can create one high res tiling texture, and overlay a lower res scum texture that hides the tiling 'sameness'
This is awesome by the way, and I plan on using it soon.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Pretty much as Parsonsbear says. There is only one set of uv's, and all the textures are blended together in one material and applied to the mesh in Doom3.
Anotherway to approach this is to have the dirt map 1:1 scale, and then scale the diffuse, bump stages.
I chose my particular method because I wanted dirt under the windowsils and drain pipes, so making the dirtmap fit the model exactly was advantageous, but admittedly takes some "giggering".
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
mikebart wrote:
Are you blending the dirt map with the diffuse in max?, does the tiled diffuse map have a seperate UVmap to the dirt map?
I'm playing around with uv map channels in UnrealEd 4 (roboblitz), and it is possible to export multiple uv maps, asigned to different channels , with an .ase. Indeed, you might require a second uv map to generate a lightmap, but you can have a third , fourth etc. for what ever. Obvioulsy, this adds to file size. A good compromise in this situation could be to share the lighmap uv's with the dirtmap. One downside is the UE3 scaling node does not have x and y integers, only one overall percentage scale eg. 50% bigger. so the Doom3 material script is more flexible and efficient in this particular case.
This model was exported using Max's Multi/Sub-object material (four materials altogether), and three UV unwrap modifiers (three sets of UV's). It is light mapped. The dirt map is slightly mis aligned, so it looks blurred, but this method in practise is more accurate.
Same model in DoomEdit
My material. Substituted "filter"for "multiply". "Texture Co-ordinates" allows you to specify another UV channel.
PS. mike, I'm still mulling over your proposal, and I'll get back to you when I've finished pissing around in UnrealEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
I bought it using steam for $12. Well worth it if you ask me, but there is very little documantation available at the moment. I hope when UT2007 is released, Epic will open up their documentation to the community, in the same way they did for UE2.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Ive missed soft shadows, nice detail on that building, is that mostly brushwork? I always found the Unreal engine good for modelling complex world geometry with I used to have alot of fun with UT mapping but I kind of missed out on the whole unreal2 buzz
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Oh, I've never got into UnrealEd before now and I'm struggling to build brushes. I have just been experimenting with static meshes, and generating light maps for them. It turns out that UE3 uses alot of static lightmaps, but fortunately it does not take long to compile them. I get the impression dynamic lights are only used here and there. I'm not completely taken with the displacement mapping either, but as with anything it will take alittle time to get used to and get the most out of it.
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:41 am Posts: 338 Location: Melbourne Australia
Are the shaders created totaly within the editor via a user interface or is there some coding required?
still havent had a chance to grab it, the more you talk about it the more I want it
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yes, the shaders are made within the editor, and on the whole it appears to be very flexable and opens up a hole host of possibilities. It even has a frensel node.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kind of pulling this together after a brief interlude with RoboBlitz. Looked at megatexture and Andy Hamiltion's stuff and realized I needed to change my ground textures from 512 pixels per 64 units to 1024 pixels per 256 units to get some more variation. Not sure if thats in line with the megatexture ratio, but it looks better. Improving the daylight as well. The levels are much better now, and still using only 5 parallel lights, with one casting shadows. Lightened the dirt maps aswell, because they made the scene too dark, but I did like the oiley feel they gave the textures in the older screenshots.
Very nice. Does the entire map look that brightness? It may be a little too bright, a level inbetween this and the previous shots would probably look best.
6th Venom@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: :
modern wrote:
This screen colors are just too good, like a photorealist day scene.
Are these screens from a test scene, a demo map, or a playable map? _________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:01 pm Post subject: :
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type. _________________ "And remember, respect is everything" - GTA2
ColdT@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:04 pm Post subject: :
Excellent work and a brilliant idea! Thanks for sharing it. Just what I needed to break up some nasty tiling. _________________ Cold-T
http://www.makeittomorning.co.uk
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:49 pm Post subject: :
First shot is an older shot that has not been balanced in photoshop. The second shot shows the levels graph wheret all the colour values are in the mid to low range. If I wanted this to be a twighlight or night-time shot, that might be ok, but often for a good well exposed photograph I would want the colours to run the whole range from light to dark. So I would adjust the levels accordingly. Third shot has had levels, and also colour re-balanced to address the bias towards red (infact its alittle too green this time). The fourth shot is the unadjusted screen shot, where I made similar changes in DoomEd to mimic the changes I made in Photoshop.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:33 pm Post subject: :
Kamikazee wrote:
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
Yeah, I think there is a problem there which is to do with tonal relationships. I was taught in life classes in Art school that if you want surfaces to meet, they have to be tonally similar. Strong contrasts in tone brings things forward in the picture plane, and close tones receed into the background. Doom is difficult because it produces contrasty light that tends to flatten environments. Also this kind of incongruity is a result of there being no radiosity. I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:40 pm Post subject: :
It helps a lot indeed.
Still, if I want to nitpick I feel like there is some dirt missing at the bottom of the wall. Especially when on the left side some plants are visible.
Of course, it won't be an issue once played, so take my sugestion with a grain of salt. _________________ "And remember, respect is everything" - GTA2
ratty redemption@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject: :
modern wrote:
I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
if you have time, I'd like to hear more about how you set up your lighting in d3edit, even if you also use PS for the final screens. _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:07 pm Post subject: :
looks excellent man. _________________ "Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:47 pm Post subject: :
ratty redemption wrote:
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
For the black and white shots I made the adjustment in photoshop just to illustrate. I could add an extra light in the map to fake alittle radiosity.
I think somebody did this before, but you could use this blend filter technique to apply shadow maps made in a software renderer to simulate a cloudy day.
As for adjusting levels, if you were to set up a camera on a tripod at night, you might end up using an exposure that lasts a number of seconds. It would result in a photo that is well exposed, but does not look like what you would see with your own eyes. The same thing can happen with a screen shot, especially with doom and its dimly lit scenes. Infact I would hazzard a guess that levels could be applied as a post process by the Doom renderer, and that process is not a million miles away from HDR.
In this scene I was using 4 parallel lights, but its up to five now and six would not be out of the question. I could have one light pointing up wards, but I havent felt I need one yet. I guess in generall you could use six similar lights pointing in different directions, but I have just organically evolved this lighting scheme with lots and lots of tweeking. That process is informed by photoshop, because its easier to make quick adjustments in PS and see what the result is, than it is to change six lights in DoomEd.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:26 pm Post subject: :
thanks modern and I think I understand.
so you add parallel lights pointing in different directions to soften the overall lighting and fill in polys that are not receiving enough light, yes?
are they all the same color or do you use opposing colors for the sun and fill lights? _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
modern@Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:41 am Post subject: :
Yeah, I add parallel lights pointing in different directions, and there is one main light that casts shadows. Its never ideal. I found I have to keep tweeking the direction and colour, and there is always a compromise that has to be made somewhere. I found if all the lights are duplicates of each other it just looks terrible, so I make the lights facing the sun darker.
In this scene the lights are very desaturated with just alittle colour. In general I think it is nice to use warm and cool colours, aswell as contrasts. So if I make the main light warm I would make the fill light cool, and vice versa. I did moonlight once where I had a pale blue main light shining through a window, and then I had a fill light that was a very dark, desaturated orangy brown. _________________ http://creativecommons.org/
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:18 pm Post subject: :
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:15 pm Post subject: :
This is shot is using seven lights alltogether. 4 parallel lights (1 casting shadows). 2 ambient lights effecting mid-range colours, and one fog glare which addresses the bottom end colours and increases with height. Oh, and I have made one of the parallel lights face directly upwards so that all undersides get alittle light.
This screen colors are just too good, like a photorealist day scene.
Are these screens from a test scene, a demo map, or a playable map?
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:01 pm :
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
ColdT@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:04 pm :
Excellent work and a brilliant idea! Thanks for sharing it. Just what I needed to break up some nasty tiling.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:49 pm :
First shot is an older shot that has not been balanced in photoshop. The second shot shows the levels graph wheret all the colour values are in the mid to low range. If I wanted this to be a twighlight or night-time shot, that might be ok, but often for a good well exposed photograph I would want the colours to run the whole range from light to dark. So I would adjust the levels accordingly. Third shot has had levels, and also colour re-balanced to address the bias towards red (infact its alittle too green this time). The fourth shot is the unadjusted screen shot, where I made similar changes in DoomEd to mimic the changes I made in Photoshop.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:33 pm :
Kamikazee wrote:
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
Yeah, I think there is a problem there which is to do with tonal relationships. I was taught in life classes in Art school that if you want surfaces to meet, they have to be tonally similar. Strong contrasts in tone brings things forward in the picture plane, and close tones receed into the background. Doom is difficult because it produces contrasty light that tends to flatten environments. Also this kind of incongruity is a result of there being no radiosity. I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:40 pm :
It helps a lot indeed.
Still, if I want to nitpick I feel like there is some dirt missing at the bottom of the wall. Especially when on the left side some plants are visible.
Of course, it won't be an issue once played, so take my sugestion with a grain of salt.
ratty redemption@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:03 pm :
modern wrote:
I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
if you have time, I'd like to hear more about how you set up your lighting in d3edit, even if you also use PS for the final screens.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:07 pm :
looks excellent man.
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:47 pm :
ratty redemption wrote:
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
For the black and white shots I made the adjustment in photoshop just to illustrate. I could add an extra light in the map to fake alittle radiosity.
I think somebody did this before, but you could use this blend filter technique to apply shadow maps made in a software renderer to simulate a cloudy day.
As for adjusting levels, if you were to set up a camera on a tripod at night, you might end up using an exposure that lasts a number of seconds. It would result in a photo that is well exposed, but does not look like what you would see with your own eyes. The same thing can happen with a screen shot, especially with doom and its dimly lit scenes. Infact I would hazzard a guess that levels could be applied as a post process by the Doom renderer, and that process is not a million miles away from HDR.
In this scene I was using 4 parallel lights, but its up to five now and six would not be out of the question. I could have one light pointing up wards, but I havent felt I need one yet. I guess in generall you could use six similar lights pointing in different directions, but I have just organically evolved this lighting scheme with lots and lots of tweeking. That process is informed by photoshop, because its easier to make quick adjustments in PS and see what the result is, than it is to change six lights in DoomEd.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:26 pm :
thanks modern and I think I understand.
so you add parallel lights pointing in different directions to soften the overall lighting and fill in polys that are not receiving enough light, yes?
are they all the same color or do you use opposing colors for the sun and fill lights?
modern@Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:41 am :
Yeah, I add parallel lights pointing in different directions, and there is one main light that casts shadows. Its never ideal. I found I have to keep tweeking the direction and colour, and there is always a compromise that has to be made somewhere. I found if all the lights are duplicates of each other it just looks terrible, so I make the lights facing the sun darker.
In this scene the lights are very desaturated with just alittle colour. In general I think it is nice to use warm and cool colours, aswell as contrasts. So if I make the main light warm I would make the fill light cool, and vice versa. I did moonlight once where I had a pale blue main light shining through a window, and then I had a fill light that was a very dark, desaturated orangy brown.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:18 pm :
understood and kat taught me to use similar colors to you in my lighting.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:15 pm :
This is shot is using seven lights alltogether. 4 parallel lights (1 casting shadows). 2 ambient lights effecting mid-range colours, and one fog glare which addresses the bottom end colours and increases with height. Oh, and I have made one of the parallel lights face directly upwards so that all undersides get alittle light.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:39 pm :
OMFG THATS SO F***ING AWSOME!!
keep going man it really is amazing.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:38 pm :
This really does look awesome, hurry up finish and release it so I can see framerate ^_^.
mikebart@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:53 pm :
nice work, I like the window models, aw heck I like it all good stuff
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:14 am :
interesting and nice screen image
Tron@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:00 am :
This project has advanced so much from it's already impresive beginnings.
I cannot wait to run around in this...any chance of a video pleeeeeeaaaaassse?
edit: I know it's annoying to get "this would be cool to do!" comments but given that one of the major strengths here is your understanding of lighting, and that is the biggest strength (and curse) of the Doom 3 engine it would be incredible to see a day/night transition.
Set up the lights for morning/midday/evening values, then use a script to transition between the three.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:45 am :
I'm very impressed. It looks great.
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:01 pm :
Doom 3 world • View topic - Scaling dirt maps
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
_________________ "And remember, respect is everything" - GTA2
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
First shot is an older shot that has not been balanced in photoshop. The second shot shows the levels graph wheret all the colour values are in the mid to low range. If I wanted this to be a twighlight or night-time shot, that might be ok, but often for a good well exposed photograph I would want the colours to run the whole range from light to dark. So I would adjust the levels accordingly. Third shot has had levels, and also colour re-balanced to address the bias towards red (infact its alittle too green this time). The fourth shot is the unadjusted screen shot, where I made similar changes in DoomEd to mimic the changes I made in Photoshop.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kamikazee wrote:
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
Yeah, I think there is a problem there which is to do with tonal relationships. I was taught in life classes in Art school that if you want surfaces to meet, they have to be tonally similar. Strong contrasts in tone brings things forward in the picture plane, and close tones receed into the background. Doom is difficult because it produces contrasty light that tends to flatten environments. Also this kind of incongruity is a result of there being no radiosity. I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
Still, if I want to nitpick I feel like there is some dirt missing at the bottom of the wall. Especially when on the left side some plants are visible.
Of course, it won't be an issue once played, so take my sugestion with a grain of salt.
_________________ "And remember, respect is everything" - GTA2
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
ratty redemption wrote:
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
For the black and white shots I made the adjustment in photoshop just to illustrate. I could add an extra light in the map to fake alittle radiosity.
I think somebody did this before, but you could use this blend filter technique to apply shadow maps made in a software renderer to simulate a cloudy day.
As for adjusting levels, if you were to set up a camera on a tripod at night, you might end up using an exposure that lasts a number of seconds. It would result in a photo that is well exposed, but does not look like what you would see with your own eyes. The same thing can happen with a screen shot, especially with doom and its dimly lit scenes. Infact I would hazzard a guess that levels could be applied as a post process by the Doom renderer, and that process is not a million miles away from HDR.
In this scene I was using 4 parallel lights, but its up to five now and six would not be out of the question. I could have one light pointing up wards, but I havent felt I need one yet. I guess in generall you could use six similar lights pointing in different directions, but I have just organically evolved this lighting scheme with lots and lots of tweeking. That process is informed by photoshop, because its easier to make quick adjustments in PS and see what the result is, than it is to change six lights in DoomEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yeah, I add parallel lights pointing in different directions, and there is one main light that casts shadows. Its never ideal. I found I have to keep tweeking the direction and colour, and there is always a compromise that has to be made somewhere. I found if all the lights are duplicates of each other it just looks terrible, so I make the lights facing the sun darker.
In this scene the lights are very desaturated with just alittle colour. In general I think it is nice to use warm and cool colours, aswell as contrasts. So if I make the main light warm I would make the fill light cool, and vice versa. I did moonlight once where I had a pale blue main light shining through a window, and then I had a fill light that was a very dark, desaturated orangy brown.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is shot is using seven lights alltogether. 4 parallel lights (1 casting shadows). 2 ambient lights effecting mid-range colours, and one fog glare which addresses the bottom end colours and increases with height. Oh, and I have made one of the parallel lights face directly upwards so that all undersides get alittle light.
This project has advanced so much from it's already impresive beginnings.
I cannot wait to run around in this...any chance of a video pleeeeeeaaaaassse?
edit: I know it's annoying to get "this would be cool to do!" comments but given that one of the major strengths here is your understanding of lighting, and that is the biggest strength (and curse) of the Doom 3 engine it would be incredible to see a day/night transition.
Set up the lights for morning/midday/evening values, then use a script to transition between the three.
6th Venom@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: :
modern wrote:
This screen colors are just too good, like a photorealist day scene.
Are these screens from a test scene, a demo map, or a playable map? _________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:01 pm Post subject: :
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type. _________________ "And remember, respect is everything" - GTA2
ColdT@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:04 pm Post subject: :
Excellent work and a brilliant idea! Thanks for sharing it. Just what I needed to break up some nasty tiling. _________________ Cold-T
http://www.makeittomorning.co.uk
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:49 pm Post subject: :
First shot is an older shot that has not been balanced in photoshop. The second shot shows the levels graph wheret all the colour values are in the mid to low range. If I wanted this to be a twighlight or night-time shot, that might be ok, but often for a good well exposed photograph I would want the colours to run the whole range from light to dark. So I would adjust the levels accordingly. Third shot has had levels, and also colour re-balanced to address the bias towards red (infact its alittle too green this time). The fourth shot is the unadjusted screen shot, where I made similar changes in DoomEd to mimic the changes I made in Photoshop.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:33 pm Post subject: :
Kamikazee wrote:
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
Yeah, I think there is a problem there which is to do with tonal relationships. I was taught in life classes in Art school that if you want surfaces to meet, they have to be tonally similar. Strong contrasts in tone brings things forward in the picture plane, and close tones receed into the background. Doom is difficult because it produces contrasty light that tends to flatten environments. Also this kind of incongruity is a result of there being no radiosity. I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:40 pm Post subject: :
It helps a lot indeed.
Still, if I want to nitpick I feel like there is some dirt missing at the bottom of the wall. Especially when on the left side some plants are visible.
Of course, it won't be an issue once played, so take my sugestion with a grain of salt. _________________ "And remember, respect is everything" - GTA2
ratty redemption@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject: :
modern wrote:
I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
if you have time, I'd like to hear more about how you set up your lighting in d3edit, even if you also use PS for the final screens. _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:07 pm Post subject: :
looks excellent man. _________________ "Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:47 pm Post subject: :
ratty redemption wrote:
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
For the black and white shots I made the adjustment in photoshop just to illustrate. I could add an extra light in the map to fake alittle radiosity.
I think somebody did this before, but you could use this blend filter technique to apply shadow maps made in a software renderer to simulate a cloudy day.
As for adjusting levels, if you were to set up a camera on a tripod at night, you might end up using an exposure that lasts a number of seconds. It would result in a photo that is well exposed, but does not look like what you would see with your own eyes. The same thing can happen with a screen shot, especially with doom and its dimly lit scenes. Infact I would hazzard a guess that levels could be applied as a post process by the Doom renderer, and that process is not a million miles away from HDR.
In this scene I was using 4 parallel lights, but its up to five now and six would not be out of the question. I could have one light pointing up wards, but I havent felt I need one yet. I guess in generall you could use six similar lights pointing in different directions, but I have just organically evolved this lighting scheme with lots and lots of tweeking. That process is informed by photoshop, because its easier to make quick adjustments in PS and see what the result is, than it is to change six lights in DoomEd.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:26 pm Post subject: :
thanks modern and I think I understand.
so you add parallel lights pointing in different directions to soften the overall lighting and fill in polys that are not receiving enough light, yes?
are they all the same color or do you use opposing colors for the sun and fill lights? _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
modern@Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:41 am Post subject: :
Yeah, I add parallel lights pointing in different directions, and there is one main light that casts shadows. Its never ideal. I found I have to keep tweeking the direction and colour, and there is always a compromise that has to be made somewhere. I found if all the lights are duplicates of each other it just looks terrible, so I make the lights facing the sun darker.
In this scene the lights are very desaturated with just alittle colour. In general I think it is nice to use warm and cool colours, aswell as contrasts. So if I make the main light warm I would make the fill light cool, and vice versa. I did moonlight once where I had a pale blue main light shining through a window, and then I had a fill light that was a very dark, desaturated orangy brown. _________________ http://creativecommons.org/
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:18 pm Post subject: :
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:15 pm Post subject: :
This is shot is using seven lights alltogether. 4 parallel lights (1 casting shadows). 2 ambient lights effecting mid-range colours, and one fog glare which addresses the bottom end colours and increases with height. Oh, and I have made one of the parallel lights face directly upwards so that all undersides get alittle light.
This screen colors are just too good, like a photorealist day scene.
Are these screens from a test scene, a demo map, or a playable map?
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:01 pm :
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
ColdT@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:04 pm :
Excellent work and a brilliant idea! Thanks for sharing it. Just what I needed to break up some nasty tiling.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:49 pm :
First shot is an older shot that has not been balanced in photoshop. The second shot shows the levels graph wheret all the colour values are in the mid to low range. If I wanted this to be a twighlight or night-time shot, that might be ok, but often for a good well exposed photograph I would want the colours to run the whole range from light to dark. So I would adjust the levels accordingly. Third shot has had levels, and also colour re-balanced to address the bias towards red (infact its alittle too green this time). The fourth shot is the unadjusted screen shot, where I made similar changes in DoomEd to mimic the changes I made in Photoshop.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:33 pm :
Kamikazee wrote:
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
Yeah, I think there is a problem there which is to do with tonal relationships. I was taught in life classes in Art school that if you want surfaces to meet, they have to be tonally similar. Strong contrasts in tone brings things forward in the picture plane, and close tones receed into the background. Doom is difficult because it produces contrasty light that tends to flatten environments. Also this kind of incongruity is a result of there being no radiosity. I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:40 pm :
It helps a lot indeed.
Still, if I want to nitpick I feel like there is some dirt missing at the bottom of the wall. Especially when on the left side some plants are visible.
Of course, it won't be an issue once played, so take my sugestion with a grain of salt.
ratty redemption@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:03 pm :
modern wrote:
I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
if you have time, I'd like to hear more about how you set up your lighting in d3edit, even if you also use PS for the final screens.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:07 pm :
looks excellent man.
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:47 pm :
ratty redemption wrote:
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
For the black and white shots I made the adjustment in photoshop just to illustrate. I could add an extra light in the map to fake alittle radiosity.
I think somebody did this before, but you could use this blend filter technique to apply shadow maps made in a software renderer to simulate a cloudy day.
As for adjusting levels, if you were to set up a camera on a tripod at night, you might end up using an exposure that lasts a number of seconds. It would result in a photo that is well exposed, but does not look like what you would see with your own eyes. The same thing can happen with a screen shot, especially with doom and its dimly lit scenes. Infact I would hazzard a guess that levels could be applied as a post process by the Doom renderer, and that process is not a million miles away from HDR.
In this scene I was using 4 parallel lights, but its up to five now and six would not be out of the question. I could have one light pointing up wards, but I havent felt I need one yet. I guess in generall you could use six similar lights pointing in different directions, but I have just organically evolved this lighting scheme with lots and lots of tweeking. That process is informed by photoshop, because its easier to make quick adjustments in PS and see what the result is, than it is to change six lights in DoomEd.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:26 pm :
thanks modern and I think I understand.
so you add parallel lights pointing in different directions to soften the overall lighting and fill in polys that are not receiving enough light, yes?
are they all the same color or do you use opposing colors for the sun and fill lights?
modern@Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:41 am :
Yeah, I add parallel lights pointing in different directions, and there is one main light that casts shadows. Its never ideal. I found I have to keep tweeking the direction and colour, and there is always a compromise that has to be made somewhere. I found if all the lights are duplicates of each other it just looks terrible, so I make the lights facing the sun darker.
In this scene the lights are very desaturated with just alittle colour. In general I think it is nice to use warm and cool colours, aswell as contrasts. So if I make the main light warm I would make the fill light cool, and vice versa. I did moonlight once where I had a pale blue main light shining through a window, and then I had a fill light that was a very dark, desaturated orangy brown.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:18 pm :
understood and kat taught me to use similar colors to you in my lighting.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:15 pm :
This is shot is using seven lights alltogether. 4 parallel lights (1 casting shadows). 2 ambient lights effecting mid-range colours, and one fog glare which addresses the bottom end colours and increases with height. Oh, and I have made one of the parallel lights face directly upwards so that all undersides get alittle light.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:39 pm :
OMFG THATS SO F***ING AWSOME!!
keep going man it really is amazing.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:38 pm :
This really does look awesome, hurry up finish and release it so I can see framerate ^_^.
mikebart@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:53 pm :
nice work, I like the window models, aw heck I like it all good stuff
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:14 am :
interesting and nice screen image
Tron@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:00 am :
This project has advanced so much from it's already impresive beginnings.
I cannot wait to run around in this...any chance of a video pleeeeeeaaaaassse?
edit: I know it's annoying to get "this would be cool to do!" comments but given that one of the major strengths here is your understanding of lighting, and that is the biggest strength (and curse) of the Doom 3 engine it would be incredible to see a day/night transition.
Set up the lights for morning/midday/evening values, then use a script to transition between the three.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:45 am :
I'm very impressed. It looks great.
6th Venom@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:55 pm :
modern wrote:
This screen colors are just too good, like a photorealist day scene.
Are these screens from a test scene, a demo map, or a playable map?
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:01 pm :
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
ColdT@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:04 pm :
Excellent work and a brilliant idea! Thanks for sharing it. Just what I needed to break up some nasty tiling.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:49 pm :
First shot is an older shot that has not been balanced in photoshop. The second shot shows the levels graph wheret all the colour values are in the mid to low range. If I wanted this to be a twighlight or night-time shot, that might be ok, but often for a good well exposed photograph I would want the colours to run the whole range from light to dark. So I would adjust the levels accordingly. Third shot has had levels, and also colour re-balanced to address the bias towards red (infact its alittle too green this time). The fourth shot is the unadjusted screen shot, where I made similar changes in DoomEd to mimic the changes I made in Photoshop.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:33 pm :
Kamikazee wrote:
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
Yeah, I think there is a problem there which is to do with tonal relationships. I was taught in life classes in Art school that if you want surfaces to meet, they have to be tonally similar. Strong contrasts in tone brings things forward in the picture plane, and close tones receed into the background. Doom is difficult because it produces contrasty light that tends to flatten environments. Also this kind of incongruity is a result of there being no radiosity. I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:40 pm :
It helps a lot indeed.
Still, if I want to nitpick I feel like there is some dirt missing at the bottom of the wall. Especially when on the left side some plants are visible.
Of course, it won't be an issue once played, so take my sugestion with a grain of salt.
ratty redemption@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:03 pm :
modern wrote:
I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
if you have time, I'd like to hear more about how you set up your lighting in d3edit, even if you also use PS for the final screens.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:07 pm :
looks excellent man.
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:47 pm :
ratty redemption wrote:
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
For the black and white shots I made the adjustment in photoshop just to illustrate. I could add an extra light in the map to fake alittle radiosity.
I think somebody did this before, but you could use this blend filter technique to apply shadow maps made in a software renderer to simulate a cloudy day.
As for adjusting levels, if you were to set up a camera on a tripod at night, you might end up using an exposure that lasts a number of seconds. It would result in a photo that is well exposed, but does not look like what you would see with your own eyes. The same thing can happen with a screen shot, especially with doom and its dimly lit scenes. Infact I would hazzard a guess that levels could be applied as a post process by the Doom renderer, and that process is not a million miles away from HDR.
In this scene I was using 4 parallel lights, but its up to five now and six would not be out of the question. I could have one light pointing up wards, but I havent felt I need one yet. I guess in generall you could use six similar lights pointing in different directions, but I have just organically evolved this lighting scheme with lots and lots of tweeking. That process is informed by photoshop, because its easier to make quick adjustments in PS and see what the result is, than it is to change six lights in DoomEd.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:26 pm :
thanks modern and I think I understand.
so you add parallel lights pointing in different directions to soften the overall lighting and fill in polys that are not receiving enough light, yes?
are they all the same color or do you use opposing colors for the sun and fill lights?
modern@Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:41 am :
Yeah, I add parallel lights pointing in different directions, and there is one main light that casts shadows. Its never ideal. I found I have to keep tweeking the direction and colour, and there is always a compromise that has to be made somewhere. I found if all the lights are duplicates of each other it just looks terrible, so I make the lights facing the sun darker.
In this scene the lights are very desaturated with just alittle colour. In general I think it is nice to use warm and cool colours, aswell as contrasts. So if I make the main light warm I would make the fill light cool, and vice versa. I did moonlight once where I had a pale blue main light shining through a window, and then I had a fill light that was a very dark, desaturated orangy brown.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:18 pm :
understood and kat taught me to use similar colors to you in my lighting.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:15 pm :
This is shot is using seven lights alltogether. 4 parallel lights (1 casting shadows). 2 ambient lights effecting mid-range colours, and one fog glare which addresses the bottom end colours and increases with height. Oh, and I have made one of the parallel lights face directly upwards so that all undersides get alittle light.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:39 pm :
OMFG THATS SO F***ING AWSOME!!
keep going man it really is amazing.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:38 pm :
This really does look awesome, hurry up finish and release it so I can see framerate ^_^.
mikebart@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:53 pm :
nice work, I like the window models, aw heck I like it all good stuff
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:14 am :
interesting and nice screen image
Tron@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:00 am :
This project has advanced so much from it's already impresive beginnings.
I cannot wait to run around in this...any chance of a video pleeeeeeaaaaassse?
edit: I know it's annoying to get "this would be cool to do!" comments but given that one of the major strengths here is your understanding of lighting, and that is the biggest strength (and curse) of the Doom 3 engine it would be incredible to see a day/night transition.
Set up the lights for morning/midday/evening values, then use a script to transition between the three.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:45 am :
I'm very impressed. It looks great.
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:01 pm :
Doom 3 world • View topic - Scaling dirt maps
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
_________________ "And remember, respect is everything" - GTA2
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
First shot is an older shot that has not been balanced in photoshop. The second shot shows the levels graph wheret all the colour values are in the mid to low range. If I wanted this to be a twighlight or night-time shot, that might be ok, but often for a good well exposed photograph I would want the colours to run the whole range from light to dark. So I would adjust the levels accordingly. Third shot has had levels, and also colour re-balanced to address the bias towards red (infact its alittle too green this time). The fourth shot is the unadjusted screen shot, where I made similar changes in DoomEd to mimic the changes I made in Photoshop.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kamikazee wrote:
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
Yeah, I think there is a problem there which is to do with tonal relationships. I was taught in life classes in Art school that if you want surfaces to meet, they have to be tonally similar. Strong contrasts in tone brings things forward in the picture plane, and close tones receed into the background. Doom is difficult because it produces contrasty light that tends to flatten environments. Also this kind of incongruity is a result of there being no radiosity. I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
Still, if I want to nitpick I feel like there is some dirt missing at the bottom of the wall. Especially when on the left side some plants are visible.
Of course, it won't be an issue once played, so take my sugestion with a grain of salt.
_________________ "And remember, respect is everything" - GTA2
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
ratty redemption wrote:
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
For the black and white shots I made the adjustment in photoshop just to illustrate. I could add an extra light in the map to fake alittle radiosity.
I think somebody did this before, but you could use this blend filter technique to apply shadow maps made in a software renderer to simulate a cloudy day.
As for adjusting levels, if you were to set up a camera on a tripod at night, you might end up using an exposure that lasts a number of seconds. It would result in a photo that is well exposed, but does not look like what you would see with your own eyes. The same thing can happen with a screen shot, especially with doom and its dimly lit scenes. Infact I would hazzard a guess that levels could be applied as a post process by the Doom renderer, and that process is not a million miles away from HDR.
In this scene I was using 4 parallel lights, but its up to five now and six would not be out of the question. I could have one light pointing up wards, but I havent felt I need one yet. I guess in generall you could use six similar lights pointing in different directions, but I have just organically evolved this lighting scheme with lots and lots of tweeking. That process is informed by photoshop, because its easier to make quick adjustments in PS and see what the result is, than it is to change six lights in DoomEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yeah, I add parallel lights pointing in different directions, and there is one main light that casts shadows. Its never ideal. I found I have to keep tweeking the direction and colour, and there is always a compromise that has to be made somewhere. I found if all the lights are duplicates of each other it just looks terrible, so I make the lights facing the sun darker.
In this scene the lights are very desaturated with just alittle colour. In general I think it is nice to use warm and cool colours, aswell as contrasts. So if I make the main light warm I would make the fill light cool, and vice versa. I did moonlight once where I had a pale blue main light shining through a window, and then I had a fill light that was a very dark, desaturated orangy brown.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is shot is using seven lights alltogether. 4 parallel lights (1 casting shadows). 2 ambient lights effecting mid-range colours, and one fog glare which addresses the bottom end colours and increases with height. Oh, and I have made one of the parallel lights face directly upwards so that all undersides get alittle light.
This project has advanced so much from it's already impresive beginnings.
I cannot wait to run around in this...any chance of a video pleeeeeeaaaaassse?
edit: I know it's annoying to get "this would be cool to do!" comments but given that one of the major strengths here is your understanding of lighting, and that is the biggest strength (and curse) of the Doom 3 engine it would be incredible to see a day/night transition.
Set up the lights for morning/midday/evening values, then use a script to transition between the three.
This screen colors are just too good, like a photorealist day scene.
Are these screens from a test scene, a demo map, or a playable map?
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:01 pm :
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
ColdT@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:04 pm :
Excellent work and a brilliant idea! Thanks for sharing it. Just what I needed to break up some nasty tiling.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:49 pm :
First shot is an older shot that has not been balanced in photoshop. The second shot shows the levels graph wheret all the colour values are in the mid to low range. If I wanted this to be a twighlight or night-time shot, that might be ok, but often for a good well exposed photograph I would want the colours to run the whole range from light to dark. So I would adjust the levels accordingly. Third shot has had levels, and also colour re-balanced to address the bias towards red (infact its alittle too green this time). The fourth shot is the unadjusted screen shot, where I made similar changes in DoomEd to mimic the changes I made in Photoshop.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:33 pm :
Kamikazee wrote:
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
Yeah, I think there is a problem there which is to do with tonal relationships. I was taught in life classes in Art school that if you want surfaces to meet, they have to be tonally similar. Strong contrasts in tone brings things forward in the picture plane, and close tones receed into the background. Doom is difficult because it produces contrasty light that tends to flatten environments. Also this kind of incongruity is a result of there being no radiosity. I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:40 pm :
It helps a lot indeed.
Still, if I want to nitpick I feel like there is some dirt missing at the bottom of the wall. Especially when on the left side some plants are visible.
Of course, it won't be an issue once played, so take my sugestion with a grain of salt.
ratty redemption@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:03 pm :
modern wrote:
I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
if you have time, I'd like to hear more about how you set up your lighting in d3edit, even if you also use PS for the final screens.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:07 pm :
looks excellent man.
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:47 pm :
ratty redemption wrote:
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
For the black and white shots I made the adjustment in photoshop just to illustrate. I could add an extra light in the map to fake alittle radiosity.
I think somebody did this before, but you could use this blend filter technique to apply shadow maps made in a software renderer to simulate a cloudy day.
As for adjusting levels, if you were to set up a camera on a tripod at night, you might end up using an exposure that lasts a number of seconds. It would result in a photo that is well exposed, but does not look like what you would see with your own eyes. The same thing can happen with a screen shot, especially with doom and its dimly lit scenes. Infact I would hazzard a guess that levels could be applied as a post process by the Doom renderer, and that process is not a million miles away from HDR.
In this scene I was using 4 parallel lights, but its up to five now and six would not be out of the question. I could have one light pointing up wards, but I havent felt I need one yet. I guess in generall you could use six similar lights pointing in different directions, but I have just organically evolved this lighting scheme with lots and lots of tweeking. That process is informed by photoshop, because its easier to make quick adjustments in PS and see what the result is, than it is to change six lights in DoomEd.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:26 pm :
thanks modern and I think I understand.
so you add parallel lights pointing in different directions to soften the overall lighting and fill in polys that are not receiving enough light, yes?
are they all the same color or do you use opposing colors for the sun and fill lights?
modern@Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:41 am :
Yeah, I add parallel lights pointing in different directions, and there is one main light that casts shadows. Its never ideal. I found I have to keep tweeking the direction and colour, and there is always a compromise that has to be made somewhere. I found if all the lights are duplicates of each other it just looks terrible, so I make the lights facing the sun darker.
In this scene the lights are very desaturated with just alittle colour. In general I think it is nice to use warm and cool colours, aswell as contrasts. So if I make the main light warm I would make the fill light cool, and vice versa. I did moonlight once where I had a pale blue main light shining through a window, and then I had a fill light that was a very dark, desaturated orangy brown.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:18 pm :
understood and kat taught me to use similar colors to you in my lighting.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:15 pm :
This is shot is using seven lights alltogether. 4 parallel lights (1 casting shadows). 2 ambient lights effecting mid-range colours, and one fog glare which addresses the bottom end colours and increases with height. Oh, and I have made one of the parallel lights face directly upwards so that all undersides get alittle light.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:39 pm :
OMFG THATS SO F***ING AWSOME!!
keep going man it really is amazing.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:38 pm :
This really does look awesome, hurry up finish and release it so I can see framerate ^_^.
mikebart@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:53 pm :
nice work, I like the window models, aw heck I like it all good stuff
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:14 am :
interesting and nice screen image
Tron@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:00 am :
This project has advanced so much from it's already impresive beginnings.
I cannot wait to run around in this...any chance of a video pleeeeeeaaaaassse?
edit: I know it's annoying to get "this would be cool to do!" comments but given that one of the major strengths here is your understanding of lighting, and that is the biggest strength (and curse) of the Doom 3 engine it would be incredible to see a day/night transition.
Set up the lights for morning/midday/evening values, then use a script to transition between the three.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:45 am :
I'm very impressed. It looks great.
6th Venom@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:55 pm :
modern wrote:
This screen colors are just too good, like a photorealist day scene.
Are these screens from a test scene, a demo map, or a playable map?
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:01 pm :
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
ColdT@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:04 pm :
Excellent work and a brilliant idea! Thanks for sharing it. Just what I needed to break up some nasty tiling.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:49 pm :
First shot is an older shot that has not been balanced in photoshop. The second shot shows the levels graph wheret all the colour values are in the mid to low range. If I wanted this to be a twighlight or night-time shot, that might be ok, but often for a good well exposed photograph I would want the colours to run the whole range from light to dark. So I would adjust the levels accordingly. Third shot has had levels, and also colour re-balanced to address the bias towards red (infact its alittle too green this time). The fourth shot is the unadjusted screen shot, where I made similar changes in DoomEd to mimic the changes I made in Photoshop.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:33 pm :
Kamikazee wrote:
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
Yeah, I think there is a problem there which is to do with tonal relationships. I was taught in life classes in Art school that if you want surfaces to meet, they have to be tonally similar. Strong contrasts in tone brings things forward in the picture plane, and close tones receed into the background. Doom is difficult because it produces contrasty light that tends to flatten environments. Also this kind of incongruity is a result of there being no radiosity. I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:40 pm :
It helps a lot indeed.
Still, if I want to nitpick I feel like there is some dirt missing at the bottom of the wall. Especially when on the left side some plants are visible.
Of course, it won't be an issue once played, so take my sugestion with a grain of salt.
ratty redemption@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:03 pm :
modern wrote:
I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
if you have time, I'd like to hear more about how you set up your lighting in d3edit, even if you also use PS for the final screens.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:07 pm :
looks excellent man.
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:47 pm :
ratty redemption wrote:
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
For the black and white shots I made the adjustment in photoshop just to illustrate. I could add an extra light in the map to fake alittle radiosity.
I think somebody did this before, but you could use this blend filter technique to apply shadow maps made in a software renderer to simulate a cloudy day.
As for adjusting levels, if you were to set up a camera on a tripod at night, you might end up using an exposure that lasts a number of seconds. It would result in a photo that is well exposed, but does not look like what you would see with your own eyes. The same thing can happen with a screen shot, especially with doom and its dimly lit scenes. Infact I would hazzard a guess that levels could be applied as a post process by the Doom renderer, and that process is not a million miles away from HDR.
In this scene I was using 4 parallel lights, but its up to five now and six would not be out of the question. I could have one light pointing up wards, but I havent felt I need one yet. I guess in generall you could use six similar lights pointing in different directions, but I have just organically evolved this lighting scheme with lots and lots of tweeking. That process is informed by photoshop, because its easier to make quick adjustments in PS and see what the result is, than it is to change six lights in DoomEd.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:26 pm :
thanks modern and I think I understand.
so you add parallel lights pointing in different directions to soften the overall lighting and fill in polys that are not receiving enough light, yes?
are they all the same color or do you use opposing colors for the sun and fill lights?
modern@Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:41 am :
Yeah, I add parallel lights pointing in different directions, and there is one main light that casts shadows. Its never ideal. I found I have to keep tweeking the direction and colour, and there is always a compromise that has to be made somewhere. I found if all the lights are duplicates of each other it just looks terrible, so I make the lights facing the sun darker.
In this scene the lights are very desaturated with just alittle colour. In general I think it is nice to use warm and cool colours, aswell as contrasts. So if I make the main light warm I would make the fill light cool, and vice versa. I did moonlight once where I had a pale blue main light shining through a window, and then I had a fill light that was a very dark, desaturated orangy brown.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:18 pm :
understood and kat taught me to use similar colors to you in my lighting.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:15 pm :
This is shot is using seven lights alltogether. 4 parallel lights (1 casting shadows). 2 ambient lights effecting mid-range colours, and one fog glare which addresses the bottom end colours and increases with height. Oh, and I have made one of the parallel lights face directly upwards so that all undersides get alittle light.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:39 pm :
OMFG THATS SO F***ING AWSOME!!
keep going man it really is amazing.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:38 pm :
This really does look awesome, hurry up finish and release it so I can see framerate ^_^.
mikebart@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:53 pm :
nice work, I like the window models, aw heck I like it all good stuff
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:14 am :
interesting and nice screen image
Tron@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:00 am :
This project has advanced so much from it's already impresive beginnings.
I cannot wait to run around in this...any chance of a video pleeeeeeaaaaassse?
edit: I know it's annoying to get "this would be cool to do!" comments but given that one of the major strengths here is your understanding of lighting, and that is the biggest strength (and curse) of the Doom 3 engine it would be incredible to see a day/night transition.
Set up the lights for morning/midday/evening values, then use a script to transition between the three.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:45 am :
I'm very impressed. It looks great.
6th Venom@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:55 pm :
modern wrote:
This screen colors are just too good, like a photorealist day scene.
Are these screens from a test scene, a demo map, or a playable map?
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:01 pm :
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
ColdT@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:04 pm :
Excellent work and a brilliant idea! Thanks for sharing it. Just what I needed to break up some nasty tiling.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:49 pm :
First shot is an older shot that has not been balanced in photoshop. The second shot shows the levels graph wheret all the colour values are in the mid to low range. If I wanted this to be a twighlight or night-time shot, that might be ok, but often for a good well exposed photograph I would want the colours to run the whole range from light to dark. So I would adjust the levels accordingly. Third shot has had levels, and also colour re-balanced to address the bias towards red (infact its alittle too green this time). The fourth shot is the unadjusted screen shot, where I made similar changes in DoomEd to mimic the changes I made in Photoshop.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:33 pm :
Kamikazee wrote:
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
Yeah, I think there is a problem there which is to do with tonal relationships. I was taught in life classes in Art school that if you want surfaces to meet, they have to be tonally similar. Strong contrasts in tone brings things forward in the picture plane, and close tones receed into the background. Doom is difficult because it produces contrasty light that tends to flatten environments. Also this kind of incongruity is a result of there being no radiosity. I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:40 pm :
It helps a lot indeed.
Still, if I want to nitpick I feel like there is some dirt missing at the bottom of the wall. Especially when on the left side some plants are visible.
Of course, it won't be an issue once played, so take my sugestion with a grain of salt.
ratty redemption@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:03 pm :
modern wrote:
I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
if you have time, I'd like to hear more about how you set up your lighting in d3edit, even if you also use PS for the final screens.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:07 pm :
looks excellent man.
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:47 pm :
ratty redemption wrote:
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
For the black and white shots I made the adjustment in photoshop just to illustrate. I could add an extra light in the map to fake alittle radiosity.
I think somebody did this before, but you could use this blend filter technique to apply shadow maps made in a software renderer to simulate a cloudy day.
As for adjusting levels, if you were to set up a camera on a tripod at night, you might end up using an exposure that lasts a number of seconds. It would result in a photo that is well exposed, but does not look like what you would see with your own eyes. The same thing can happen with a screen shot, especially with doom and its dimly lit scenes. Infact I would hazzard a guess that levels could be applied as a post process by the Doom renderer, and that process is not a million miles away from HDR.
In this scene I was using 4 parallel lights, but its up to five now and six would not be out of the question. I could have one light pointing up wards, but I havent felt I need one yet. I guess in generall you could use six similar lights pointing in different directions, but I have just organically evolved this lighting scheme with lots and lots of tweeking. That process is informed by photoshop, because its easier to make quick adjustments in PS and see what the result is, than it is to change six lights in DoomEd.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:26 pm :
thanks modern and I think I understand.
so you add parallel lights pointing in different directions to soften the overall lighting and fill in polys that are not receiving enough light, yes?
are they all the same color or do you use opposing colors for the sun and fill lights?
modern@Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:41 am :
Yeah, I add parallel lights pointing in different directions, and there is one main light that casts shadows. Its never ideal. I found I have to keep tweeking the direction and colour, and there is always a compromise that has to be made somewhere. I found if all the lights are duplicates of each other it just looks terrible, so I make the lights facing the sun darker.
In this scene the lights are very desaturated with just alittle colour. In general I think it is nice to use warm and cool colours, aswell as contrasts. So if I make the main light warm I would make the fill light cool, and vice versa. I did moonlight once where I had a pale blue main light shining through a window, and then I had a fill light that was a very dark, desaturated orangy brown.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:18 pm :
understood and kat taught me to use similar colors to you in my lighting.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:15 pm :
This is shot is using seven lights alltogether. 4 parallel lights (1 casting shadows). 2 ambient lights effecting mid-range colours, and one fog glare which addresses the bottom end colours and increases with height. Oh, and I have made one of the parallel lights face directly upwards so that all undersides get alittle light.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:39 pm :
OMFG THATS SO F***ING AWSOME!!
keep going man it really is amazing.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:38 pm :
This really does look awesome, hurry up finish and release it so I can see framerate ^_^.
mikebart@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:53 pm :
nice work, I like the window models, aw heck I like it all good stuff
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:14 am :
interesting and nice screen image
Tron@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:00 am :
This project has advanced so much from it's already impresive beginnings.
I cannot wait to run around in this...any chance of a video pleeeeeeaaaaassse?
edit: I know it's annoying to get "this would be cool to do!" comments but given that one of the major strengths here is your understanding of lighting, and that is the biggest strength (and curse) of the Doom 3 engine it would be incredible to see a day/night transition.
Set up the lights for morning/midday/evening values, then use a script to transition between the three.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:45 am :
I'm very impressed. It looks great.
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:01 pm :
Doom 3 world • View topic - Scaling dirt maps
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
_________________ "And remember, respect is everything" - GTA2
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
First shot is an older shot that has not been balanced in photoshop. The second shot shows the levels graph wheret all the colour values are in the mid to low range. If I wanted this to be a twighlight or night-time shot, that might be ok, but often for a good well exposed photograph I would want the colours to run the whole range from light to dark. So I would adjust the levels accordingly. Third shot has had levels, and also colour re-balanced to address the bias towards red (infact its alittle too green this time). The fourth shot is the unadjusted screen shot, where I made similar changes in DoomEd to mimic the changes I made in Photoshop.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kamikazee wrote:
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
Yeah, I think there is a problem there which is to do with tonal relationships. I was taught in life classes in Art school that if you want surfaces to meet, they have to be tonally similar. Strong contrasts in tone brings things forward in the picture plane, and close tones receed into the background. Doom is difficult because it produces contrasty light that tends to flatten environments. Also this kind of incongruity is a result of there being no radiosity. I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
Still, if I want to nitpick I feel like there is some dirt missing at the bottom of the wall. Especially when on the left side some plants are visible.
Of course, it won't be an issue once played, so take my sugestion with a grain of salt.
_________________ "And remember, respect is everything" - GTA2
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
ratty redemption wrote:
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
For the black and white shots I made the adjustment in photoshop just to illustrate. I could add an extra light in the map to fake alittle radiosity.
I think somebody did this before, but you could use this blend filter technique to apply shadow maps made in a software renderer to simulate a cloudy day.
As for adjusting levels, if you were to set up a camera on a tripod at night, you might end up using an exposure that lasts a number of seconds. It would result in a photo that is well exposed, but does not look like what you would see with your own eyes. The same thing can happen with a screen shot, especially with doom and its dimly lit scenes. Infact I would hazzard a guess that levels could be applied as a post process by the Doom renderer, and that process is not a million miles away from HDR.
In this scene I was using 4 parallel lights, but its up to five now and six would not be out of the question. I could have one light pointing up wards, but I havent felt I need one yet. I guess in generall you could use six similar lights pointing in different directions, but I have just organically evolved this lighting scheme with lots and lots of tweeking. That process is informed by photoshop, because its easier to make quick adjustments in PS and see what the result is, than it is to change six lights in DoomEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yeah, I add parallel lights pointing in different directions, and there is one main light that casts shadows. Its never ideal. I found I have to keep tweeking the direction and colour, and there is always a compromise that has to be made somewhere. I found if all the lights are duplicates of each other it just looks terrible, so I make the lights facing the sun darker.
In this scene the lights are very desaturated with just alittle colour. In general I think it is nice to use warm and cool colours, aswell as contrasts. So if I make the main light warm I would make the fill light cool, and vice versa. I did moonlight once where I had a pale blue main light shining through a window, and then I had a fill light that was a very dark, desaturated orangy brown.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is shot is using seven lights alltogether. 4 parallel lights (1 casting shadows). 2 ambient lights effecting mid-range colours, and one fog glare which addresses the bottom end colours and increases with height. Oh, and I have made one of the parallel lights face directly upwards so that all undersides get alittle light.
This project has advanced so much from it's already impresive beginnings.
I cannot wait to run around in this...any chance of a video pleeeeeeaaaaassse?
edit: I know it's annoying to get "this would be cool to do!" comments but given that one of the major strengths here is your understanding of lighting, and that is the biggest strength (and curse) of the Doom 3 engine it would be incredible to see a day/night transition.
Set up the lights for morning/midday/evening values, then use a script to transition between the three.
This screen colors are just too good, like a photorealist day scene.
Are these screens from a test scene, a demo map, or a playable map?
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:01 pm :
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
ColdT@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:04 pm :
Excellent work and a brilliant idea! Thanks for sharing it. Just what I needed to break up some nasty tiling.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:49 pm :
First shot is an older shot that has not been balanced in photoshop. The second shot shows the levels graph wheret all the colour values are in the mid to low range. If I wanted this to be a twighlight or night-time shot, that might be ok, but often for a good well exposed photograph I would want the colours to run the whole range from light to dark. So I would adjust the levels accordingly. Third shot has had levels, and also colour re-balanced to address the bias towards red (infact its alittle too green this time). The fourth shot is the unadjusted screen shot, where I made similar changes in DoomEd to mimic the changes I made in Photoshop.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:33 pm :
Kamikazee wrote:
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
Yeah, I think there is a problem there which is to do with tonal relationships. I was taught in life classes in Art school that if you want surfaces to meet, they have to be tonally similar. Strong contrasts in tone brings things forward in the picture plane, and close tones receed into the background. Doom is difficult because it produces contrasty light that tends to flatten environments. Also this kind of incongruity is a result of there being no radiosity. I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
Kamikazee@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:40 pm :
It helps a lot indeed.
Still, if I want to nitpick I feel like there is some dirt missing at the bottom of the wall. Especially when on the left side some plants are visible.
Of course, it won't be an issue once played, so take my sugestion with a grain of salt.
ratty redemption@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:03 pm :
modern wrote:
I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
if you have time, I'd like to hear more about how you set up your lighting in d3edit, even if you also use PS for the final screens.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:07 pm :
looks excellent man.
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:47 pm :
ratty redemption wrote:
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
For the black and white shots I made the adjustment in photoshop just to illustrate. I could add an extra light in the map to fake alittle radiosity.
I think somebody did this before, but you could use this blend filter technique to apply shadow maps made in a software renderer to simulate a cloudy day.
As for adjusting levels, if you were to set up a camera on a tripod at night, you might end up using an exposure that lasts a number of seconds. It would result in a photo that is well exposed, but does not look like what you would see with your own eyes. The same thing can happen with a screen shot, especially with doom and its dimly lit scenes. Infact I would hazzard a guess that levels could be applied as a post process by the Doom renderer, and that process is not a million miles away from HDR.
In this scene I was using 4 parallel lights, but its up to five now and six would not be out of the question. I could have one light pointing up wards, but I havent felt I need one yet. I guess in generall you could use six similar lights pointing in different directions, but I have just organically evolved this lighting scheme with lots and lots of tweeking. That process is informed by photoshop, because its easier to make quick adjustments in PS and see what the result is, than it is to change six lights in DoomEd.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:26 pm :
thanks modern and I think I understand.
so you add parallel lights pointing in different directions to soften the overall lighting and fill in polys that are not receiving enough light, yes?
are they all the same color or do you use opposing colors for the sun and fill lights?
modern@Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:41 am :
Yeah, I add parallel lights pointing in different directions, and there is one main light that casts shadows. Its never ideal. I found I have to keep tweeking the direction and colour, and there is always a compromise that has to be made somewhere. I found if all the lights are duplicates of each other it just looks terrible, so I make the lights facing the sun darker.
In this scene the lights are very desaturated with just alittle colour. In general I think it is nice to use warm and cool colours, aswell as contrasts. So if I make the main light warm I would make the fill light cool, and vice versa. I did moonlight once where I had a pale blue main light shining through a window, and then I had a fill light that was a very dark, desaturated orangy brown.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:18 pm :
understood and kat taught me to use similar colors to you in my lighting.
modern@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:15 pm :
This is shot is using seven lights alltogether. 4 parallel lights (1 casting shadows). 2 ambient lights effecting mid-range colours, and one fog glare which addresses the bottom end colours and increases with height. Oh, and I have made one of the parallel lights face directly upwards so that all undersides get alittle light.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:39 pm :
OMFG THATS SO F***ING AWSOME!!
keep going man it really is amazing.
Dinky@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:38 pm :
This really does look awesome, hurry up finish and release it so I can see framerate ^_^.
mikebart@Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:53 pm :
nice work, I like the window models, aw heck I like it all good stuff
ratty redemption@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:14 am :
interesting and nice screen image
Tron@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:00 am :
This project has advanced so much from it's already impresive beginnings.
I cannot wait to run around in this...any chance of a video pleeeeeeaaaaassse?
edit: I know it's annoying to get "this would be cool to do!" comments but given that one of the major strengths here is your understanding of lighting, and that is the biggest strength (and curse) of the Doom 3 engine it would be incredible to see a day/night transition.
Set up the lights for morning/midday/evening values, then use a script to transition between the three.
rich_is_bored@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:45 am :
I'm very impressed. It looks great.
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:01 pm :
Doom 3 world • View topic - Scaling dirt maps
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
_________________ "And remember, respect is everything" - GTA2
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
First shot is an older shot that has not been balanced in photoshop. The second shot shows the levels graph wheret all the colour values are in the mid to low range. If I wanted this to be a twighlight or night-time shot, that might be ok, but often for a good well exposed photograph I would want the colours to run the whole range from light to dark. So I would adjust the levels accordingly. Third shot has had levels, and also colour re-balanced to address the bias towards red (infact its alittle too green this time). The fourth shot is the unadjusted screen shot, where I made similar changes in DoomEd to mimic the changes I made in Photoshop.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Kamikazee wrote:
About that screenshot: it looks good, but I think the floor needs some trim where it meets the walls. It seems to look too "clean" for the floor and alley type.
Yeah, I think there is a problem there which is to do with tonal relationships. I was taught in life classes in Art school that if you want surfaces to meet, they have to be tonally similar. Strong contrasts in tone brings things forward in the picture plane, and close tones receed into the background. Doom is difficult because it produces contrasty light that tends to flatten environments. Also this kind of incongruity is a result of there being no radiosity. I have adjusted the second shot to make the tonal relationship between the wall and floor closer.
Still, if I want to nitpick I feel like there is some dirt missing at the bottom of the wall. Especially when on the left side some plants are visible.
Of course, it won't be an issue once played, so take my sugestion with a grain of salt.
_________________ "And remember, respect is everything" - GTA2
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
ratty redemption wrote:
how did you make the adjustments, in PS or d3edit?
For the black and white shots I made the adjustment in photoshop just to illustrate. I could add an extra light in the map to fake alittle radiosity.
I think somebody did this before, but you could use this blend filter technique to apply shadow maps made in a software renderer to simulate a cloudy day.
As for adjusting levels, if you were to set up a camera on a tripod at night, you might end up using an exposure that lasts a number of seconds. It would result in a photo that is well exposed, but does not look like what you would see with your own eyes. The same thing can happen with a screen shot, especially with doom and its dimly lit scenes. Infact I would hazzard a guess that levels could be applied as a post process by the Doom renderer, and that process is not a million miles away from HDR.
In this scene I was using 4 parallel lights, but its up to five now and six would not be out of the question. I could have one light pointing up wards, but I havent felt I need one yet. I guess in generall you could use six similar lights pointing in different directions, but I have just organically evolved this lighting scheme with lots and lots of tweeking. That process is informed by photoshop, because its easier to make quick adjustments in PS and see what the result is, than it is to change six lights in DoomEd.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Yeah, I add parallel lights pointing in different directions, and there is one main light that casts shadows. Its never ideal. I found I have to keep tweeking the direction and colour, and there is always a compromise that has to be made somewhere. I found if all the lights are duplicates of each other it just looks terrible, so I make the lights facing the sun darker.
In this scene the lights are very desaturated with just alittle colour. In general I think it is nice to use warm and cool colours, aswell as contrasts. So if I make the main light warm I would make the fill light cool, and vice versa. I did moonlight once where I had a pale blue main light shining through a window, and then I had a fill light that was a very dark, desaturated orangy brown.
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
This is shot is using seven lights alltogether. 4 parallel lights (1 casting shadows). 2 ambient lights effecting mid-range colours, and one fog glare which addresses the bottom end colours and increases with height. Oh, and I have made one of the parallel lights face directly upwards so that all undersides get alittle light.
This project has advanced so much from it's already impresive beginnings.
I cannot wait to run around in this...any chance of a video pleeeeeeaaaaassse?
edit: I know it's annoying to get "this would be cool to do!" comments but given that one of the major strengths here is your understanding of lighting, and that is the biggest strength (and curse) of the Doom 3 engine it would be incredible to see a day/night transition.
Set up the lights for morning/midday/evening values, then use a script to transition between the three.
I used a similar trick in a Q4 wip map, but only with 3 paralelles lights (placed in a triangle form, with the first centered at "0,-256,-128", the second at "-128,128,96" and the third at "128,128,96), plus a 4th one paralelle to the ground casting shadows and a shadowmap, it work fine too.
The only 'problem' is with round surfaces (like heads) you got a very unnoticable "lights transition zone".
(I think the first time i heard about this technique, i think it was on a kat's test map with a big rock in the middle of a rock scene, or maybe my memory play me... )
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:34 pm :
this is probably a stupid question, but I dont think it has been asked before in this thread: Are all these lights ok on performance in Doom3? The reason I ask this is that I learned Doomedit with the idea that 1 light is GREAT 2 lights is optimal, but anymore really start to slow it down. Do you have any sort of cool work arounds to this or something?
Second, Im not sure if you saw my thread in the pimping section, but I was wondering if you were in need of any sort skybox for this, and if so, I would LOVE to help you forward with this project by providing a high quality skybox. Let me know
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:38 am :
The myth of Source²>D3 can rest in peace....
nbrancaccio@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:02 am :
EWW god! Lets all abandon Doom3 now! This truely is a testiment to Carmack's lack of ability to program
(Very beautiful stuff man! keep up the great work! And I ask again... need any sort of Skybox? If so, let me know, I've got your back )
Dinky@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:35 am :
Wow man! I was really worried about performance on this map!!! OMG!! You did a fantastic job and I want you to hurry and RELEASE THIS!!!! I wanna see these textures and quality mapping running on my comp!
And my comp is nothing like yours, it's uber (just upgraded for Crysis).
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:23 am :
modern wrote:
DoomIII's lighting is a load of rubbish! Carmack is an idiot, and everyone should start using UE3, and Crysis.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
hehe, very nice demo of your work modern, please show us more .avi clips when you can
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:38 am :
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:20 pm :
Rayne wrote:
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
The point is however that using d3 lights you can produce a nice replica of real world outdoor ligting. People know you can use multiple lights but few people seem to do it well.
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:49 pm :
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:56 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
I still think for nighttime this would still look incredibly awesome with a day to evening transition showing the shadows getting longer and light fading. Instead of trying to beat engines like source at their own game, show off the stuff they can't match.
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:08 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem is the misleading concept that people have about DooM3 engine and its outdoor rendering possibilities...
DooM3 CAN RENDER outdoor stuff, the most problematic things you have to manage in this engine are the lack of bouncing light and the portal system. Every time I see someone posting a "doom3 can do outdoors" I only see huge terrain models, but NO-ONE cares to post a FINAL solution for these two problems. Usally people won't play demo maps created with only one purpose (showing huge terrain); people want interesting designs, outdoor and indoor locations blended seamlessy, with complex scripts, more than 5 lights in a map ( ) lots of enemies etc...
For that matter, Splash damage coded a different "portal" support for ET, the proof that vanilla doom3 it's not optimized for that kind of map type..
A demo like this it's obviously really cool, but it isn't taking into account other factors or possible variations of the scene.
I'm talking about this because I've got big problems in regard of lighting my scene. I've got a scene that's really similar to this one, an open, urban environment with lots of details... The problem arise since it's a night scene... I've got (just as I wrote in the previous post) streetlamps, and lots of other lights to manage. Normally, for a "horror style" corridor I simply can forget about bounced light (like in Id maps) but in a open environment, with the clear sky and a big moon in it totally pitch black areas looks simply wrong. The lighting of the scene is really bugging me, I can't find the right balance between good looking stuff, and a light setup that won't kill fps. I can't use the 5 lights setup showed in this thread, so my workflow it's really slow.
That's basically the only complain I have about DooM3 engine. You can't choose to use other ways to light up your map (and if you try to do things like lightmaps etc you have to do it in the painfull way).
The whole "unified lighting" stuff sounds really cool on paper, but you have to take into account considerations like "right now we can't do radiosity in real time" so we have to work around this. but simply removing all the stuff (like doom3 does) won't really produce only positive things.
That's what Ue3 and Crysis have IMHO more then doom engine: the possibility to CHOOSE! Case 1 - Hell, in my map the sun WON'T move at all, why in the world I have to waste processing power to calculate a dynamic light in the entire map when it simply stand still all the time? Case 2 - In my game the sun needs to be dynamic. Just flag the light to be dynamic.
Even more, we now have more processing power so we can use HIGH resolution lightmaps (this means no jagged lightmaps) having the normal maps still working and being 100% correctly lit in the environment.
Sorry for the rant and the thread hijack, if you want we can continue in another thread (usually people ignore me and the discussion dies immediately)..
BTW, maybe I can post my scene so you guys can help me with the lighting stuff
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:43 pm :
Using the 5 lights tek over your your scene already enlightened is not the good way to go, cause your map/scene have actually a lot of overlapping lights, that's what kill your perfs when you add the 5 lights.
Plus that's really depend on needs, but for a city night scene, you could do a good ambient with only 3 lights with one casting shadows, or 2 lights without the moon shadows:
1) parallele, centered at -256, -256, 256
2) parallele, centered at 256, 256, -256
3) parallele, centered at what you want, casting shadows. (optional)
That's just an idea...
About Visportals, Q4 have great distance visportals that fade in/out at choosen distance (in the mtr).
Only problem is that you got to use it with fog (or anything that can hide closed portals to player view).
(and it seems slow at BSP)
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:46 pm :
Using two parallel lights and an ambient light is of course very efficient. However, you can see in this screen shot that is using this three light system that some of the leaves are ok, but alot of them have far too much contrast from light to dark. That is the quintisential problem.
Ok, this second shot is using more lights, but the level of contrast over all the various leaves is far more consistent, and consistent with the suggested lighting conditions. Its an expensive system, but the quality of the render is much improved.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:19 pm Post subject: :
I used a similar trick in a Q4 wip map, but only with 3 paralelles lights (placed in a triangle form, with the first centered at "0,-256,-128", the second at "-128,128,96" and the third at "128,128,96), plus a 4th one paralelle to the ground casting shadows and a shadowmap, it work fine too.
The only 'problem' is with round surfaces (like heads) you got a very unnoticable "lights transition zone".
(I think the first time i heard about this technique, i think it was on a kat's test map with a big rock in the middle of a rock scene, or maybe my memory play me... ) _________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:34 pm Post subject: :
this is probably a stupid question, but I dont think it has been asked before in this thread: Are all these lights ok on performance in Doom3? The reason I ask this is that I learned Doomedit with the idea that 1 light is GREAT 2 lights is optimal, but anymore really start to slow it down. Do you have any sort of cool work arounds to this or something?
Second, Im not sure if you saw my thread in the pimping section, but I was wondering if you were in need of any sort skybox for this, and if so, I would LOVE to help you forward with this project by providing a high quality skybox. Let me know
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:03 pm Post subject: :
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
Tron@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:26 pm Post subject: :
modern wrote:
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06. _________________ http://creativecommons.org/
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:38 am Post subject: :
The myth of Sourceò>D3 can rest in peace.... _________________ If that smell like a shit & look like a shit... it's a shit.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:02 am Post subject: :
EWW god! Lets all abandon Doom3 now! This truely is a testiment to Carmack's lack of ability to program
(Very beautiful stuff man! keep up the great work! And I ask again... need any sort of Skybox? If so, let me know, I've got your back )
Dinky@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:35 am Post subject: :
Wow man! I was really worried about performance on this map!!! OMG!! You did a fantastic job and I want you to hurry and RELEASE THIS!!!! I wanna see these textures and quality mapping running on my comp!
And my comp is nothing like yours, it's uber (just upgraded for Crysis).
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:23 am Post subject: :
modern wrote:
DoomIII's lighting is a load of rubbish! Carmack is an idiot, and everyone should start using UE3, and Crysis.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
hehe, very nice demo of your work modern, please show us more .avi clips when you can _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:38 am Post subject: :
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something... _________________ theRev is coming...
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:20 pm Post subject: :
Rayne wrote:
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
The point is however that using d3 lights you can produce a nice replica of real world outdoor ligting. People know you can use multiple lights but few people seem to do it well.
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:49 pm Post subject: :
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends. _________________ http://creativecommons.org/
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:19 pm :
I used a similar trick in a Q4 wip map, but only with 3 paralelles lights (placed in a triangle form, with the first centered at "0,-256,-128", the second at "-128,128,96" and the third at "128,128,96), plus a 4th one paralelle to the ground casting shadows and a shadowmap, it work fine too.
The only 'problem' is with round surfaces (like heads) you got a very unnoticable "lights transition zone".
(I think the first time i heard about this technique, i think it was on a kat's test map with a big rock in the middle of a rock scene, or maybe my memory play me... )
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:34 pm :
this is probably a stupid question, but I dont think it has been asked before in this thread: Are all these lights ok on performance in Doom3? The reason I ask this is that I learned Doomedit with the idea that 1 light is GREAT 2 lights is optimal, but anymore really start to slow it down. Do you have any sort of cool work arounds to this or something?
Second, Im not sure if you saw my thread in the pimping section, but I was wondering if you were in need of any sort skybox for this, and if so, I would LOVE to help you forward with this project by providing a high quality skybox. Let me know
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:38 am :
The myth of Source²>D3 can rest in peace....
nbrancaccio@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:02 am :
EWW god! Lets all abandon Doom3 now! This truely is a testiment to Carmack's lack of ability to program
(Very beautiful stuff man! keep up the great work! And I ask again... need any sort of Skybox? If so, let me know, I've got your back )
Dinky@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:35 am :
Wow man! I was really worried about performance on this map!!! OMG!! You did a fantastic job and I want you to hurry and RELEASE THIS!!!! I wanna see these textures and quality mapping running on my comp!
And my comp is nothing like yours, it's uber (just upgraded for Crysis).
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:23 am :
modern wrote:
DoomIII's lighting is a load of rubbish! Carmack is an idiot, and everyone should start using UE3, and Crysis.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
hehe, very nice demo of your work modern, please show us more .avi clips when you can
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:38 am :
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:20 pm :
Rayne wrote:
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
The point is however that using d3 lights you can produce a nice replica of real world outdoor ligting. People know you can use multiple lights but few people seem to do it well.
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:49 pm :
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:56 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
I still think for nighttime this would still look incredibly awesome with a day to evening transition showing the shadows getting longer and light fading. Instead of trying to beat engines like source at their own game, show off the stuff they can't match.
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:08 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem is the misleading concept that people have about DooM3 engine and its outdoor rendering possibilities...
DooM3 CAN RENDER outdoor stuff, the most problematic things you have to manage in this engine are the lack of bouncing light and the portal system. Every time I see someone posting a "doom3 can do outdoors" I only see huge terrain models, but NO-ONE cares to post a FINAL solution for these two problems. Usally people won't play demo maps created with only one purpose (showing huge terrain); people want interesting designs, outdoor and indoor locations blended seamlessy, with complex scripts, more than 5 lights in a map ( ) lots of enemies etc...
For that matter, Splash damage coded a different "portal" support for ET, the proof that vanilla doom3 it's not optimized for that kind of map type..
A demo like this it's obviously really cool, but it isn't taking into account other factors or possible variations of the scene.
I'm talking about this because I've got big problems in regard of lighting my scene. I've got a scene that's really similar to this one, an open, urban environment with lots of details... The problem arise since it's a night scene... I've got (just as I wrote in the previous post) streetlamps, and lots of other lights to manage. Normally, for a "horror style" corridor I simply can forget about bounced light (like in Id maps) but in a open environment, with the clear sky and a big moon in it totally pitch black areas looks simply wrong. The lighting of the scene is really bugging me, I can't find the right balance between good looking stuff, and a light setup that won't kill fps. I can't use the 5 lights setup showed in this thread, so my workflow it's really slow.
That's basically the only complain I have about DooM3 engine. You can't choose to use other ways to light up your map (and if you try to do things like lightmaps etc you have to do it in the painfull way).
The whole "unified lighting" stuff sounds really cool on paper, but you have to take into account considerations like "right now we can't do radiosity in real time" so we have to work around this. but simply removing all the stuff (like doom3 does) won't really produce only positive things.
That's what Ue3 and Crysis have IMHO more then doom engine: the possibility to CHOOSE! Case 1 - Hell, in my map the sun WON'T move at all, why in the world I have to waste processing power to calculate a dynamic light in the entire map when it simply stand still all the time? Case 2 - In my game the sun needs to be dynamic. Just flag the light to be dynamic.
Even more, we now have more processing power so we can use HIGH resolution lightmaps (this means no jagged lightmaps) having the normal maps still working and being 100% correctly lit in the environment.
Sorry for the rant and the thread hijack, if you want we can continue in another thread (usually people ignore me and the discussion dies immediately)..
BTW, maybe I can post my scene so you guys can help me with the lighting stuff
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:43 pm :
Using the 5 lights tek over your your scene already enlightened is not the good way to go, cause your map/scene have actually a lot of overlapping lights, that's what kill your perfs when you add the 5 lights.
Plus that's really depend on needs, but for a city night scene, you could do a good ambient with only 3 lights with one casting shadows, or 2 lights without the moon shadows:
1) parallele, centered at -256, -256, 256
2) parallele, centered at 256, 256, -256
3) parallele, centered at what you want, casting shadows. (optional)
That's just an idea...
About Visportals, Q4 have great distance visportals that fade in/out at choosen distance (in the mtr).
Only problem is that you got to use it with fog (or anything that can hide closed portals to player view).
(and it seems slow at BSP)
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:46 pm :
Using two parallel lights and an ambient light is of course very efficient. However, you can see in this screen shot that is using this three light system that some of the leaves are ok, but alot of them have far too much contrast from light to dark. That is the quintisential problem.
Ok, this second shot is using more lights, but the level of contrast over all the various leaves is far more consistent, and consistent with the suggested lighting conditions. Its an expensive system, but the quality of the render is much improved.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:19 pm :
I used a similar trick in a Q4 wip map, but only with 3 paralelles lights (placed in a triangle form, with the first centered at "0,-256,-128", the second at "-128,128,96" and the third at "128,128,96), plus a 4th one paralelle to the ground casting shadows and a shadowmap, it work fine too.
The only 'problem' is with round surfaces (like heads) you got a very unnoticable "lights transition zone".
(I think the first time i heard about this technique, i think it was on a kat's test map with a big rock in the middle of a rock scene, or maybe my memory play me... )
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:34 pm :
this is probably a stupid question, but I dont think it has been asked before in this thread: Are all these lights ok on performance in Doom3? The reason I ask this is that I learned Doomedit with the idea that 1 light is GREAT 2 lights is optimal, but anymore really start to slow it down. Do you have any sort of cool work arounds to this or something?
Second, Im not sure if you saw my thread in the pimping section, but I was wondering if you were in need of any sort skybox for this, and if so, I would LOVE to help you forward with this project by providing a high quality skybox. Let me know
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:38 am :
The myth of Source²>D3 can rest in peace....
nbrancaccio@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:02 am :
EWW god! Lets all abandon Doom3 now! This truely is a testiment to Carmack's lack of ability to program
(Very beautiful stuff man! keep up the great work! And I ask again... need any sort of Skybox? If so, let me know, I've got your back )
Dinky@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:35 am :
Wow man! I was really worried about performance on this map!!! OMG!! You did a fantastic job and I want you to hurry and RELEASE THIS!!!! I wanna see these textures and quality mapping running on my comp!
And my comp is nothing like yours, it's uber (just upgraded for Crysis).
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:23 am :
modern wrote:
DoomIII's lighting is a load of rubbish! Carmack is an idiot, and everyone should start using UE3, and Crysis.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
hehe, very nice demo of your work modern, please show us more .avi clips when you can
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:38 am :
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:20 pm :
Rayne wrote:
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
The point is however that using d3 lights you can produce a nice replica of real world outdoor ligting. People know you can use multiple lights but few people seem to do it well.
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:49 pm :
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:56 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
I still think for nighttime this would still look incredibly awesome with a day to evening transition showing the shadows getting longer and light fading. Instead of trying to beat engines like source at their own game, show off the stuff they can't match.
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:08 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem is the misleading concept that people have about DooM3 engine and its outdoor rendering possibilities...
DooM3 CAN RENDER outdoor stuff, the most problematic things you have to manage in this engine are the lack of bouncing light and the portal system. Every time I see someone posting a "doom3 can do outdoors" I only see huge terrain models, but NO-ONE cares to post a FINAL solution for these two problems. Usally people won't play demo maps created with only one purpose (showing huge terrain); people want interesting designs, outdoor and indoor locations blended seamlessy, with complex scripts, more than 5 lights in a map ( ) lots of enemies etc...
For that matter, Splash damage coded a different "portal" support for ET, the proof that vanilla doom3 it's not optimized for that kind of map type..
A demo like this it's obviously really cool, but it isn't taking into account other factors or possible variations of the scene.
I'm talking about this because I've got big problems in regard of lighting my scene. I've got a scene that's really similar to this one, an open, urban environment with lots of details... The problem arise since it's a night scene... I've got (just as I wrote in the previous post) streetlamps, and lots of other lights to manage. Normally, for a "horror style" corridor I simply can forget about bounced light (like in Id maps) but in a open environment, with the clear sky and a big moon in it totally pitch black areas looks simply wrong. The lighting of the scene is really bugging me, I can't find the right balance between good looking stuff, and a light setup that won't kill fps. I can't use the 5 lights setup showed in this thread, so my workflow it's really slow.
That's basically the only complain I have about DooM3 engine. You can't choose to use other ways to light up your map (and if you try to do things like lightmaps etc you have to do it in the painfull way).
The whole "unified lighting" stuff sounds really cool on paper, but you have to take into account considerations like "right now we can't do radiosity in real time" so we have to work around this. but simply removing all the stuff (like doom3 does) won't really produce only positive things.
That's what Ue3 and Crysis have IMHO more then doom engine: the possibility to CHOOSE! Case 1 - Hell, in my map the sun WON'T move at all, why in the world I have to waste processing power to calculate a dynamic light in the entire map when it simply stand still all the time? Case 2 - In my game the sun needs to be dynamic. Just flag the light to be dynamic.
Even more, we now have more processing power so we can use HIGH resolution lightmaps (this means no jagged lightmaps) having the normal maps still working and being 100% correctly lit in the environment.
Sorry for the rant and the thread hijack, if you want we can continue in another thread (usually people ignore me and the discussion dies immediately)..
BTW, maybe I can post my scene so you guys can help me with the lighting stuff
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:43 pm :
Using the 5 lights tek over your your scene already enlightened is not the good way to go, cause your map/scene have actually a lot of overlapping lights, that's what kill your perfs when you add the 5 lights.
Plus that's really depend on needs, but for a city night scene, you could do a good ambient with only 3 lights with one casting shadows, or 2 lights without the moon shadows:
1) parallele, centered at -256, -256, 256
2) parallele, centered at 256, 256, -256
3) parallele, centered at what you want, casting shadows. (optional)
That's just an idea...
About Visportals, Q4 have great distance visportals that fade in/out at choosen distance (in the mtr).
Only problem is that you got to use it with fog (or anything that can hide closed portals to player view).
(and it seems slow at BSP)
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:46 pm :
Using two parallel lights and an ambient light is of course very efficient. However, you can see in this screen shot that is using this three light system that some of the leaves are ok, but alot of them have far too much contrast from light to dark. That is the quintisential problem.
Ok, this second shot is using more lights, but the level of contrast over all the various leaves is far more consistent, and consistent with the suggested lighting conditions. Its an expensive system, but the quality of the render is much improved.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:19 pm :
I used a similar trick in a Q4 wip map, but only with 3 paralelles lights (placed in a triangle form, with the first centered at "0,-256,-128", the second at "-128,128,96" and the third at "128,128,96), plus a 4th one paralelle to the ground casting shadows and a shadowmap, it work fine too.
The only 'problem' is with round surfaces (like heads) you got a very unnoticable "lights transition zone".
(I think the first time i heard about this technique, i think it was on a kat's test map with a big rock in the middle of a rock scene, or maybe my memory play me... )
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:34 pm :
this is probably a stupid question, but I dont think it has been asked before in this thread: Are all these lights ok on performance in Doom3? The reason I ask this is that I learned Doomedit with the idea that 1 light is GREAT 2 lights is optimal, but anymore really start to slow it down. Do you have any sort of cool work arounds to this or something?
Second, Im not sure if you saw my thread in the pimping section, but I was wondering if you were in need of any sort skybox for this, and if so, I would LOVE to help you forward with this project by providing a high quality skybox. Let me know
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:38 am :
The myth of Source²>D3 can rest in peace....
nbrancaccio@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:02 am :
EWW god! Lets all abandon Doom3 now! This truely is a testiment to Carmack's lack of ability to program
(Very beautiful stuff man! keep up the great work! And I ask again... need any sort of Skybox? If so, let me know, I've got your back )
Dinky@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:35 am :
Wow man! I was really worried about performance on this map!!! OMG!! You did a fantastic job and I want you to hurry and RELEASE THIS!!!! I wanna see these textures and quality mapping running on my comp!
And my comp is nothing like yours, it's uber (just upgraded for Crysis).
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:23 am :
modern wrote:
DoomIII's lighting is a load of rubbish! Carmack is an idiot, and everyone should start using UE3, and Crysis.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
hehe, very nice demo of your work modern, please show us more .avi clips when you can
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:38 am :
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:20 pm :
Rayne wrote:
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
The point is however that using d3 lights you can produce a nice replica of real world outdoor ligting. People know you can use multiple lights but few people seem to do it well.
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:49 pm :
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:56 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
I still think for nighttime this would still look incredibly awesome with a day to evening transition showing the shadows getting longer and light fading. Instead of trying to beat engines like source at their own game, show off the stuff they can't match.
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:08 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem is the misleading concept that people have about DooM3 engine and its outdoor rendering possibilities...
DooM3 CAN RENDER outdoor stuff, the most problematic things you have to manage in this engine are the lack of bouncing light and the portal system. Every time I see someone posting a "doom3 can do outdoors" I only see huge terrain models, but NO-ONE cares to post a FINAL solution for these two problems. Usally people won't play demo maps created with only one purpose (showing huge terrain); people want interesting designs, outdoor and indoor locations blended seamlessy, with complex scripts, more than 5 lights in a map ( ) lots of enemies etc...
For that matter, Splash damage coded a different "portal" support for ET, the proof that vanilla doom3 it's not optimized for that kind of map type..
A demo like this it's obviously really cool, but it isn't taking into account other factors or possible variations of the scene.
I'm talking about this because I've got big problems in regard of lighting my scene. I've got a scene that's really similar to this one, an open, urban environment with lots of details... The problem arise since it's a night scene... I've got (just as I wrote in the previous post) streetlamps, and lots of other lights to manage. Normally, for a "horror style" corridor I simply can forget about bounced light (like in Id maps) but in a open environment, with the clear sky and a big moon in it totally pitch black areas looks simply wrong. The lighting of the scene is really bugging me, I can't find the right balance between good looking stuff, and a light setup that won't kill fps. I can't use the 5 lights setup showed in this thread, so my workflow it's really slow.
That's basically the only complain I have about DooM3 engine. You can't choose to use other ways to light up your map (and if you try to do things like lightmaps etc you have to do it in the painfull way).
The whole "unified lighting" stuff sounds really cool on paper, but you have to take into account considerations like "right now we can't do radiosity in real time" so we have to work around this. but simply removing all the stuff (like doom3 does) won't really produce only positive things.
That's what Ue3 and Crysis have IMHO more then doom engine: the possibility to CHOOSE! Case 1 - Hell, in my map the sun WON'T move at all, why in the world I have to waste processing power to calculate a dynamic light in the entire map when it simply stand still all the time? Case 2 - In my game the sun needs to be dynamic. Just flag the light to be dynamic.
Even more, we now have more processing power so we can use HIGH resolution lightmaps (this means no jagged lightmaps) having the normal maps still working and being 100% correctly lit in the environment.
Sorry for the rant and the thread hijack, if you want we can continue in another thread (usually people ignore me and the discussion dies immediately)..
BTW, maybe I can post my scene so you guys can help me with the lighting stuff
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:43 pm :
Using the 5 lights tek over your your scene already enlightened is not the good way to go, cause your map/scene have actually a lot of overlapping lights, that's what kill your perfs when you add the 5 lights.
Plus that's really depend on needs, but for a city night scene, you could do a good ambient with only 3 lights with one casting shadows, or 2 lights without the moon shadows:
1) parallele, centered at -256, -256, 256
2) parallele, centered at 256, 256, -256
3) parallele, centered at what you want, casting shadows. (optional)
That's just an idea...
About Visportals, Q4 have great distance visportals that fade in/out at choosen distance (in the mtr).
Only problem is that you got to use it with fog (or anything that can hide closed portals to player view).
(and it seems slow at BSP)
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:46 pm :
Using two parallel lights and an ambient light is of course very efficient. However, you can see in this screen shot that is using this three light system that some of the leaves are ok, but alot of them have far too much contrast from light to dark. That is the quintisential problem.
Ok, this second shot is using more lights, but the level of contrast over all the various leaves is far more consistent, and consistent with the suggested lighting conditions. Its an expensive system, but the quality of the render is much improved.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:43 pm :
modern, for night time scenes I too would use additive material shaders where ever possible, but I also understand why you don't feel the need to make a tech demo or playable map set at night.
I think in your la
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:19 pm :
I used a similar trick in a Q4 wip map, but only with 3 paralelles lights (placed in a triangle form, with the first centered at "0,-256,-128", the second at "-128,128,96" and the third at "128,128,96), plus a 4th one paralelle to the ground casting shadows and a shadowmap, it work fine too.
The only 'problem' is with round surfaces (like heads) you got a very unnoticable "lights transition zone".
(I think the first time i heard about this technique, i think it was on a kat's test map with a big rock in the middle of a rock scene, or maybe my memory play me... )
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:34 pm :
this is probably a stupid question, but I dont think it has been asked before in this thread: Are all these lights ok on performance in Doom3? The reason I ask this is that I learned Doomedit with the idea that 1 light is GREAT 2 lights is optimal, but anymore really start to slow it down. Do you have any sort of cool work arounds to this or something?
Second, Im not sure if you saw my thread in the pimping section, but I was wondering if you were in need of any sort skybox for this, and if so, I would LOVE to help you forward with this project by providing a high quality skybox. Let me know
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:38 am :
The myth of Source²>D3 can rest in peace....
nbrancaccio@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:02 am :
EWW god! Lets all abandon Doom3 now! This truely is a testiment to Carmack's lack of ability to program
(Very beautiful stuff man! keep up the great work! And I ask again... need any sort of Skybox? If so, let me know, I've got your back )
Dinky@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:35 am :
Wow man! I was really worried about performance on this map!!! OMG!! You did a fantastic job and I want you to hurry and RELEASE THIS!!!! I wanna see these textures and quality mapping running on my comp!
And my comp is nothing like yours, it's uber (just upgraded for Crysis).
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:23 am :
modern wrote:
DoomIII's lighting is a load of rubbish! Carmack is an idiot, and everyone should start using UE3, and Crysis.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
hehe, very nice demo of your work modern, please show us more .avi clips when you can
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:38 am :
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:20 pm :
Rayne wrote:
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
The point is however that using d3 lights you can produce a nice replica of real world outdoor ligting. People know you can use multiple lights but few people seem to do it well.
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:49 pm :
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:56 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
I still think for nighttime this would still look incredibly awesome with a day to evening transition showing the shadows getting longer and light fading. Instead of trying to beat engines like source at their own game, show off the stuff they can't match.
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:08 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem is the misleading concept that people have about DooM3 engine and its outdoor rendering possibilities...
DooM3 CAN RENDER outdoor stuff, the most problematic things you have to manage in this engine are the lack of bouncing light and the portal system. Every time I see someone posting a "doom3 can do outdoors" I only see huge terrain models, but NO-ONE cares to post a FINAL solution for these two problems. Usally people won't play demo maps created with only one purpose (showing huge terrain); people want interesting designs, outdoor and indoor locations blended seamlessy, with complex scripts, more than 5 lights in a map ( ) lots of enemies etc...
For that matter, Splash damage coded a different "portal" support for ET, the proof that vanilla doom3 it's not optimized for that kind of map type..
A demo like this it's obviously really cool, but it isn't taking into account other factors or possible variations of the scene.
I'm talking about this because I've got big problems in regard of lighting my scene. I've got a scene that's really similar to this one, an open, urban environment with lots of details... The problem arise since it's a night scene... I've got (just as I wrote in the previous post) streetlamps, and lots of other lights to manage. Normally, for a "horror style" corridor I simply can forget about bounced light (like in Id maps) but in a open environment, with the clear sky and a big moon in it totally pitch black areas looks simply wrong. The lighting of the scene is really bugging me, I can't find the right balance between good looking stuff, and a light setup that won't kill fps. I can't use the 5 lights setup showed in this thread, so my workflow it's really slow.
That's basically the only complain I have about DooM3 engine. You can't choose to use other ways to light up your map (and if you try to do things like lightmaps etc you have to do it in the painfull way).
The whole "unified lighting" stuff sounds really cool on paper, but you have to take into account considerations like "right now we can't do radiosity in real time" so we have to work around this. but simply removing all the stuff (like doom3 does) won't really produce only positive things.
That's what Ue3 and Crysis have IMHO more then doom engine: the possibility to CHOOSE! Case 1 - Hell, in my map the sun WON'T move at all, why in the world I have to waste processing power to calculate a dynamic light in the entire map when it simply stand still all the time? Case 2 - In my game the sun needs to be dynamic. Just flag the light to be dynamic.
Even more, we now have more processing power so we can use HIGH resolution lightmaps (this means no jagged lightmaps) having the normal maps still working and being 100% correctly lit in the environment.
Sorry for the rant and the thread hijack, if you want we can continue in another thread (usually people ignore me and the discussion dies immediately)..
BTW, maybe I can post my scene so you guys can help me with the lighting stuff
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:43 pm :
Using the 5 lights tek over your your scene already enlightened is not the good way to go, cause your map/scene have actually a lot of overlapping lights, that's what kill your perfs when you add the 5 lights.
Plus that's really depend on needs, but for a city night scene, you could do a good ambient with only 3 lights with one casting shadows, or 2 lights without the moon shadows:
1) parallele, centered at -256, -256, 256
2) parallele, centered at 256, 256, -256
3) parallele, centered at what you want, casting shadows. (optional)
That's just an idea...
About Visportals, Q4 have great distance visportals that fade in/out at choosen distance (in the mtr).
Only problem is that you got to use it with fog (or anything that can hide closed portals to player view).
(and it seems slow at BSP)
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:46 pm :
Using two parallel lights and an ambient light is of course very efficient. However, you can see in this screen shot that is using this three light system that some of the leaves are ok, but alot of them have far too much contrast from light to dark. That is the quintisential problem.
Ok, this second shot is using more lights, but the level of contrast over all the various leaves is far more consistent, and consistent with the suggested lighting conditions. Its an expensive system, but the quality of the render is much improved.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:43 pm :
modern, for night time scenes I too would use additive material shaders where ever possible, but I also understand why you don't feel the need to make a tech demo or playable map set at night.
I think in your la
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:19 pm :
I used a similar trick in a Q4 wip map, but only with 3 paralelles lights (placed in a triangle form, with the first centered at "0,-256,-128", the second at "-128,128,96" and the third at "128,128,96), plus a 4th one paralelle to the ground casting shadows and a shadowmap, it work fine too.
The only 'problem' is with round surfaces (like heads) you got a very unnoticable "lights transition zone".
(I think the first time i heard about this technique, i think it was on a kat's test map with a big rock in the middle of a rock scene, or maybe my memory play me... )
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:34 pm :
this is probably a stupid question, but I dont think it has been asked before in this thread: Are all these lights ok on performance in Doom3? The reason I ask this is that I learned Doomedit with the idea that 1 light is GREAT 2 lights is optimal, but anymore really start to slow it down. Do you have any sort of cool work arounds to this or something?
Second, Im not sure if you saw my thread in the pimping section, but I was wondering if you were in need of any sort skybox for this, and if so, I would LOVE to help you forward with this project by providing a high quality skybox. Let me know
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:38 am :
The myth of Source²>D3 can rest in peace....
nbrancaccio@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:02 am :
EWW god! Lets all abandon Doom3 now! This truely is a testiment to Carmack's lack of ability to program
(Very beautiful stuff man! keep up the great work! And I ask again... need any sort of Skybox? If so, let me know, I've got your back )
Dinky@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:35 am :
Wow man! I was really worried about performance on this map!!! OMG!! You did a fantastic job and I want you to hurry and RELEASE THIS!!!! I wanna see these textures and quality mapping running on my comp!
And my comp is nothing like yours, it's uber (just upgraded for Crysis).
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:23 am :
modern wrote:
DoomIII's lighting is a load of rubbish! Carmack is an idiot, and everyone should start using UE3, and Crysis.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
hehe, very nice demo of your work modern, please show us more .avi clips when you can
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:38 am :
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:20 pm :
Rayne wrote:
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
The point is however that using d3 lights you can produce a nice replica of real world outdoor ligting. People know you can use multiple lights but few people seem to do it well.
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:49 pm :
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:56 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
I still think for nighttime this would still look incredibly awesome with a day to evening transition showing the shadows getting longer and light fading. Instead of trying to beat engines like source at their own game, show off the stuff they can't match.
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:08 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem is the misleading concept that people have about DooM3 engine and its outdoor rendering possibilities...
DooM3 CAN RENDER outdoor stuff, the most problematic things you have to manage in this engine are the lack of bouncing light and the portal system. Every time I see someone posting a "doom3 can do outdoors" I only see huge terrain models, but NO-ONE cares to post a FINAL solution for these two problems. Usally people won't play demo maps created with only one purpose (showing huge terrain); people want interesting designs, outdoor and indoor locations blended seamlessy, with complex scripts, more than 5 lights in a map ( ) lots of enemies etc...
For that matter, Splash damage coded a different "portal" support for ET, the proof that vanilla doom3 it's not optimized for that kind of map type..
A demo like this it's obviously really cool, but it isn't taking into account other factors or possible variations of the scene.
I'm talking about this because I've got big problems in regard of lighting my scene. I've got a scene that's really similar to this one, an open, urban environment with lots of details... The problem arise since it's a night scene... I've got (just as I wrote in the previous post) streetlamps, and lots of other lights to manage. Normally, for a "horror style" corridor I simply can forget about bounced light (like in Id maps) but in a open environment, with the clear sky and a big moon in it totally pitch black areas looks simply wrong. The lighting of the scene is really bugging me, I can't find the right balance between good looking stuff, and a light setup that won't kill fps. I can't use the 5 lights setup showed in this thread, so my workflow it's really slow.
That's basically the only complain I have about DooM3 engine. You can't choose to use other ways to light up your map (and if you try to do things like lightmaps etc you have to do it in the painfull way).
The whole "unified lighting" stuff sounds really cool on paper, but you have to take into account considerations like "right now we can't do radiosity in real time" so we have to work around this. but simply removing all the stuff (like doom3 does) won't really produce only positive things.
That's what Ue3 and Crysis have IMHO more then doom engine: the possibility to CHOOSE! Case 1 - Hell, in my map the sun WON'T move at all, why in the world I have to waste processing power to calculate a dynamic light in the entire map when it simply stand still all the time? Case 2 - In my game the sun needs to be dynamic. Just flag the light to be dynamic.
Even more, we now have more processing power so we can use HIGH resolution lightmaps (this means no jagged lightmaps) having the normal maps still working and being 100% correctly lit in the environment.
Sorry for the rant and the thread hijack, if you want we can continue in another thread (usually people ignore me and the discussion dies immediately)..
BTW, maybe I can post my scene so you guys can help me with the lighting stuff
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:43 pm :
Using the 5 lights tek over your your scene already enlightened is not the good way to go, cause your map/scene have actually a lot of overlapping lights, that's what kill your perfs when you add the 5 lights.
Plus that's really depend on needs, but for a city night scene, you could do a good ambient with only 3 lights with one casting shadows, or 2 lights without the moon shadows:
1) parallele, centered at -256, -256, 256
2) parallele, centered at 256, 256, -256
3) parallele, centered at what you want, casting shadows. (optional)
That's just an idea...
About Visportals, Q4 have great distance visportals that fade in/out at choosen distance (in the mtr).
Only problem is that you got to use it with fog (or anything that can hide closed portals to player view).
(and it seems slow at BSP)
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:46 pm :
Using two parallel lights and an ambient light is of course very efficient. However, you can see in this screen shot that is using this three light system that some of the leaves are ok, but alot of them have far too much contrast from light to dark. That is the quintisential problem.
Ok, this second shot is using more lights, but the level of contrast over all the various leaves is far more consistent, and consistent with the suggested lighting conditions. Its an expensive system, but the quality of the render is much improved.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:19 pm :
I used a similar trick in a Q4 wip map, but only with 3 paralelles lights (placed in a triangle form, with the first centered at "0,-256,-128", the second at "-128,128,96" and the third at "128,128,96), plus a 4th one paralelle to the ground casting shadows and a shadowmap, it work fine too.
The only 'problem' is with round surfaces (like heads) you got a very unnoticable "lights transition zone".
(I think the first time i heard about this technique, i think it was on a kat's test map with a big rock in the middle of a rock scene, or maybe my memory play me... )
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:34 pm :
this is probably a stupid question, but I dont think it has been asked before in this thread: Are all these lights ok on performance in Doom3? The reason I ask this is that I learned Doomedit with the idea that 1 light is GREAT 2 lights is optimal, but anymore really start to slow it down. Do you have any sort of cool work arounds to this or something?
Second, Im not sure if you saw my thread in the pimping section, but I was wondering if you were in need of any sort skybox for this, and if so, I would LOVE to help you forward with this project by providing a high quality skybox. Let me know
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:38 am :
The myth of Source²>D3 can rest in peace....
nbrancaccio@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:02 am :
EWW god! Lets all abandon Doom3 now! This truely is a testiment to Carmack's lack of ability to program
(Very beautiful stuff man! keep up the great work! And I ask again... need any sort of Skybox? If so, let me know, I've got your back )
Dinky@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:35 am :
Wow man! I was really worried about performance on this map!!! OMG!! You did a fantastic job and I want you to hurry and RELEASE THIS!!!! I wanna see these textures and quality mapping running on my comp!
And my comp is nothing like yours, it's uber (just upgraded for Crysis).
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:23 am :
modern wrote:
DoomIII's lighting is a load of rubbish! Carmack is an idiot, and everyone should start using UE3, and Crysis.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
hehe, very nice demo of your work modern, please show us more .avi clips when you can
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:38 am :
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:20 pm :
Rayne wrote:
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
The point is however that using d3 lights you can produce a nice replica of real world outdoor ligting. People know you can use multiple lights but few people seem to do it well.
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:49 pm :
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:56 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
I still think for nighttime this would still look incredibly awesome with a day to evening transition showing the shadows getting longer and light fading. Instead of trying to beat engines like source at their own game, show off the stuff they can't match.
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:08 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem is the misleading concept that people have about DooM3 engine and its outdoor rendering possibilities...
DooM3 CAN RENDER outdoor stuff, the most problematic things you have to manage in this engine are the lack of bouncing light and the portal system. Every time I see someone posting a "doom3 can do outdoors" I only see huge terrain models, but NO-ONE cares to post a FINAL solution for these two problems. Usally people won't play demo maps created with only one purpose (showing huge terrain); people want interesting designs, outdoor and indoor locations blended seamlessy, with complex scripts, more than 5 lights in a map ( ) lots of enemies etc...
For that matter, Splash damage coded a different "portal" support for ET, the proof that vanilla doom3 it's not optimized for that kind of map type..
A demo like this it's obviously really cool, but it isn't taking into account other factors or possible variations of the scene.
I'm talking about this because I've got big problems in regard of lighting my scene. I've got a scene that's really similar to this one, an open, urban environment with lots of details... The problem arise since it's a night scene... I've got (just as I wrote in the previous post) streetlamps, and lots of other lights to manage. Normally, for a "horror style" corridor I simply can forget about bounced light (like in Id maps) but in a open environment, with the clear sky and a big moon in it totally pitch black areas looks simply wrong. The lighting of the scene is really bugging me, I can't find the right balance between good looking stuff, and a light setup that won't kill fps. I can't use the 5 lights setup showed in this thread, so my workflow it's really slow.
That's basically the only complain I have about DooM3 engine. You can't choose to use other ways to light up your map (and if you try to do things like lightmaps etc you have to do it in the painfull way).
The whole "unified lighting" stuff sounds really cool on paper, but you have to take into account considerations like "right now we can't do radiosity in real time" so we have to work around this. but simply removing all the stuff (like doom3 does) won't really produce only positive things.
That's what Ue3 and Crysis have IMHO more then doom engine: the possibility to CHOOSE! Case 1 - Hell, in my map the sun WON'T move at all, why in the world I have to waste processing power to calculate a dynamic light in the entire map when it simply stand still all the time? Case 2 - In my game the sun needs to be dynamic. Just flag the light to be dynamic.
Even more, we now have more processing power so we can use HIGH resolution lightmaps (this means no jagged lightmaps) having the normal maps still working and being 100% correctly lit in the environment.
Sorry for the rant and the thread hijack, if you want we can continue in another thread (usually people ignore me and the discussion dies immediately)..
BTW, maybe I can post my scene so you guys can help me with the lighting stuff
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:43 pm :
Using the 5 lights tek over your your scene already enlightened is not the good way to go, cause your map/scene have actually a lot of overlapping lights, that's what kill your perfs when you add the 5 lights.
Plus that's really depend on needs, but for a city night scene, you could do a good ambient with only 3 lights with one casting shadows, or 2 lights without the moon shadows:
1) parallele, centered at -256, -256, 256
2) parallele, centered at 256, 256, -256
3) parallele, centered at what you want, casting shadows. (optional)
That's just an idea...
About Visportals, Q4 have great distance visportals that fade in/out at choosen distance (in the mtr).
Only problem is that you got to use it with fog (or anything that can hide closed portals to player view).
(and it seems slow at BSP)
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:46 pm :
Using two parallel lights and an ambient light is of course very efficient. However, you can see in this screen shot that is using this three light system that some of the leaves are ok, but alot of them have far too much contrast from light to dark. That is the quintisential problem.
Ok, this second shot is using more lights, but the level of contrast over all the various leaves is far more consistent, and consistent with the suggested lighting conditions. Its an expensive system, but the quality of the render is much improved.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:19 pm :
I used a similar trick in a Q4 wip map, but only with 3 paralelles lights (placed in a triangle form, with the first centered at "0,-256,-128", the second at "-128,128,96" and the third at "128,128,96), plus a 4th one paralelle to the ground casting shadows and a shadowmap, it work fine too.
The only 'problem' is with round surfaces (like heads) you got a very unnoticable "lights transition zone".
(I think the first time i heard about this technique, i think it was on a kat's test map with a big rock in the middle of a rock scene, or maybe my memory play me... )
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:34 pm :
this is probably a stupid question, but I dont think it has been asked before in this thread: Are all these lights ok on performance in Doom3? The reason I ask this is that I learned Doomedit with the idea that 1 light is GREAT 2 lights is optimal, but anymore really start to slow it down. Do you have any sort of cool work arounds to this or something?
Second, Im not sure if you saw my thread in the pimping section, but I was wondering if you were in need of any sort skybox for this, and if so, I would LOVE to help you forward with this project by providing a high quality skybox. Let me know
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:38 am :
The myth of Source²>D3 can rest in peace....
nbrancaccio@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:02 am :
EWW god! Lets all abandon Doom3 now! This truely is a testiment to Carmack's lack of ability to program
(Very beautiful stuff man! keep up the great work! And I ask again... need any sort of Skybox? If so, let me know, I've got your back )
Dinky@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:35 am :
Wow man! I was really worried about performance on this map!!! OMG!! You did a fantastic job and I want you to hurry and RELEASE THIS!!!! I wanna see these textures and quality mapping running on my comp!
And my comp is nothing like yours, it's uber (just upgraded for Crysis).
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:23 am :
modern wrote:
DoomIII's lighting is a load of rubbish! Carmack is an idiot, and everyone should start using UE3, and Crysis.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
hehe, very nice demo of your work modern, please show us more .avi clips when you can
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:38 am :
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:20 pm :
Rayne wrote:
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
The point is however that using d3 lights you can produce a nice replica of real world outdoor ligting. People know you can use multiple lights but few people seem to do it well.
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:49 pm :
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:56 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
I still think for nighttime this would still look incredibly awesome with a day to evening transition showing the shadows getting longer and light fading. Instead of trying to beat engines like source at their own game, show off the stuff they can't match.
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:08 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem is the misleading concept that people have about DooM3 engine and its outdoor rendering possibilities...
DooM3 CAN RENDER outdoor stuff, the most problematic things you have to manage in this engine are the lack of bouncing light and the portal system. Every time I see someone posting a "doom3 can do outdoors" I only see huge terrain models, but NO-ONE cares to post a FINAL solution for these two problems. Usally people won't play demo maps created with only one purpose (showing huge terrain); people want interesting designs, outdoor and indoor locations blended seamlessy, with complex scripts, more than 5 lights in a map ( ) lots of enemies etc...
For that matter, Splash damage coded a different "portal" support for ET, the proof that vanilla doom3 it's not optimized for that kind of map type..
A demo like this it's obviously really cool, but it isn't taking into account other factors or possible variations of the scene.
I'm talking about this because I've got big problems in regard of lighting my scene. I've got a scene that's really similar to this one, an open, urban environment with lots of details... The problem arise since it's a night scene... I've got (just as I wrote in the previous post) streetlamps, and lots of other lights to manage. Normally, for a "horror style" corridor I simply can forget about bounced light (like in Id maps) but in a open environment, with the clear sky and a big moon in it totally pitch black areas looks simply wrong. The lighting of the scene is really bugging me, I can't find the right balance between good looking stuff, and a light setup that won't kill fps. I can't use the 5 lights setup showed in this thread, so my workflow it's really slow.
That's basically the only complain I have about DooM3 engine. You can't choose to use other ways to light up your map (and if you try to do things like lightmaps etc you have to do it in the painfull way).
The whole "unified lighting" stuff sounds really cool on paper, but you have to take into account considerations like "right now we can't do radiosity in real time" so we have to work around this. but simply removing all the stuff (like doom3 does) won't really produce only positive things.
That's what Ue3 and Crysis have IMHO more then doom engine: the possibility to CHOOSE! Case 1 - Hell, in my map the sun WON'T move at all, why in the world I have to waste processing power to calculate a dynamic light in the entire map when it simply stand still all the time? Case 2 - In my game the sun needs to be dynamic. Just flag the light to be dynamic.
Even more, we now have more processing power so we can use HIGH resolution lightmaps (this means no jagged lightmaps) having the normal maps still working and being 100% correctly lit in the environment.
Sorry for the rant and the thread hijack, if you want we can continue in another thread (usually people ignore me and the discussion dies immediately)..
BTW, maybe I can post my scene so you guys can help me with the lighting stuff
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:43 pm :
Using the 5 lights tek over your your scene already enlightened is not the good way to go, cause your map/scene have actually a lot of overlapping lights, that's what kill your perfs when you add the 5 lights.
Plus that's really depend on needs, but for a city night scene, you could do a good ambient with only 3 lights with one casting shadows, or 2 lights without the moon shadows:
1) parallele, centered at -256, -256, 256
2) parallele, centered at 256, 256, -256
3) parallele, centered at what you want, casting shadows. (optional)
That's just an idea...
About Visportals, Q4 have great distance visportals that fade in/out at choosen distance (in the mtr).
Only problem is that you got to use it with fog (or anything that can hide closed portals to player view).
(and it seems slow at BSP)
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:46 pm :
Using two parallel lights and an ambient light is of course very efficient. However, you can see in this screen shot that is using this three light system that some of the leaves are ok, but alot of them have far too much contrast from light to dark. That is the quintisential problem.
Ok, this second shot is using more lights, but the level of contrast over all the various leaves is far more consistent, and consistent with the suggested lighting conditions. Its an expensive system, but the quality of the render is much improved.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:19 pm :
I used a similar trick in a Q4 wip map, but only with 3 paralelles lights (placed in a triangle form, with the first centered at "0,-256,-128", the second at "-128,128,96" and the third at "128,128,96), plus a 4th one paralelle to the ground casting shadows and a shadowmap, it work fine too.
The only 'problem' is with round surfaces (like heads) you got a very unnoticable "lights transition zone".
(I think the first time i heard about this technique, i think it was on a kat's test map with a big rock in the middle of a rock scene, or maybe my memory play me... )
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:34 pm :
this is probably a stupid question, but I dont think it has been asked before in this thread: Are all these lights ok on performance in Doom3? The reason I ask this is that I learned Doomedit with the idea that 1 light is GREAT 2 lights is optimal, but anymore really start to slow it down. Do you have any sort of cool work arounds to this or something?
Second, Im not sure if you saw my thread in the pimping section, but I was wondering if you were in need of any sort skybox for this, and if so, I would LOVE to help you forward with this project by providing a high quality skybox. Let me know
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:38 am :
The myth of Source²>D3 can rest in peace....
nbrancaccio@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:02 am :
EWW god! Lets all abandon Doom3 now! This truely is a testiment to Carmack's lack of ability to program
(Very beautiful stuff man! keep up the great work! And I ask again... need any sort of Skybox? If so, let me know, I've got your back )
Dinky@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:35 am :
Wow man! I was really worried about performance on this map!!! OMG!! You did a fantastic job and I want you to hurry and RELEASE THIS!!!! I wanna see these textures and quality mapping running on my comp!
And my comp is nothing like yours, it's uber (just upgraded for Crysis).
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:23 am :
modern wrote:
DoomIII's lighting is a load of rubbish! Carmack is an idiot, and everyone should start using UE3, and Crysis.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
hehe, very nice demo of your work modern, please show us more .avi clips when you can
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:38 am :
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:20 pm :
Rayne wrote:
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
The point is however that using d3 lights you can produce a nice replica of real world outdoor ligting. People know you can use multiple lights but few people seem to do it well.
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:49 pm :
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:56 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
I still think for nighttime this would still look incredibly awesome with a day to evening transition showing the shadows getting longer and light fading. Instead of trying to beat engines like source at their own game, show off the stuff they can't match.
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:08 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem is the misleading concept that people have about DooM3 engine and its outdoor rendering possibilities...
DooM3 CAN RENDER outdoor stuff, the most problematic things you have to manage in this engine are the lack of bouncing light and the portal system. Every time I see someone posting a "doom3 can do outdoors" I only see huge terrain models, but NO-ONE cares to post a FINAL solution for these two problems. Usally people won't play demo maps created with only one purpose (showing huge terrain); people want interesting designs, outdoor and indoor locations blended seamlessy, with complex scripts, more than 5 lights in a map ( ) lots of enemies etc...
For that matter, Splash damage coded a different "portal" support for ET, the proof that vanilla doom3 it's not optimized for that kind of map type..
A demo like this it's obviously really cool, but it isn't taking into account other factors or possible variations of the scene.
I'm talking about this because I've got big problems in regard of lighting my scene. I've got a scene that's really similar to this one, an open, urban environment with lots of details... The problem arise since it's a night scene... I've got (just as I wrote in the previous post) streetlamps, and lots of other lights to manage. Normally, for a "horror style" corridor I simply can forget about bounced light (like in Id maps) but in a open environment, with the clear sky and a big moon in it totally pitch black areas looks simply wrong. The lighting of the scene is really bugging me, I can't find the right balance between good looking stuff, and a light setup that won't kill fps. I can't use the 5 lights setup showed in this thread, so my workflow it's really slow.
That's basically the only complain I have about DooM3 engine. You can't choose to use other ways to light up your map (and if you try to do things like lightmaps etc you have to do it in the painfull way).
The whole "unified lighting" stuff sounds really cool on paper, but you have to take into account considerations like "right now we can't do radiosity in real time" so we have to work around this. but simply removing all the stuff (like doom3 does) won't really produce only positive things.
That's what Ue3 and Crysis have IMHO more then doom engine: the possibility to CHOOSE! Case 1 - Hell, in my map the sun WON'T move at all, why in the world I have to waste processing power to calculate a dynamic light in the entire map when it simply stand still all the time? Case 2 - In my game the sun needs to be dynamic. Just flag the light to be dynamic.
Even more, we now have more processing power so we can use HIGH resolution lightmaps (this means no jagged lightmaps) having the normal maps still working and being 100% correctly lit in the environment.
Sorry for the rant and the thread hijack, if you want we can continue in another thread (usually people ignore me and the discussion dies immediately)..
BTW, maybe I can post my scene so you guys can help me with the lighting stuff
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:43 pm :
Using the 5 lights tek over your your scene already enlightened is not the good way to go, cause your map/scene have actually a lot of overlapping lights, that's what kill your perfs when you add the 5 lights.
Plus that's really depend on needs, but for a city night scene, you could do a good ambient with only 3 lights with one casting shadows, or 2 lights without the moon shadows:
1) parallele, centered at -256, -256, 256
2) parallele, centered at 256, 256, -256
3) parallele, centered at what you want, casting shadows. (optional)
That's just an idea...
About Visportals, Q4 have great distance visportals that fade in/out at choosen distance (in the mtr).
Only problem is that you got to use it with fog (or anything that can hide closed portals to player view).
(and it seems slow at BSP)
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:46 pm :
Using two parallel lights and an ambient light is of course very efficient. However, you can see in this screen shot that is using this three light system that some of the leaves are ok, but alot of them have far too much contrast from light to dark. That is the quintisential problem.
Ok, this second shot is using more lights, but the level of contrast over all the various leaves is far more consistent, and consistent with the suggested lighting conditions. Its an expensive system, but the quality of the render is much improved.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:19 pm :
I used a similar trick in a Q4 wip map, but only with 3 paralelles lights (placed in a triangle form, with the first centered at "0,-256,-128", the second at "-128,128,96" and the third at "128,128,96), plus a 4th one paralelle to the ground casting shadows and a shadowmap, it work fine too.
The only 'problem' is with round surfaces (like heads) you got a very unnoticable "lights transition zone".
(I think the first time i heard about this technique, i think it was on a kat's test map with a big rock in the middle of a rock scene, or maybe my memory play me... )
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:34 pm :
this is probably a stupid question, but I dont think it has been asked before in this thread: Are all these lights ok on performance in Doom3? The reason I ask this is that I learned Doomedit with the idea that 1 light is GREAT 2 lights is optimal, but anymore really start to slow it down. Do you have any sort of cool work arounds to this or something?
Second, Im not sure if you saw my thread in the pimping section, but I was wondering if you were in need of any sort skybox for this, and if so, I would LOVE to help you forward with this project by providing a high quality skybox. Let me know
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:38 am :
The myth of Source²>D3 can rest in peace....
nbrancaccio@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:02 am :
EWW god! Lets all abandon Doom3 now! This truely is a testiment to Carmack's lack of ability to program
(Very beautiful stuff man! keep up the great work! And I ask again... need any sort of Skybox? If so, let me know, I've got your back )
Dinky@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:35 am :
Wow man! I was really worried about performance on this map!!! OMG!! You did a fantastic job and I want you to hurry and RELEASE THIS!!!! I wanna see these textures and quality mapping running on my comp!
And my comp is nothing like yours, it's uber (just upgraded for Crysis).
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:23 am :
modern wrote:
DoomIII's lighting is a load of rubbish! Carmack is an idiot, and everyone should start using UE3, and Crysis.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
hehe, very nice demo of your work modern, please show us more .avi clips when you can
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:38 am :
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:20 pm :
Rayne wrote:
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
The point is however that using d3 lights you can produce a nice replica of real world outdoor ligting. People know you can use multiple lights but few people seem to do it well.
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:49 pm :
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:56 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
I still think for nighttime this would still look incredibly awesome with a day to evening transition showing the shadows getting longer and light fading. Instead of trying to beat engines like source at their own game, show off the stuff they can't match.
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:08 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem is the misleading concept that people have about DooM3 engine and its outdoor rendering possibilities...
DooM3 CAN RENDER outdoor stuff, the most problematic things you have to manage in this engine are the lack of bouncing light and the portal system. Every time I see someone posting a "doom3 can do outdoors" I only see huge terrain models, but NO-ONE cares to post a FINAL solution for these two problems. Usally people won't play demo maps created with only one purpose (showing huge terrain); people want interesting designs, outdoor and indoor locations blended seamlessy, with complex scripts, more than 5 lights in a map ( ) lots of enemies etc...
For that matter, Splash damage coded a different "portal" support for ET, the proof that vanilla doom3 it's not optimized for that kind of map type..
A demo like this it's obviously really cool, but it isn't taking into account other factors or possible variations of the scene.
I'm talking about this because I've got big problems in regard of lighting my scene. I've got a scene that's really similar to this one, an open, urban environment with lots of details... The problem arise since it's a night scene... I've got (just as I wrote in the previous post) streetlamps, and lots of other lights to manage. Normally, for a "horror style" corridor I simply can forget about bounced light (like in Id maps) but in a open environment, with the clear sky and a big moon in it totally pitch black areas looks simply wrong. The lighting of the scene is really bugging me, I can't find the right balance between good looking stuff, and a light setup that won't kill fps. I can't use the 5 lights setup showed in this thread, so my workflow it's really slow.
That's basically the only complain I have about DooM3 engine. You can't choose to use other ways to light up your map (and if you try to do things like lightmaps etc you have to do it in the painfull way).
The whole "unified lighting" stuff sounds really cool on paper, but you have to take into account considerations like "right now we can't do radiosity in real time" so we have to work around this. but simply removing all the stuff (like doom3 does) won't really produce only positive things.
That's what Ue3 and Crysis have IMHO more then doom engine: the possibility to CHOOSE! Case 1 - Hell, in my map the sun WON'T move at all, why in the world I have to waste processing power to calculate a dynamic light in the entire map when it simply stand still all the time? Case 2 - In my game the sun needs to be dynamic. Just flag the light to be dynamic.
Even more, we now have more processing power so we can use HIGH resolution lightmaps (this means no jagged lightmaps) having the normal maps still working and being 100% correctly lit in the environment.
Sorry for the rant and the thread hijack, if you want we can continue in another thread (usually people ignore me and the discussion dies immediately)..
BTW, maybe I can post my scene so you guys can help me with the lighting stuff
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:43 pm :
Using the 5 lights tek over your your scene already enlightened is not the good way to go, cause your map/scene have actually a lot of overlapping lights, that's what kill your perfs when you add the 5 lights.
Plus that's really depend on needs, but for a city night scene, you could do a good ambient with only 3 lights with one casting shadows, or 2 lights without the moon shadows:
1) parallele, centered at -256, -256, 256
2) parallele, centered at 256, 256, -256
3) parallele, centered at what you want, casting shadows. (optional)
That's just an idea...
About Visportals, Q4 have great distance visportals that fade in/out at choosen distance (in the mtr).
Only problem is that you got to use it with fog (or anything that can hide closed portals to player view).
(and it seems slow at BSP)
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:46 pm :
Using two parallel lights and an ambient light is of course very efficient. However, you can see in this screen shot that is using this three light system that some of the leaves are ok, but alot of them have far too much contrast from light to dark. That is the quintisential problem.
Ok, this second shot is using more lights, but the level of contrast over all the various leaves is far more consistent, and consistent with the suggested lighting conditions. Its an expensive system, but the quality of the render is much improved.
ratty redemption@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:43 pm :
modern, for night time scenes I too would use additive material shaders where ever possible, but I also unde
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:19 pm :
I used a similar trick in a Q4 wip map, but only with 3 paralelles lights (placed in a triangle form, with the first centered at "0,-256,-128", the second at "-128,128,96" and the third at "128,128,96), plus a 4th one paralelle to the ground casting shadows and a shadowmap, it work fine too.
The only 'problem' is with round surfaces (like heads) you got a very unnoticable "lights transition zone".
(I think the first time i heard about this technique, i think it was on a kat's test map with a big rock in the middle of a rock scene, or maybe my memory play me... )
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:34 pm :
this is probably a stupid question, but I dont think it has been asked before in this thread: Are all these lights ok on performance in Doom3? The reason I ask this is that I learned Doomedit with the idea that 1 light is GREAT 2 lights is optimal, but anymore really start to slow it down. Do you have any sort of cool work arounds to this or something?
Second, Im not sure if you saw my thread in the pimping section, but I was wondering if you were in need of any sort skybox for this, and if so, I would LOVE to help you forward with this project by providing a high quality skybox. Let me know
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
In short, the lighting system is intensive, but the fact that only one light is casting shadows helps, but I think the real killer is the same problem that DCDIT had. Having said that the streets could be turned into corridors, and the lighting system could be reduced to two or three lights. Here is a little video. It has the good, the bad and the ugly.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:38 am :
The myth of Source²>D3 can rest in peace....
nbrancaccio@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:02 am :
EWW god! Lets all abandon Doom3 now! This truely is a testiment to Carmack's lack of ability to program
(Very beautiful stuff man! keep up the great work! And I ask again... need any sort of Skybox? If so, let me know, I've got your back )
Dinky@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:35 am :
Wow man! I was really worried about performance on this map!!! OMG!! You did a fantastic job and I want you to hurry and RELEASE THIS!!!! I wanna see these textures and quality mapping running on my comp!
And my comp is nothing like yours, it's uber (just upgraded for Crysis).
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:23 am :
modern wrote:
DoomIII's lighting is a load of rubbish! Carmack is an idiot, and everyone should start using UE3, and Crysis.
Machine specs: 3ghz P4, 6800gt, 1.5gb ram. This machine scored a miserable 1600 on 3dmark 06.
hehe, very nice demo of your work modern, please show us more .avi clips when you can
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:38 am :
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:20 pm :
Rayne wrote:
From an artistic standpoint your work is a-m-a-z-i-n-g! Really great work...
For the whole lighting stuff...
"wow, DooM3 engine can render 5 lights all-together!!!11 "
I think that's an old story..
To really make something stunning Would you please change the color of the lights in your existing setup to match a night environment, and then add lots of lights like working streetlamps, shop's signs, small lamps attached to the building etc etc... This would really mean something...
The point is however that using d3 lights you can produce a nice replica of real world outdoor ligting. People know you can use multiple lights but few people seem to do it well.
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:49 pm :
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
Tron@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:56 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem with some other examples, is that they havent quite gone far enough, and as such they, unfortunately, tend to reinforce the opinion that Doom3 isnt capable of this.
Anyhow, its a moot point as ETQW will provide all the features we need to make these types of environments, easily and far more efficiently.
As for night time scenes, I would forget about making all lights dynamic and utilise additive blends.
I still think for nighttime this would still look incredibly awesome with a day to evening transition showing the shadows getting longer and light fading. Instead of trying to beat engines like source at their own game, show off the stuff they can't match.
Rayne@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:08 pm :
modern wrote:
The aim of the video was to create a clear demonstration. Showing that it is entirely posssible to consistantly light a variety of surface types from all directions, giving the impression of daylight, with a reasonable frame rate "on current hardware".
The problem is the misleading concept that people have about DooM3 engine and its outdoor rendering possibilities...
DooM3 CAN RENDER outdoor stuff, the most problematic things you have to manage in this engine are the lack of bouncing light and the portal system. Every time I see someone posting a "doom3 can do outdoors" I only see huge terrain models, but NO-ONE cares to post a FINAL solution for these two problems. Usally people won't play demo maps created with only one purpose (showing huge terrain); people want interesting designs, outdoor and indoor locations blended seamlessy, with complex scripts, more than 5 lights in a map ( ) lots of enemies etc...
For that matter, Splash damage coded a different "portal" support for ET, the proof that vanilla doom3 it's not optimized for that kind of map type..
A demo like this it's obviously really cool, but it isn't taking into account other factors or possible variations of the scene.
I'm talking about this because I've got big problems in regard of lighting my scene. I've got a scene that's really similar to this one, an open, urban environment with lots of details... The problem arise since it's a night scene... I've got (just as I wrote in the previous post) streetlamps, and lots of other lights to manage. Normally, for a "horror style" corridor I simply can forget about bounced light (like in Id maps) but in a open environment, with the clear sky and a big moon in it totally pitch black areas looks simply wrong. The lighting of the scene is really bugging me, I can't find the right balance between good looking stuff, and a light setup that won't kill fps. I can't use the 5 lights setup showed in this thread, so my workflow it's really slow.
That's basically the only complain I have about DooM3 engine. You can't choose to use other ways to light up your map (and if you try to do things like lightmaps etc you have to do it in the painfull way).
The whole "unified lighting" stuff sounds really cool on paper, but you have to take into account considerations like "right now we can't do radiosity in real time" so we have to work around this. but simply removing all the stuff (like doom3 does) won't really produce only positive things.
That's what Ue3 and Crysis have IMHO more then doom engine: the possibility to CHOOSE! Case 1 - Hell, in my map the sun WON'T move at all, why in the world I have to waste processing power to calculate a dynamic light in the entire map when it simply stand still all the time? Case 2 - In my game the sun needs to be dynamic. Just flag the light to be dynamic.
Even more, we now have more processing power so we can use HIGH resolution lightmaps (this means no jagged lightmaps) having the normal maps still working and being 100% correctly lit in the environment.
Sorry for the rant and the thread hijack, if you want we can continue in another thread (usually people ignore me and the discussion dies immediately)..
BTW, maybe I can post my scene so you guys can help me with the lighting stuff
6th Venom@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:43 pm :
Using the 5 lights tek over your your scene already enlightened is not the good way to go, cause your map/scene have actually a lot of overlapping lights, that's what kill your perfs when you add the 5 lights.
Plus that's really depend on needs, but for a city night scene, you could do a good ambient with only 3 lights with one casting shadows, or 2 lights without the moon shadows:
1) parallele, centered at -256, -256, 256
2) parallele, centered at 256, 256, -256
3) parallele, centered at what you want, casting shadows. (optional)
That's just an idea...
About Visportals, Q4 have great distance visportals that fade in/out at choosen distance (in the mtr).
Only problem is that you got to use it with fog (or anything that can hide closed portals to player view).
(and it seems slow at BSP)
modern@Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:46 pm :
Using two parallel lights and an ambient light is of course very efficient. However, you can see in this screen shot that is using this three light system that some of the leaves are ok, but alot of them have far too much contrast from light to dark. That is the quintisential problem.
Ok, this second shot is using more lights, but the level of contrast over all the various leaves is far more consistent, and consistent with the suggested lighting conditions. Its an expensive system, but the quality of the render is much improved.
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:36 pm :
This is with 4 parallel lights, 1 ambient, fog glare, and basic fog.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:41 pm :
Is this a "Washing Machines" factory? Still look cool.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:10 am :
Very nice looking This update got buried off the front page so I didnt notice it until today.
Can't wait to see more. Keep it up! Oh and as a bit of criticism, the shine on the door is a bit too blown out imho.
Lumpengnom@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:40 am :
Great image. I find the red tint too dominating.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:53 pm :
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
Anyway take a look:
Regards
modern@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:29 pm :
Salmony pink against cobalt blue are the main act!
The other colours are the supporting cast.
Andre Derain
Fauvism
Tron@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:44 pm :
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:48 am :
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Goodluck
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:59 am :
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:58 pm :
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good?
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:01 pm :
looks excellent
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:34 pm :
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck.
6th Venom@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:38 pm :
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:46 pm :
6th Venom wrote:
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:53 pm :
Regulator wrote:
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
Don't get me wrong, as I say I agree gameplay should come first and foremost, but what we're looking at here is purely experimentation and development to enhance the artistic qualities of a game.
shaviro@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:17 pm :
Oh please.
Do you honestly believe this "gameplay" is some sort of individual aspect of a game? If so, I must say that you really don't have a clue. A game consists of many different components. The result, the MIXTURE, of these components is the gameplay. Sure, if you spend all your time focusing on graphics, the game most like won't be fun to play, hence bad gameplay....but you can't pick out gameplay as an individual component of the game. That is borderline retarded. Some games will benefit a lot from astounding visuals while others won't. It's all about the formula.
The main components of the game here in a rough list:
Video
Audio
Action/Reaction
Story presentation
Some games focus on individual components and do well, others don't. However gameplay is the result of the mixture of these components. You can't start up a game and say you will be focusing on "good gameplay". That would be like saying you will be focusing on "entertaining movie" while producing a movie.
Gameplay = fun factor = Video + Audio + Action/Reaction + Story presentation.
Entertaining movie = fun factor = Video + Audio + Story Presentation
Some games need a huge visual impact (amazing environments or beautiful characters) in order to convey the story. Others need a lot in the audio department (sounds or music). Some focus almost entirely on action and reaction department while others are mainly focusing on the story.
Saying that a game like Doom3 has "0 gameplay" (Like I've seen you do, Regulator) is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read concerning the game. No offense, but please....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in general about games.
And on topic: I really love what you're doing here, Modern. The engine really CAN look like a next gen game just by upping the media. Good job :)
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:22 pm :
Koroshiya Ichi wrote:
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
imo this thread has nothing to do with gameplay
we know the d3 engine and d3 game can be a lot of fun to play, but what most of us didn't know, until people like modern did these technology and artistic tests, was how aesthetically pleasing the engine can be at producing well lit detailed areas.
whether they be large or small areas of the game world is also secondary here to the quality of the visuals both in texture use and lighting, again imo.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:29 pm :
I also agree with shaviro's post, 'gameplay' isn't an individual aspect of a game, but these technology and artistic tests don't need any action in them if the purpose is to test what can be done with textures and lighting.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:30 pm :
Ah, I thought its a playable map, but it seems its a cutscene. My apologies.
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:02 am Posts: 86 Location: New Jersey
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:02 am Posts: 86 Location: New Jersey
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good?
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck.
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
Don't get me wrong, as I say I agree gameplay should come first and foremost, but what we're looking at here is purely experimentation and development to enhance the artistic qualities of a game.
Oh please.
Do you honestly believe this "gameplay" is some sort of individual aspect of a game? If so, I must say that you really don't have a clue. A game consists of many different components. The result, the MIXTURE, of these components is the gameplay. Sure, if you spend all your time focusing on graphics, the game most like won't be fun to play, hence bad gameplay....but you can't pick out gameplay as an individual component of the game. That is borderline retarded. Some games will benefit a lot from astounding visuals while others won't. It's all about the formula.
The main components of the game here in a rough list:
Video
Audio
Action/Reaction
Story presentation
Some games focus on individual components and do well, others don't. However gameplay is the result of the mixture of these components. You can't start up a game and say you will be focusing on "good gameplay". That would be like saying you will be focusing on "entertaining movie" while producing a movie.
Gameplay = fun factor = Video + Audio + Action/Reaction + Story presentation.
Entertaining movie = fun factor = Video + Audio + Story Presentation
Some games need a huge visual impact (amazing environments or beautiful characters) in order to convey the story. Others need a lot in the audio department (sounds or music). Some focus almost entirely on action and reaction department while others are mainly focusing on the story.
Saying that a game like Doom3 has "0 gameplay" (Like I've seen you do, Regulator) is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read concerning the game. No offense, but please....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in general about games.
And on topic: I really love what you're doing here, Modern. The engine really CAN look like a next gen game just by upping the media. Good job :)
_________________ Team Future Chief Leading position on Doom3: Phobos
Last edited by shaviro on Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
Koroshiya Ichi wrote:
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
imo this thread has nothing to do with gameplay
we know the d3 engine and d3 game can be a lot of fun to play, but what most of us didn't know, until people like modern did these technology and artistic tests, was how aesthetically pleasing the engine can be at producing well lit detailed areas.
whether they be large or small areas of the game world is also secondary here to the quality of the visuals both in texture use and lighting, again imo.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
I also agree with shaviro's post, 'gameplay' isn't an individual aspect of a game, but these technology and artistic tests don't need any action in them if the purpose is to test what can be done with textures and lighting.
This is with 4 parallel lights, 1 ambient, fog glare, and basic fog.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:41 pm :
Is this a "Washing Machines" factory? Still look cool.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:10 am :
Very nice looking This update got buried off the front page so I didnt notice it until today.
Can't wait to see more. Keep it up! Oh and as a bit of criticism, the shine on the door is a bit too blown out imho.
Lumpengnom@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:40 am :
Great image. I find the red tint too dominating.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:53 pm :
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
Anyway take a look:
Regards
modern@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:29 pm :
Salmony pink against cobalt blue are the main act!
The other colours are the supporting cast.
Andre Derain
Fauvism
Tron@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:44 pm :
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:48 am :
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Goodluck
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:59 am :
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:58 pm :
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good?
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:01 pm :
looks excellent
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:34 pm :
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck.
6th Venom@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:38 pm :
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:46 pm :
6th Venom wrote:
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:53 pm :
Regulator wrote:
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
Don't get me wrong, as I say I agree gameplay should come first and foremost, but what we're looking at here is purely experimentation and development to enhance the artistic qualities of a game.
shaviro@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:17 pm :
Oh please.
Do you honestly believe this "gameplay" is some sort of individual aspect of a game? If so, I must say that you really don't have a clue. A game consists of many different components. The result, the MIXTURE, of these components is the gameplay. Sure, if you spend all your time focusing on graphics, the game most like won't be fun to play, hence bad gameplay....but you can't pick out gameplay as an individual component of the game. That is borderline retarded. Some games will benefit a lot from astounding visuals while others won't. It's all about the formula.
The main components of the game here in a rough list:
Video
Audio
Action/Reaction
Story presentation
Some games focus on individual components and do well, others don't. However gameplay is the result of the mixture of these components. You can't start up a game and say you will be focusing on "good gameplay". That would be like saying you will be focusing on "entertaining movie" while producing a movie.
Gameplay = fun factor = Video + Audio + Action/Reaction + Story presentation.
Entertaining movie = fun factor = Video + Audio + Story Presentation
Some games need a huge visual impact (amazing environments or beautiful characters) in order to convey the story. Others need a lot in the audio department (sounds or music). Some focus almost entirely on action and reaction department while others are mainly focusing on the story.
Saying that a game like Doom3 has "0 gameplay" (Like I've seen you do, Regulator) is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read concerning the game. No offense, but please....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in general about games.
And on topic: I really love what you're doing here, Modern. The engine really CAN look like a next gen game just by upping the media. Good job :)
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:22 pm :
Koroshiya Ichi wrote:
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
imo this thread has nothing to do with gameplay
we know the d3 engine and d3 game can be a lot of fun to play, but what most of us didn't know, until people like modern did these technology and artistic tests, was how aesthetically pleasing the engine can be at producing well lit detailed areas.
whether they be large or small areas of the game world is also secondary here to the quality of the visuals both in texture use and lighting, again imo.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:29 pm :
I also agree with shaviro's post, 'gameplay' isn't an individual aspect of a game, but these technology and artistic tests don't need any action in them if the purpose is to test what can be done with textures and lighting.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:30 pm :
Ah, I thought its a playable map, but it seems its a cutscene. My apologies.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:00 pm :
nbrancaccio
Its really frustrating to not be able to calibrate my monitors to a standard. I get depressed everytime I see my work on another monitor, because it always looks like it needs rebalancing.
I would say that the majority of video game content production involves making aesthetic choices (i would rather say that then call it stylised). The definite downside of th
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:36 pm :
This is with 4 parallel lights, 1 ambient, fog glare, and basic fog.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:41 pm :
Is this a "Washing Machines" factory? Still look cool.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:10 am :
Very nice looking This update got buried off the front page so I didnt notice it until today.
Can't wait to see more. Keep it up! Oh and as a bit of criticism, the shine on the door is a bit too blown out imho.
Lumpengnom@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:40 am :
Great image. I find the red tint too dominating.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:53 pm :
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
Anyway take a look:
Regards
modern@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:29 pm :
Salmony pink against cobalt blue are the main act!
The other colours are the supporting cast.
Andre Derain
Fauvism
Tron@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:44 pm :
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:48 am :
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Goodluck
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:59 am :
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:58 pm :
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good?
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:01 pm :
looks excellent
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:34 pm :
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck.
6th Venom@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:38 pm :
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:46 pm :
6th Venom wrote:
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:53 pm :
Regulator wrote:
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
Don't get me wrong, as I say I agree gameplay should come first and foremost, but what we're looking at here is purely experimentation and development to enhance the artistic qualities of a game.
shaviro@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:17 pm :
Oh please.
Do you honestly believe this "gameplay" is some sort of individual aspect of a game? If so, I must say that you really don't have a clue. A game consists of many different components. The result, the MIXTURE, of these components is the gameplay. Sure, if you spend all your time focusing on graphics, the game most like won't be fun to play, hence bad gameplay....but you can't pick out gameplay as an individual component of the game. That is borderline retarded. Some games will benefit a lot from astounding visuals while others won't. It's all about the formula.
The main components of the game here in a rough list:
Video
Audio
Action/Reaction
Story presentation
Some games focus on individual components and do well, others don't. However gameplay is the result of the mixture of these components. You can't start up a game and say you will be focusing on "good gameplay". That would be like saying you will be focusing on "entertaining movie" while producing a movie.
Gameplay = fun factor = Video + Audio + Action/Reaction + Story presentation.
Entertaining movie = fun factor = Video + Audio + Story Presentation
Some games need a huge visual impact (amazing environments or beautiful characters) in order to convey the story. Others need a lot in the audio department (sounds or music). Some focus almost entirely on action and reaction department while others are mainly focusing on the story.
Saying that a game like Doom3 has "0 gameplay" (Like I've seen you do, Regulator) is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read concerning the game. No offense, but please....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in general about games.
And on topic: I really love what you're doing here, Modern. The engine really CAN look like a next gen game just by upping the media. Good job :)
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:22 pm :
Koroshiya Ichi wrote:
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
imo this thread has nothing to do with gameplay
we know the d3 engine and d3 game can be a lot of fun to play, but what most of us didn't know, until people like modern did these technology and artistic tests, was how aesthetically pleasing the engine can be at producing well lit detailed areas.
whether they be large or small areas of the game world is also secondary here to the quality of the visuals both in texture use and lighting, again imo.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:29 pm :
I also agree with shaviro's post, 'gameplay' isn't an individual aspect of a game, but these technology and artistic tests don't need any action in them if the purpose is to test what can be done with textures and lighting.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:30 pm :
Ah, I thought its a playable map, but it seems its a cutscene. My apologies.
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:02 am Posts: 86 Location: New Jersey
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:02 am Posts: 86 Location: New Jersey
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good?
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck.
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
Don't get me wrong, as I say I agree gameplay should come first and foremost, but what we're looking at here is purely experimentation and development to enhance the artistic qualities of a game.
Oh please.
Do you honestly believe this "gameplay" is some sort of individual aspect of a game? If so, I must say that you really don't have a clue. A game consists of many different components. The result, the MIXTURE, of these components is the gameplay. Sure, if you spend all your time focusing on graphics, the game most like won't be fun to play, hence bad gameplay....but you can't pick out gameplay as an individual component of the game. That is borderline retarded. Some games will benefit a lot from astounding visuals while others won't. It's all about the formula.
The main components of the game here in a rough list:
Video
Audio
Action/Reaction
Story presentation
Some games focus on individual components and do well, others don't. However gameplay is the result of the mixture of these components. You can't start up a game and say you will be focusing on "good gameplay". That would be like saying you will be focusing on "entertaining movie" while producing a movie.
Gameplay = fun factor = Video + Audio + Action/Reaction + Story presentation.
Entertaining movie = fun factor = Video + Audio + Story Presentation
Some games need a huge visual impact (amazing environments or beautiful characters) in order to convey the story. Others need a lot in the audio department (sounds or music). Some focus almost entirely on action and reaction department while others are mainly focusing on the story.
Saying that a game like Doom3 has "0 gameplay" (Like I've seen you do, Regulator) is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read concerning the game. No offense, but please....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in general about games.
And on topic: I really love what you're doing here, Modern. The engine really CAN look like a next gen game just by upping the media. Good job :)
_________________ Team Future Chief Leading position on Doom3: Phobos
Last edited by shaviro on Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
Koroshiya Ichi wrote:
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
imo this thread has nothing to do with gameplay
we know the d3 engine and d3 game can be a lot of fun to play, but what most of us didn't know, until people like modern did these technology and artistic tests, was how aesthetically pleasing the engine can be at producing well lit detailed areas.
whether they be large or small areas of the game world is also secondary here to the quality of the visuals both in texture use and lighting, again imo.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
I also agree with shaviro's post, 'gameplay' isn't an individual aspect of a game, but these technology and artistic tests don't need any action in them if the purpose is to test what can be done with textures and lighting.
"There is no such thing as miracles or the supernatural... only cutting-edge
technology." ~Revolver Ocelot
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject: :
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
Anyway take a look:
Regards
modern@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:29 pm Post subject: :
Salmony pink against cobalt blue are the main act!
Last edited by modern on Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:28 am; edited 2 times in total
Tron@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:44 pm Post subject: :
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:48 am Post subject: :
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Goodluck
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:59 am Post subject: :
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:58 pm Post subject: :
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good? _________________ http://creativecommons.org/
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:01 pm Post subject: :
looks excellent
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:34 pm Post subject: :
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck. _________________ DOWNLOAD HOLYSHIT mod for DOOM3
6th Venom@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject: :
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:46 pm Post subject: :
6th Venom wrote:
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail. _________________ DOWNLOAD HOLYSHIT mod for DOOM3
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:36 pm :
This is with 4 parallel lights, 1 ambient, fog glare, and basic fog.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:41 pm :
Is this a "Washing Machines" factory? Still look cool.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:10 am :
Very nice looking This update got buried off the front page so I didnt notice it until today.
Can't wait to see more. Keep it up! Oh and as a bit of criticism, the shine on the door is a bit too blown out imho.
Lumpengnom@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:40 am :
Great image. I find the red tint too dominating.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:53 pm :
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
Anyway take a look:
Regards
modern@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:29 pm :
Salmony pink against cobalt blue are the main act!
The other colours are the supporting cast.
Andre Derain
Fauvism
Tron@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:44 pm :
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:48 am :
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Goodluck
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:59 am :
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:58 pm :
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good?
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:01 pm :
looks excellent
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:34 pm :
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck.
6th Venom@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:38 pm :
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:46 pm :
6th Venom wrote:
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:53 pm :
Regulator wrote:
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
Don't get me wrong, as I say I agree gameplay should come first and foremost, but what we're looking at here is purely experimentation and development to enhance the artistic qualities of a game.
shaviro@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:17 pm :
Oh please.
Do you honestly believe this "gameplay" is some sort of individual aspect of a game? If so, I must say that you really don't have a clue. A game consists of many different components. The result, the MIXTURE, of these components is the gameplay. Sure, if you spend all your time focusing on graphics, the game most like won't be fun to play, hence bad gameplay....but you can't pick out gameplay as an individual component of the game. That is borderline retarded. Some games will benefit a lot from astounding visuals while others won't. It's all about the formula.
The main components of the game here in a rough list:
Video
Audio
Action/Reaction
Story presentation
Some games focus on individual components and do well, others don't. However gameplay is the result of the mixture of these components. You can't start up a game and say you will be focusing on "good gameplay". That would be like saying you will be focusing on "entertaining movie" while producing a movie.
Gameplay = fun factor = Video + Audio + Action/Reaction + Story presentation.
Entertaining movie = fun factor = Video + Audio + Story Presentation
Some games need a huge visual impact (amazing environments or beautiful characters) in order to convey the story. Others need a lot in the audio department (sounds or music). Some focus almost entirely on action and reaction department while others are mainly focusing on the story.
Saying that a game like Doom3 has "0 gameplay" (Like I've seen you do, Regulator) is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read concerning the game. No offense, but please....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in general about games.
And on topic: I really love what you're doing here, Modern. The engine really CAN look like a next gen game just by upping the media. Good job :)
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:22 pm :
Koroshiya Ichi wrote:
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
imo this thread has nothing to do with gameplay
we know the d3 engine and d3 game can be a lot of fun to play, but what most of us didn't know, until people like modern did these technology and artistic tests, was how aesthetically pleasing the engine can be at producing well lit detailed areas.
whether they be large or small areas of the game world is also secondary here to the quality of the visuals both in texture use and lighting, again imo.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:29 pm :
I also agree with shaviro's post, 'gameplay' isn't an individual aspect of a game, but these technology and artistic tests don't need any action in them if the purpose is to test what can be done with textures and lighting.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:30 pm :
Ah, I thought its a playable map, but it seems its a cutscene. My apologies.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:00 pm :
nbrancaccio
Its really frustrating to not be able to calibrate my monitors to a standard. I get depressed everytime I see my work on another monitor, because it always looks like it needs rebalancing.
I would say that the majority of video game content production involves making aesthetic choices (i would rather say that then call it stylised). The definite downside of thi
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:36 pm :
This is with 4 parallel lights, 1 ambient, fog glare, and basic fog.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:41 pm :
Is this a "Washing Machines" factory? Still look cool.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:10 am :
Very nice looking This update got buried off the front page so I didnt notice it until today.
Can't wait to see more. Keep it up! Oh and as a bit of criticism, the shine on the door is a bit too blown out imho.
Lumpengnom@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:40 am :
Great image. I find the red tint too dominating.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:53 pm :
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
Anyway take a look:
Regards
modern@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:29 pm :
Salmony pink against cobalt blue are the main act!
The other colours are the supporting cast.
Andre Derain
Fauvism
Tron@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:44 pm :
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:48 am :
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Goodluck
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:59 am :
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:58 pm :
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good?
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:01 pm :
looks excellent
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:34 pm :
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck.
6th Venom@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:38 pm :
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:46 pm :
6th Venom wrote:
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:53 pm :
Regulator wrote:
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
Don't get me wrong, as I say I agree gameplay should come first and foremost, but what we're looking at here is purely experimentation and development to enhance the artistic qualities of a game.
shaviro@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:17 pm :
Oh please.
Do you honestly believe this "gameplay" is some sort of individual aspect of a game? If so, I must say that you really don't have a clue. A game consists of many different components. The result, the MIXTURE, of these components is the gameplay. Sure, if you spend all your time focusing on graphics, the game most like won't be fun to play, hence bad gameplay....but you can't pick out gameplay as an individual component of the game. That is borderline retarded. Some games will benefit a lot from astounding visuals while others won't. It's all about the formula.
The main components of the game here in a rough list:
Video
Audio
Action/Reaction
Story presentation
Some games focus on individual components and do well, others don't. However gameplay is the result of the mixture of these components. You can't start up a game and say you will be focusing on "good gameplay". That would be like saying you will be focusing on "entertaining movie" while producing a movie.
Gameplay = fun factor = Video + Audio + Action/Reaction + Story presentation.
Entertaining movie = fun factor = Video + Audio + Story Presentation
Some games need a huge visual impact (amazing environments or beautiful characters) in order to convey the story. Others need a lot in the audio department (sounds or music). Some focus almost entirely on action and reaction department while others are mainly focusing on the story.
Saying that a game like Doom3 has "0 gameplay" (Like I've seen you do, Regulator) is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read concerning the game. No offense, but please....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in general about games.
And on topic: I really love what you're doing here, Modern. The engine really CAN look like a next gen game just by upping the media. Good job :)
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:22 pm :
Koroshiya Ichi wrote:
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
imo this thread has nothing to do with gameplay
we know the d3 engine and d3 game can be a lot of fun to play, but what most of us didn't know, until people like modern did these technology and artistic tests, was how aesthetically pleasing the engine can be at producing well lit detailed areas.
whether they be large or small areas of the game world is also secondary here to the quality of the visuals both in texture use and lighting, again imo.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:29 pm :
I also agree with shaviro's post, 'gameplay' isn't an individual aspect of a game, but these technology and artistic tests don't need any action in them if the purpose is to test what can be done with textures and lighting.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:30 pm :
Ah, I thought its a playable map, but it seems its a cutscene. My apologies.
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:02 am Posts: 86 Location: New Jersey
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:02 am Posts: 86 Location: New Jersey
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good?
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck.
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
Don't get me wrong, as I say I agree gameplay should come first and foremost, but what we're looking at here is purely experimentation and development to enhance the artistic qualities of a game.
Oh please.
Do you honestly believe this "gameplay" is some sort of individual aspect of a game? If so, I must say that you really don't have a clue. A game consists of many different components. The result, the MIXTURE, of these components is the gameplay. Sure, if you spend all your time focusing on graphics, the game most like won't be fun to play, hence bad gameplay....but you can't pick out gameplay as an individual component of the game. That is borderline retarded. Some games will benefit a lot from astounding visuals while others won't. It's all about the formula.
The main components of the game here in a rough list:
Video
Audio
Action/Reaction
Story presentation
Some games focus on individual components and do well, others don't. However gameplay is the result of the mixture of these components. You can't start up a game and say you will be focusing on "good gameplay". That would be like saying you will be focusing on "entertaining movie" while producing a movie.
Gameplay = fun factor = Video + Audio + Action/Reaction + Story presentation.
Entertaining movie = fun factor = Video + Audio + Story Presentation
Some games need a huge visual impact (amazing environments or beautiful characters) in order to convey the story. Others need a lot in the audio department (sounds or music). Some focus almost entirely on action and reaction department while others are mainly focusing on the story.
Saying that a game like Doom3 has "0 gameplay" (Like I've seen you do, Regulator) is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read concerning the game. No offense, but please....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in general about games.
And on topic: I really love what you're doing here, Modern. The engine really CAN look like a next gen game just by upping the media. Good job :)
_________________ Team Future Chief Leading position on Doom3: Phobos
Last edited by shaviro on Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
Koroshiya Ichi wrote:
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
imo this thread has nothing to do with gameplay
we know the d3 engine and d3 game can be a lot of fun to play, but what most of us didn't know, until people like modern did these technology and artistic tests, was how aesthetically pleasing the engine can be at producing well lit detailed areas.
whether they be large or small areas of the game world is also secondary here to the quality of the visuals both in texture use and lighting, again imo.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
I also agree with shaviro's post, 'gameplay' isn't an individual aspect of a game, but these technology and artistic tests don't need any action in them if the purpose is to test what can be done with textures and lighting.
This is with 4 parallel lights, 1 ambient, fog glare, and basic fog.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:41 pm :
Is this a "Washing Machines" factory? Still look cool.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:10 am :
Very nice looking This update got buried off the front page so I didnt notice it until today.
Can't wait to see more. Keep it up! Oh and as a bit of criticism, the shine on the door is a bit too blown out imho.
Lumpengnom@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:40 am :
Great image. I find the red tint too dominating.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:53 pm :
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
Anyway take a look:
Regards
modern@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:29 pm :
Salmony pink against cobalt blue are the main act!
The other colours are the supporting cast.
Andre Derain
Fauvism
Tron@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:44 pm :
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:48 am :
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Goodluck
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:59 am :
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:58 pm :
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good?
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:01 pm :
looks excellent
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:34 pm :
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck.
6th Venom@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:38 pm :
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:46 pm :
6th Venom wrote:
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:53 pm :
Regulator wrote:
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
Don't get me wrong, as I say I agree gameplay should come first and foremost, but what we're looking at here is purely experimentation and development to enhance the artistic qualities of a game.
shaviro@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:17 pm :
Oh please.
Do you honestly believe this "gameplay" is some sort of individual aspect of a game? If so, I must say that you really don't have a clue. A game consists of many different components. The result, the MIXTURE, of these components is the gameplay. Sure, if you spend all your time focusing on graphics, the game most like won't be fun to play, hence bad gameplay....but you can't pick out gameplay as an individual component of the game. That is borderline retarded. Some games will benefit a lot from astounding visuals while others won't. It's all about the formula.
The main components of the game here in a rough list:
Video
Audio
Action/Reaction
Story presentation
Some games focus on individual components and do well, others don't. However gameplay is the result of the mixture of these components. You can't start up a game and say you will be focusing on "good gameplay". That would be like saying you will be focusing on "entertaining movie" while producing a movie.
Gameplay = fun factor = Video + Audio + Action/Reaction + Story presentation.
Entertaining movie = fun factor = Video + Audio + Story Presentation
Some games need a huge visual impact (amazing environments or beautiful characters) in order to convey the story. Others need a lot in the audio department (sounds or music). Some focus almost entirely on action and reaction department while others are mainly focusing on the story.
Saying that a game like Doom3 has "0 gameplay" (Like I've seen you do, Regulator) is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read concerning the game. No offense, but please....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in general about games.
And on topic: I really love what you're doing here, Modern. The engine really CAN look like a next gen game just by upping the media. Good job :)
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:22 pm :
Koroshiya Ichi wrote:
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
imo this thread has nothing to do with gameplay
we know the d3 engine and d3 game can be a lot of fun to play, but what most of us didn't know, until people like modern did these technology and artistic tests, was how aesthetically pleasing the engine can be at producing well lit detailed areas.
whether they be large or small areas of the game world is also secondary here to the quality of the visuals both in texture use and lighting, again imo.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:29 pm :
I also agree with shaviro's post, 'gameplay' isn't an individual aspect of a game, but these technology and artistic tests don't need any action in them if the purpose is to test what can be done with textures and lighting.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:30 pm :
Ah, I thought its a playable map, but it seems its a cutscene. My apologies.
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:02 am Posts: 86 Location: New Jersey
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:02 am Posts: 86 Location: New Jersey
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good?
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck.
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
Don't get me wrong, as I say I agree gameplay should come first and foremost, but what we're looking at here is purely experimentation and development to enhance the artistic qualities of a game.
Oh please.
Do you honestly believe this "gameplay" is some sort of individual aspect of a game? If so, I must say that you really don't have a clue. A game consists of many different components. The result, the MIXTURE, of these components is the gameplay. Sure, if you spend all your time focusing on graphics, the game most like won't be fun to play, hence bad gameplay....but you can't pick out gameplay as an individual component of the game. That is borderline retarded. Some games will benefit a lot from astounding visuals while others won't. It's all about the formula.
The main components of the game here in a rough list:
Video
Audio
Action/Reaction
Story presentation
Some games focus on individual components and do well, others don't. However gameplay is the result of the mixture of these components. You can't start up a game and say you will be focusing on "good gameplay". That would be like saying you will be focusing on "entertaining movie" while producing a movie.
Gameplay = fun factor = Video + Audio + Action/Reaction + Story presentation.
Entertaining movie = fun factor = Video + Audio + Story Presentation
Some games need a huge visual impact (amazing environments or beautiful characters) in order to convey the story. Others need a lot in the audio department (sounds or music). Some focus almost entirely on action and reaction department while others are mainly focusing on the story.
Saying that a game like Doom3 has "0 gameplay" (Like I've seen you do, Regulator) is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read concerning the game. No offense, but please....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in general about games.
And on topic: I really love what you're doing here, Modern. The engine really CAN look like a next gen game just by upping the media. Good job :)
_________________ Team Future Chief Leading position on Doom3: Phobos
Last edited by shaviro on Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
Koroshiya Ichi wrote:
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
imo this thread has nothing to do with gameplay
we know the d3 engine and d3 game can be a lot of fun to play, but what most of us didn't know, until people like modern did these technology and artistic tests, was how aesthetically pleasing the engine can be at producing well lit detailed areas.
whether they be large or small areas of the game world is also secondary here to the quality of the visuals both in texture use and lighting, again imo.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
I also agree with shaviro's post, 'gameplay' isn't an individual aspect of a game, but these technology and artistic tests don't need any action in them if the purpose is to test what can be done with textures and lighting.
"There is no such thing as miracles or the supernatural... only cutting-edge
technology." ~Revolver Ocelot
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject: :
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
Anyway take a look:
Regards
modern@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:29 pm Post subject: :
Salmony pink against cobalt blue are the main act!
Last edited by modern on Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:28 am; edited 2 times in total
Tron@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:44 pm Post subject: :
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:48 am Post subject: :
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Goodluck
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:59 am Post subject: :
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:58 pm Post subject: :
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good? _________________ http://creativecommons.org/
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:01 pm Post subject: :
looks excellent
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:34 pm Post subject: :
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck. _________________ DOWNLOAD HOLYSHIT mod for DOOM3
6th Venom@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject: :
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:46 pm Post subject: :
6th Venom wrote:
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail. _________________ DOWNLOAD HOLYSHIT mod for DOOM3
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:36 pm :
This is with 4 parallel lights, 1 ambient, fog glare, and basic fog.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:41 pm :
Is this a "Washing Machines" factory? Still look cool.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:10 am :
Very nice looking This update got buried off the front page so I didnt notice it until today.
Can't wait to see more. Keep it up! Oh and as a bit of criticism, the shine on the door is a bit too blown out imho.
Lumpengnom@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:40 am :
Great image. I find the red tint too dominating.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:53 pm :
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
Anyway take a look:
Regards
modern@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:29 pm :
Salmony pink against cobalt blue are the main act!
The other colours are the supporting cast.
Andre Derain
Fauvism
Tron@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:44 pm :
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:48 am :
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Goodluck
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:59 am :
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:58 pm :
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good?
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:01 pm :
looks excellent
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:34 pm :
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck.
6th Venom@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:38 pm :
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:46 pm :
6th Venom wrote:
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:53 pm :
Regulator wrote:
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
Don't get me wrong, as I say I agree gameplay should come first and foremost, but what we're looking at here is purely experimentation and development to enhance the artistic qualities of a game.
shaviro@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:17 pm :
Oh please.
Do you honestly believe this "gameplay" is some sort of individual aspect of a game? If so, I must say that you really don't have a clue. A game consists of many different components. The result, the MIXTURE, of these components is the gameplay. Sure, if you spend all your time focusing on graphics, the game most like won't be fun to play, hence bad gameplay....but you can't pick out gameplay as an individual component of the game. That is borderline retarded. Some games will benefit a lot from astounding visuals while others won't. It's all about the formula.
The main components of the game here in a rough list:
Video
Audio
Action/Reaction
Story presentation
Some games focus on individual components and do well, others don't. However gameplay is the result of the mixture of these components. You can't start up a game and say you will be focusing on "good gameplay". That would be like saying you will be focusing on "entertaining movie" while producing a movie.
Gameplay = fun factor = Video + Audio + Action/Reaction + Story presentation.
Entertaining movie = fun factor = Video + Audio + Story Presentation
Some games need a huge visual impact (amazing environments or beautiful characters) in order to convey the story. Others need a lot in the audio department (sounds or music). Some focus almost entirely on action and reaction department while others are mainly focusing on the story.
Saying that a game like Doom3 has "0 gameplay" (Like I've seen you do, Regulator) is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read concerning the game. No offense, but please....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in general about games.
And on topic: I really love what you're doing here, Modern. The engine really CAN look like a next gen game just by upping the media. Good job :)
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:22 pm :
Koroshiya Ichi wrote:
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
imo this thread has nothing to do with gameplay
we know the d3 engine and d3 game can be a lot of fun to play, but what most of us didn't know, until people like modern did these technology and artistic tests, was how aesthetically pleasing the engine can be at producing well lit detailed areas.
whether they be large or small areas of the game world is also secondary here to the quality of the visuals both in texture use and lighting, again imo.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:29 pm :
I also agree with shaviro's post, 'gameplay' isn't an individual aspect of a game, but these technology and artistic tests don't need any action in them if the purpose is to test what can be done with textures and lighting.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:30 pm :
Ah, I thought its a playable map, but it seems its a cutscene. My apologies.
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:02 am Posts: 86 Location: New Jersey
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:02 am Posts: 86 Location: New Jersey
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good?
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck.
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
Don't get me wrong, as I say I agree gameplay should come first and foremost, but what we're looking at here is purely experimentation and development to enhance the artistic qualities of a game.
Oh please.
Do you honestly believe this "gameplay" is some sort of individual aspect of a game? If so, I must say that you really don't have a clue. A game consists of many different components. The result, the MIXTURE, of these components is the gameplay. Sure, if you spend all your time focusing on graphics, the game most like won't be fun to play, hence bad gameplay....but you can't pick out gameplay as an individual component of the game. That is borderline retarded. Some games will benefit a lot from astounding visuals while others won't. It's all about the formula.
The main components of the game here in a rough list:
Video
Audio
Action/Reaction
Story presentation
Some games focus on individual components and do well, others don't. However gameplay is the result of the mixture of these components. You can't start up a game and say you will be focusing on "good gameplay". That would be like saying you will be focusing on "entertaining movie" while producing a movie.
Gameplay = fun factor = Video + Audio + Action/Reaction + Story presentation.
Entertaining movie = fun factor = Video + Audio + Story Presentation
Some games need a huge visual impact (amazing environments or beautiful characters) in order to convey the story. Others need a lot in the audio department (sounds or music). Some focus almost entirely on action and reaction department while others are mainly focusing on the story.
Saying that a game like Doom3 has "0 gameplay" (Like I've seen you do, Regulator) is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read concerning the game. No offense, but please....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in general about games.
And on topic: I really love what you're doing here, Modern. The engine really CAN look like a next gen game just by upping the media. Good job :)
_________________ Team Future Chief Leading position on Doom3: Phobos
Last edited by shaviro on Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
Koroshiya Ichi wrote:
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
imo this thread has nothing to do with gameplay
we know the d3 engine and d3 game can be a lot of fun to play, but what most of us didn't know, until people like modern did these technology and artistic tests, was how aesthetically pleasing the engine can be at producing well lit detailed areas.
whether they be large or small areas of the game world is also secondary here to the quality of the visuals both in texture use and lighting, again imo.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
I also agree with shaviro's post, 'gameplay' isn't an individual aspect of a game, but these technology and artistic tests don't need any action in them if the purpose is to test what can be done with textures and lighting.
This is with 4 parallel lights, 1 ambient, fog glare, and basic fog.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:41 pm :
Is this a "Washing Machines" factory? Still look cool.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:10 am :
Very nice looking This update got buried off the front page so I didnt notice it until today.
Can't wait to see more. Keep it up! Oh and as a bit of criticism, the shine on the door is a bit too blown out imho.
Lumpengnom@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:40 am :
Great image. I find the red tint too dominating.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:53 pm :
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
Anyway take a look:
Regards
modern@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:29 pm :
Salmony pink against cobalt blue are the main act!
The other colours are the supporting cast.
Andre Derain
Fauvism
Tron@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:44 pm :
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:48 am :
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Goodluck
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:59 am :
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:58 pm :
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good?
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:01 pm :
looks excellent
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:34 pm :
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck.
6th Venom@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:38 pm :
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:46 pm :
6th Venom wrote:
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:53 pm :
Regulator wrote:
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
Don't get me wrong, as I say I agree gameplay should come first and foremost, but what we're looking at here is purely experimentation and development to enhance the artistic qualities of a game.
shaviro@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:17 pm :
Oh please.
Do you honestly believe this "gameplay" is some sort of individual aspect of a game? If so, I must say that you really don't have a clue. A game consists of many different components. The result, the MIXTURE, of these components is the gameplay. Sure, if you spend all your time focusing on graphics, the game most like won't be fun to play, hence bad gameplay....but you can't pick out gameplay as an individual component of the game. That is borderline retarded. Some games will benefit a lot from astounding visuals while others won't. It's all about the formula.
The main components of the game here in a rough list:
Video
Audio
Action/Reaction
Story presentation
Some games focus on individual components and do well, others don't. However gameplay is the result of the mixture of these components. You can't start up a game and say you will be focusing on "good gameplay". That would be like saying you will be focusing on "entertaining movie" while producing a movie.
Gameplay = fun factor = Video + Audio + Action/Reaction + Story presentation.
Entertaining movie = fun factor = Video + Audio + Story Presentation
Some games need a huge visual impact (amazing environments or beautiful characters) in order to convey the story. Others need a lot in the audio department (sounds or music). Some focus almost entirely on action and reaction department while others are mainly focusing on the story.
Saying that a game like Doom3 has "0 gameplay" (Like I've seen you do, Regulator) is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read concerning the game. No offense, but please....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in general about games.
And on topic: I really love what you're doing here, Modern. The engine really CAN look like a next gen game just by upping the media. Good job :)
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:22 pm :
Koroshiya Ichi wrote:
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
imo this thread has nothing to do with gameplay
we know the d3 engine and d3 game can be a lot of fun to play, but what most of us didn't know, until people like modern did these technology and artistic tests, was how aesthetically pleasing the engine can be at producing well lit detailed areas.
whether they be large or small areas of the game world is also secondary here to the quality of the visuals both in texture use and lighting, again imo.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:29 pm :
I also agree with shaviro's post, 'gameplay' isn't an individual aspect of a game, but these technology and artistic tests don't need any action in them if the purpose is to test what can be done with textures and lighting.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:30 pm :
Ah, I thought its a playable map, but it seems its a cutscene. My apologies.
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:02 am Posts: 86 Location: New Jersey
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:02 am Posts: 86 Location: New Jersey
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:21 pm Posts: 494 Location: Back in the UK!
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good?
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck.
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:42 am Posts: 1172 Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
Don't get me wrong, as I say I agree gameplay should come first and foremost, but what we're looking at here is purely experimentation and development to enhance the artistic qualities of a game.
Oh please.
Do you honestly believe this "gameplay" is some sort of individual aspect of a game? If so, I must say that you really don't have a clue. A game consists of many different components. The result, the MIXTURE, of these components is the gameplay. Sure, if you spend all your time focusing on graphics, the game most like won't be fun to play, hence bad gameplay....but you can't pick out gameplay as an individual component of the game. That is borderline retarded. Some games will benefit a lot from astounding visuals while others won't. It's all about the formula.
The main components of the game here in a rough list:
Video
Audio
Action/Reaction
Story presentation
Some games focus on individual components and do well, others don't. However gameplay is the result of the mixture of these components. You can't start up a game and say you will be focusing on "good gameplay". That would be like saying you will be focusing on "entertaining movie" while producing a movie.
Gameplay = fun factor = Video + Audio + Action/Reaction + Story presentation.
Entertaining movie = fun factor = Video + Audio + Story Presentation
Some games need a huge visual impact (amazing environments or beautiful characters) in order to convey the story. Others need a lot in the audio department (sounds or music). Some focus almost entirely on action and reaction department while others are mainly focusing on the story.
Saying that a game like Doom3 has "0 gameplay" (Like I've seen you do, Regulator) is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read concerning the game. No offense, but please....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in general about games.
And on topic: I really love what you're doing here, Modern. The engine really CAN look like a next gen game just by upping the media. Good job :)
_________________ Team Future Chief Leading position on Doom3: Phobos
Last edited by shaviro on Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
Koroshiya Ichi wrote:
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
imo this thread has nothing to do with gameplay
we know the d3 engine and d3 game can be a lot of fun to play, but what most of us didn't know, until people like modern did these technology and artistic tests, was how aesthetically pleasing the engine can be at producing well lit detailed areas.
whether they be large or small areas of the game world is also secondary here to the quality of the visuals both in texture use and lighting, again imo.
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 951 Location: milton keynes, england
I also agree with shaviro's post, 'gameplay' isn't an individual aspect of a game, but these technology and artistic tests don't need any action in them if the purpose is to test what can be done with textures and lighting.
This is with 4 parallel lights, 1 ambient, fog glare, and basic fog.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:41 pm :
Is this a "Washing Machines" factory? Still look cool.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:10 am :
Very nice looking This update got buried off the front page so I didnt notice it until today.
Can't wait to see more. Keep it up! Oh and as a bit of criticism, the shine on the door is a bit too blown out imho.
Lumpengnom@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:40 am :
Great image. I find the red tint too dominating.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:53 pm :
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
Anyway take a look:
Regards
modern@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:29 pm :
Salmony pink against cobalt blue are the main act!
The other colours are the supporting cast.
Andre Derain
Fauvism
Tron@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:44 pm :
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:48 am :
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Goodluck
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:59 am :
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:58 pm :
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good?
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:01 pm :
looks excellent
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:34 pm :
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck.
6th Venom@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:38 pm :
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:46 pm :
6th Venom wrote:
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:53 pm :
Regulator wrote:
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
Don't get me wrong, as I say I agree gameplay should come first and foremost, but what we're looking at here is purely experimentation and development to enhance the artistic qualities of a game.
shaviro@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:17 pm :
Oh please.
Do you honestly believe this "gameplay" is some sort of individual aspect of a game? If so, I must say that you really don't have a clue. A game consists of many different components. The result, the MIXTURE, of these components is the gameplay. Sure, if you spend all your time focusing on graphics, the game most like won't be fun to play, hence bad gameplay....but you can't pick out gameplay as an individual component of the game. That is borderline retarded. Some games will benefit a lot from astounding visuals while others won't. It's all about the formula.
The main components of the game here in a rough list:
Video
Audio
Action/Reaction
Story presentation
Some games focus on individual components and do well, others don't. However gameplay is the result of the mixture of these components. You can't start up a game and say you will be focusing on "good gameplay". That would be like saying you will be focusing on "entertaining movie" while producing a movie.
Gameplay = fun factor = Video + Audio + Action/Reaction + Story presentation.
Entertaining movie = fun factor = Video + Audio + Story Presentation
Some games need a huge visual impact (amazing environments or beautiful characters) in order to convey the story. Others need a lot in the audio department (sounds or music). Some focus almost entirely on action and reaction department while others are mainly focusing on the story.
Saying that a game like Doom3 has "0 gameplay" (Like I've seen you do, Regulator) is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read concerning the game. No offense, but please....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in general about games.
And on topic: I really love what you're doing here, Modern. The engine really CAN look like a next gen game just by upping the media. Good job :)
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:22 pm :
Koroshiya Ichi wrote:
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
imo this thread has nothing to do with gameplay
we know the d3 engine and d3 game can be a lot of fun to play, but what most of us didn't know, until people like modern did these technology and artistic tests, was how aesthetically pleasing the engine can be at producing well lit detailed areas.
whether they be large or small areas of the game world is also secondary here to the quality of the visuals both in texture use and lighting, again imo.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:29 pm :
I also agree with shaviro's post, 'gameplay' isn't an individual aspect of a game, but these technology and artistic tests don't need any action in them if the purpose is to test what can be done with textures and lighting.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:30 pm :
Ah, I thought its a playable map, but it seems its a cutscene. My apologies.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:00 pm :
nbrancaccio
Its really frustrating to not be able to calibrate my monitors to a standard. I get depressed everytime I see my work on another monitor, because it always looks like it needs rebalancing.
I would say that the majority of video game content production involves making aesthetic choices (i would rather say that then call it stylised). The defin
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:36 pm :
This is with 4 parallel lights, 1 ambient, fog glare, and basic fog.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:41 pm :
Is this a "Washing Machines" factory? Still look cool.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:10 am :
Very nice looking This update got buried off the front page so I didnt notice it until today.
Can't wait to see more. Keep it up! Oh and as a bit of criticism, the shine on the door is a bit too blown out imho.
Lumpengnom@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:40 am :
Great image. I find the red tint too dominating.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:53 pm :
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
Anyway take a look:
Regards
modern@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:29 pm :
Salmony pink against cobalt blue are the main act!
The other colours are the supporting cast.
Andre Derain
Fauvism
Tron@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:44 pm :
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:48 am :
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Goodluck
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:59 am :
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:58 pm :
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good?
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:01 pm :
looks excellent
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:34 pm :
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck.
6th Venom@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:38 pm :
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:46 pm :
6th Venom wrote:
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:53 pm :
Regulator wrote:
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
Don't get me wrong, as I say I agree gameplay should come first and foremost, but what we're looking at here is purely experimentation and development to enhance the artistic qualities of a game.
shaviro@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:17 pm :
Oh please.
Do you honestly believe this "gameplay" is some sort of individual aspect of a game? If so, I must say that you really don't have a clue. A game consists of many different components. The result, the MIXTURE, of these components is the gameplay. Sure, if you spend all your time focusing on graphics, the game most like won't be fun to play, hence bad gameplay....but you can't pick out gameplay as an individual component of the game. That is borderline retarded. Some games will benefit a lot from astounding visuals while others won't. It's all about the formula.
The main components of the game here in a rough list:
Video
Audio
Action/Reaction
Story presentation
Some games focus on individual components and do well, others don't. However gameplay is the result of the mixture of these components. You can't start up a game and say you will be focusing on "good gameplay". That would be like saying you will be focusing on "entertaining movie" while producing a movie.
Gameplay = fun factor = Video + Audio + Action/Reaction + Story presentation.
Entertaining movie = fun factor = Video + Audio + Story Presentation
Some games need a huge visual impact (amazing environments or beautiful characters) in order to convey the story. Others need a lot in the audio department (sounds or music). Some focus almost entirely on action and reaction department while others are mainly focusing on the story.
Saying that a game like Doom3 has "0 gameplay" (Like I've seen you do, Regulator) is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read concerning the game. No offense, but please....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in general about games.
And on topic: I really love what you're doing here, Modern. The engine really CAN look like a next gen game just by upping the media. Good job :)
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:22 pm :
Koroshiya Ichi wrote:
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
imo this thread has nothing to do with gameplay
we know the d3 engine and d3 game can be a lot of fun to play, but what most of us didn't know, until people like modern did these technology and artistic tests, was how aesthetically pleasing the engine can be at producing well lit detailed areas.
whether they be large or small areas of the game world is also secondary here to the quality of the visuals both in texture use and lighting, again imo.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:29 pm :
I also agree with shaviro's post, 'gameplay' isn't an individual aspect of a game, but these technology and artistic tests don't need any action in them if the purpose is to test what can be done with textures and lighting.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:30 pm :
Ah, I thought its a playable map, but it seems its a cutscene. My apologies.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:00 pm :
nbrancaccio
Its really frustrating to not be able to calibrate my monitors to a standard. I get depressed everytime I see my work on another monitor, because it always looks like it needs rebalancing.
I would say that the majority of video game content production involves making aesthetic choices (i would rather say that then call it stylised). The definite downside of thi
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:36 pm :
This is with 4 parallel lights, 1 ambient, fog glare, and basic fog.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:41 pm :
Is this a "Washing Machines" factory? Still look cool.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:10 am :
Very nice looking This update got buried off the front page so I didnt notice it until today.
Can't wait to see more. Keep it up! Oh and as a bit of criticism, the shine on the door is a bit too blown out imho.
Lumpengnom@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:40 am :
Great image. I find the red tint too dominating.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:53 pm :
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
Anyway take a look:
Regards
modern@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:29 pm :
Salmony pink against cobalt blue are the main act!
The other colours are the supporting cast.
Andre Derain
Fauvism
Tron@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:44 pm :
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:48 am :
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Goodluck
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:59 am :
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:58 pm :
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good?
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:01 pm :
looks excellent
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:34 pm :
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck.
6th Venom@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:38 pm :
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:46 pm :
6th Venom wrote:
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:53 pm :
Regulator wrote:
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
Don't get me wrong, as I say I agree gameplay should come first and foremost, but what we're looking at here is purely experimentation and development to enhance the artistic qualities of a game.
shaviro@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:17 pm :
Oh please.
Do you honestly believe this "gameplay" is some sort of individual aspect of a game? If so, I must say that you really don't have a clue. A game consists of many different components. The result, the MIXTURE, of these components is the gameplay. Sure, if you spend all your time focusing on graphics, the game most like won't be fun to play, hence bad gameplay....but you can't pick out gameplay as an individual component of the game. That is borderline retarded. Some games will benefit a lot from astounding visuals while others won't. It's all about the formula.
The main components of the game here in a rough list:
Video
Audio
Action/Reaction
Story presentation
Some games focus on individual components and do well, others don't. However gameplay is the result of the mixture of these components. You can't start up a game and say you will be focusing on "good gameplay". That would be like saying you will be focusing on "entertaining movie" while producing a movie.
Gameplay = fun factor = Video + Audio + Action/Reaction + Story presentation.
Entertaining movie = fun factor = Video + Audio + Story Presentation
Some games need a huge visual impact (amazing environments or beautiful characters) in order to convey the story. Others need a lot in the audio department (sounds or music). Some focus almost entirely on action and reaction department while others are mainly focusing on the story.
Saying that a game like Doom3 has "0 gameplay" (Like I've seen you do, Regulator) is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read concerning the game. No offense, but please....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in general about games.
And on topic: I really love what you're doing here, Modern. The engine really CAN look like a next gen game just by upping the media. Good job :)
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:22 pm :
Koroshiya Ichi wrote:
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
imo this thread has nothing to do with gameplay
we know the d3 engine and d3 game can be a lot of fun to play, but what most of us didn't know, until people like modern did these technology and artistic tests, was how aesthetically pleasing the engine can be at producing well lit detailed areas.
whether they be large or small areas of the game world is also secondary here to the quality of the visuals both in texture use and lighting, again imo.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:29 pm :
I also agree with shaviro's post, 'gameplay' isn't an individual aspect of a game, but these technology and artistic tests don't need any action in them if the purpose is to test what can be done with textures and lighting.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:30 pm :
Ah, I thought its a playable map, but it seems its a cutscene. My apologies.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:00 pm :
nbrancaccio
Its really frustrating to not be able to calibrate my monitors to a standard. I get depressed everytime I see my work on another monitor, because it always looks like it needs rebalancing.
I would say that the majority of video game content production involves making aesthetic choices (i would rather say that then call it stylised). The definite downside of th
modern@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:36 pm :
This is with 4 parallel lights, 1 ambient, fog glare, and basic fog.
6th Venom@Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:41 pm :
Is this a "Washing Machines" factory? Still look cool.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:10 am :
Very nice looking This update got buried off the front page so I didnt notice it until today.
Can't wait to see more. Keep it up! Oh and as a bit of criticism, the shine on the door is a bit too blown out imho.
Lumpengnom@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:40 am :
Great image. I find the red tint too dominating.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:53 pm :
Ah yeah good point I agree, You should go through another one of your color correction passes to make some tweeks, as over all the image is too red/magenta.
I've taken the liberty of tweaking your screenshot, correcting the hue, saturation, and values in your image to be what I believe to look better (I used a process as if I was making a photographic print)
My monitor is percision color corrected with a Huey device, so you can rest assure, it isn't just my end that is producing the need for correction.
It's a lot of minor tweeks, but I believe it should help greatly in making your map far more convincing.
Anyway take a look:
Regards
modern@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:29 pm :
Salmony pink against cobalt blue are the main act!
The other colours are the supporting cast.
Andre Derain
Fauvism
Tron@Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:44 pm :
While that door does look out of place at the moment (far too shiny and bumpy compared to the rest of the scene) I have to say I like the colouration. Feels like a late afternoon type of light.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:48 am :
Ah cool, then In that case, it definatly works. I didn't realize you were going for a slightly more stylized, fauvist-esque type of approach. Its actually quite interesting given the fact that your subject is a dirty, grimy streets. Quite contrasting looks, but in an interesting way.
I am actually starting to like the color choice on your door as well, though i do think it needs to be retextured. As tron said, it's far too shiny and bumpy. Fixed up however, it would look great
Goodluck
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:59 am :
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:58 pm :
Regulator wrote:
Dont forget its not a painting, but a game.
Funny you should say that because video game visuals are derived from painting in many ways. If you dont want to understand what makes a painting look good, how are you going to know what makes a video game look good?
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:01 pm :
looks excellent
is there any chance you got post that same screenshot but with "r_showtris" activated? I'm very curious to see just how much of the image is balanced between good textures and poly detail.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:34 pm :
The gameplay is the most important in the game and not the picture. If you keep concetrating on the picture mostly then the game most likely will suck.
6th Venom@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:38 pm :
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it.
Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...
If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:46 pm :
6th Venom wrote:
A good game is far more than just a good gameplay, and you know it. Games are the result of all arts, music, visual, storytell, mathematics, etc...If you got one exceptionnel, but all others wrong, it will not be a good game.
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:53 pm :
Regulator wrote:
The visuals etc. are secondary, first is the gameplay. Some devs do the oposite and fail.
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
Don't get me wrong, as I say I agree gameplay should come first and foremost, but what we're looking at here is purely experimentation and development to enhance the artistic qualities of a game.
shaviro@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:17 pm :
Oh please.
Do you honestly believe this "gameplay" is some sort of individual aspect of a game? If so, I must say that you really don't have a clue. A game consists of many different components. The result, the MIXTURE, of these components is the gameplay. Sure, if you spend all your time focusing on graphics, the game most like won't be fun to play, hence bad gameplay....but you can't pick out gameplay as an individual component of the game. That is borderline retarded. Some games will benefit a lot from astounding visuals while others won't. It's all about the formula.
The main components of the game here in a rough list:
Video
Audio
Action/Reaction
Story presentation
Some games focus on individual components and do well, others don't. However gameplay is the result of the mixture of these components. You can't start up a game and say you will be focusing on "good gameplay". That would be like saying you will be focusing on "entertaining movie" while producing a movie.
Gameplay = fun factor = Video + Audio + Action/Reaction + Story presentation.
Entertaining movie = fun factor = Video + Audio + Story Presentation
Some games need a huge visual impact (amazing environments or beautiful characters) in order to convey the story. Others need a lot in the audio department (sounds or music). Some focus almost entirely on action and reaction department while others are mainly focusing on the story.
Saying that a game like Doom3 has "0 gameplay" (Like I've seen you do, Regulator) is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read concerning the game. No offense, but please....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in general about games.
And on topic: I really love what you're doing here, Modern. The engine really CAN look like a next gen game just by upping the media. Good job :)
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:22 pm :
Koroshiya Ichi wrote:
As much as I agree that gameplay is the priority, it's of little relevance here as modern was demonstrating a piece of art, not a game. The focus all along has been on creating an immersive, creative and high quality piece of visual work, not a fun game therefore the politics of how developers should balance gameplay/aesthetic aspects is completely irrelevant.
If the thread had started with 'hey people look at this game i'm building' I would be far more concerned with the state of gameplay as so far all we've seen are (extremely) pretty screenshots. As it is, this is not the focus here, the focus is on the art, and in this respect the gameplay is of little consequence.
imo this thread has nothing to do with gameplay
we know the d3 engine and d3 game can be a lot of fun to play, but what most of us didn't know, until people like modern did these technology and artistic tests, was how aesthetically pleasing the engine can be at producing well lit detailed areas.
whether they be large or small areas of the game world is also secondary here to the quality of the visuals both in texture use and lighting, again imo.
ratty redemption@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:29 pm :
I also agree with shaviro's post, 'gameplay' isn't an individual aspect of a game, but these technology and artistic tests don't need any action in them if the purpose is to test what can be done with textures and lighting.
Regulator@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:30 pm :
Ah, I thought its a playable map, but it seems its a cutscene. My apologies.
modern@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:00 pm :
nbrancaccio
Its really frustrating to not be able to calibrate my monitors to a standard. I get depressed everytime I see my work on another monitor, because it always looks like it needs rebalancing.
I would say that the majority of video game content production involves making aesthetic choices (i would rather say that then call it stylised). The definite downside of th
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:33 pm Post subject: :
Ah yeah thanks for the reply.
Yes, I didn't mean stylized in this sense (anime is stylized) but rather in the sense that you put, simply making these asthetic choices. Imo art, no matter what the form, to a degree is stylized. And so, when I mentioned it, I was merely refering to your choice to create the look you produced, rather then a technically, and scientifically balanced image as the one I provided you with.
I think there needs to be more of what you are doing in the modding community. So many do forget that visuals isn't only about making pretty graphics, in fact, very little of it is. More so, it is about making these visual choices dependant on the atmosphere you would like your environment to convey, and what type of what is many times described as 'feel' you are going for. I'm really quite impressed with not only your work, but your artistic integrity, or so called.
Sorry my post is getting too deeply abstract, I can't help it, I'm an architecture/art student, that's how I think
Anyway keep up the great work!
As per your color correction problem, I truely suggest you go out and buy some sort of color correction tool, it will change your life I would reccomend a huey, its what I use. Its high quility (GREAT CORRECTION), and not an insane price tag ($60-$70 I believe) It is definatly worth it. You simply run I program from the disk it comes with, and with the correction device attached to your monitor and in 1-2 min your monitor is corrected for not only color, but also brightness, saturation, and gamma. And, you can choose to have it sample the ambiant roomlight from your desk every few minutes and make minor ajustments to compensate on the fly. Its really a wonderful little gadget, especially for anyone such as yourself who is doing computer graphics work.
Anyway I would really like to help you out in the future on anything you need with this project or any future endevors. Please let me know. I'm quite impressed haha
Skills I could offer:
Modeling 3ds max
Texturing (Scratch hand painted or photo ref. whichever the project calls for)
Animating
And anything photographic you need, both analog and digital, black and white, and color, single shot and panoramic, conventional and HDRI
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: :
modern, cheers for that screenshot, been extremely helpful!
modern@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:53 pm Post subject: :
I used the photo as inspiration and a guide, and at no time was I trying to replicate it in doom. Particularly as the diffuse lighting conditions in the photo are hard to simulate with software rendering, let alone doom3.
Considering that the doom3 scene is using a mere 5 lights it can only produce an approximation of daylight conditions. IMO doom 3's lighting is characterised by its heavy bottom end ie. dark, even pitch black shadows which are commonly regarded as ugly, and serve to underline the lack of radiosity. To have any hope of sustaining the illusion of daylight the scene simply cannot have a predominance of darkness. _________________ http://creativecommons.org/
ratty redemption@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:11 pm Post subject: :
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post? _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
Tron@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:38 pm Post subject: :
The problem with the door is more that it's specular needs dropping down a little.
Also, have you seen the mod which adds basic gloss map functionality to D3?
modern@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: :
ratty redemption wrote:
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post?
The second door is my screen shot, and the third is nbrancaccio's rebalanced shot. I agree with nbrancaccio that the colour balance could be subjectively altered, but in trying to introduce more contrast into the shot he has burnt out the brick walls. The walls in the source photo are even lighter than mine.
It can be cool that blend filter makes textures darker and moodier, but in this case I have really lightened the wall textures so that they are tonaly much closer to the ground texture. I think it is a vast improvement. A slight increase the contrast in these shots could make a better photo, but I'm happy with the overall balance, and I think the only way to improve my "one size fits all" static lighting scheme would be with hdr which would dynamicaly adjust contrast.
Theres a gloss mod for Doom3? I wasnt going to shell out 40 quid on Prey just to get a specular exponent. Good news _________________ http://creativecommons.org/
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:53 pm Post subject: :
love the corigated plastic _________________ "Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!
ratty redemption@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: :
modern, understood and although nbrancaccio's version and reasons behind it were interesting, I prefer the lighter brick walls in your version. _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject: :
hey, very nice looking! Thanks for atleast taking my comments into concideration. I truely do say that with full honesty, as I believe one of the most important parts of the creative process is to concider the criticism, but to definatly know when to listen and when not to, and I believe you made a good choice here.
These three shots new shots truely are comming along; they are very beautiful . I especially love the gobo-esque, almost film noir, yet much softer stripped shadows comming through in the third shot. Very nice. I saw your post in a different thread about that new transparent material, its very intreguing and nice looking. Although, one criticism is I believe it is difficult to tell what type of material you are trying to represent with it. Is it suppost to be a window with venitian blinds? or some sort of corrugated plastic? I really do find it very nice looking, though I think a little more work on the material, both in the referenced textures, and the .mtr would help define what exactly it is more. (Unless you were going for this anomosity here, in which case, you've nailed it)
Anyway just some things to think about. Having new seen your reference photo I definatly understand more where you are comming from. The only think I would add as food for thought is that the photograph may not be totally properly color corrected and such, especially if it is just a reference photo from the net or something. Now this may not be a bad thing either, basing textures off of either slightly soft photos, or just not perfect mechincally corrected may yeild very amazing results. This is actually something I am exploring at the moment. I'm going to make some QTVR panoramas with a HOLGA camera, and probably some cross processing techniques, and then I'm going to bring it into doom. In anycase, just something to think about. For further food for thought, I've gone and color corrected your reference photo to what I believe is simply "technically properly exposed" though this is again subjective, just to give your more to think about haha. Here it is:
Anyway keep up the great work!
edit: Did a second pass at color correcting, still don't know which is better. Its subtle, but here ya go(Its the one at the right above.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:46 am Post subject: :
nbrancaccio, when you do color correcting on these photos or screen shots, do you apply filters to the whole image or just selected areas, and if the latter how do you select such areas as the door?
I'm only used to psp for texture creation and image manipulation, but I'm thinking of trying out the gimp, partly as I can't afford ps at the moment. _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
Bo$bevok@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:53 am Post subject: :
ratty use gimp until you can afford ps, i've just started using gimp and it works fine for me look here :
anyway, dont want to get too far off moderns topic.
nbrancaccio i think the second is better _________________ "Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:24 am Post subject: :
Bo$bevok: Yeah I agree looking back, the second is better.
Ratty: Firstly, I use photoshop. I use many of the ajustment tools in photoshop for color correction, and tend to do it in many subtle passes rather then one big pass. The main tools I use for this are: Levels, Curves, Brightness/Contrast, Hue/Saturation, Exposure, and Highlights/Shadows, among other.
These tools let me effect different ranges of the image. The Levels allows me to set the black clip point and white clip point of the image, as well as the grey center. The curves allows me to ajust the many different characteristics of the image at different parts of the images properties. It is a bit difficult to explain, but its probably the most powerful tool of them all. The Hue/Saturation is good for the effecting the colors well...hue and saturation without effecting the brightness of the colors (though this can also be tweeked a bit with the lightness bar in this tool). The highlights/Shadows tool is one I have come to recently love very much. It allows me to set the various options of how different areas of the image are exposed (ex: how much detail the shadows contain) To really understand these tools you simply have to play with them, but also, read about the technical aspects of each tool.
If you want, adobe.com always has a 30day trial of the latest version of photoshop availbile for download if you want to monkey around.
I hope that helps explain things. If you wanted to effect just the door in photoshop, you could either make a selection or mask to affect only the door, or you could select by the tonal and color range.
Getting back on topic however: just as another quick comment: The door looks much better in your latest version! Really starting to mesh much better. If you wanted a closer representation of your photo, I would suggest you make the red in the door lightly more towards a little bit magenta-red, rather than the yellow-red you have In your screenshots. This may also have to do simply with the color of your lighting that is falling on the door rather then the photo's. In any case, this is merely an observation/more food for thought. Keep up the great work!
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:33 pm Post subject: :
Ah yeah thanks for the reply.
Yes, I didn't mean stylized in this sense (anime is stylized) but rather in the sense that you put, simply making these asthetic choices. Imo art, no matter what the form, to a degree is stylized. And so, when I mentioned it, I was merely refering to your choice to create the look you produced, rather then a technically, and scientifically balanced image as the one I provided you with.
I think there needs to be more of what you are doing in the modding community. So many do forget that visuals isn't only about making pretty graphics, in fact, very little of it is. More so, it is about making these visual choices dependant on the atmosphere you would like your environment to convey, and what type of what is many times described as 'feel' you are going for. I'm really quite impressed with not only your work, but your artistic integrity, or so called.
Sorry my post is getting too deeply abstract, I can't help it, I'm an architecture/art student, that's how I think
Anyway keep up the great work!
As per your color correction problem, I truely suggest you go out and buy some sort of color correction tool, it will change your life I would reccomend a huey, its what I use. Its high quility (GREAT CORRECTION), and not an insane price tag ($60-$70 I believe) It is definatly worth it. You simply run I program from the disk it comes with, and with the correction device attached to your monitor and in 1-2 min your monitor is corrected for not only color, but also brightness, saturation, and gamma. And, you can choose to have it sample the ambiant roomlight from your desk every few minutes and make minor ajustments to compensate on the fly. Its really a wonderful little gadget, especially for anyone such as yourself who is doing computer graphics work.
Anyway I would really like to help you out in the future on anything you need with this project or any future endevors. Please let me know. I'm quite impressed haha
Skills I could offer:
Modeling 3ds max
Texturing (Scratch hand painted or photo ref. whichever the project calls for)
Animating
And anything photographic you need, both analog and digital, black and white, and color, single shot and panoramic, conventional and HDRI
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: :
modern, cheers for that screenshot, been extremely helpful!
modern@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:53 pm Post subject: :
I used the photo as inspiration and a guide, and at no time was I trying to replicate it in doom. Particularly as the diffuse lighting conditions in the photo are hard to simulate with software rendering, let alone doom3.
Considering that the doom3 scene is using a mere 5 lights it can only produce an approximation of daylight conditions. IMO doom 3's lighting is characterised by its heavy bottom end ie. dark, even pitch black shadows which are commonly regarded as ugly, and serve to underline the lack of radiosity. To have any hope of sustaining the illusion of daylight the scene simply cannot have a predominance of darkness. _________________ http://creativecommons.org/
ratty redemption@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:11 pm Post subject: :
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post? _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
Tron@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:38 pm Post subject: :
The problem with the door is more that it's specular needs dropping down a little.
Also, have you seen the mod which adds basic gloss map functionality to D3?
modern@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: :
ratty redemption wrote:
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post?
The second door is my screen shot, and the third is nbrancaccio's rebalanced shot. I agree with nbrancaccio that the colour balance could be subjectively altered, but in trying to introduce more contrast into the shot he has burnt out the brick walls. The walls in the source photo are even lighter than mine.
It can be cool that blend filter makes textures darker and moodier, but in this case I have really lightened the wall textures so that they are tonaly much closer to the ground texture. I think it is a vast improvement. A slight increase the contrast in these shots could make a better photo, but I'm happy with the overall balance, and I think the only way to improve my "one size fits all" static lighting scheme would be with hdr which would dynamicaly adjust contrast.
Theres a gloss mod for Doom3? I wasnt going to shell out 40 quid on Prey just to get a specular exponent. Good news _________________ http://creativecommons.org/
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:53 pm Post subject: :
love the corigated plastic _________________ "Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!
ratty redemption@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: :
modern, understood and although nbrancaccio's version and reasons behind it were interesting, I prefer the lighter brick walls in your version. _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject: :
hey, very nice looking! Thanks for atleast taking my comments into concideration. I truely do say that with full honesty, as I believe one of the most important parts of the creative process is to concider the criticism, but to definatly know when to listen and when not to, and I believe you made a good choice here.
These three shots new shots truely are comming along; they are very beautiful . I especially love the gobo-esque, almost film noir, yet much softer stripped shadows comming through in the third shot. Very nice. I saw your post in a different thread about that new transparent material, its very intreguing and nice looking. Although, one criticism is I believe it is difficult to tell what type of material you are trying to represent with it. Is it suppost to be a window with venitian blinds? or some sort of corrugated plastic? I really do find it very nice looking, though I think a little more work on the material, both in the referenced textures, and the .mtr would help define what exactly it is more. (Unless you were going for this anomosity here, in which case, you've nailed it)
Anyway just some things to think about. Having new seen your reference photo I definatly understand more where you are comming from. The only think I would add as food for thought is that the photograph may not be totally properly color corrected and such, especially if it is just a reference photo from the net or something. Now this may not be a bad thing either, basing textures off of either slightly soft photos, or just not perfect mechincally corrected may yeild very amazing results. This is actually something I am exploring at the moment. I'm going to make some QTVR panoramas with a HOLGA camera, and probably some cross processing techniques, and then I'm going to bring it into doom. In anycase, just something to think about. For further food for thought, I've gone and color corrected your reference photo to what I believe is simply "technically properly exposed" though this is again subjective, just to give your more to think about haha. Here it is:
Anyway keep up the great work!
edit: Did a second pass at color correcting, still don't know which is better. Its subtle, but here ya go(Its the one at the right above.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:46 am Post subject: :
nbrancaccio, when you do color correcting on these photos or screen shots, do you apply filters to the whole image or just selected areas, and if the latter how do you select such areas as the door?
I'm only used to psp for texture creation and image manipulation, but I'm thinking of trying out the gimp, partly as I can't afford ps at the moment. _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
Bo$bevok@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:53 am Post subject: :
ratty use gimp until you can afford ps, i've just started using gimp and it works fine for me look here :
anyway, dont want to get too far off moderns topic.
nbrancaccio i think the second is better _________________ "Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:24 am Post subject: :
Bo$bevok: Yeah I agree looking back, the second is better.
Ratty: Firstly, I use photoshop. I use many of the ajustment tools in photoshop for color correction, and tend to do it in many subtle passes rather then one big pass. The main tools I use for this are: Levels, Curves, Brightness/Contrast, Hue/Saturation, Exposure, and Highlights/Shadows, among other.
These tools let me effect different ranges of the image. The Levels allows me to set the black clip point and white clip point of the image, as well as the grey center. The curves allows me to ajust the many different characteristics of the image at different parts of the images properties. It is a bit difficult to explain, but its probably the most powerful tool of them all. The Hue/Saturation is good for the effecting the colors well...hue and saturation without effecting the brightness of the colors (though this can also be tweeked a bit with the lightness bar in this tool). The highlights/Shadows tool is one I have come to recently love very much. It allows me to set the various options of how different areas of the image are exposed (ex: how much detail the shadows contain) To really understand these tools you simply have to play with them, but also, read about the technical aspects of each tool.
If you want, adobe.com always has a 30day trial of the latest version of photoshop availbile for download if you want to monkey around.
I hope that helps explain things. If you wanted to effect just the door in photoshop, you could either make a selection or mask to affect only the door, or you could select by the tonal and color range.
Getting back on topic however: just as another quick comment: The door looks much better in your latest version! Really starting to mesh much better. If you wanted a closer representation of your photo, I would suggest you make the red in the door lightly more towards a little bit magenta-red, rather than the yellow-red you have In your screenshots. This may also have to do simply with the color of your lighting that is falling on the door rather then the photo's. In any case, this is merely an observation/more food for thought. Keep up the great work!
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:33 pm Post subject: :
Ah yeah thanks for the reply.
Yes, I didn't mean stylized in this sense (anime is stylized) but rather in the sense that you put, simply making these asthetic choices. Imo art, no matter what the form, to a degree is stylized. And so, when I mentioned it, I was merely refering to your choice to create the look you produced, rather then a technically, and scientifically balanced image as the one I provided you with.
I think there needs to be more of what you are doing in the modding community. So many do forget that visuals isn't only about making pretty graphics, in fact, very little of it is. More so, it is about making these visual choices dependant on the atmosphere you would like your environment to convey, and what type of what is many times described as 'feel' you are going for. I'm really quite impressed with not only your work, but your artistic integrity, or so called.
Sorry my post is getting too deeply abstract, I can't help it, I'm an architecture/art student, that's how I think
Anyway keep up the great work!
As per your color correction problem, I truely suggest you go out and buy some sort of color correction tool, it will change your life I would reccomend a huey, its what I use. Its high quility (GREAT CORRECTION), and not an insane price tag ($60-$70 I believe) It is definatly worth it. You simply run I program from the disk it comes with, and with the correction device attached to your monitor and in 1-2 min your monitor is corrected for not only color, but also brightness, saturation, and gamma. And, you can choose to have it sample the ambiant roomlight from your desk every few minutes and make minor ajustments to compensate on the fly. Its really a wonderful little gadget, especially for anyone such as yourself who is doing computer graphics work.
Anyway I would really like to help you out in the future on anything you need with this project or any future endevors. Please let me know. I'm quite impressed haha
Skills I could offer:
Modeling 3ds max
Texturing (Scratch hand painted or photo ref. whichever the project calls for)
Animating
And anything photographic you need, both analog and digital, black and white, and color, single shot and panoramic, conventional and HDRI
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: :
modern, cheers for that screenshot, been extremely helpful!
modern@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:53 pm Post subject: :
I used the photo as inspiration and a guide, and at no time was I trying to replicate it in doom. Particularly as the diffuse lighting conditions in the photo are hard to simulate with software rendering, let alone doom3.
Considering that the doom3 scene is using a mere 5 lights it can only produce an approximation of daylight conditions. IMO doom 3's lighting is characterised by its heavy bottom end ie. dark, even pitch black shadows which are commonly regarded as ugly, and serve to underline the lack of radiosity. To have any hope of sustaining the illusion of daylight the scene simply cannot have a predominance of darkness. _________________ http://creativecommons.org/
ratty redemption@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:11 pm Post subject: :
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post? _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
Tron@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:38 pm Post subject: :
The problem with the door is more that it's specular needs dropping down a little.
Also, have you seen the mod which adds basic gloss map functionality to D3?
modern@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: :
ratty redemption wrote:
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post?
The second door is my screen shot, and the third is nbrancaccio's rebalanced shot. I agree with nbrancaccio that the colour balance could be subjectively altered, but in trying to introduce more contrast into the shot he has burnt out the brick walls. The walls in the source photo are even lighter than mine.
It can be cool that blend filter makes textures darker and moodier, but in this case I have really lightened the wall textures so that they are tonaly much closer to the ground texture. I think it is a vast improvement. A slight increase the contrast in these shots could make a better photo, but I'm happy with the overall balance, and I think the only way to improve my "one size fits all" static lighting scheme would be with hdr which would dynamicaly adjust contrast.
Theres a gloss mod for Doom3? I wasnt going to shell out 40 quid on Prey just to get a specular exponent. Good news _________________ http://creativecommons.org/
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:53 pm Post subject: :
love the corigated plastic _________________ "Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!
ratty redemption@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: :
modern, understood and although nbrancaccio's version and reasons behind it were interesting, I prefer the lighter brick walls in your version. _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject: :
hey, very nice looking! Thanks for atleast taking my comments into concideration. I truely do say that with full honesty, as I believe one of the most important parts of the creative process is to concider the criticism, but to definatly know when to listen and when not to, and I believe you made a good choice here.
These three shots new shots truely are comming along; they are very beautiful . I especially love the gobo-esque, almost film noir, yet much softer stripped shadows comming through in the third shot. Very nice. I saw your post in a different thread about that new transparent material, its very intreguing and nice looking. Although, one criticism is I believe it is difficult to tell what type of material you are trying to represent with it. Is it suppost to be a window with venitian blinds? or some sort of corrugated plastic? I really do find it very nice looking, though I think a little more work on the material, both in the referenced textures, and the .mtr would help define what exactly it is more. (Unless you were going for this anomosity here, in which case, you've nailed it)
Anyway just some things to think about. Having new seen your reference photo I definatly understand more where you are comming from. The only think I would add as food for thought is that the photograph may not be totally properly color corrected and such, especially if it is just a reference photo from the net or something. Now this may not be a bad thing either, basing textures off of either slightly soft photos, or just not perfect mechincally corrected may yeild very amazing results. This is actually something I am exploring at the moment. I'm going to make some QTVR panoramas with a HOLGA camera, and probably some cross processing techniques, and then I'm going to bring it into doom. In anycase, just something to think about. For further food for thought, I've gone and color corrected your reference photo to what I believe is simply "technically properly exposed" though this is again subjective, just to give your more to think about haha. Here it is:
Anyway keep up the great work!
edit: Did a second pass at color correcting, still don't know which is better. Its subtle, but here ya go(Its the one at the right above.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:46 am Post subject: :
nbrancaccio, when you do color correcting on these photos or screen shots, do you apply filters to the whole image or just selected areas, and if the latter how do you select such areas as the door?
I'm only used to psp for texture creation and image manipulation, but I'm thinking of trying out the gimp, partly as I can't afford ps at the moment. _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
Bo$bevok@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:53 am Post subject: :
ratty use gimp until you can afford ps, i've just started using gimp and it works fine for me look here :
anyway, dont want to get too far off moderns topic.
nbrancaccio i think the second is better _________________ "Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:24 am Post subject: :
Bo$bevok: Yeah I agree looking back, the second is better.
Ratty: Firstly, I use photoshop. I use many of the ajustment tools in photoshop for color correction, and tend to do it in many subtle passes rather then one big pass. The main tools I use for this are: Levels, Curves, Brightness/Contrast, Hue/Saturation, Exposure, and Highlights/Shadows, among other.
These tools let me effect different ranges of the image. The Levels allows me to set the black clip point and white clip point of the image, as well as the grey center. The curves allows me to ajust the many different characteristics of the image at different parts of the images properties. It is a bit difficult to explain, but its probably the most powerful tool of them all. The Hue/Saturation is good for the effecting the colors well...hue and saturation without effecting the brightness of the colors (though this can also be tweeked a bit with the lightness bar in this tool). The highlights/Shadows tool is one I have come to recently love very much. It allows me to set the various options of how different areas of the image are exposed (ex: how much detail the shadows contain) To really understand these tools you simply have to play with them, but also, read about the technical aspects of each tool.
If you want, adobe.com always has a 30day trial of the latest version of photoshop availbile for download if you want to monkey around.
I hope that helps explain things. If you wanted to effect just the door in photoshop, you could either make a selection or mask to affect only the door, or you could select by the tonal and color range.
Getting back on topic however: just as another quick comment: The door looks much better in your latest version! Really starting to mesh much better. If you wanted a closer representation of your photo, I would suggest you make the red in the door lightly more towards a little bit magenta-red, rather than the yellow-red you have In your screenshots. This may also have to do simply with the color of your lighting that is falling on the door rather then the photo's. In any case, this is merely an observation/more food for thought. Keep up the great work!
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:33 pm Post subject: :
Ah yeah thanks for the reply.
Yes, I didn't mean stylized in this sense (anime is stylized) but rather in the sense that you put, simply making these asthetic choices. Imo art, no matter what the form, to a degree is stylized. And so, when I mentioned it, I was merely refering to your choice to create the look you produced, rather then a technically, and scientifically balanced image as the one I provided you with.
I think there needs to be more of what you are doing in the modding community. So many do forget that visuals isn't only about making pretty graphics, in fact, very little of it is. More so, it is about making these visual choices dependant on the atmosphere you would like your environment to convey, and what type of what is many times described as 'feel' you are going for. I'm really quite impressed with not only your work, but your artistic integrity, or so called.
Sorry my post is getting too deeply abstract, I can't help it, I'm an architecture/art student, that's how I think
Anyway keep up the great work!
As per your color correction problem, I truely suggest you go out and buy some sort of color correction tool, it will change your life I would reccomend a huey, its what I use. Its high quility (GREAT CORRECTION), and not an insane price tag ($60-$70 I believe) It is definatly worth it. You simply run I program from the disk it comes with, and with the correction device attached to your monitor and in 1-2 min your monitor is corrected for not only color, but also brightness, saturation, and gamma. And, you can choose to have it sample the ambiant roomlight from your desk every few minutes and make minor ajustments to compensate on the fly. Its really a wonderful little gadget, especially for anyone such as yourself who is doing computer graphics work.
Anyway I would really like to help you out in the future on anything you need with this project or any future endevors. Please let me know. I'm quite impressed haha
Skills I could offer:
Modeling 3ds max
Texturing (Scratch hand painted or photo ref. whichever the project calls for)
Animating
And anything photographic you need, both analog and digital, black and white, and color, single shot and panoramic, conventional and HDRI
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: :
modern, cheers for that screenshot, been extremely helpful!
modern@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:53 pm Post subject: :
I used the photo as inspiration and a guide, and at no time was I trying to replicate it in doom. Particularly as the diffuse lighting conditions in the photo are hard to simulate with software rendering, let alone doom3.
Considering that the doom3 scene is using a mere 5 lights it can only produce an approximation of daylight conditions. IMO doom 3's lighting is characterised by its heavy bottom end ie. dark, even pitch black shadows which are commonly regarded as ugly, and serve to underline the lack of radiosity. To have any hope of sustaining the illusion of daylight the scene simply cannot have a predominance of darkness. _________________ http://creativecommons.org/
ratty redemption@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:11 pm Post subject: :
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post? _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
Tron@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:38 pm Post subject: :
The problem with the door is more that it's specular needs dropping down a little.
Also, have you seen the mod which adds basic gloss map functionality to D3?
modern@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: :
ratty redemption wrote:
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post?
The second door is my screen shot, and the third is nbrancaccio's rebalanced shot. I agree with nbrancaccio that the colour balance could be subjectively altered, but in trying to introduce more contrast into the shot he has burnt out the brick walls. The walls in the source photo are even lighter than mine.
It can be cool that blend filter makes textures darker and moodier, but in this case I have really lightened the wall textures so that they are tonaly much closer to the ground texture. I think it is a vast improvement. A slight increase the contrast in these shots could make a better photo, but I'm happy with the overall balance, and I think the only way to improve my "one size fits all" static lighting scheme would be with hdr which would dynamicaly adjust contrast.
Theres a gloss mod for Doom3? I wasnt going to shell out 40 quid on Prey just to get a specular exponent. Good news _________________ http://creativecommons.org/
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:53 pm Post subject: :
love the corigated plastic _________________ "Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!
ratty redemption@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: :
modern, understood and although nbrancaccio's version and reasons behind it were interesting, I prefer the lighter brick walls in your version. _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject: :
hey, very nice looking! Thanks for atleast taking my comments into concideration. I truely do say that with full honesty, as I believe one of the most important parts of the creative process is to concider the criticism, but to definatly know when to listen and when not to, and I believe you made a good choice here.
These three shots new shots truely are comming along; they are very beautiful . I especially love the gobo-esque, almost film noir, yet much softer stripped shadows comming through in the third shot. Very nice. I saw your post in a different thread about that new transparent material, its very intreguing and nice looking. Although, one criticism is I believe it is difficult to tell what type of material you are trying to represent with it. Is it suppost to be a window with venitian blinds? or some sort of corrugated plastic? I really do find it very nice looking, though I think a little more work on the material, both in the referenced textures, and the .mtr would help define what exactly it is more. (Unless you were going for this anomosity here, in which case, you've nailed it)
Anyway just some things to think about. Having new seen your reference photo I definatly understand more where you are comming from. The only think I would add as food for thought is that the photograph may not be totally properly color corrected and such, especially if it is just a reference photo from the net or something. Now this may not be a bad thing either, basing textures off of either slightly soft photos, or just not perfect mechincally corrected may yeild very amazing results. This is actually something I am exploring at the moment. I'm going to make some QTVR panoramas with a HOLGA camera, and probably some cross processing techniques, and then I'm going to bring it into doom. In anycase, just something to think about. For further food for thought, I've gone and color corrected your reference photo to what I believe is simply "technically properly exposed" though this is again subjective, just to give your more to think about haha. Here it is:
Anyway keep up the great work!
edit: Did a second pass at color correcting, still don't know which is better. Its subtle, but here ya go(Its the one at the right above.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:46 am Post subject: :
nbrancaccio, when you do color correcting on these photos or screen shots, do you apply filters to the whole image or just selected areas, and if the latter how do you select such areas as the door?
I'm only used to psp for texture creation and image manipulation, but I'm thinking of trying out the gimp, partly as I can't afford ps at the moment. _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
Bo$bevok@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:53 am Post subject: :
ratty use gimp until you can afford ps, i've just started using gimp and it works fine for me look here :
anyway, dont want to get too far off moderns topic.
nbrancaccio i think the second is better _________________ "Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:24 am Post subject: :
Bo$bevok: Yeah I agree looking back, the second is better.
Ratty: Firstly, I use photoshop. I use many of the ajustment tools in photoshop for color correction, and tend to do it in many subtle passes rather then one big pass. The main tools I use for this are: Levels, Curves, Brightness/Contrast, Hue/Saturation, Exposure, and Highlights/Shadows, among other.
These tools let me effect different ranges of the image. The Levels allows me to set the black clip point and white clip point of the image, as well as the grey center. The curves allows me to ajust the many different characteristics of the image at different parts of the images properties. It is a bit difficult to explain, but its probably the most powerful tool of them all. The Hue/Saturation is good for the effecting the colors well...hue and saturation without effecting the brightness of the colors (though this can also be tweeked a bit with the lightness bar in this tool). The highlights/Shadows tool is one I have come to recently love very much. It allows me to set the various options of how different areas of the image are exposed (ex: how much detail the shadows contain) To really understand these tools you simply have to play with them, but also, read about the technical aspects of each tool.
If you want, adobe.com always has a 30day trial of the latest version of photoshop availbile for download if you want to monkey around.
I hope that helps explain things. If you wanted to effect just the door in photoshop, you could either make a selection or mask to affect only the door, or you could select by the tonal and color range.
Getting back on topic however: just as another quick comment: The door looks much better in your latest version! Really starting to mesh much better. If you wanted a closer representation of your photo, I would suggest you make the red in the door lightly more towards a little bit magenta-red, rather than the yellow-red you have In your screenshots. This may also have to do simply with the color of your lighting that is falling on the door rather then the photo's. In any case, this is merely an observation/more food for thought. Keep up the great work!
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:33 pm :
Ah yeah thanks for the reply.
Yes, I didn't mean stylized in this sense (anime is stylized) but rather in the sense that you put, simply making these asthetic choices. Imo art, no matter what the form, to a degree is stylized. And so, when I mentioned it, I was merely refering to your choice to create the look you produced, rather then a technically, and scientifically balanced image as the one I provided you with.
I think there needs to be more of what you are doing in the modding community. So many do forget that visuals isn't only about making pretty graphics, in fact, very little of it is. More so, it is about making these visual choices dependant on the atmosphere you would like your environment to convey, and what type of what is many times described as 'feel' you are going for. I'm really quite impressed with not only your work, but your artistic integrity, or so called.
Sorry my post is getting too deeply abstract, I can't help it, I'm an architecture/art student, that's how I think
Anyway keep up the great work!
As per your color correction problem, I truely suggest you go out and buy some sort of color correction tool, it will change your life I would reccomend a huey, its what I use. Its high quility (GREAT CORRECTION), and not an insane price tag ($60-$70 I believe) It is definatly worth it. You simply run I program from the disk it comes with, and with the correction device attached to your monitor and in 1-2 min your monitor is corrected for not only color, but also brightness, saturation, and gamma. And, you can choose to have it sample the ambiant roomlight from your desk every few minutes and make minor ajustments to compensate on the fly. Its really a wonderful little gadget, especially for anyone such as yourself who is doing computer graphics work.
Anyway I would really like to help you out in the future on anything you need with this project or any future endevors. Please let me know. I'm quite impressed haha Skills I could offer:
Modeling 3ds max
Texturing (Scratch hand painted or photo ref. whichever the project calls for)
Animating
And anything photographic you need, both analog and digital, black and white, and color, single shot and panoramic, conventional and HDRI
modern, cheers for that screenshot, been extremely helpful!
modern@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:53 pm :
I used the photo as inspiration and a guide, and at no time was I trying to replicate it in doom. Particularly as the diffuse lighting conditions in the photo are hard to simulate with software rendering, let alone doom3.
Considering that the doom3 scene is using a mere 5 lights it can only produce an approximation of daylight conditions. IMO doom 3's lighting is characterised by its heavy bottom end ie. dark, even pitch black shadows which are commonly regarded as ugly, and serve to underline the lack of radiosity. To have any hope of sustaining the illusion of daylight the scene simply cannot have a predominance of darkness.
ratty redemption@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:11 pm :
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post?
Tron@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:38 pm :
The problem with the door is more that it's specular needs dropping down a little.
Also, have you seen the mod which adds basic gloss map functionality to D3?
modern@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:19 pm :
ratty redemption wrote:
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post?
The second door is my screen shot, and the third is nbrancaccio's rebalanced shot. I agree with nbrancaccio that the colour balance could be subjectively altered, but in trying to introduce more contrast into the shot he has burnt out the brick walls. The walls in the source photo are even lighter than mine.
It can be cool that blend filter makes textures darker and moodier, but in this case I have really lightened the wall textures so that they are tonaly much closer to the ground texture. I think it is a vast improvement. A slight increase the contrast in these shots could make a better photo, but I'm happy with the overall balance, and I think the only way to improve my "one size fits all" static lighting scheme would be with hdr which would dynamicaly adjust contrast.
Theres a gloss mod for Doom3? I wasnt going to shell out 40 quid on Prey just to get a specular exponent. Good news
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:53 pm :
love the corigated plastic
ratty redemption@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:01 pm :
modern, understood and although nbrancaccio's version and reasons behind it were interesting, I prefer the lighter brick walls in your version.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:21 pm :
hey, very nice looking! Thanks for atleast taking my comments into concideration. I truely do say that with full honesty, as I believe one of the most important parts of the creative process is to concider the criticism, but to definatly know when to listen and when not to, and I believe you made a good choice here.
These three shots new shots truely are comming along; they are very beautiful . I especially love the gobo-esque, almost film noir, yet much softer stripped shadows comming through in the third shot. Very nice. I saw your post in a different thread about that new transparent material, its very intreguing and nice looking. Although, one criticism is I believe it is difficult to tell what type of material you are trying to represent with it. Is it suppost to be a window with venitian blinds? or some sort of corrugated plastic? I really do find it very nice looking, though I think a little more work on the material, both in the referenced textures, and the .mtr would help define what exactly it is more. (Unless you were going for this anomosity here, in which case, you've nailed it)
Anyway just some things to think about. Having new seen your reference photo I definatly understand more where you are comming from. The only think I would add as food for thought is that the photograph may not be totally properly color corrected and such, especially if it is just a reference photo from the net or something. Now this may not be a bad thing either, basing textures off of either slightly soft photos, or just not perfect mechincally corrected may yeild very amazing results. This is actually something I am exploring at the moment. I'm going to make some QTVR panoramas with a HOLGA camera, and probably some cross processing techniques, and then I'm going to bring it into doom. In anycase, just something to think about. For further food for thought, I've gone and color corrected your reference photo to what I believe is simply "technically properly exposed" though this is again subjective, just to give your more to think about haha. Here it is:
Anyway keep up the great work!
edit: Did a second pass at color correcting, still don't know which is better. Its subtle, but here ya go(Its the one at the right above.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:46 am :
nbrancaccio, when you do color correcting on these photos or screen shots, do you apply filters to the whole image or just selected areas, and if the latter how do you select such areas as the door?
I'm only used to psp for texture creation and image manipulation, but I'm thinking of trying out the gimp, partly as I can't afford ps at the moment.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:53 am :
ratty use gimp until you can afford ps, i've just started using gimp and it works fine for me look here :
anyway, dont want to get too far off moderns topic.
nbrancaccio i think the second is better
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:24 am :
Bo$bevok: Yeah I agree looking back, the second is better.
Ratty: Firstly, I use photoshop. I use many of the ajustment tools in photoshop for color correction, and tend to do it in many subtle passes rather then one big pass. The main tools I use for this are: Levels, Curves, Brightness/Contrast, Hue/Saturation, Exposure, and Highlights/Shadows, among other.
These tools let me effect different ranges of the image. The Levels allows me to set the black clip point and white clip point of the image, as well as the grey center. The curves allows me to ajust the many different characteristics of the image at different parts of the images properties. It is a bit difficult to explain, but its probably the most powerful tool of them all. The Hue/Saturation is good for the effecting the colors well...hue and saturation without effecting the brightness of the colors (though this can also be tweeked a bit with the lightness bar in this tool). The highlights/Shadows tool is one I have come to recently love very much. It allows me to set the various options of how different areas of the image are exposed (ex: how much detail the shadows contain) To really understand these tools you simply have to play with them, but also, read about the technical aspects of each tool.
If you want, adobe.com always has a 30day trial of the latest version of photoshop availbile for download if you want to monkey around.
I hope that helps explain things. If you wanted to effect just the door in photoshop, you could either make a selection or mask to affect only the door, or you could select by the tonal and color range.
Getting back on topic however: just as another quick comment: The door looks much better in your latest version! Really starting to mesh much better. If you wanted a closer representation of your photo, I would suggest you make the red in the door lightly more towards a little bit magenta-red, rather than the yellow-red you have In your screenshots. This may also have to do simply with the color of your lighting that is falling on the door rather then the photo's. In any case, this is merely an observation/more food for thought. Keep up the great work!
mikebart@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:34 am :
rather than dropping the specular on the paint you could try just having it on the top edges of the bricks, it would be faking it a bit but it might look ok and its not like your gonna be walking around with a flash light or any thing, if you slightly blur the normal map on the bricks where th paint is I reckon it will look more like paint too.
I realy like the corrigated plastic, it looks exactly like laserlight roofing, a product used for roofs on pagola's, carport's, garage skylights etc its pretty common over here and it come's in various shades and tints
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:47 am :
thanks guys and I'll stay on topic now
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:33 pm :
Ah yeah thanks for the reply.
Yes, I didn't mean stylized in this sense (anime is stylized) but rather in the sense that you put, simply making these asthetic choices. Imo art, no matter what the form, to a degree is stylized. And so, when I mentioned it, I was merely refering to your choice to create the look you produced, rather then a technically, and scientifically balanced image as the one I provided you with.
I think there needs to be more of what you are doing in the modding community. So many do forget that visuals isn't only about making pretty graphics, in fact, very little of it is. More so, it is about making these visual choices dependant on the atmosphere you would like your environment to convey, and what type of what is many times described as 'feel' you are going for. I'm really quite impressed with not only your work, but your artistic integrity, or so called.
Sorry my post is getting too deeply abstract, I can't help it, I'm an architecture/art student, that's how I think
Anyway keep up the great work!
As per your color correction problem, I truely suggest you go out and buy some sort of color correction tool, it will change your life I would reccomend a huey, its what I use. Its high quility (GREAT CORRECTION), and not an insane price tag ($60-$70 I believe) It is definatly worth it. You simply run I program from the disk it comes with, and with the correction device attached to your monitor and in 1-2 min your monitor is corrected for not only color, but also brightness, saturation, and gamma. And, you can choose to have it sample the ambiant roomlight from your desk every few minutes and make minor ajustments to compensate on the fly. Its really a wonderful little gadget, especially for anyone such as yourself who is doing computer graphics work.
Anyway I would really like to help you out in the future on anything you need with this project or any future endevors. Please let me know. I'm quite impressed haha Skills I could offer:
Modeling 3ds max
Texturing (Scratch hand painted or photo ref. whichever the project calls for)
Animating
And anything photographic you need, both analog and digital, black and white, and color, single shot and panoramic, conventional and HDRI
modern, cheers for that screenshot, been extremely helpful!
modern@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:53 pm :
I used the photo as inspiration and a guide, and at no time was I trying to replicate it in doom. Particularly as the diffuse lighting conditions in the photo are hard to simulate with software rendering, let alone doom3.
Considering that the doom3 scene is using a mere 5 lights it can only produce an approximation of daylight conditions. IMO doom 3's lighting is characterised by its heavy bottom end ie. dark, even pitch black shadows which are commonly regarded as ugly, and serve to underline the lack of radiosity. To have any hope of sustaining the illusion of daylight the scene simply cannot have a predominance of darkness.
ratty redemption@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:11 pm :
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post?
Tron@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:38 pm :
The problem with the door is more that it's specular needs dropping down a little.
Also, have you seen the mod which adds basic gloss map functionality to D3?
modern@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:19 pm :
ratty redemption wrote:
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post?
The second door is my screen shot, and the third is nbrancaccio's rebalanced shot. I agree with nbrancaccio that the colour balance could be subjectively altered, but in trying to introduce more contrast into the shot he has burnt out the brick walls. The walls in the source photo are even lighter than mine.
It can be cool that blend filter makes textures darker and moodier, but in this case I have really lightened the wall textures so that they are tonaly much closer to the ground texture. I think it is a vast improvement. A slight increase the contrast in these shots could make a better photo, but I'm happy with the overall balance, and I think the only way to improve my "one size fits all" static lighting scheme would be with hdr which would dynamicaly adjust contrast.
Theres a gloss mod for Doom3? I wasnt going to shell out 40 quid on Prey just to get a specular exponent. Good news
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:53 pm :
love the corigated plastic
ratty redemption@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:01 pm :
modern, understood and although nbrancaccio's version and reasons behind it were interesting, I prefer the lighter brick walls in your version.
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:21 pm :
hey, very nice looking! Thanks for atleast taking my comments into concideration. I truely do say that with full honesty, as I believe one of the most important parts of the creative process is to concider the criticism, but to definatly know when to listen and when not to, and I believe you made a good choice here.
These three shots new shots truely are comming along; they are very beautiful . I especially love the gobo-esque, almost film noir, yet much softer stripped shadows comming through in the third shot. Very nice. I saw your post in a different thread about that new transparent material, its very intreguing and nice looking. Although, one criticism is I believe it is difficult to tell what type of material you are trying to represent with it. Is it suppost to be a window with venitian blinds? or some sort of corrugated plastic? I really do find it very nice looking, though I think a little more work on the material, both in the referenced textures, and the .mtr would help define what exactly it is more. (Unless you were going for this anomosity here, in which case, you've nailed it)
Anyway just some things to think about. Having new seen your reference photo I definatly understand more where you are comming from. The only think I would add as food for thought is that the photograph may not be totally properly color corrected and such, especially if it is just a reference photo from the net or something. Now this may not be a bad thing either, basing textures off of either slightly soft photos, or just not perfect mechincally corrected may yeild very amazing results. This is actually something I am exploring at the moment. I'm going to make some QTVR panoramas with a HOLGA camera, and probably some cross processing techniques, and then I'm going to bring it into doom. In anycase, just something to think about. For further food for thought, I've gone and color corrected your reference photo to what I believe is simply "technically properly exposed" though this is again subjective, just to give your more to think about haha. Here it is:
Anyway keep up the great work!
edit: Did a second pass at color correcting, still don't know which is better. Its subtle, but here ya go(Its the one at the right above.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:46 am :
nbrancaccio, when you do color correcting on these photos or screen shots, do you apply filters to the whole image or just selected areas, and if the latter how do you select such areas as the door?
I'm only used to psp for texture creation and image manipulation, but I'm thinking of trying out the gimp, partly as I can't afford ps at the moment.
Bo$bevok@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:53 am :
ratty use gimp until you can afford ps, i've just started using gimp and it works fine for me look here :
anyway, dont want to get too far off moderns topic.
nbrancaccio i think the second is better
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:24 am :
Bo$bevok: Yeah I agree looking back, the second is better.
Ratty: Firstly, I use photoshop. I use many of the ajustment tools in photoshop for color correction, and tend to do it in many subtle passes rather then one big pass. The main tools I use for this are: Levels, Curves, Brightness/Contrast, Hue/Saturation, Exposure, and Highlights/Shadows, among other.
These tools let me effect different ranges of the image. The Levels allows me to set the black clip point and white clip point of the image, as well as the grey center. The curves allows me to ajust the many different characteristics of the image at different parts of the images properties. It is a bit difficult to explain, but its probably the most powerful tool of them all. The Hue/Saturation is good for the effecting the colors well...hue and saturation without effecting the brightness of the colors (though this can also be tweeked a bit with the lightness bar in this tool). The highlights/Shadows tool is one I have come to recently love very much. It allows me to set the various options of how different areas of the image are exposed (ex: how much detail the shadows contain) To really understand these tools you simply have to play with them, but also, read about the technical aspects of each tool.
If you want, adobe.com always has a 30day trial of the latest version of photoshop availbile for download if you want to monkey around.
I hope that helps explain things. If you wanted to effect just the door in photoshop, you could either make a selection or mask to affect only the door, or you could select by the tonal and color range.
Getting back on topic however: just as another quick comment: The door looks much better in your latest version! Really starting to mesh much better. If you wanted a closer representation of your photo, I would suggest you make the red in the door lightly more towards a little bit magenta-red, rather than the yellow-red you have In your screenshots. This may also have to do simply with the color of your lighting that is falling on the door rather then the photo's. In any case, this is merely an observation/more food for thought. Keep up the great work!
mikebart@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:34 am :
rather than dropping the specular on the paint you could try just having it on the top edges of the bricks, it would be faking it a bit but it might look ok and its not like your gonna be walking around with a flash light or any thing, if you slightly blur the normal map on the bricks where th paint is I reckon it will look more like paint too.
I realy like the corrigated plastic, it looks exactly like laserlight roofing, a product used for roofs on pagola's, carport's, garage skylights etc its pretty common over here and it come's in various shades and tints
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:47 am :
thanks guys and I'll stay on topic now
nbrancaccio@Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:33 pm Post subject: :
Ah yeah thanks for the reply.
Yes, I didn't mean stylized in this sense (anime is stylized) but rather in the sense that you put, simply making these asthetic choices. Imo art, no matter what the form, to a degree is stylized. And so, when I mentioned it, I was merely refering to your choice to create the look you produced, rather then a technically, and scientifically balanced image as the one I provided you with.
I think there needs to be more of what you are doing in the modding community. So many do forget that visuals isn't only about making pretty graphics, in fact, very little of it is. More so, it is about making these visual choices dependant on the atmosphere you would like your environment to convey, and what type of what is many times described as 'feel' you are going for. I'm really quite impressed with not only your work, but your artistic integrity, or so called.
Sorry my post is getting too deeply abstract, I can't help it, I'm an architecture/art student, that's how I think
Anyway keep up the great work!
As per your color correction problem, I truely suggest you go out and buy some sort of color correction tool, it will change your life I would reccomend a huey, its what I use. Its high quility (GREAT CORRECTION), and not an insane price tag ($60-$70 I believe) It is definatly worth it. You simply run I program from the disk it comes with, and with the correction device attached to your monitor and in 1-2 min your monitor is corrected for not only color, but also brightness, saturation, and gamma. And, you can choose to have it sample the ambiant roomlight from your desk every few minutes and make minor ajustments to compensate on the fly. Its really a wonderful little gadget, especially for anyone such as yourself who is doing computer graphics work.
Anyway I would really like to help you out in the future on anything you need with this project or any future endevors. Please let me know. I'm quite impressed haha
Skills I could offer:
Modeling 3ds max
Texturing (Scratch hand painted or photo ref. whichever the project calls for)
Animating
And anything photographic you need, both analog and digital, black and white, and color, single shot and panoramic, conventional and HDRI
Koroshiya Ichi@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: :
modern, cheers for that screenshot, been extremely helpful!
modern@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:53 pm Post subject: :
I used the photo as inspiration and a guide, and at no time was I trying to replicate it in doom. Particularly as the diffuse lighting conditions in the photo are hard to simulate with software rendering, let alone doom3.
Considering that the doom3 scene is using a mere 5 lights it can only produce an approximation of daylight conditions. IMO doom 3's lighting is characterised by its heavy bottom end ie. dark, even pitch black shadows which are commonly regarded as ugly, and serve to underline the lack of radiosity. To have any hope of sustaining the illusion of daylight the scene simply cannot have a predominance of darkness. _________________ http://creativecommons.org/
ratty redemption@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:11 pm Post subject: :
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post? _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
Tron@Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:38 pm Post subject: :
The problem with the door is more that it's specular needs dropping down a little.
Also, have you seen the mod which adds basic gloss map functionality to D3?
modern@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: :
ratty redemption wrote:
modern, what is the difference/changes you made between the 2nd and 3rd doors in your last post?
The second door is my screen shot, and the third is nbrancaccio's rebalanced shot. I agree with nbrancaccio that the colour balance could be subjectively altered, but in trying to introduce more contrast into the shot he has burnt out the brick walls. The walls in the source photo are even lighter than mine.
It can be cool that blend filter makes textures darker and moodier, but in this case I have really lightened the wall textures so that they are tonaly much closer to the ground texture. I think it is a vast improvement. A slight increase the contrast in these shots could make a better photo, but I'm happy with the overall balance, and I think the only way to improve my "one size fits all" static lighting scheme would be with hdr which would dynamicaly adjust contrast.
Theres a gloss mod for Doom3? I wasnt going to shell out 40 quid on Prey just to get a specular exponent. Good news _________________ http://creativecommons.org/
Bo$bevok@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:53 pm Post subject: :
love the corigated plastic _________________ "Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!
ratty redemption@Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: :
modern, understood and although nbrancaccio's version and reasons behind it were interesting, I prefer the lighter brick walls in your version. _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject: :
hey, very nice looking! Thanks for atleast taking my comments into concideration. I truely do say that with full honesty, as I believe one of the most important parts of the creative process is to concider the criticism, but to definatly know when to listen and when not to, and I believe you made a good choice here.
These three shots new shots truely are comming along; they are very beautiful . I especially love the gobo-esque, almost film noir, yet much softer stripped shadows comming through in the third shot. Very nice. I saw your post in a different thread about that new transparent material, its very intreguing and nice looking. Although, one criticism is I believe it is difficult to tell what type of material you are trying to represent with it. Is it suppost to be a window with venitian blinds? or some sort of corrugated plastic? I really do find it very nice looking, though I think a little more work on the material, both in the referenced textures, and the .mtr would help define what exactly it is more. (Unless you were going for this anomosity here, in which case, you've nailed it)
Anyway just some things to think about. Having new seen your reference photo I definatly understand more where you are comming from. The only think I would add as food for thought is that the photograph may not be totally properly color corrected and such, especially if it is just a reference photo from the net or something. Now this may not be a bad thing either, basing textures off of either slightly soft photos, or just not perfect mechincally corrected may yeild very amazing results. This is actually something I am exploring at the moment. I'm going to make some QTVR panoramas with a HOLGA camera, and probably some cross processing techniques, and then I'm going to bring it into doom. In anycase, just something to think about. For further food for thought, I've gone and color corrected your reference photo to what I believe is simply "technically properly exposed" though this is again subjective, just to give your more to think about haha. Here it is:
Anyway keep up the great work!
edit: Did a second pass at color correcting, still don't know which is better. Its subtle, but here ya go(Its the one at the right above.
ratty redemption@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:46 am Post subject: :
nbrancaccio, when you do color correcting on these photos or screen shots, do you apply filters to the whole image or just selected areas, and if the latter how do you select such areas as the door?
I'm only used to psp for texture creation and image manipulation, but I'm thinking of trying out the gimp, partly as I can't afford ps at the moment. _________________ (wip) ratty d3 hell map katsbits.com
Bo$bevok@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:53 am Post subject: :
ratty use gimp until you can afford ps, i've just started using gimp and it works fine for me look here :
anyway, dont want to get too far off moderns topic.
nbrancaccio i think the second is better _________________ "Let me make myself clear: You might be the master of your universe, but D3W.org is mine. " - BNA!
nbrancaccio@Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:24 am Post subject: :
Bo$bevok: Yeah I agree looking back, the second is better.
Ratty: Firstly, I use photoshop. I use many of the ajustment tools in photoshop for color correction, and tend to do it in many subtle passes rather then one big pass. The main tools I use for this are: Levels, Curves, Brightness/Contrast, Hue/Saturation, Exposure, and Highlights/Shadows, among other.
These tools let me effect different ranges of the image. The Levels allows me to set the black clip point and white clip point of the image, as well as the grey center. The curves allows me to ajust the many different characteristics of the image at different parts of the images properties. It is a bit difficult to explain, but its probably the most powerful tool of them all. The Hue/Saturation is good for the effecting the colors well...hue and saturation without effecting the brightness of the colors (though this can also be tweeked a bit with the lightness bar in this tool). The highlights/Shadows tool is one I have come to recently love very much. It allows me to set the various options of how different areas of the image are exposed (ex: how much detail the shadows contain) To really understand these tools you simply have to play with them, but also, read about the technical aspects of each tool.
If you want, adobe.com always has a 30day trial of the latest version of photoshop availbile for download if you want to monkey around.
I hope that helps explain things. If you wanted to effect just the door in photoshop, you could either make a selection or mask to affect only the door, or you could select by the tonal and color range.
Getting back on topic however: just as another quick comment: The door looks much better in your latest version! Really starting to mesh much better. If you wanted a closer representation of your photo, I would suggest you make the red in the door lightly more towards a little bit magenta-red, rather than the yellow-red you have In your screenshots. This may also have to do simply with the color of your lighting that is falling on the door rather then the photo's. In any case, this is merely an observation/more food for thought. Keep up the great work!
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
I would reccomend a huey, its what I use. Its high quility (GREAT CORRECTION), and not an insane price tag ($60-$70 I believe) It is definatly worth it. You simply run I program from the disk it comes with, and with the correction device attached to your monitor and in 1-2 min your monitor is corrected for not only color, but also brightness, saturation, and gamma. And, you can choose to have it sample the ambiant roomlight from your desk every few minutes and make minor ajustments to compensate on the fly. Its really a wonderful little gadget, especially for anyone such as yourself who is doing computer graphics work.
it can only produce an approximation of daylight conditions. IMO doom 3's lighting is characterised by its heavy bottom end ie. dark, even pitch black shadows which are commonly regarded as ugly, and serve to underline the lack of radiosity. To have any hope of sustaining the illusion of daylight the scene simply cannot have a predominance of darkness.
good stuff
)
I would reccomend a huey, its what I use. Its high quility (GREAT CORRECTION), and not an insane price tag ($60-$70 I believe) It is definatly worth it. You simply run I program from the disk it comes with, and with the correction device attached to your monitor and in 1-2 min your monitor is corrected for not only color, but also brightness, saturation, and gamma. And, you can choose to have it sample the ambiant roomlight from your desk every few minutes and make minor ajustments to compensate on the fly. Its really a wonderful little gadget, especially for anyone such as yourself who is doing computer graphics work.
it can only produce an approximation of daylight conditions. IMO doom 3's lighting is characterised by its heavy bottom end ie. dark, even pitch black shadows which are commonly regarded as ugly, and serve to underline the lack of radiosity. To have any hope of sustaining the illusion of daylight the scene simply cannot have a predominance of darkness.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Staff
)
)
)
