UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial - Page 3

UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Share and discuss visual creations and creation practices like texturing, modelling and musing on the meaning of life.

Moderators: MR.D, Moderators

User avatar
lurker
Posts: 3842
Joined: 08 Jan 2007, 06:13

Re: UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Post by lurker » 08 May 2009, 03:23

It's simple, Argh. Mention that upspring is fast but flawed. Tell people to check if it breaks the smoothing on their models. Leave it there. Don't try to say it's better. Don't insult others, or try to lecture them on random topics. You made smoth upset. :(
0 x

User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Post by Pxtl » 08 May 2009, 03:24

smoth wrote:please condescend more mr. teamcolors are an additive blend, mr. salmon pink is red.
Did you just rage over a single forum post about 3 years old?
0 x

User avatar
Peet
Malcontent
Posts: 4381
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 22:04

Re: UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Post by Peet » 08 May 2009, 03:29

Identical behaviour.
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Post by smoth » 08 May 2009, 03:31

no. I am talking about 2 threads.

There was another instance of argh detailing how teamcolors are an additive blend, I explained to him that it was an overlay. The argument took an entire day, literally. He argued every side topic there was, every little other point but the fact that he was wrong. He maintained that he was correct and it ate up vast amounts of time. With it ending in him ultimately mocking me for spending soo much time in the discussion.

See I don't care how much argh rubs his dick to his project. I don't care that he is full of himself, there are tons of guys here who are. What I do care about is him spreading misinformation making content creation difficult or possibly problematic for other users. Of course to question him, he sees it as hubris and then forces you to argue with him at length. If you do not he will continue to proclaim himself grand master of all knowledge and continue to spread that same incorrect information.

I have had many threads that he has roadblocked with idiotic suggestions that I have often stated specificly are not an option. Other times he has completely derailed it because he wants to promote whatever shoddy widget he has hacked together. I really would respect him if he just kept his shit to him, was a little humble and tried not to act like he is the fucking king of everything.

I don't fucking know, I just want him to roll over and blink out of existence.
0 x

User avatar
rattle
Damned Developer
Posts: 8278
Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:15

Re: UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Post by rattle » 08 May 2009, 03:35

Argh, I'm not actively working on any kind of project. I don't want to get anything done by day x. That remake is just a hobby, which I'm working on when I feel like it. I know what the hell I'm doing and when I don't, I don't hesitate to go out to the internets and look shit up. Also, as you pointed out a few times, I work slow and get demotivated fast, rarely finish anything because of that.

PS; got any newbs to grind on, my stock of freshmeat is running low


Anyway, you were talking minutes here, not days of effort. This is so pointless... someone split the personal stuff please.
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Post by Argh » 08 May 2009, 04:06

LOL!!!! Teamcolor! Funny, you'd think that now that I have half a clue about how that stuff works, Smoth would avoid being embarrassed.


Here's the fragment program's line that governs this, before glow is taken into account:

LRP texColor, texColor.w, program.env[14], texColor;

LRP is defined nicely here: http://petewarden.com/notes/archives/20 ... gra_2.html

Which translates into this, IIRC:

(RGB of texture1 * alpha value of texture1, which results in a float3) + (teamcolor value * (1.0 - RGB of texture1), which results in a float3)

...and that results in a float3, RGB.

So, teamcolor value and the alpha level of texture1 are, in a very real sense, getting added together.

However, if the values are non-zero for the second half, then you get "bleed". To correct that problem, raise the alpha value, or reduce the RGB values of texture1 in that area. This is why a lot of people use black as the background, even though they just know it works.

GG, no re, on that one.
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Post by smoth » 08 May 2009, 04:22

nigga you must be trollin
0 x

User avatar
lurker
Posts: 3842
Joined: 08 Jan 2007, 06:13

Re: UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Post by lurker » 08 May 2009, 04:35

Color1 * fraction + color2 * 1/fraction is called alpha blending as smoth called it. Additive would be if the original color wasn't reduced at all. Just because there is a + in there doesn't mean you use the term 'additive'. There's also a * and a -, too. Your descriptions of the entire process have been right most of the time, but your descriptions of the details have been wrong most of the time. It's strange, really.

Anyway, you're making a fool of yourself with that childish into and ending remark; I think you misunderstood what smoth was saying and may not even disagree with him at all.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14601
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Post by Forboding Angel » 08 May 2009, 04:44

That's why I was having trouble with teamcolor originally? This may sound weird, but it took me a few days of trying and looking at smoth's morty psd before I figured out that the background on my texture had to be black underneath the teamcolor. It never really occurred to my why tho, I just kinda accepted it as "It works this way".

Also, what is the deal with all the raeging going on in here?

And additive/alpha blending... Who gives a crap as long as it works and as long as we know HOW it works?

In this case I would have made the same mistake as argh in "Terms", to me 1 + 1 = 2 regardless of what you want to call the equation.

You tell a newbie additive or alpha blending and they will stare at you blankly. If you tell that same newbie how it works, he will completely understand.

This argument is stupid.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14601
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Post by Forboding Angel » 08 May 2009, 04:48

BTW, jsut checked, tut is in the wiki. Nothing to see here folks, just keep moving along.
0 x

User avatar
lurker
Posts: 3842
Joined: 08 Jan 2007, 06:13

Re: UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Post by lurker » 08 May 2009, 04:49

Yes, it's really tempting to look at that + in the middle, but you have to realize that it's adding .5 + .5 = 1, or .3 + .7 = 1, but it's always adding up to 1. A mix. Never any more. And that's how you should describe it to newbies, as a mixture, and the alpha channel says how much of each to use. Should probably even try to avoid the word 'add' while doing so.
0 x

User avatar
rattle
Damned Developer
Posts: 8278
Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:15

Re: UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Post by rattle » 08 May 2009, 04:52

You tell a newbie additive or alpha blending and they will stare at you blankly.
If they happen to have something other than a sponge, brick or vacuum between their ears they might even perform a search on the internet for a term they don't yet understand and come up with an explanatory result like this one: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb976070.aspx

You two are like a less charismatic version of dumb and dumber.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14601
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Post by Forboding Angel » 08 May 2009, 04:57

Well ok, fair nuff, ignore the plus in the middle, but still...

You're taking 1 entity and mixing it with another to produce a single final entity, which is still adding them together no matter which way you slice it.

Saying that it isn't adding together will cause a lot of ./brainfuck to appear above peoples heads. I understand what you're saying here, but at the same time, it's splitting hairs needlessly. The bottom line is that X is the way something works, getting all "termy" about how it works is just dumb.

We work with rts games, our needs are very specific in most cases, and in the case of teamcolor, afaik it can only really be done one way (Alpha), so therefore, arguing about what term that one way is, is stupid.

Edit: Ninja'd by rattle. And you are the perfect example of a snob nosed ******* (Forgot, I can't call people by their true colors anymore, even if the mod willfully look the other way when you do it, well, read between the lines), big deal. Rattle, if I searched for every single term I ever came into contact with I would never get anything done. I don't have time for vague references. I tolerate it when I have to, but I am results oriented, I don't get all tied up and lost in the particulars.
Last edited by Forboding Angel on 08 May 2009, 05:02, edited 2 times in total.
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Post by smoth » 08 May 2009, 05:00

Forboding Angel wrote:This argument is stupid.
Wow, ok forb...

the argument over additive vs overlay was already done... I was citing it as one of the many times I have had to correct argh. Not trying to start some pointless debate with argh. That is how argh works he tries to distract the real issue.

on second reply please forb, I am in a bad mood and I think you are not understanding why the argument was made.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14601
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Post by Forboding Angel » 08 May 2009, 05:01

smoth wrote:on second reply please forb, I am in a bad mood and I think you are not understanding why the argument was made.
No, I really don't, it seems rather silly to me actually.
0 x

User avatar
Peet
Malcontent
Posts: 4381
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 22:04

Re: UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Post by Peet » 08 May 2009, 05:01

Forboding Angel wrote:The bottom line is that X is the way something works, getting all "termy" about how it works is just dumb.
You and I have had highly enjoyable sexual intercourse dozens of times over the last couple of years.

Actually we've just had conversations on the internet but let's not get all "termy" about how we interacted, that is just dumb.

Correct terminology is an IMPERATIVE for any sort of communication, but particularly in a textual medium in which there are no alternate routes of information flow. Incorrect terminology implies incorrect knowledge, always.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14601
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Post by Forboding Angel » 08 May 2009, 05:07

^^ Quite sensible, and I agree, however, a 2 page flamewar hardly helps matters now does it.

God, the lot of you are a bunch of silly retards sometimes.

Did it ever occur to you that all you had to say was" Hey Argh, your use of 'additive' is incorrect. Here is why. And yes you are right about the process, just wrong term".

Since you all apparently are certifiable genius', how come that never crossed your minds? Good lord, pot calling the kettle black much?
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Post by smoth » 08 May 2009, 05:09

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF....


forb,


man, good bye it was nice knowing you. I hope you make other friends.
0 x

User avatar
lurker
Posts: 3842
Joined: 08 Jan 2007, 06:13

Re: UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Post by lurker » 08 May 2009, 05:13

Forboding Angel wrote:Saying that it isn't adding together will cause a lot of ./brainfuck to appear above peoples heads.
That's why when explaining something you try as hard as possible to avoid confusing terms. And don't say it's not adding, of course, but point that it's doing a few things, and the result is in between. If they say add try to steer them away from it, until they have a solid understanding of what happens. If need be explain what additive is, simple a+b.

But that's entirely off-topic. The issue here is argh seeming to have a vague understanding of the details and saying confusing things. His original post had a lot of wrong in it. He needs to reread what smoth has been saying all along, and be less cocky.

HEY YOU GUYS STOP BLOCKING MY POST :evil:



Forboding Angel wrote:Did it ever occur to you that all you had to say was" Hey Argh, your use of 'additive' is incorrect. Here is why. And yes you are right about the process, just wrong term".
Because he wasn't. He had some aspects right, some quite wrong, and made a big post on it. It took pages to (mostly) correct that.
What's possessed you to get into the insult game too, lately?
0 x

User avatar
Peet
Malcontent
Posts: 4381
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 22:04

Re: UpSpring: Easy Workflow Tutorial

Post by Peet » 08 May 2009, 05:20

Forboding Angel wrote:Did it ever occur to you that all you had to say was" Hey Argh, your use of 'additive' is incorrect. Here is why. And yes you are right about the process, just wrong term".
I guess people make the mistake of assuming the recievers of their messages will be able to apply basic deductive reasoning to them. I agree, some positions should be made as explicit as possible in order to minimize the risk of intended recipient of the message to perceive the message as a generic form of opposition to his own position. On the flipside, said recipient needs to absorb, understand, and interpret the primary argument of the message - rather than ignoring it and arguing less significant side points.

Argh, smoothing groups, via whatever terminology we wish to use - hard and soft edges, welded/unwelded vertices, or whatever - form a significant portion of the control an artist has over the look of their model. The disadvantages of simply using upspring's autosmooth feature with whatever specified angle are twofold - edges between faces with an angle less than the threshold become smooth, and edges with angles greater than the threshold become sharp - removing the control the artist has over this behaviour on a per-edge basis. Thus blindly recommending this release of control to every prospective artist is not a good idea; let alone suggesting it to those who specifically wish to maintain this control over their model.
0 x

Locked

Return to “Art & Modelling”