replacing ota material
Moderators: MR.D, Moderators
- bobthedinosaur
- Blood & Steel Developer
- Posts: 2702
- Joined: 25 Aug 2004, 13:31
replacing ota material
how is the community progress on this? i see alot of new modles with uv's out there but there is still sound, and ota 3do textures left?
because many mods still use 3do and it may alot of time replacing all the old 3do models with uv ones, so i was thinking of a side project of just going thru and redoing all the ta textures so they are a fitting replacment, prettier, and scott free of legalities.
any one else up for the job?
because many mods still use 3do and it may alot of time replacing all the old 3do models with uv ones, so i was thinking of a side project of just going thru and redoing all the ta textures so they are a fitting replacment, prettier, and scott free of legalities.
any one else up for the job?
- Wolf-In-Exile
- Posts: 497
- Joined: 21 Nov 2005, 13:40
- bobthedinosaur
- Blood & Steel Developer
- Posts: 2702
- Joined: 25 Aug 2004, 13:31
Though an obsolete format, 3do is hundreds of times easier to texture and to get a decent model in game quickly. We also already have dozens of 3do's that are free of cavedog IP. While eventually we will probably want to replace all the 3do's, this will take ages so replacing the 3do textures isnt a waste of time.
If you'd like to make textures though, spring as a whole really needs people who are capable of skinning models. We have a lot of 3d modellers but not nearly enough texture artists.
If you'd like to make textures though, spring as a whole really needs people who are capable of skinning models. We have a lot of 3d modellers but not nearly enough texture artists.
- Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
- Wolf-In-Exile
- Posts: 497
- Joined: 21 Nov 2005, 13:40
I have to agree, speaking from 4 years modeling experience, using UVw_texture maps gives you a heck of alot more quality and control VS using a tileset system.
Problem is, when you use UVW based textures, you're going to be spending alot more time to do those quality textures, and about 95% of the time you can't reuse those textures on other models.
Maybe a few snipits here and there can be cloned from 1 model to the other, but the majority is going to be all done from scratch, which does in fact take alot of time and patience.
Problem is, when you use UVW based textures, you're going to be spending alot more time to do those quality textures, and about 95% of the time you can't reuse those textures on other models.
Maybe a few snipits here and there can be cloned from 1 model to the other, but the majority is going to be all done from scratch, which does in fact take alot of time and patience.
s3o is more timeconsuming. There is no way in my mind to argue against this point. 3do is faster and more efficient because I can draw one texture and just apply it to every face I want to. It also requires more talent or skill to texture an s3o.
S3o also because each model has it's own texture is very wasteful.
S3o also because each model has it's own texture is very wasteful.
- MightySheep
- Posts: 243
- Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 02:17
I honestly dont get the fuss about s3o. In my mind, the quality of most s3o's is terrible- i havent seen a single s3o texture which looks good in standard play. They are almost universally muddy, lack contrast, have difficulties with unit differentiation, and the teamcolour is almost always impossible to make out at the sort of distances one generally plays at.
They are sex in a can at close range but at a distance they are a muddy grey lump. Just totally inappropriate for an RTS.
Not to pick on MR.D's models as they are beautiful up close and are high quality stuff, but as a player who plays with them i have trouble telling them from corpses, i have trouble seeing them on some maps, i have trouble telling the gator from the raider and i have an awful amount of trouble telling my units from my enemies or allies. That is prettymuch everything that can be wrong with a unit, from a practicality and gameplay standpoint.
3do models, even bad ones, are always cirsp, bright, dont get muddy or blurred at a distance, are distinct, and have easy to spot teamcolour. They have a semi-cartoonish nature to them which gives them an iconic look that allows you to see the models features and animation much more easily and take only a couple of minutes to texture.
They are sex in a can at close range but at a distance they are a muddy grey lump. Just totally inappropriate for an RTS.
Not to pick on MR.D's models as they are beautiful up close and are high quality stuff, but as a player who plays with them i have trouble telling them from corpses, i have trouble seeing them on some maps, i have trouble telling the gator from the raider and i have an awful amount of trouble telling my units from my enemies or allies. That is prettymuch everything that can be wrong with a unit, from a practicality and gameplay standpoint.
3do models, even bad ones, are always cirsp, bright, dont get muddy or blurred at a distance, are distinct, and have easy to spot teamcolour. They have a semi-cartoonish nature to them which gives them an iconic look that allows you to see the models features and animation much more easily and take only a couple of minutes to texture.
You read the post?Treeform wrote:Saktoth, what about MrD's models? They look great.
Saktoth wrote:Not to pick on MR.D's models as they are beautiful up close and are high quality stuff, but as a player who plays with them i have trouble telling them from corpses, i have trouble seeing them on some maps, i have trouble telling the gator from the raider and i have an awful amount of trouble telling my units from my enemies or allies. That is prettymuch everything that can be wrong with a unit, from a practicality and gameplay standpoint.