Caydr, I used to respect you alot but I realy think your judgements off here.
If you look realy carfully at the News page you'll notice it say's:
New version, 0.66b1
thats version 0.66 beta 1
TThis whole frigging program is in beta and your complaining some parts taht have only just been added are unfinshed!! Thats perhape the daftest thing I have herd all day, and its been a weird day!!
In fact teh more I think about this the more I laff! LOL!
Anyway... yes of course s3o is not finshed... It was supposed to be supported in features but currently its not. Zaphod, pretty much the only realy active programer, is working his socks off, I should know I'm chatting with him.
If you want to texture your unit face by face then thats fine, DO SO! It will still work spring can handle both! (Which is pretty dam impressive!!)
And on the texture limit... You have to play each way off each other. You can either have a big texture over teh whole thing which takes up teh memory (though less as you can use Dss compression) or you can use the old style which means you'll have to use lots of seperate textures. You cant just avoid the fact the graphics cards have a limet to how much memmory they have just with a mouths programing!!
Ok, that is slightly heated, but hopefully i kept it light enough for you to see what im saying.
aGorm
My unbiased review of s3o
Moderator: Moderators
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
GZ, it's not our fault you are a terrible UV mapper... I have a gun model done for a halflife mod as my desktop image right now. The thing is damn near photorealistic. It was done with one UV map, and it includes complicated cocking and reloading animations when you use it in game.
You don't need more then one texture map to build a good texture. I don't see why you think you can't uv map off a window shape into your texture map, mark it as window, and then put your window texture onto it. Ironically UV maps are for more powerful for high polycount units then the old system is, and the old system is really only efficient for mines, and units with very few faces.
Seriously GZ, those things are hideous, Divert more UV space to the sides where you need more texture detail, and leave things like the underside of the weapon and what not low res, because it really doesn't need to look that good. Also, for god's sake model the safety, don't texture it on. The gun would look way better if you modeled the basic details onto it, rather then trying to texture them onto a big rectangle.
You don't need more then one texture map to build a good texture. I don't see why you think you can't uv map off a window shape into your texture map, mark it as window, and then put your window texture onto it. Ironically UV maps are for more powerful for high polycount units then the old system is, and the old system is really only efficient for mines, and units with very few faces.
Seriously GZ, those things are hideous, Divert more UV space to the sides where you need more texture detail, and leave things like the underside of the weapon and what not low res, because it really doesn't need to look that good. Also, for god's sake model the safety, don't texture it on. The gun would look way better if you modeled the basic details onto it, rather then trying to texture them onto a big rectangle.
-
Archangel of Death
- Posts: 854
- Joined: 28 Jan 2005, 18:15
As the only modelling I've ever even dabbled in was for TA, I have 0 experience with texture maps. But I've been thinking for a couple minutes and have a question.
In Spring with the old 3do format, it combines all the textures into one, then places them on the units from that one map. Is that essentially the same as internally handling it like a UV map and using coordinates from the 3do to determine where and how to place textures? So the UV map for s30 format would be similar but only having the textures for that one unit, thus freeing up the whole space for just that unit and not having to share with stuff it doesn't use, yes? What I'm getting at, is UV mapping similar to the old 3do texturing in that you are using pieces from the texture map and sticking them on faces, so you can use the same area of it in multiple locations (and not actually just twisting, stretching, and bending it to fit the modell)?
Hopefully someone can understand that... The question was a result of thinking about what little I've seen of textures for Homeworld 1 and 2. If I'm correct, can't we have something like 3dobuilder, allowing for texturing in the same way, only you import textures to the modell to use (instead of having all of them actually with it), and it exports it with compiled (in the way Spring handles 3do's textures) texture map?
I hope that was clear, because it would answer alot of questions for me.
In Spring with the old 3do format, it combines all the textures into one, then places them on the units from that one map. Is that essentially the same as internally handling it like a UV map and using coordinates from the 3do to determine where and how to place textures? So the UV map for s30 format would be similar but only having the textures for that one unit, thus freeing up the whole space for just that unit and not having to share with stuff it doesn't use, yes? What I'm getting at, is UV mapping similar to the old 3do texturing in that you are using pieces from the texture map and sticking them on faces, so you can use the same area of it in multiple locations (and not actually just twisting, stretching, and bending it to fit the modell)?
Hopefully someone can understand that... The question was a result of thinking about what little I've seen of textures for Homeworld 1 and 2. If I'm correct, can't we have something like 3dobuilder, allowing for texturing in the same way, only you import textures to the modell to use (instead of having all of them actually with it), and it exports it with compiled (in the way Spring handles 3do's textures) texture map?
I hope that was clear, because it would answer alot of questions for me.
Yeah, those guns look like they use a 128x128 map...
Some examples how to get big detail out of little maps:
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=293913 << look at the tiny map
or look here:
http://www.horribledeath.com/2d3d.htm , a LOT of examples from AOE3.
http://www.horribledeath.com/age3/delgado.htm < this one, for example, too. All 512x512 or less UVmapped.
http://www.horribledeath.com/age3/fluyt.htm << nice ship, 512x512
Or just unpack ANY commercial game to see how uvmaps are done.
Some examples how to get big detail out of little maps:
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=293913 << look at the tiny map
or look here:
http://www.horribledeath.com/2d3d.htm , a LOT of examples from AOE3.
http://www.horribledeath.com/age3/delgado.htm < this one, for example, too. All 512x512 or less UVmapped.
http://www.horribledeath.com/age3/fluyt.htm << nice ship, 512x512
Or just unpack ANY commercial game to see how uvmaps are done.
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
UV mapping works like an orangepeel. An orange is round, but if you peel it and then pound the peel out into one flat plate, you could potentially rewrap the peel around the orange again. A flat object wraps a round object. When you create a UV map you create a flat wireframe texture that represents texture groups on your model. You then paint onto the wireframe whatever you want. If you use any of the popular UV mapping tools you should have alot of control over which part of your flat texture is getting stretched out, and which part is being left proper ratio. It takes alot of practice until you can get it perfect, but in the end it's a much more powerful texturing solution, as you have way more control over how your textures are stretched than some sort of one texture per face system gives you.
Caydr, I'm a huge fan... but I think you're not really understanding how to use modern texturemapping. UV mapping is a nasty, unpleasant process that scared me away from modelling altogether back around '97 or so.Caydr wrote:I know it's just a beta... I'm trying to lay down some important next steps so that hopefully they'll be implemented.
The idea of UV unwrapping is that any part of the texture can be applied to any part of the model. It can be continuous or discontinuous. In this case, one texture can be used on multi-part models - you simply use the upper half of the texture for one part, and the lower half for the other. You don't have to use the whole texture, and you can use a single part of the texture space in as many parts of the model as you like.
Basically, think of it this way: each polygon on your model corresponds to a custom polygon on the the texture space. These texture-space polygons are totally unaware of each other - they can be disconnected or overlap or whatever you like. If a bunch of connected model polygons correspond to a bunch of connected texture polygons, then it's more efficent.
Funny, it read as a complaint to me...I know it's just a beta... I'm trying to lay down some important next steps so that hopefully they'll be implemented.
s3o is just teh begings of a new format, that will in teh future be more robust than the current ones, and I was just defending it as you seemed to be slagging it off.
I expect its going to be a long time befor any realy new features are added as accordin to zaphod hes got a lot of small bugs and untidy code he wants to get finshed first, so dont expect much other than everything working as it should in the next release.
I'm sure that by the time we get to version 1 we'll have more of the thins you want added.
One other thing... im not positive but last time i was fiddling with uvmappping, im sure i could get the different faces to read off the same bit of texture... If im correct your repeting windows can surly use that.
Finaly... even if you have to use one big texture, you atleast get a different one for each unit... so surly that in itself is a reason to switch? If you did it the ta way youd end up having to use the same texturs for everything... this way you can have everything looking how you want it (though if abopve point is rong maybe in less detail...)
anyway long post...
aGorm
-
GrOuNd_ZeRo
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: 30 Apr 2005, 01:10
Why bother with sides that are NEVER viewed? model the safety? what for? it's not even SUPPORTED in the game and most models in the game don't have barely anything modeled on it, you can't even see it if you are walking around it in game.SwiftSpear wrote:GZ, it's not our fault you are a terrible UV mapper...
Wow, you are really subtle aren't you? never heard of constructive criticism? I know they are not my best, I haven't modeled UV maps since TA was released, I barely modeled for games like Quake, these are my fist attempts SINCE then for a LOW POLY game.
I have a gun model done for a halflife mod as my desktop image right now. The thing is damn near photorealistic. It was done with one UV map, and it includes complicated cocking and reloading animations when you use it in game.
I could easilly do that as well, I modeled it for a game that didn't even support it so no need to even implement it, I wanted to keep mine relatively low-poly, Halflife? CS by any chance?such a wonderfully realistic game where you can take 5000 .50cal round hits!
You don't need more then one texture map to build a good texture. I don't see why you think you can't uv map off a window shape into your texture map, mark it as window, and then put your window texture onto it. Ironically UV maps are for more powerful for high polycount units then the old system is, and the old system is really only efficient for mines, and units with very few faces.
Were you just flaming me because I kind of agreed with Caydr here? I said it wouldn't a bad idea here.
Seriously GZ, those things are hideous, Divert more UV space to the sides where you need more texture detail, and leave things like the underside of the weapon and what not low res, because it really doesn't need to look that good. Also, for god's sake model the safety, don't texture it on. The gun would look way better if you modeled the basic details onto it, rather then trying to texture them onto a big rectangle.
What the HELL do you have against me? what the FUCK is this flame for?
YOU REALLY PISSED ME OFF like I stated in my PM...
edit: did you even notice I said for LARGE models? like 3000 poly spaceships?
Have a nice day...
Ok, what I think he was pointing out was with a few more poligons , you could have just let the engin handel the shading on the wepon and use a very simple and small uv-map.
Nither of you are wrong realy, nor are either of you right.
However the point behind teh UV-maping is so that if you made a mod with billions of units, you would not run out of texture space, as teh UVmaped s3o's are not limited to all teh uv-maps fitting onto a 2048x2048 texture. (is that teh size, i cant remeber other than it started with a 2...), and they can be compressed with dtx compression (which i may have spelt rong again, juyst leving work so no time to check...)
aGorm
Nither of you are wrong realy, nor are either of you right.
However the point behind teh UV-maping is so that if you made a mod with billions of units, you would not run out of texture space, as teh UVmaped s3o's are not limited to all teh uv-maps fitting onto a 2048x2048 texture. (is that teh size, i cant remeber other than it started with a 2...), and they can be compressed with dtx compression (which i may have spelt rong again, juyst leving work so no time to check...)
aGorm
-
GrOuNd_ZeRo
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: 30 Apr 2005, 01:10
Well Agorm, like I SAID before, there is no use to even include that detail because the models in the original game didn't even HAVE ANY of those details, mine are 100% more detailed than the original Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear ones!
Sure I could have included it, it's easy enough, but like I said, there was no point so I just made this little detail part of the texture.
I have done a much better job than most of the people making those cheesy weapon mods for god damn Rogue Spear AND Ghost Recon which are so incredibly cheap, they use pictures like I did and only texture the sides, the rest is wrapped around the model
I am NOT a poor UV-mapper, I just didn't feel like adding these details on that game.
LIKE I SAID, it was NOTHING FANCY, I could have done ALOT better but I don't have the time to add these details, I have a life, I have a wife and i'm busy with immigration procedures, on top of that I have TA:WD that I dedicate alot of time in developing (which have weapon models for infantry with excessive details that can only be seen in spring fully zoomed in).
Sure I could have included it, it's easy enough, but like I said, there was no point so I just made this little detail part of the texture.
I have done a much better job than most of the people making those cheesy weapon mods for god damn Rogue Spear AND Ghost Recon which are so incredibly cheap, they use pictures like I did and only texture the sides, the rest is wrapped around the model
I am NOT a poor UV-mapper, I just didn't feel like adding these details on that game.
LIKE I SAID, it was NOTHING FANCY, I could have done ALOT better but I don't have the time to add these details, I have a life, I have a wife and i'm busy with immigration procedures, on top of that I have TA:WD that I dedicate alot of time in developing (which have weapon models for infantry with excessive details that can only be seen in spring fully zoomed in).
Ouch... I think you might be in trouble. You see, you should be designing them so that their unrwrappings don't overlap. With a unit that consists of a stator and a rotor (like a mexx), say the top half of the texture was reserved for the stator, and the bottom half of the texture was reserved for the rotor.Caydr wrote:Right, I've got a question. In max, I've got two objects uv unwrapped reasonably well. Now how do I combine those maps into one?
I don't know a quick way to compress or move all of the UV coordinates.
-
[K.B.] Napalm Cobra
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 06:15
move and scale the UV coordinates on the first object so theres a space with no uvs, next move the coordinates on the second object to the corresponding space on it's own uv map.Caydr wrote:Right, I've got a question. In max, I've got two objects uv unwrapped reasonably well. Now how do I combine those maps into one?
The ned result should be that if you overlayed both on top of eachother nothing would overlap.
Yeah, god forbid spending an hour learning something new to save yourself multiple hours of work later...[K.B.] Napalm Cobra wrote:That sounds like unnecissary added work for unit makers.
Exactly. You just have to assign the UVs for those polygons to the same coordinates. If you do things right and you have a symmetrical model, you can do it so you only have to map half of the original thing, and the UVs are automatically applied to the mirrored polygons as well. You could then even re-map certain polygons independently to break the symmetry in certain areas. There's many many ways you can take shortcuts and conserve texture space; a little bit of learning goes a long way.aGorm wrote:One other thing... im not positive but last time i was fiddling with uvmappping, im sure i could get the different faces to read off the same bit of texture... If im correct your repeting windows can surly use that.
I realize perfectly well how to resize things in the uv map to accomodate new maps. The problem is that I appear to be mapping on entirely different textures - there is *no* sign of the other mappings when I move on to a new object. All objects have been assigned the same material, BTW.
I don't know how to, as you say, 'overlay' the UV maps onto each other.
After an hour of searching for such a function, the best outcome was thiis:
I don't know how to, as you say, 'overlay' the UV maps onto each other.
After an hour of searching for such a function, the best outcome was thiis:
Last edited by Caydr on 17 Nov 2005, 00:13, edited 1 time in total.