Palm tree, Critique please - Page 2

Palm tree, Critique please

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

Moderators: MR.D, Moderators

User avatar
aGorm
Posts: 2928
Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 10:25

Post by aGorm »

**~~-- HIJACKED!! --~~**

Well, not related exactly anyway, but i figured this is where modlers and people are looking...

First, do you liek my first ever proper UV mapped object? (Is a house for those that can't tell...)

Image

Second, and this is to the modlers, why when I urn on teh lighting in upspring, does it do this??? And will teh same thing happen In game??

Image

Only, seeing as teh house is about the size of 2 peewe next to each other with a roof on top, and when I zoomed out to about the level youd normaly view it, teh weird lines became even more apparent. :cry:

(please bare in mind... FIRST UV MAPPED OBJECT :-) )

aGorm

::PS:: The palms are sexy...
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Post by smoth »

fuck on a stick.. I typed a full page long post and then click submit only for the site to time out... FUCK, this pisses me off

The jist.. the palm is done outside of tweaking the texture. I'd explain again but that post took 20 minutes to write with means I am not about to spend fourty minutes writing on this.



Agorm, imagine these guys are standing next to 6ft(2 meters) tall men stacked in a collum. that is the scale of OTA/spring*(outside of wd and SWTA)
Image

The model does and doesn't look good. you do not need to make faces for the window and doors, the whole house outside of the roof and chimney can be solid geometry. You created faces in the front of the house for th doors and windows. DO NOT DO THIS, while we can co overboard on polies le's save those for where they are needed.

So in short, merge that whole face then just mapp a texture to it with the windows and door already drawn on.
User avatar
aGorm
Posts: 2928
Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 10:25

Post by aGorm »

But then surly you have to yous a mahosive texture for each side of teh house? Were as it is I can use teh same white wall for every side, and have all teh windows use the same texture space? Or am I missing somthing here? Only, Id have to draw out atleast sevral differnt walls to put windows only on some of them, and so the walls woudl in total use 3 x's as much texture space, plus teh windows would look far worse in a close up?

Bare in mind, this is just me saying why i thought it should be done like that, if you could clarify why the other way is better, other than saving pollies, then that would be tress helpfull...

Also, does anyone know if the weird lighting thing would happen in game?

Oh, and i hadnt scalled it yet, no worries, I know it currently dwafs a PeeWee, when it should only just be taller.

aGorm
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Post by smoth »

aGorm wrote:But then surly you have to yous a mahosive texture for each side of teh house? Were as it is I can use teh same white wall for every side, and have all teh windows use the same texture space? Or am I missing somthing here? Only, Id have to draw out atleast sevral differnt walls to put windows only on some of them, and so the walls woudl in total use 3 x's as much texture space, plus teh windows would look far worse in a close up?

Bare in mind, this is just me saying why i thought it should be done like that, if you could clarify why the other way is better, other than saving pollies, then that would be tress helpfull...

Also, does anyone know if the weird lighting thing would happen in game?

Oh, and i hadnt scalled it yet, no worries, I know it currently dwafs a PeeWee, when it should only just be taller.

aGorm
Got google talk or team speak? If so pm me your google talk thing-e and we can talk about it.

Otherwise, you as you said are NEW to uvw mapping. I am not-so-new, it is generally considered a bad idea to use polies where a texture can cover it. I can do my best to explain my limited understanding of it but I am sure argh would do better. You should just generally trust that there is a good reason but I'll try to explain:

What is causing the odd shadows in your model is the normals for each face. it is to my understanding that each triangle has an imaginary line called a normal. This line determines the direction of light but also determines the direction of shadow. When you first preview your model you are looking at it flat shaded or full-bright. However, most engines place what is know as gouraud shading on things. This takes the three corners and the normal together to make shadows. That is why your model looks all weird with shadows.

Using one face with a simple mapping will produce less problems and as my military friends say it "the more parts the more something can go wrong." As a feature modeler you want to save a many polies as you can for the mod and main characters. That way the game characters can be sky high because features are going to be everywhere: example here

Outside of poly concerns, again as stated above it will cause issues. You were asking why it does that weird shadow crap. Also, like I said before is is a RULE for low poly modeling(IE not cutscene videos) that when you are modeling you do not make a face where a texture can cover it easily Facial subdivides cause the texture to act funny and generally it is seen as lazy to not texture it to one face where you can. I hope the first paragraph explains it. I would personally like to see your model and texture to see if it is really a space concern. Odds are you are not using all of your texture space. Odds are you CAN fit all sides of the house into one texture.


Image
Here is an example of a texture I did for:
Image

From a programmer's understanding: It is better to make a solid face because it is less for the engine to deal with. Each vertex is something the engine must keep track of. This also goes for texture mapping, The more mapping it has to keep track of the more it will complicate things, which means cpu/ram usage. For simplicities sake the less that has to be mapped will be better. Do not get me wrong I go around and around with my fellow cs majors on what is negligible but I believe that there is no point that is negligible.
User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Post by Argh »

Actually, Smoth, that was a pretty good summary :-)

Basically, he's entirely right- never use multiple faces to do a flat surface, unless you have an excellent reason. And, if you must do that... then use seperate squares/rectangles/whatever, don't subdivide the surface... and move the seperate squares slightly away from the main surface. Viewers will never see it, if you keep the distance small, and if it's far enough to prevent clipping problems, then it's a great technique for things that are using a repeating cubemap with windows, etc., etc.

Why do it that way? Why not just cut the face up? In a word: welding.

Welding is the working artist's term for a couple of different techniques used by 3D modeling software to blur surface normals between angular facets. It's a way to cheaply create the impression of curvature, basically, by blurring where the sharp edges of joins occur.

The most modern, cutting-edge game engines are moving away from welding, in favor of another (more complicated) technique called normal mapping, where an image map is projected onto a low-poly version of a high-poly model, allowing the rendering engine to interpolate the resulting light values with the normal map, creating the illusion of curvature on a surface that has a much lower real tricount.

These days, considering just how many polygons modern video cards can handle without significant performance problems, it seems like normal mapping is a cutting-edge technique that has arrived a little too late to be useful for anything but movie-makers and other super-high-end content producers (where total polycounts in scenes still matter a great deal, because then we're talking millions of tris), but I'm really not qualified to talk about this in any great detail, so I should shut up before I start sounding as ignorant as I really am ;)

With buildings, especially things that we're trying to get "to scale", our objective, as modelers, is to pack lots of detail into rather small things. One of the best ways to save our texture space, but still have very high details, is to re-use texture sections over and over again. We're always tempted to do this by cutting up our walls into squares of equal sizes (or, at least, keep them square/rectangular) but if you're going to do that, you need to un-weld the vertices of your model prior to importing it into Spring...

I have no idea how much (or if) UpSpring or Spring automatically welds things, but it appears to do so. I meant to ask Zaphod about that at some point, but I've wasted enough of his free time with my other questions and newbie mistakes I'm not real keen on making him stare at some sourcecode from the core renderer ;)
Post Reply

Return to “Art & Modelling”