blackjack-VS- 0 Posted May 26, 2007 hey deadmeat i'm sory if sound pretensious or anything with my 2cents... i just sayed what i've read/listen from the many professionals around the gaming world. having a high poly model as a base usually is the best way. for small details u have "handpainted" method, but for gears, uniforms, faces and other "organic" shapes u need the high poly reference like or not. My point was to give cl10k a "hand" on this subject and since u seem to domain this subject so well, i'll keep silent... Good luck cl10k and i hope to your work soon! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dm 9 Posted May 26, 2007 @ May 26 2007,14:09)]hey deadmeat i'm sory if sound pretensious or anything with my 2cents... i just sayed what i've read/listen from the many professionals around the gaming world. having a high poly model as a base usually is the best way. for small details u have "handpainted" method, but for gears, uniforms, faces and other "organic" shapes u need the high poly reference like or not.My point was to give cl10k a "hand" on this subject and since u seem to domain this subject so well, i'll keep silent... Nah, thats cool. I actually agree with you 100% Its always technically "better" to generate normal maps from a higher detail model, but in a lot of cases its simply too time consuming (especially for the hobbyist) to do for every single model you make. ArmA requires LoDs, to make a QUALITY LoD set, you should aim to have 7 LoDs, add to that a high poly normal reference, and you've got to re-model everything 8 times, as well as ensuring the UV set remains the same. Now multiply that by the number of things you actually want to create for the game, and you can see that there is a hell of a lot of work ahead of you. And its certainly not about dominating the subject. I know for a FACT that there is a HUGE amount I can still learn from other people. My point so far has been to make sure the terminology is correct Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nephilim 0 Posted May 26, 2007 well both methods are quite valid. it just depends on what you want to achieve if you have a very detailed model that just needs to have surface detail it sure would be stupid to create high poly model for irt and scratches or small bolts. this can easily be done with the photochop plugin using greyscale images (bumpmaps :P ) as height reference. the other method using high poly reference models and applying the normals of the high ref model onto the low poly model has the advantage that it actually captures surface geometry. you cant really paint thise with photoshop as it will always look very arkward due transistion steps. the only disadvantage that normal maps have is that they are perpendicular and the actual low poly geometry will always be visible at the edges :/ http://www.view4u.com.br/Nano_map.jpg indeed thats a very good example. this kinda of normal map captured geometry you cant paint. or at least it would take ALOT of time and effort that simply doesnt do any justice in my eyes but actually to heat up the turmoil abit *grin* those arma normal maps kinda look like simple bump maps dyed in pink.. whereas pink = valley, white = peaks. cheers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dm 9 Posted May 26, 2007 but actually to heat up the turmoil abit *grin*those arma normal maps kinda look like simple bump maps dyed in pink.. whereas pink = valley, white = peaks. You'll be talking about the Specular maps there then... Lets put this one to bed for good shall we: ArmA UH60 textures Diffuse map (uh60_2_co) Normal Map (uh60_2_nohq) Specular Map (uh60_2_smdi) Can we please stop this pointless BS now? Thanks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nephilim 0 Posted May 26, 2007 oopps! my fault XD sorry Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
adumb 0 Posted May 26, 2007 even better way is to use xnormal, which is free and at times it works way better that XSI or even a scultping app like mudbox or Zbrush. What do you mean by "even a scultping app like mudbox or Zbrush" ? last time i looked xnormal was just to generate normal, ambient occlusion and parallax displacement maps. and not for "sculpting" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cl10k 0 Posted May 30, 2007 i've tried xnormal now. but have a weird result. any idea what went wrong? or any link to a good tutorial? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nephilim 0 Posted May 30, 2007 strange did us use a box or a simple plane as a low poly mesh? overlaping geometry?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cl10k 0 Posted May 30, 2007 the lowpoly was a box without any overlapping Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kronzky 5 Posted May 30, 2007 This seems to be a topic worthy of some "stickyness", so that's what I've done now. Please keep up the high level of quality posts in here, and I'm sure it'll be appreciated by lots of people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nephilim 0 Posted May 30, 2007 did you maybe accidentally render both objects ( hi poly/ low poly) in one frame? looks like some clipping to me try rendering if from another angle post normal map? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cl10k 0 Posted May 30, 2007 i'll do that later. reading the manual atm and googling for some info... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Delirium 0 Posted May 30, 2007 even better way is to use xnormal, which is free and at times it works way better that XSI or even a scultping app like mudbox or Zbrush. What do you mean by "even a scultping app like mudbox or Zbrush" ? last time i looked xnormal was just to generate normal, ambient occlusion and parallax displacement maps. and not for "sculpting" It means that it is may be better than applications that also have normal map creation capabilities. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
