Jump to content


Photo

What do you think? (Adding details to old models)

renewing models

78 replies to this topic

#1 XendroX

XendroX

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 06 October 2014 - 02:35 PM

*
POPULAR

I try to offer this once, and know second try %)
If Springheel and other crew members don't demand, I can slowly renew models from TDM base pack :ph34r:

Posted Image

Even don't try to guess where is a new one)))))
  • Tels, Bikerdude, AluminumHaste and 4 others like this

#2 nbohr1more

nbohr1more

    Darkmod PR, Wordsmith

  • Development Role
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7289 posts

Posted 06 October 2014 - 07:36 PM

One thing you might consider is making your new refinements into a LOD stage rather than replacing the model outright.
Please visit TDM's IndieDB site and help promote the mod:

http://www.indiedb.c...ds/the-dark-mod

(Yeah, shameless promotion... but traffic is traffic folks...)

#3 SteveL

SteveL

    Hero Coder

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3657 posts

Posted 07 October 2014 - 02:19 AM

Both good suggestions

#4 Melan

Melan

    Contest Winner, Wordsmith

  • Campaign Dev
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4285 posts

Posted 07 October 2014 - 03:11 AM

Just ask before you do all the work. I think some of the TDM models were "cut down" from high-poly originals, and they might still be around.

But, neat suggestion! :)
Come the time of peril, did the ground gape, and did the dead rest unquiet 'gainst us. Our bands of iron and hammers of stone prevailed not, and some did doubt the Builder's plan. But the seals held strong, and the few did triumph, and the doubters were lain into the foundations of the new sanctum. -- Collected letters of the Smith-in-Exile, Civitas Approved

#5 XendroX

XendroX

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 07 October 2014 - 01:49 PM

About LOD system, I've read something half year ago, but understand that it is not very useful. Maybe I'm wrong about it for today

@Melan - Good question, if I can have access to hi-poly models with texture, this make work much easy

Question from me:
I always can't understand why round objects ingames can't be with 16 or 32 vertices to look almost like real?
My version of it. Cost additional 80 triangles (40 ontop and 40 onbottom. Old 160 triangles, renewed - 240 triangles)

Posted Image

I think this difference doesn't cost too much to leave models like on left screen...
  • nbohr1more, SteveL and Atheran like this

#6 Springheel

Springheel

    Creative Director (retired)

  • Admin
  • 35809 posts

Posted 07 October 2014 - 02:31 PM

Since those are movables, that's a classic contender for LOD.
Posted Image

#7 XendroX

XendroX

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 07 October 2014 - 02:51 PM

And how can it be implemented to existed maps? When I change models, I just replace them in *.pk4. I understand that if I want to make them "LODable", I need to correct every entity in map or not?

@Springheel. Can you share for me some directory where I can drop remaked models? I think it must be more comfortable...

Edited by XendroX, 07 October 2014 - 03:00 PM.


#8 SteveL

SteveL

    Hero Coder

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3657 posts

Posted 07 October 2014 - 03:26 PM

LOD is the right thing to do for most improved models, but for those specific models (just 80 extra triangles), it's tempting to simply replace the model.

@XendroX: Existing maps is a good point. What we can do depends on whether it's a static model or a custom entity:

Entity models like moveables (your goblets) and modelled lights
We will change the entity def for these, so that existing maps will use the new models at the right LOD stages too.

Static models that can't be moved
We can't make static models in existing maps start using LOD, so for each model we will have to choose between:

1) Existing maps miss out -- they keep the low-poly model
2) We replace the existing model with the new one, so that existing maps always use the improved model.

We'd have to make that decision separately for each model, based on whether it'll affect performance much. If you add 10000 tris to a common outdoor model, then we'd have to leave existing maps with the low poly version. But if you add just 100 tris to an indoor model, we could give old maps the new model.

Don't worry about learning how to set up LOD entity defs (unless you want to!). I'll help set that up, if you want to concentrate on modelling, and I'm sure others will too.
  • XendroX likes this

#9 Springheel

Springheel

    Creative Director (retired)

  • Admin
  • 35809 posts

Posted 07 October 2014 - 03:54 PM

I'd like to look at any new models before replacing them.
Posted Image

#10 XendroX

XendroX

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 07 October 2014 - 03:58 PM

For example. From kitchen subdir.

http://www.ex.ua/784573508057

Armchair

http://www.ex.ua/115014340331

Edited by XendroX, 07 October 2014 - 04:02 PM.


#11 i30817

i30817

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 446 posts

Posted 08 October 2014 - 01:28 AM

TDM already stutters a lot in this radeonHD 4000 mobile, so please don't 'upgrade' the models more without LOD. If people want to have only the best quality models then can set no-lod on the settings (or vice versa).

Edited by i30817, 08 October 2014 - 01:29 AM.


#12 Atheran

Atheran

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 137 posts

Posted 08 October 2014 - 01:49 AM

While I agree with i30817 generally this HD4000 of course is going to stater... Thing is where the minimum specs are set by the team.

Good work XendroX and good luck with it. I'd offer help but I still have to make those covers and in order to do that I still have to fix my RAM problems :/

EDIT: If you change the dimensions or the general "outlook" of any furniture please send the model to me so I won't have to remake the cloth for it.

Edited by Atheran, 08 October 2014 - 01:51 AM.

Sometimes I want to scream
So long that life escapes
And then I'd shut my eyes
I'd be the angel of disgrace

#13 Tels

Tels

    Mod hero

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15024 posts

Posted 08 October 2014 - 06:28 AM

LOD is the right thing to do for most improved models, but for those specific models (just 80 extra triangles), it's tempting to simply replace the model.


I agree with SteveL here, if the difference is small and there where no LOD stages before, just replace the model. LOD stages do come with some small overhead.

Btw, I love seeing the new high-res models, with the ever-more powerful graphic cards, high-res screens and faster CPUs, it would be nice to get rid of overly pixelated GUI fonts, blurred textures and tri-showing models :)

Please keep them coming :wub:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

"Remember: If the game lets you do it, it's not cheating." -- Xarax

#14 Tels

Tels

    Mod hero

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15024 posts

Posted 08 October 2014 - 06:31 AM

TDM already stutters a lot in this radeonHD 4000 mobile, so please don't 'upgrade' the models more without LOD. If people want to have only the best quality models then can set no-lod on the settings (or vice versa).


While I generally agree, 100 polies more or less won't make a dent - other graphic settings make a much heavier impact. But if a 1000 poly model gets changed to a 10000, that would definitely be LOD material.

And in some cases, a 5000 poly model might even get a 2000 low-poly and a 10000 high-poly stage, improving performance.

We do have some overly detailed models (the glas syring comes to mind) which could also benefit from shadow maps. 1000 shadow casting polygons are overkill for most small models :)
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

"Remember: If the game lets you do it, it's not cheating." -- Xarax

#15 Sotha

Sotha

    Vertical Contest Winner

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5492 posts

Posted 08 October 2014 - 07:14 AM

If anything is gonna be replaced, the people doing the replacing need to be ultra-sure the new model dimensions, origin and collision mesh are perfectly identical to the old one.

If the new object had subtle differences to the old ones, existing maps would be broken because the items would float, and moveables would fall through the tables.

Thus, extra testing is required to make sure nothing breaks, and that way complete replacement of old stuff may be unfeasable.

Perhaps it would be more useful to make something completely new? Something that does not yet exist?
Clipper
-The mapper's best friend.

#16 Atheran

Atheran

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 137 posts

Posted 08 October 2014 - 07:28 AM

If anything is gonna be replaced, the people doing the replacing need to be ultra-sure the new model dimensions, origin and collision mesh are perfectly identical to the old one.

If the new object had subtle differences to the old ones, existing maps would be broken because the items would float, and moveables would fall through the tables.

Thus, extra testing is required to make sure nothing breaks, and that way complete replacement of old stuff may be unfeasable.

Perhaps it would be more useful to make something completely new? Something that does not yet exist?


Of course you're right on this one and I don't think Xendrox is saying that he'll replace old models without making anything new. If someone asks for specific models I bet Xendrox will try to help, as will I.

Some of those issues you mention are easily avoidable by using the old model as a base mesh and build on it. Dimensions will stay the same as will the origin point. Of course testing will be required tho' to avoid random problems that are bound to happen. As for the collision mesh I don't see any reason why to mess with it, unless we make huge differences to the model itself. I bet you do not use the model as a collision mesh as well as this would be an overkill for no reason.
Sometimes I want to scream
So long that life escapes
And then I'd shut my eyes
I'd be the angel of disgrace

#17 Tels

Tels

    Mod hero

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15024 posts

Posted 08 October 2014 - 07:37 AM

Of course you're right on this one and I don't think Xendrox is saying that he'll replace old models without making anything new. If someone asks for specific models I bet Xendrox will try to help, as will I.

Some of those issues you mention are easily avoidable by using the old model as a base mesh and build on it. Dimensions will stay the same as will the origin point. Of course testing will be required tho' to avoid random problems that are bound to happen. As for the collision mesh I don't see any reason why to mess with it, unless we make huge differences to the model itself. I bet you do not use the model as a collision mesh as well as this would be an overkill for no reason.


Exactly. The potential problems Sotha fears don't even exist, or are part of the quality control process, anyway.

It's always a bit disheartening to see offers of help getting countered with "but but you must make sure that absolutely nothing is broken", which is like "but you must do good work". OF COURSE. Aren't we all here because we want the best possible result for TDM given our limited resources and abilities?

(And often the counter arguments go almost to the point where it detoriates to "but but you must make sure nothing is actually changed", which of course means no change and thus nothing gets done...)

Hopefully our potential helpers do not get discouraged by this. :)
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

"Remember: If the game lets you do it, it's not cheating." -- Xarax

#18 Sotha

Sotha

    Vertical Contest Winner

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5492 posts

Posted 08 October 2014 - 09:17 AM

Well, if something broke because of a hasty model replacement everyone would lose:
Mappers map breaks
Modeler does work that cannot be used and must be reverted
Someone needs to expend energy to repair the mess.

I see these risks with the possible benefit of model with few polies more, which may be completely non-noticeable to the majority of the players.

I do not know much of modeling, but as a mapper I do know that placing a moveable is a precise thing: 0.5 unit placement error, and the item crashes through geometry. Even slight changes in dimensions can cause a lot trouble, a fact that could be easily overlooked.

I wanted to point this out now, when the milk is not yet on the floor and mistakes are not yet made and the children aren't crying. If my concerns are invalid, then all is well. And I wasn't implying someone is doing poor or good work. The title of the thread calls "what do you think?" My post contains my thoughts on the topic.

Everyone is welcome to contribute, as long as stuff isn't broken, right?
Clipper
-The mapper's best friend.

#19 XendroX

XendroX

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 08 October 2014 - 10:56 AM

Wow )) How much letters I found))
Don't worry about replacing - all I do is adding polys by spliting existing one and moving points, except of very poor items, like legs in armchair. I don't try to create absolutely new model, just upgrade existed one. Problems can be, but chances are very small.
I want to save all texture maps and skins 100% working on upgraded models.

New staff is much more huge work, and doing it after RL work is hard enough. Instead of upgrading existing models.
Plus I agree with Springheel - today there are almost all needed objects in TDM build and I decide that more usefull to redone them. After playing few missions I saw that there are models look like from quake 3, when all another is looking pretty well. And big role in replacing old one with upgraded is to involve more users in this project.

#20 Springheel

Springheel

    Creative Director (retired)

  • Admin
  • 35809 posts

Posted 08 October 2014 - 11:01 AM

If anything is gonna be replaced, the people doing the replacing need to be ultra-sure the new model dimensions, origin and collision mesh are perfectly identical to the old one.


Yes, this definitely something that must be watched. Adjustments to existing models have to be done carefully, preferably with the endorsement of the original modeler, if they are still here.

The new rounded cups needed a lower smoothing value, as the original was designed for lower-poly objects and created unattractive, shaded triangles on the bottom, as an example. And the difference in roundness between the mesh and the normalmap, if it changes, can affect self-shadow-casting as well.
Posted Image

#21 XendroX

XendroX

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 08 October 2014 - 11:09 AM

@Springheel. Have you load models I posted? Are they ok?

About cups, I didn't saw that its were unattractive, for me they looks like bad-round %) Sorry

Edited by XendroX, 08 October 2014 - 11:20 AM.


#22 Springheel

Springheel

    Creative Director (retired)

  • Admin
  • 35809 posts

Posted 08 October 2014 - 11:25 AM

I've only looked at the cups thus far...they were fine other than the smoothing issue. Keep in mind some of the kitchen assets have already been updated since 2.02, and other models have been given LOD stages over the summer, so I'd recommend checking with me before you put too much work into updating anything that already exists.
Posted Image

#23 Tels

Tels

    Mod hero

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15024 posts

Posted 08 October 2014 - 12:41 PM

Well, if something broke because of a hasty model replacement everyone would lose:
Mappers map breaks
Modeler does work that cannot be used and must be reverted
Someone needs to expend energy to repair the mess.

I see these risks with the possible benefit of model with few polies more, which may be completely non-noticeable to the majority of the players.

I do not know much of modeling, but as a mapper I do know that placing a moveable is a precise thing: 0.5 unit placement error, and the item crashes through geometry. Even slight changes in dimensions can cause a lot trouble, a fact that could be easily overlooked.

I wanted to point this out now, when the milk is not yet on the floor and mistakes are not yet made and the children aren't crying. If my concerns are invalid, then all is well. And I wasn't implying someone is doing poor or good work. The title of the thread calls "what do you think?" My post contains my thoughts on the topic.

Everyone is welcome to contribute, as long as stuff isn't broken, right?


Sotha, I understand your concerns, but they are misplaced here - the visual model and the physical clipmodel are two sep. things. Polishing the visual model will make no difference to maps or mappers - unless the visual model will be completely different - but even then it just looks odd but still works.

You can, f.i. replace a moveable crate with an apple and the crate will still behave like a crate. It doesn't mean nobody should watch out, but most problems are non-existant. :)
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

"Remember: If the game lets you do it, it's not cheating." -- Xarax

#24 Springheel

Springheel

    Creative Director (retired)

  • Admin
  • 35809 posts

Posted 08 October 2014 - 01:30 PM

If the collision mesh is part of the .lwo file, and most are, it's not difficult to move it, either intentionally or accidentally. Small changes to the outside dimensions can also affect how static meshes appear to rest against brushwork.

I think Sotha's point is perfectly valid.
Posted Image

#25 Obsttorte

Obsttorte

    Scripting guru, Mapper

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4735 posts

Posted 08 October 2014 - 02:29 PM

I agree with several points made in this thread.

First of all, I think that only models should be renewed that are actually intented to look good. If something is made to look like garbage, for example .. garbage, or other cheap things, it may not be beneficial to improve them. This also counts for rather small objects, as the player may not even notice the difference, but gets the performance impact if a mapper uses a lot of them in a scene.

I also agree with Sotha that there should be some care taken in regardence to compatibility. But if an object is not perfectly identical and may be floating a bit, this is usually not a game breaker for me. Most missions suffer from bigger issues ;).

Regarding moveables falling through the floor. As those fall down automatically after mission launch, I always place them a bit higher to avoid such effects. I can only suggeest other mappers to do this as well.

I also agree that it may be more beneficial to create new models instead of renewing old ones. Players never really complained about them, and mappers may want to use assets in their future missions that were not seen before. This definetely sounds more attractive to me as the chance that if I replay and old mission again I may stumble over some models with some higher poly count on them.
FM's: Builder Roads, Old Habits, Old Habits Rebuild
WIP's: Several. Although after playing Thief 4 I really wanna make a city mission.
Mapping and Scripting: Apples and Peaches
Sculptris Models and Tutorials: Obsttortes Models
My wiki articles: Obstipedia
Let's Map TDM YouTube playlist: ObstlerTube
Texture Blending in DR: DR ASE Blend Exporter

End of shameless self promotion.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users