Tels
-
Posts
14984 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
23
Posts posted by Tels
-
-
Do you mean you actually saw "FOO_MACRO" or are you referring to "DECAL_MACRO"? The latter is a predefined macro from Doom 3, I am not aware that you can define your own macros.
DECAL_MACRO it was - couldn't remember the name, so I used the universal placeholder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo
Hm, do we have control over the parser? Defining our own macros would be a really good way to cut down on that horrible copy&paste and making it easier changing f.i. all definitions of "frob" etc.
If we can't do this, we could still build a preparser for materials. (I am toying around building a parser for some special stuff, anyway).
-
We did already discuss this and decide against it. We can't reopen every decision just because someone new joins the team and has a different opinion.
OK. I won't bother to bring up old topics anymore.
-
That's only a legitimate question if you intend to commit to SVN. You muck about as much as you want on your own end.
Of course I am asking about commiting it. Why would I make changes only on my end, then nobody would benefit from them.
I wouldn't have brought the issue up if I didn't think it was a positive change
-
Hmm, I don't know. When you see a high-spec version without a default to compare it to, it doesn't register as wet to me, it just looks strangely shiny. It might be interesting as some kind of blend over time, though I think that would have limited uses.
There's more to looking wet than just shine, however. If you just apply a high specular to an AI material, it wouldn't look wet at all (well, the metal, perhaps). Cloth doesn't get particularly shiny when wet, but it gets darker or more saturated. I think shiny cloth would just look like it turned into velvet or something.
It wouldn't work well for wood, either.
I agree that the "wet" effect needs to be tweaked, as it looks just a bit more shiny to me. However, this is just some different shader for every material, so it can be done.
Being able to tweak it manually/scriptually is cool
Just a few general questions, tho:
* Is there a list of shaderparms and what they do? AFAIK we only have 15, so we will run out them. the wiki doesn't list them yet.
* in some material by angua I saw "FOO_MACRO". So I guess we can declare macros in materials, that wouldbe MUCH better f.i. for all the frob code that gets now pasted into every material. Likewise, I think defining macros for WET_WOOD, WET_CLOTH etc. would be usefull.
However, I don't know how and where to define these macros.
-
Btw, I still want the rope arrow to go into flesh. The point about the flesh not supporting it is a bit moot IMHO because the current crates wouldn't support the player either unless the crate is filled with either instant-glue or something solid like wood.
And even if the cratewall or whatever you shoot the arrow into supports the player, there is still the issue of the arrow itself - it must be made from some REAL strong wood or steel
So, you already have to suspense your belief a bit for rope arrows, anyway, so I think making them stick into flesh adds a new "oh cool" factor and more variety to the game - and I bet nobody will complain that it is unrealistic once they dragged the first zombie down from a ledge :-P
(in my case, I was actually trying to drag down a corpse as I couldn't grab and move him over some tiny wooden beam at the edge, so I thought maybe I just stick a rope in him and hang on...and then wondered why I keept "missing" him
Should I try to add "flesh" (and cloth?) as active surface for rope arrows so we can toy around with it?
-
Here's the mattress.
Wow, cool!
-
I don't think that would support a person hanging from a rope attached to it though. It might pull out some flesh/bones along with the arrow, but it would still come out I think.
Our rope arrows are "psuedo-realistic" in that there's a realistic explanation where they use gas jets on the arrow head to drill deep into the wood. Of course this would make it extremely loud in reality, but they uh... figured out how to make it quiet.
Side Note: As for the rope weight issue, they first spool out a thin, light wire that would not support the player's weight, but the thin wire can then be used to pull up a heftier rope after the arrow is anchored. That's assumed but not shown. Or, you can just think that it's magic, it's up to the player.Gosh, I just figured the are magic anyway, because there is no way the player can have with him all that rope :-P
You could, but then you'd have to repeat this procedure every single time you wanted a rug on something hard, which could be pretty often if you have a huge mansion with stone floors and rugs.No, you either have prefabs, or in-editor support for tagging any surface with additional info. Doing that manual would be ..insane
But it would be a lot of work, thats true.
-
It's been tried, rope arrows sticking in living AI didn't look too good. Also they wouldn't really support the player's weight unless the arrow happened to drill into some large bone; it would likely just come out when you pulled on it. I think the design doc actually calls for the arrow to go in, but not deploy the rope if it hits these kinds of materials. That way you don't lose a rope arrow if you shoot it into soft material, but you don't get the ridiculous situation of a rope anchored in a soft material. That's planned but not implemented.
I was more talking about dead AI as in dead-bodies. As for "pulling out" the arrow, there are these things:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widerhaken
God, people in the stone age knew about them, how came humankind forgot so easily?
That's an interesting idea, that way it could play the sounds of walking on a rug, but otherwise have the collision physics of stone. The problem is, how are you going to set it in the editor? If it's a brush, it dosn't have individual spawnargs, it's part of the worldpsawn. You would need a way to edit meta-properties for individual primitives in the editor, and then before runtime, the editor would have to generate a new material file that's the same as the old material, but has a new "description" for that particular permutation of top surface and bottom surface, then change the primitive to that new material. It's possible, but sounds like a lot of work.Couldn't you make the rug be a func_static and then set some property? I am imaging this maybe too simple
Again, we've talked about this and decided it was not high enough priority to worry about, but you're welcome to look into it if you have time. We had decided that we'll just be nice to the player and let arrows stick into a thin rug over stone. Otherwise, a rug may completely cover the thing under it, and the player would have no idea what's under it and whether their arrow will stick in or not (IRL you'd get tactile feedback and maybe a subtly footstep sound, but we don't have the former and we don't have the SFX resources for the latter).For AI, we have complete control over the submesh texture, so it's not an issue to make cloth over chainmail be chainmail. With your solution, you would still need to make two separate submeshes for cloth over chainmail and cloth over flesh, because the surface property is still shared over the entire submesh.
We've also talked about using surface map images (i.e., an additional greyscale image the same extent as diffuse map, each pixel value is mapped to a surface type) which would be a better way to do this, but again that takes a lot of work, adds performance load, and there are higher priority issues.
Ah yes, I see that again I come way too late to the discussion and bring up stuff that has already been debated
-
It's not hard to add a material, but I'm not sure it would be worth hand-selecting all the materials as hard or soft wood for this relatively minor point. We have larger problems right now than an arrow not pushing in enough to something that some would judge as softer/thinner wood.
Since there is a lot of wood in the TDM world, I think it would be worthwhile. (other problems non-withstanding)
As for your other points, that was what I wanted to ask next
As for the rope arrow: it says "active surface" "wood", I would like to change that to include "flesh" so you can shoot the arrow into bodies. It probably should also include "cloth", but I am not sure what happens if you shoot a rope arrow into a banner.
Plus, I think it should be possible to set the arrow-reacts-to-material type in the editor,
and the arrow should react to this if set, instead of the normal material.
This way a rug is always set to "rug" for material (footstep sounds etc), but can be set as "underneath: wood" for a rug on wood floor, and "underneath: tiles" for a rug on tiles. And the arrows would then correctly either stick in, or break. Right now you can shoot an arrow into a razor thin rug on tiles and it sticks out.
(Alternatively, the engine could figure outhow "thick" the material is that is hit by the arrow (in the direction of the flight of the arrow) and check what's underneath - but this will not work if whatever surface is underneath is not rendered at all like if the rug isn't a decal, but just part of the floor.
The same dual-material definition would also solve the AI problem (cloth over chain mail vs cloth over flesh) you described.
-
No no... did I sound rude there? I wasn't trying to be, sorry! I just can't tell you how many times I've defended the normalmap for that texture (well I probably could... I'm guessing 5 times). After release, I'm sure I'll defend it 3,921 more times. Maybe I should add a note to the material.
Edit: Done (not that many people will read the material, but at least it's there in case).
No, not that rude, I just realized I wasted again the time of people by bringing up something that was debated to death a few times already
About the note: I was about to suggest you do while remarking of "it's probably already in there and I didn't read it"
-
Nope, it's not.
Might have been the lighting that made it look inverted.
Or my eyes were screwed in the wrong way? Sorry for doubting you
-
I could do it.
Cool and thanx! The texture in question (the original) is 2600x2600 pixel. I also have a "hires" version of 2048x2048 pixel and a "lowres" of 1024x1024.
I guess it makes sense to paint on the highest version, and then downscale stuff?
Tell me how you want the pictures, I upload them to my server and tell you were to download them (I can't check them into the TDM hires repo since I can't even check that one out
-
I would say that the response has been positive. I'll setup your beta mapping permissions.
Welcome, sotha! If you have any questions, just ask them
Edit: TDM related questions. We only answer other questions every other Tuesday.
-
Higher Res version available here.
Please be gentle to my server
(pair.com's pipes are big, but my pockets not deep :-D -
However, we only have one "wood" material and no way to specify a difference between a hardened oak table plate, and a small plywood crate wall.
Maybe we can add a new material definition called "hardwood". It would be just inherit from wood, and the only difference would be:
* certain materials get tagged with it
* arrows push in less into hardwood
How feasible is adding a new material (which is just a 99% clone of an already existing material, so it doesn't need new sounds etc)
-
Sigh, this is one that comes up very, very.... very often.
The mortar does in fact ooze out of the bricks. I took the photo myself, of a cemetary/church wall not 10 miles from my house. Close inspection of the diffuse will show it to be true as well. For those who wish to go against reality and force the bricks outward instead, there is also an 'inverted' version.
Nevermind me *goes hiding in a corner*
-
I was going to, but I have lots of other stuff to keep me busy if you'd like to do it.
by the time somebody would have modifed it, I only managed to find the definition *sigh*
"push_in" "4" "push_in_cardboard" "10" "push_in_sand" "10" "push_in_snow" "18" "push_in_straw" "10" "push_in_flesh" "10" "push_in_mud" "24" "push_in_grass" "18" "push_in_dirt" "18" "push_in_twigs" "18" "snd_active" "arrow_broadhead_wood" // Everything sounds like wood "snd_active_flesh" "arrow_broadhead_flesh" // ...except for flesh
(But also notice that everything sounds like wood, or flesh. Hm.)
I have no idea what the values should be, tho, probably needs experimenting in game. Shooting an arrow into snow looks ok to me, so it seems the only "problematic" case seems to be wood. Now, with hardened oak, you might get that little push in, but if you shoot a crate, one would expect the arrow to go actually through the wood.
However, we only have one "wood" material and no way to specify a difference between a hardened oak table plate, and a small plywood crate wall.
-
I was referring to this one: http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?s=&am...st&p=121951
Uhm, is it just me or is the normal map reversed? the left one (without) has the stones sticking out, the right one looks like all the "stones" are actually depressions:
http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?act=a...ost&id=1492
I notice a similiar effect on "sloppy_bricks_red" or something, where the mortar actually sticks out and the bricks are depressed. That should be the other way, as mortar sticking out would be the first thing that gets broken off and weathered down by the elements. (unless the wall was made 2 weeks ago with plenty of mortar quelling out between the bricks
-
Ah, that's good to know. Carry on then.
So, erm, is someone to actually go and modify the AI, the arrow or whatever is nec. to make it stick in more in straw/flesh/cloth? (Just asking
In related news, I tried shooting rope arrows into a dead body (he died by accident, I swear!) but the rope arrow just broke regardless of where it hit the body. I think the rope arrow should actually stick, just like if you hit a crate or a sack of flour
And another thing that I noticed is that the rope on the rope arrow only looks good if you shoot the rope arrow overhead. If you hit something straigh on or shoot down (like into a body
, the rope "floats" a bit away from the arrow. Is this supposed to be that way? -
I think the best way to make the normal easily is to desaturate and give it less contrast. Then run a normal filter on it. try to get alot of detail out by decreasing the contrast first though.
That doesn't really work, as the only normal filter I have in Gimp take sthe RGB value as the height - e.g. lighter areas get higher and darker areas get lower.
However, the rims between the stones should actually be lower, and lighter spots on the stones should still be higher etc. I don't think there is any way except carefully painting a heightmap, then convert this into a normal map. Lotsa work, tho
-
Thanks!
BTw I reread this old thread from the beginning, and boy, these models look fantastic! *drool*
-
That fungi texture was made for piers, that's why it's so green.
I know, my version was "greenish" too, but I apparently missed the white spots you had on your version. sorry again.
Certainly we need some more colour variations but I wouldn't rely on those red, green, blue keywords too much, cause the result looks too artificial. It's better to make entirely diffrent textures rather than repeat the same pattern with just diffrent colour.Yes, but there are only so many hours in a given day
I intend to do more photograph and textures from them, but well, things go slowly if you have to learn everything first Speaking of that, is someone able to "paint" a hightmap for a rough-stone-wall texture? I made a perfect diffusemap (spent a few hours with Gimp on it
, but the automatically generated normal map looks like..all wrong. And painting that height/normal map will take me ages :/ -
Regardless, please do not replace existing textures without first checking with either the author or myself.
I restored it with revision 3578. Sorry.
-
I noticed you actually replaced the rough_wood_fungi.dds by the greenish coloured version, which doesn't look the same. The rough_wood_fungi.dds diffusemap is not uniformly coloured and can't be replicated by changing the hue of a grey base texture to green.
So I'd say we leave the original rough_wood_fungi shader as it is and add your new shaders additionally to the fungi one. We're talking about a 170 kB diffusemap, so this is definitely worth it.
Yes, that was on purpose, as I couldn't spot any difference between my green version and the .dds (apart from some very subtle color difference due to the hader params not matching exactly as I just fudged them).
I think in this case we should really keep the fungi version, but add a bit more color variations into the diffusemap so it isn't that subtle that everyone overlooks it
The DDS file is fine, I could load it both in DarkRadiant and in Doom 3.Cool
Textures
in I want to Help
Posted
Please also note that any texture that combines wood and mortar does currently not work properly as there can be only one material assigned to such a texture.
So if you assign "cement", the Thief can't hit the wood with a rope-arrow, if you assign wood, he can also shoot the rope arrow into the mortar.
Plus, you can't change withdt, color etc of the wood bars, so all walls will look much alike.
And since adding a few triangles to properly make wood bars isn't going to kill performance (in comparisation to an AI walking past that wall
, these "combinational" textures probably shouldn't be done, except maybe for things that are unreachable for the player (e.g. distant buildings).
But don't let me discourage you