Wellingtoncrab

Yes that is an issue - for the game to draw any material it must defined in a .def file. It is the material def which points at the texture maps, and then the model is pointed at the material def via the names of it's material. For yours it could be quite simple for the time being: textures/gobmdl/ksword_rusty { metal diffusemap textures/gobmdl/ksword_rusty }

Good news is that is appears to me to export fine (and seems like it will be a cool dishonored style model): Bad news would be what the heck is going wrong. Here is a picture of the modifier stack: And the ase export settings: What does your material def for the texture look like? Maybe there is an issue there.

Do you want to try posting your .blend file? I can take a look at it.

This almost has to do with the normal facings of the model which I can see you are aware as you are posting a picture of the blue normal direction in blender. The catch would be even when the normals are facing the correct direction in blender - it unfortunately doesn't always mean they will be handled correctly by the model exporter. Check a few things: Have you triangulated the model? Quads and ngons will not render correctly in the game. The export tools have a triangulate check box - but I prefer to use the triangulate modifier in blender as that gives you a bit more control and you can actually see the result. Do you have "recalculate normals" selected on export? *Normally* that is fine (get it?), but if the exporter is messing up the normal facings of the model you can try disabling it. Then are you using lwo? *Personally* I have had a lot of issue when importing and exporting lwos in general - and that includes circumstances where the normal direction of the models just would not export correctly - and I actually had to invert the normals in blender (ie all red outward faces) to get them to export correctly into the game. For that reason I currently like using ase over lwo or the newer obj export as it is the most reliably “what you see is what you get “option when working with TDM formats and blender, but that is just my opinion.

It’s already mentioned in the Iris thread there.

User @kalinovka has been working on a Russian language translation of -= IRIS =- which is now available in an initial beta release here: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/J3VG/U3nKuMieC There is still a lot of work to do - so feedback from Russian language speaking users would be greatly appreciated!

The POM materials included in the game are all brand new. So you can expect to only see them in new or updated missions, which we haven’t seen just yet. There are missions in development which use the feature that hopefully will release in the not too distant future. Welcome back to the wondrous world of idtech4 by the way!

How well it will “work” depends on the nature of the curve, the number/angle of the facets in the curve, the material, the texture scale of the material, etc but it typically looks fine imo and will probably often look more “seamless” than a 90 - especially on convex edges. We tried to tune most of the materials added to core to at least look ok tiled across 90 degree convex edges.

@CountMorillonite Yes - the secret stat only pertains to the So it looks like you have at least one more to find. And of course you can let me know if you discover any new ones.

Yes that would be very interesting. That’s why I mentioned tessellation as maybe an alternative with less downsides than POM when you are considering the actual brush/texturing workflow used when building levels for the game.

@peter_spy The Pepsi POM challenge of what is more efficient is again maybe interesting, but for the workflow of this game does it even matter? Its already obvious POM is pepsi and real geometry is coke, but it presumes these would actually be interchangeable for most people making content for the game. If I need a brick surface, I and 99% of mappers are going to drop a worldspawn brush and put a tiling brick texture on it using the inbuilt tools. I am not going to make a model of it. I am definitely not going to make LODs of it. The use case of most of these POM materials is to be a familiar extension of the traditional brush/texturing/sealing workflow, not a replacement for models which have, and will always have, their place in the game.

More polys/geometry usually isn’t easier in the context of this game, where making content which runs at all is about producing clean sealing geometry and portalization. For all its faults an illusion like POM, which derives detail while retaining minimally complex sealing geometry seems well suited to that and the workflow of most mappers. Maybe hardware tessellation could achieve something similar with less of the drawbacks, but I am pretty happy with this so far.

There are a number of ways a the parallax effect might look "weird" on edges as it is just an illusion. There is the perspective distortion on edges, the fact the effect just doesn't work at glancing angles, the displacement not tiling perfectly across edges, being able to see "past" the edge into the parallax itself, etc. This is why in the brief window this was a popular technique in games, you would often see it on something like a portion of brick wall that was surrounded in beams. Or in more modern example in Deus Ex: MD it used on cobblestones where you always have curbs to flank it. Just like any "trick" you need to use it in a way that plays to it's strengths and hides it weaknesses. Did you consider adding a border with geometry, such as a curb?

All of the parallax materials shown off in the anniversary demo video (and more) are available in the dev build dev17234-10914. Just search for the suffix "_parallax"

#3 about 12 seconds in starts to look about right to me.

Yeah this is really getting out of hand:

Pretty subjective. Looking at things like the rough details in the normal map, I don’t think that’s what the original model is intended to convey, but I guess I don’t know either. It’s all subjective, but if that is what you are going for you are operating more in the territory of making a skin variant and the base material should remain intact, as I would consider yours to be more of an exception in terms of depictions of armor, which even when ornate, tend to have a more diffuse reflection: Personally given the darker setting I would prefer to use the original.

@Arcturus I am sorry but the elite armor looks significantly less like a metallic response and more like some kind of glass, polished stone, or clear coat. The reflections are too intense and uniform and that is obscuring and smoothing over detail you can see pretty clearly in the original imo. It doesn’t really suit the material or look like an improvement yet to me. When the old material was on screen, your test lighting is actually quite flattering to the specular response, and my reaction was “that looks pretty good, I like that”. Maybe dial down the intensity of the reflection, use something like a colored cubemap so you get a less neutral “glassy” reflection response, and try adding some masking?

@The Black ArrowThanks for playing! This mission was ultimately a collaboration in memory of Grayman, which I was privileged to help with, so I don't focus much on the "who did what" aspects, as everyone involved contributed a lot to what you played. I do want to mention a huge contributor to this mission who was Amadeus. You can see his work across the entire mission, so if you liked this mission and you haven't played A Good Neighbor or Eye on the Prize you should check them out - as they are examples of some the best the game has to offer. Thanks again!

@The Black Arrow Thanks for playing! I am glad you came away enjoying your time with it. Regarding your questions about the story, my advice to players is always just to trust your intuition about it. I do have some hints for you though: Again thanks for taking the time to play my mission - it means a lot to me!

Imo not sure this is an improvement in terms of the metallic reflections, or why it would be desirable to have less variation and more resolution in what will ultimately be an abstraction? But always happy to have another cubemap to mess around with.

They would - just edit the skull loot def to point at your new skin and then every instance of the skull loot entity in every map will have the new material by default without having to edit the generic material. (unless the mapper has already edited this - then presumably wouldn’t want to overwrite it anyway)

Since the skull is a loot item and has a def you could probably just make a new material and specify a new skin for it? I never was able to finish these polyhaven conversions as they were pretty looking outside of PBR, but with this blend mode they still need some work but are a lot closer!

Yes I used a mask color and a custom mask ahead of the cubemap stage on many "metallic" assets, or ones with mixed materials, so they still provide some sense of reflectivity without a light to interact with the specular. I think this still work well for duller metals such a coin - but I will definitely be using your polished metal trick to update some of the ingots.