So, what are you working on right now?

[DeTeEff]

I made a brush, then turned it into a cylinder. Then i took Thicken patch. Then I deleted everything except the flat ring. Then I selected the inner verticles and raised (or is it rose?) them up. There you have the basic circular wall.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Fieldmedic

[SeriousToni]

Oh okay you two - I'll try that out some day

[ungoliant]

I made a brush, then turned it into a cylinder. Then i took Thicken patch. Then I deleted everything except the flat ring. Then I selected the inner verticles and raised (or is it rose?) them up. There you have the basic circular wall.

 

simple, effective. I like this technique as well. Used it for circular window frames. instead of raising middle verts, thicken again, now you have squared off edges for the frame.

[Baddcog]

simple, effective. I like this technique as well. Used it for circular window frames. instead of raising middle verts, thicken again, now you have squared off edges for the frame.

 

Just don't delete the cylindrical walls in the first place.

[Komag]

I love that city shot! Almost everything is great.

 

My only issue, and this is just a pet peeve of mine, is the fake stick-on windows that aren't cut out of the wall any, not recessed at all, so I just KNOW they are fake fake fake. I guess most people aren't bothered by it, so don't worry about me.

[ungoliant]

Just don't delete the cylindrical walls in the first place.

*facepalm* you're right, I think that's actually what I did, and then overcomplicated it in my poor drunken brain it in that post. I made that frame like 8 months ago, so details are fuzzy

 

ah yes, here she is now.

 

I really need to start working on that map again

 

the fake stick-on windows that aren't cut out of the wall any, not recessed at all, so I just KNOW they are fake fake fake.

 

I know EXACTLY what you mean. This one was cut directly out of the wall in octagonal shape I believe, and is viewable inside and out. The one below... is fake. But theres a darkened mirror image on the opposite side!!! that counts, right?

Edited April 18, 2012 by ungoliant

[demagogue]

I wished the windows were recessed too. But I was happy to see some of the Tudor wall framing was actual brushes and not just the usual painted-on wood beams.

[DeTeEff]

I rarely use the model windows you stick on walls...I prefer to recess them and customize the look to my liking...That's why the first mission I started is still in the works...

[Sotha]

I always favor the model windows. It is very boring and time consuming task to make recessed windows, and you can clone & paste window models very quickly. Model windows also save memory if you make 'em into .ase models using the DR converter. And they are better for performance as well, since no recesses are needed to complicate the brushwork.

 

But I do agree that recessed windows look more realistic, but not so much better that I'd like to see extra trouble for it. Might be a workflow change I need to learn to expedite making recessed ones..

 

I also like to have details in the textures as they spare you from boring detail work and they also improve the performance.

[DeTeEff]

One cause for my slow process is that I have difficulties in my vision of how things will look before designing it. So I'll have to build things and add textures before I have the whole picture. Often when I have chosen a certain material to add, my design will be based upon this. This is probably my biggest time thief...I so would love to be more able to picture the vision in my head and design on paper and then just swoop of a citysection in a couple of hours...

[DeTeEff]

Double post

Edited April 19, 2012 by Fieldmedic

[Sotha]

One cause for my slow process is that I have difficulties in my vision of how things will look before designing it. So I'll have to build things and add textures before I have the whole picture. Often when I have chosen a certain material to add, my design will be based upon this. This is probably my biggest time thief...I so would love to be more able to picture the vision in my head and design on paper and then just swoop of a citysection in a couple of hours...

 

Use reference pictures. Google image search, medieval streets. Then build the scene you see in the image. Once you have that, it might be easy to expand from there.

[DeTeEff]

I do But it's hard to create a coherent design...

[Sir Taffsalot]

Google images is a great resource for inspiration. I try not to make carbon copies of the buildings I see but instead try to emphasise something i like to make it stand out eg a nice pattern of wooden beams on a tudor building or an interesting arrangement of windows.

 

For the current city I'm working on I'm deliberately limiting the textures I use to give the city a cohesive feeling. I'm trying to make each building stand out based on a unique build design instead of just changing the textures. So far I'm pleased with the results.

[ungoliant]

 

I'm starting to get tired of messing with this thing. If this meets quality standards, I'd like to say I'm done. mostly. bottom needs flattening, origin needs to be moved, bottom needs to be evened out with xy planes in blender, TDM folder structures adhered to, skinning, new materials with ao stage for the skins, etc etc etc.Need some feedback from people who are not me about this version.

409 polys. probably needs shadows2 due to the shape. very easy to make horrible looking self-shadows on this thing.

 

basically, if you was a mapper doing mapperly things, would you use this?

Edited April 25, 2012 by ungoliant

[Baddcog]

Just seems too grainy too me. Should be buttery smooth limestone. Also needs a 'c' piece for above it imo.

[ungoliant]

Its 409 polys bc, with no normal bake. its not like i put bumps all over it, lol. And besides.... ah hell, not gonna do the "what a stalagmite is supposed to look like" discussion again. Different textures can be applied to the mappers taste, of course. If the scale is perhaps too much, it would need a ^2 bump. i carved this puppy up enough to use almost all the space.

as for the c-shape.... what?

Edited April 25, 2012 by ungoliant

[Melan]

Just seems too grainy too me. Should be buttery smooth limestone. Also needs a 'c' piece for above it imo.

I agree with this - there can be a lot of discussion on "stalagmites look like this" or "stalagmites look like that", but there is one thing all have in common, and that's that they are smooth and wet. Actually, I bet some marble textures would fit it like a glove. A glove created specifically for stalagmites.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Melan

[ungoliant]

there is one thing all have in common, and that's that they are smooth and wet.

*sigh* very well. challenge accepted.

 

 

 

 

Try rubbing your arm vigorously against one of those for a few seconds, and get back to me on how smooth it was

 

Back to seriousness, I will try to put together a smoother texture, with possibly some specular, for comparison.

Edited April 25, 2012 by ungoliant

[ungoliant]

perhaps something like this might suit better?

 

 

the AO is quite noticeable with this material, yeah?

the strange black artifacts up top are just from poor self-shadows, you will not see them in the final version. the seams, however....

I'm quite glad I tried the egyptian marble. quite frankly I had no idea it would turn out anywhere near that good, if you ignore the seams, that is.

Edited April 25, 2012 by ungoliant

[Melan]

Point taken.

 

WRT the new picture, the seams in the pattern make it look a bit wonky, but something along these lines would be great.

[Nosslak]

I think it'd look a lot better with a normalmap.

[ungoliant]

I think it'd look a lot better with a normalmap.

 

If a normalmap is ever implemented, it will be for an entirely different class of skins. I don't think smooth skins like the egyptian marble would benefit much, but the sandstone in the first pic could certainly use some 3d normal bake lovin.

 

WRT the new picture, the seams in the pattern make it look a bit wonky

I'll try to work something out, but it might require resculpting with the highpoly, or dragging around verts on lowpoly, all of which I need a breather from right now. It's hard to just move stuff, because the AO bake is extremely position sensitive, and GOD FORBID if the normal bake is position sensitive as well, I'll end up breaking something expensive.

Edited April 25, 2012 by ungoliant

[_Atti_]

I think it comes along nicely.

 

Maybe if you've combined the rough and the smooth with a quite strong specular it would retain both it's smooth'n wet and it's rough little details. I think the diffuse should be combined like 30-70 rough/smooth and the specular 20-80 rough/smooth.

The picture generated shallowy normal map then could be originated almost entirely from the rough texture.

[Arcturus]

I think it'd look a lot better with a normalmap.

Definitely.