art painting loot

[Fidcal]

I am seeing about 6 or 7paintings. Only two are frobable. Is that correct? They strip away to leave strips of wood which I guess is OK. Actually thin strips of wood pinned on the back makes sense.

 

I searched the net but didn't find a lot but as you say a lot of early paintings had no backing. I'm astonished by that. The thought of even a moderately expensive oil painting with its back to a wall of unknown damp and dust surprises me. Apart from modern backings the only vague references are to backing paper or possibly linen.

 

Anyway, I only looked at it in game. In the editor, I see. Is all we do is create a atdm:loot_painting and give it any painting skin and it works?

[Ishtvan]

I searched the net but didn't find a lot but as you say a lot of early paintings had no backing. I'm astonished by that. The thought of even a moderately expensive oil painting with its back to a wall of unknown damp and dust surprises me. Apart from modern backings the only vague references are to backing paper or possibly linen.

 

I'm looking at an oil painting now, and the wood frame that the canvas is wrapped around has no back, it's just a rectangular frame. Depth-wise, the wood frame is about 3/4" thick. So the thickness of the frame offsets the front part of the canvas with the image on it from whatever is behind it. There's a little hollow space behind the front.

[Tels]

I'm looking at an oil painting now, and the wood frame that the canvas is wrapped around has no back, it's just a rectangular frame. Depth-wise, the wood frame is about 3/4" thick. So the thickness of the frame offsets the front part of the canvas with the image on it from whatever is behind it. There's a little hollow space behind the front.

 

That's what I know about paintings, too. I can ask a collegue of mine, he is a part-time painter, and frame-maker.

 

As for our paintings, I still think it would make a lot of sense to:

 

* decouple the frame texture from the painting texture (Edit: made bold because I think that would solve a lot of the problems we have with the current paintings.)

 

That way we could mix-and-match frames and paintings, as well as make torn-skins with no problem as well as have truly transparent inner parts (because then the frame can stay wood and the inner part can be "nothing"). (Is there a material-type that represents "nothing", tho?)

[Tels]

I am seeing about 6 or 7paintings. Only two are frobable. Is that correct?

 

Three, but the frob distance to the big building is a bit small. It is actually the same for all paintings, but due to the size of the huge one you think you are already closer. Tricks me, too. I raised the frob distance for it abit.

 

They strip away to leave strips of wood which I guess is OK. Actually thin strips of wood pinned on the back makes sense.

 

I searched the net but didn't find a lot but as you say a lot of early paintings had no backing. I'm astonished by that. The thought of even a moderately expensive oil painting with its back to a wall of unknown damp and dust surprises me. Apart from modern backings the only vague references are to backing paper or possibly linen.

 

Anyway, I only looked at it in game. In the editor, I see. Is all we do is create a atdm:loot_painting and give it any painting skin and it works?

 

Yeah You can also change the "inv_loot_value" and "inv_loot_type" spawnargs. I'll make a wiki article.

 

Edit: Done: http://wiki.thedarkmod.com/index.php?title=Loot_paintings

[Springheel]

* decouple the frame texture from the painting texture (Edit: made bold because I think that would solve a lot of the problems we have with the current paintings.)

 

How would you do that without affecting existing paintings?

[Baddcog]

Yeah, probably best just to have a few loot painting objects. It actually might even be good to have a modified frame tex, sort of like the door argument, but maybe more relevant.

 

Just the slightest change so players can tell it's loot from a distance of 5 feet or so. Then you don't have to get nose to nose with 'ol Mona to see if she is the real thing or a cheap imitation.

I think this could be important bacuse if the painting is above a desk you might have to climb on the desk to get in frob distance, this issue can be seen with gold bottles in the middle of a wide table in some maps.

Also, as the paintings have a high chance of being well lit the frob highlight may be harder to see.

 

Paintings are also more widely used as decoration than doors, so having some distinction between types would be nice. I've almost always missed loot paintings in any Thief/thief-like mission due to this fact. After checking the first 10 you give up, missing the magical 11th loot painting.

 

But it should be a minor change IMO. I don't know if a different trim pattern, or color, or maybe some 'guilding' added to the existing frame tex. Slight enough that you have to be within 10 feet maybe, but across a room without spyglass you wouldn't know.

[Springheel]

Paintings are also more widely used as decoration than doors, so having some distinction between types would be nice. I've almost always missed loot paintings in any Thief/thief-like mission due to this fact. After checking the first 10 you give up, missing the magical 11th loot painting.

 

Yes, that's why I suggested maybe we shouldn't use every painting as potential loot, but only certain ones players can learn to look for.

[Baddcog]

Well, I can see alot of authors sourcing their owns paintings too. Sicne we can't control that or the skins maybe the frame is the best way to distinguish.

 

Discuss.

 

[Fidcal]

Frame.

 

Are all our current frames gold? Maybe change them all and reserve gold for loot since gold is kind of symbolic of loot. Maybe the difference should not be too obvious. I kind of like the goblets we have - it needs a careful scrutiny sometimes to decide if they're loot.

[Tels]

How would you do that without affecting existing paintings?

 

If the mapper inserted just the model and has/has no skin, than that should work, shouldn't it? (Needs new models and new textures, but unless the mapper himself made new material from the existing textures, it wouldn't break anything).

 

In any event, I have talked with our painter, and he said along the lines (with lots of drawings, I can scan them in if you like):

 

* there is _always_ just the canvas over a simple wooden frame called "stretcher bar" in English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stretcher_bar) where the canvas is stretched over. (in old times pictures were often hung on the wall bare with only this, and artists would have them in that form in their working place)

* if there is a funky gold frame etc, it sits either outside the stretcher (so you see the canvas, and underneath the canvas is the stretcher frame with the "hold" in the center), or it covers the outer parts of the canvas (with the stretcher behind it).

 

Now if you want to steal a picture, you need either:

 

* disassemble the stretcher from the frame, which is lots of work (unscrewing)

* OR justcut the canvas at the border of either the inner part of the stretcher, or the inner part of the frame, depending on which is smaller on the inside. Since you cut alongside a wooden frame, he said, the cut would be very clear, not ripped off,so no dangling bits.

 

And you would definitely see-through - there is nothing behind the canvas/picture except the wall.

[Tels]

Whatever we do, it either needs to be decide in the next three days, or wait for 1.02. And what do we do with the existing "torn" frames now? The ones with the wooden "torn" skin are definitely wrong (not see through, and wood infront of painting) and the ones with the hole suffer from the fact that the hole and the frame are on the same texture and thus share a material.

[Springheel]

wait for 1.02

 

That's my vote.

[Fidcal]

I would leave the torn bits as dramatic licence. It is easy for players to accept that a thief in a hurry might tear a painting and it helps signify their was a painting there and not just an empty frame. If we can easily also provide a frame without tears then that's cool too because an FM might want to have an artist's studio with a few frames around for effect and I wouldn't expect those to have tears.

 

So, as I understand it now, the blank canvas is attached to the front of a rectangular stretcher frame made of 4 wood bars. When finished a hanging frame is attached that surrounds that stretching frame. But if the thief cuts away inside the stretcher frame he would leave behind all the canvas that covers the front of the stretcher frame. Therefore one presumes he only roughly paints to just beyond the edge of the inside of the stretcher frame and the final hanging frame not only surrounds the stretcher frame but overlaps it at the front so there is a hidden border of unpainted or roughly painted canvas trapped between stretcher frame and hanging frame. The canvas itself, although it has no backing (except more recently) it is held clear of the wall by the depth of the stretcher frame. Still not ideal for the painting but believable.

 

So, blank frames left with torn pieces but no backing I guess. But I'd have no objection if it was decided to put in a backing.

[Springheel]

Our current painting models already have a wooden backing on the back of the model, so it wouldn't make much sense to have none from the front.

[Baddcog]

Probably best to wait until add stuff to the 1.01 release. But either way I'm not doing it so it won't bite me in the @$$

 

backing or no, doesn't matter to me either, I guess none is proper though.

 

As far as I know artists tend to paint the entire flat surface of the canvas on top of the stretcher frame, they don't leave a border for behind a frame, not knowing what frame it will go in, or if it will be framed. But the sides of the strecther would have plain canvas.

[Tels]

I would leave the torn bits as dramatic licence. It is easy for players to accept that a thief in a hurry might tear a painting and it helps signify their was a painting there and not just an empty frame. If we can easily also provide a frame without tears then that's cool too because an FM might want to have an artist's studio with a few frames around for effect and I wouldn't expect those to have tears.

 

So, as I understand it now, the blank canvas is attached to the front of a rectangular stretcher frame made of 4 wood bars. When finished a hanging frame is attached that surrounds that stretching frame. But if the thief cuts away inside the stretcher frame he would leave behind all the canvas that covers the front of the stretcher frame. Therefore one presumes he only roughly paints to just beyond the edge of the inside of the stretcher frame and the final hanging frame not only surrounds the stretcher frame but overlaps it at the front so there is a hidden border of unpainted or roughly painted canvas trapped between stretcher frame and hanging frame. The canvas itself, although it has no backing (except more recently) it is held clear of the wall by the depth of the stretcher frame. Still not ideal for the painting but believable.

 

So, blank frames left with torn pieces but no backing I guess. But I'd have no objection if it was decided to put in a backing.

 

A backing is unrealistic If our current frames have a wooden backside, they are wrong, they should have a "wooden stretcher frame" and inside "unpainted canvas" on the backside

 

As for the "hanging frame overlapping", my collegue said you can get both. Some have a so-called "shadow gap" where the hanging frame has a 1cm gap between the outer hanging frame and the inner stretcher frame.

 

The thief can then:

 

* cut on top of the stretcher. The stretcher frame is not exactly flat on the public-facing side, it has a ridge. (so that the canvas stretched is only touching the stretcher at the very outsides). You can cut along that ridge and since that ridge keeps your sword/knife straight, you end up with a very straight cut edge. The end result is seen from outside to inside: "hanging frame", "shadow gap" (1cm) "small frame of painted canvas", "slightly larger bit of stretcher frame", "empty hole".

* cut inside stretcher. you would see "hanging frame", "shadow gap (1cm)", "painted canvas on stretcher frame", "empty hole"

 

This possibility is not so good for us, because you always see a bit of the painting left over, and our current frames do not have the "shadow gap" already so it is unrealistic to end up with one.

 

The other possibility is that the "hanging frame" overlaps the stretcher frame, so you see inside only the painting (basically how our current paintings are).

 

Here the thief can cut two ways, depending on how much the hanging frame overlaps:

 

* if the hanging frame overlaps the entire stretcher frame, cut on the inside. Result: "hanging frame", "clear cut", "empty hole"

* if the hanging frame doesn't overlap the entire stretcher frame, cut on the inside of the stretcher. Result: "hanging frame", "some small edge of painted canvas", "clear cut", "empty hole" OR "cut at the hanging frame", then you get "hanging frame", "small frame of empty stretcher" "hole"

 

Anyway, in all cases there would be no torn bits. If you have a valuable painting and you want to remove it, you need a knife or sword, otherwise you wouldn't get it out, canvas+oil paint is quite sturdy. (Except maybe if you want to destroy it)

[Springheel]

If our current frames have a wooden backside, they are wrong, they should have a "wooden stretcher frame" and inside "unpainted canvas" on the backside

 

This looks like a wood backing to me:

 

http://parisparfait.typepad.com/paris_parfait/images/2008/05/12/column_and_frames.jpg

 

This is also how it was done in Thief, and I don't recall anyone ever complaining about it.

 

http://www.mindplaces.com/save/paintingback.jpg

 

Anyway, the currently used paintings are not going to be changed, as we already have maps with paintings that are leaning against the wall with the wooden backs visible. You can do what you want with the new painting models I uploaded, I don't care. This task has already become far more hassle than I'm interested in.

[Fidcal]

In that case, for consistency, apply the backing as for the existing models. There is no reason to stick to some absolute rule of reality. Some paintings do now have backing for certain (seen them many times on eg, Antiques Road Show but not took much notice) but I feel this is a more modern application. Who is to say that in the Dark Mod universe the tradition of backing paintings was not implemented long ago? It's not rocket science. Pinning simple lathe boards on the back of a frame to protect a painting seems quite believeable in our medi-victorian universe. An empty frame static model can also be included separately in case anyone makes a map with an artist's studio or a thieves' hideout where they are reframing stolen painting or just an extra junk item.

 

Similarly, stick to the ripped painting remains for the reason I gave earlier. The player sees it in game and immediately can tell what has happened. It is symbolic. It does not have to conform to some 'reality check' that a thief would slice it out carefully.

[Baddcog]

Yeah, I kindof like the 'scraps' left behind.