Neat Vertex Normal Trick

[nbohr1more]

I was kinda wishing for an in-Dark Radiant way to modify Normal Maps across multiple selected Brushes or Patches.

 

I think you could still kinda do this though:

 

1) Create a Patch

2) Stretch the Patch to conform to the contours of your Brush Work

3) Modify the Patch to include the new details and contours you seek

4) Export the Patch as an ASE

5) Export you Brush-Work as an ASE

6) Renderbump

 

The problem here is... "Does the Renderbump inheret the original Normal Maps from the textures on your Brush Work???"

 

(Other problem: Patch editor is not quite a sculpting tool...)

Edited July 29, 2010 by nbohr1more

[Baddcog]

Nope, you can 'overlay one normal map onto another to get the details from both. However I think it weakens both. Plus a normal map for a texture is one tile, if your exported object has 2 tiles then the uv wont line up.

[nbohr1more]

I guess if you textured the patch the same as what was done with the brush work then the Normal Map damage would be minimized and you could control the look better. Then you would just need to remove the Normal Maps from the Brush Work before export.

 

Again, an abstracted editor method that lets you do this (possibly even edit the actual Normals in real-time?) and that automatically slices up the editing into multiple textures... would be Heaven.

 

If it could work the way I imagine every modified Normal would be written back to a copy of the original texture. Then the next time the map is compiled the modified texture copies would be used in place of the originals.

Edited July 29, 2010 by nbohr1more

[Baddcog]

There's really no need though.

 

The normal is to add details to plain geometry. If you make the geometry details in the editor then you don't need normals to show the detail that is already there.

 

So what the editor would need to do is have high detail geometry AND low detail geometry, then compile and bake normals (from high to low geometry) then add the normals to the texture on the low detail geometry, then delete the high detail geometry, then recompile to take into account that the high detail geometry is no longer there...

 

-----

Guess I'm not really understanding why you want to do this.

----------

 

Basically if you're wanting to modify the normals on a flat decal of vines then all you need to do is slap the vine tex on a patch and bend it in the editor. Now it shades on a curve (which is what this method does for FLAT models).

 

Normals on a model are just instructions at vertices that are 'normalized' between the faces on each side of it so that the lighting hits them smoothly. Changing their directions can alter the shading.

 

All 'normals' on geometry are straight out, thus all brush work looks flat (with the exception of the normal map applied). Patches can be bent and their normals make the light smooth between their faces (the normals still point straight out between faces though - which is what you want).

 

So effectively the engine already uses a combination of geometry normals (light hits curve based on that shape) AND it lights finer details based on the normal map of the textures (cobblestones look round).

So on a bumpy patch street with cobblestones you not only get shading/lighting on each stone but also the shape of the street. ('real time' normal/normal map composting)

 

Normal Maps effectively place more normals across the surface they are applied to to imply more geometry (based on normals of a higher poly model) when light hits it. All they can really do as far as depth goes is show depth based on bevels.

So you can't make 2 leafs seem a different distance from the viewer, they can only look angled next to each other

 

Things like those vines shouldn't even be models since the patch is easier to use/resize/fit mission specific areas and has no file size (for the model).

[nbohr1more]

The reason for this is that it's very hard to make sweeping normal map changes across multiple texture tiles. You can make all the tiles into one big texture then normal map that externally but keeping each separate texture tile means that you can have complex multi-brush multi-tile normals (and you can work out the visportal advantages of keeping as much as possible as Brushes rather than Models ).

 

Plus you can virtually eliminate the need for Patches that don't have visible silhouettes.

Edited July 29, 2010 by nbohr1more

[Baddcog]

The reason for this is that it's very hard to make sweeping normal map changes across multiple texture tiles. You can make all the tiles into one big texture then normal map that externally but keeping each separate texture tile means that you can have complex multi-brush multi-tile normals (and you can work out the visportal advantages of keeping as much as possible as Brushes rather than Models ).

 

Plus you can virtually eliminate the need for Patches that don't have visible silhouettes.

 

There's really no difference in using brushes/patches/models for details. It's all tris. So as performance goes it doesn't matter, things that do matter:

 

The differences are (each has a benefit)

 

brushes seal the world, effect pathfinding/ flat shaded (aren't very good for complex uv mapping)

(but can be made func_statics which don't split world geometry into more tris [good] but don't seal void/pathfind).

 

patches don't seal or effect pathfinding/ smooth shaded (very good for complex uv mapping)

 

objects don't seal/ pathfind/ can be smooth or flat shaded (the ultimate ease in complex uv maps)

 

-------

I wouldn't want to use brushes for everything, even with normal maps you still get flat angular lighting on a face by face basis. and you can't align angled pieces texture wise, patches work much better.

 

All you really need them for is to seal the void (and use for clips/visportals for patches/func_statics and triggers).

------

 

Each of those options is best for what it does, so trying to remove 2 in favor of one no matter how it's done is going to lose the benefits of the 2 you get rid of.

-------

 

And having all brushes doesn't make visportaling better. Better level design does.

Basically all brush shapes that are complex need to be a func_static, other wise the portals don't match up clean and there's a good chance they won't work. So if they are func_static, patches or models, they still effect the visportals the same way/ they don't.

You just need to have them go through the details and but up to clean (hopefully as square and small as possible) brushes to seal from void.

[nbohr1more]

There's really no difference in using brushes/patches/models for details. It's all tris. So as performance goes it doesn't matter, things that do matter:

 

I agree that triangles are triangles but Normals are not triangles and do have a performance advantage.

 

No matter which of the three techniques you use silhouettes are going to be an issue unless you ignore sane poly-count rules. The look of each technique would be produced by the texture and lighting rather than anything that is intrinsic to their make-up (again, triangles are triangles). I agree that Models and Patches are easier to texture but neither of them appear to be the primary building block in Dark Radiant. The look of shading is primarily due to the Normals. If you can make normals that span multiple brushes than you have virtually eliminated their major shortcoming.

 

 

Having Normal editing in Dark Radiant would mean that more buildings and world geometry would have large, complex, unique implied surface geometry rather than having every normal map simply be a tile.

 

Wouldn't it be cool to paint or sculpt normals like cracks in wall or complex embossments?

 

Basically all brush shapes that are complex need to be a func_static

 

Right again... but this technique precludes the need to increase the complexity of the brush work. In fact you can have the boxiest shapes in the world but use Normal Mapping to give them complexity (within reason... taking into consideration silhouette issues...)

Edited July 29, 2010 by nbohr1more

[nbohr1more]

To put things another way (an extreme over-exaggerated way... ) what if Arcturus could have "sculpted" the normals of his marvelous normal map directly on the surface he applied it to in Dark Radiant?

 

http://modetwo.net/d...video-tutorial/

Edited July 29, 2010 by nbohr1more

[Baddcog]

Yeah, I guess it would be cool, but most 3d programs don't even have sculpting. So it's alot to ask of an editor, when an editor is only the simplest example of a 3d program.

 

Wouldn't suprise me if we see editors some day that do it though. Some already have somewhat similar techniques. Hammer has displacements instead of patches, they are sweet because you can 'paint' them into shape with different brushes instead of just vert editing them like patches. So you can do alot better with natural terrain. And you can 'vert paint' blended textures in the editor instead of converting out to objects.But not really good for super detailed stuff.

[nbohr1more]

Yeah... I'm not asking for full-blown Sculptris but a simple re-sizable sphere deform would be great for smoothing geometry and adding large deforms. If you were crazy you could use the sphere deform to make REALLY detailed stuff but it would be VERY time consuming and frustrating. I just want a poor-mans version

[SneaksieDave]

So you want DR to take on modeling and texture editing? Jokes aside, Blender can already do these things (and much more), for free, and DR now has a workflow pipeline (rich_is_bored's scripts).

[nbohr1more]

Not exactly:

 

The Normal Map does not have as many variables to alter as a normal texture.

 

Just as Rich_is_Bored pointed out, you can algorithmically modify the Normals in a Spherical pattern.

 

Once you have these abilities you can crudely sculpt normals.

 

I agree that advanced users can use Blender for this purpose but the thing that Blender cannot do (AFAIK) is make multi-brush prefabs (or architecture) with normals that span brushes. It has to be converted to a Model.

Edited July 29, 2010 by nbohr1more

[SneaksieDave]

Blender is really not as tough as it's made out to be. It's quite fun actually; I just wish I had ideas and more artistic ability. I think a lot of the folk lore around its difficulty would disappear if more people watched a few beginner's tutorials and tried it rather than assuming about it.

 

Anyway, as to the feature request, I would simply warn that unless the devs take a special liking to the idea, it's very unlikely especially when it can be done with other tools. Use the right tool for the job.

[nbohr1more]

I know it's a pipe-dream. I just fear that we'll only ever see "Tiled" Normal Maps on Buildings or large structures (caves?) because there's no way a modeled building would render with decent performance (especially compared to one made of brushes which has parts that can be culled)...

Edited July 29, 2010 by nbohr1more

[Arcturus]

I'm not sure I understand. Tiling textures will always be tiling textures. I don't think it's possible to blend normalmaps from geometry with different UV maps the way you propose?

[nbohr1more]

The way I conceive it is that in theory if you were a super-genius you could take a bunch of texture-tiles and imagine how they would UV map. As a super-genius you could then manually create a custom Normal Map for each texture in such a way that when they are assembled it looks like one large Normal Map.

 

This process is the reverse.

 

You modify virtual geometry and then bake the changes to a bunch of Normal Map segments.

 

(Now from Baddcogs further explanation it would have two types of baking...)

Edited July 29, 2010 by nbohr1more

[Baddcog]

You can already do that though.

 

Just instead of making one tiling texture you have several. Alot of textures are already this way although TDM doesn't really have them.

 

Say you have your base brick (512x512), then you have the same one with dirt along the bottom, and one with drips along the top. Now you have a 'set' of vertical tiles that tile horizontally. (You can even have another with a window in it so when you go horizontally the seams match but they look different)

 

So you just need to make a set like that, but instead of being concerned with dirt/drips top and bottom you instead would want modified normal maps that have cracks running up through all 3 (of course the diffuse also needs to match). So really painting the cracks on terrain is going to give you 3 normal maps AND 3 diffuse maps (you don't want stones painted across the crack bumps... you want painted cracks through the stones to match the crack bumps).

 

So could optimize by only making the cracked texture 256 wide, and still the regular map could 'tile' up next to it.

 

You can do this using Blender, Zbrush, skulptris, Max, Photshop, Gimp, Xnormal, crazybump.... Right tool for the job.

 

I do believe someone was also working on trying to get 'megatextures' into DR though I'm not sure where that went. But basically it would be like having one huge side of a building texture instead of a combo of textures like I described.

[greebo]

Should I submit a request for this feature in Bug-tracker or is it way too silly ?

No, and yes.

 

This feature is not even far off on DarkRadiant's radar. It is not a modeling program, nor a sculpting tool, nor a texture manipulation or a renderbump substitute.

 

I get the impression that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Please, next time before you're going to push feature requests on the tracker, discuss them with experienced mappers first. I suggest you do some basic mapping and modeling first to get an idea of the workflow, before rushing off and request features that make little sense.

[Tels]

I'm not sure I understand. Tiling textures will always be tiling textures. I don't think it's possible to blend normalmaps from geometry with different UV maps the way you propose?

 

I think (but don't count on that) that you can have tiling normalmaps if the normalmap has the same "level" on the border. (I think this is also a frequent problem with some D3 maps that did not have the same level left/right, which resulted in artefacts when using them in parallax mapping). However, I am not sure that such "tiling" would be good, anyway.

 

If I understand it correctly, what nbohr1morenomorewhateber the name way (too lazy too look it up now sorry , is that he wants an additional displacement map, that you can paint over a brickwall etc. So you can deform a brickwall by adding f.i. a "hole" or "crack" in it without havign first to have a "crack normalmap".

 

However, as greebo noted, that is not a job of DR, and the engine doesn't support it, anyway, so I think at this time this is simple not possible and we don't have anyone who could even remotely implement it.

[nbohr1more]

I get the impression that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

I suspect that, given your abilities, that you have this impression about a great number of folks

 

 

I will say that I am confused about why there are two ways to modify surface normals and this confusion is why I got my hopes up.

 

My apologies.

[Tels]

Found this page, which explains a lot of details:

 

http://wiki.polycount.com/NormalMap