Nosslaks stuff

[Fidcal]

Well if it's an Earth map then likely all the text is the right way up if North is at the top. The axis support on the vertical frame appears to be too far over. It should be approximately 23 degrees from the top. So if that axis was at the very top and the north pole of the map just below it then all the text would be exactly the right way up. Then tilt both that frame and the globe 23 degrees from the vertical and the text will be tilted 23 degrees but still reasonably readable and the right way up.

 

It's probable that in the real thing that vertical frame is rotatable too so the user can tilt the globe to any angle and thereby examine the south pole more easily than lying on the floor in his library. But in that position the text would be upside down to a standing person so I would just set that vertical frame to 23 degrees. It would even be better if it was exactly vertical than too far over imo.

[Nosslak]

Well if it's an Earth map then likely all the text is the right way up if North is at the top. The axis support on the vertical frame appears to be too far over. It should be approximately 23 degrees from the top. So if that axis was at the very top and the north pole of the map just below it then all the text would be exactly the right way up. Then tilt both that frame and the globe 23 degrees from the vertical and the text will be tilted 23 degrees but still reasonably readable and the right way up.

 

It's probable that in the real thing that vertical frame is rotatable too so the user can tilt the globe to any angle and thereby examine the south pole more easily than lying on the floor in his library. But in that position the text would be upside down to a standing person so I would just set that vertical frame to 23 degrees. It would even be better if it was exactly vertical than too far over imo.

Alright, I've adjusted those angles now. I just rotated it 23 degrees on the y-axis and then 45 on the z so it shouldn't be too hard to orient the rotation axis for you.

 

Here's how the globe looks with the celestial poles in the right places:

[Fidcal]

Yeah that looks good to me. You have just saved the polar bears from extinction.

[Nosslak]

Yeah that looks good to me. You have just saved the polar bears from extinction.

Yay!

 

I've started working on the collision- and shadowmeshes now and my model have a lot of round surfaces so I'm not sure how highpoly I can make any one of them. So could someone give me an estimate?

 

Also how do collisionmeshes work? If I were to fire an arrow at something made of wood would it attach onto the collisionmesh or would it just use the collisionmesh to check if there is a collision and then attach itself to the regular lowpoly model?

[Fidcal]

Interesting question. I'm going to guess it's the latter.

[Aprilsister]

I'm interested as to why you are interested, Nosslak (and no, I'm not being a smart-ass weisenheimer {this time}).

[Springheel]

Projectiles like arrows use the visible mesh. Collision meshes are used for collisions with swords or movable objects.

[Nosslak]

I'm interested as to why you are interested, Nosslak (and no, I'm not being a smart-ass weisenheimer {this time}).

Because if it was the latter, which it turned out to be, I wouldn't have to make the collision mesh as round/highpoly as the arrows won't get stuck in the air and just generally look weird.

 

Projectiles like arrows use the visible mesh. Collision meshes are used for collisions with swords or movable objects.

Alright, thanks!

 

I managed to get the collsionmesh as low as 290 polys (frame and globe combined) so I consider that one done and will go get started on the shadow mesh. I would still like to have some kind of upper limit on that though, as right now it looks like it'll land on about 1000 polys.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Nosslak

[Aprilsister]

because...arrows won't get stuck in the air and just generally look weird...

 

Ah, I see... makes sense.

 

Makes sense if I have this right: regular lowpoly model = visible mesh = round/highpoly compared to the other (shadow and collision) meshes even though you describe it as a "lowpoly model" (because it is where you come from, but fine for the game). Or generally if I have that right... I get the gist, basically, even if those 3 things are separate and distinct. Thanks for the answer.

[Springheel]

I would still like to have some kind of upper limit on that though, as right now it looks like it'll land on about 1000 polys.

 

In general, try to makes a SM with 50% as many polys or less. But it's hard to do good shadowmeshes for spheres.

[Nosslak]

Ah, I see... makes sense.

 

Makes sense if I have this right: regular lowpoly model = visible mesh = round/highpoly compared to the other (shadow and collision) meshes even though you describe it as a "lowpoly model" (because it is where you come from, but fine for the game). Or generally if I have that right... I get the gist, basically, even if those 3 things are separate and distinct. Thanks for the answer.

Yup, that's basically how it works. Here's a small list with how detailed each mesh is (in descending order)

 

1. Highpoly mesh (the one you bake normals, ambient occlusion and other stuff from, can have unlimited polys).
2. Lowpoly mesh (the one you see in-game, usually in the low thousands of polys).
3. Shadow mesh (not visible to the player, usually below 1000 polys 50% of lowpoly mesh).
4. Collision mesh (not visible to the player, usually below 1000 150 polys).

Hope that clears it up a little bit.

 

In general, try to makes a SM with 50% as many polys or less. But it's hard to do good shadowmeshes for spheres.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind for future models as well.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Nosslak

[Springheel]

* Collision mesh (not visible to the player, usually below 1000 polys, even more lowpoly than the shadow mesh).

 

1000 polys would be WAY too much for a CM. I can't imagine needing anything above 150. Movables have to be < 16!

[Nosslak]

1000 polys would be WAY too much for a CM. I can't imagine needing anything above 150. Movables have to be < 16!

Hmm, I didn't think it'd be that low. I edited this into my post to avoid confusion.

 

I managed to get the collisionmesh down to 184 polys and shadowmesh to 1204 polys. Here's how they look:

Collision:

Shadow:

 

I'll try to get these into the game now.

 

Quick question: If I place something in the air in Dark Radiant does it fall down to the ground or just keep on floating when I play the level in TDM?

Edited December 20, 2010 by Nosslak

[Springheel]

That's fine for this, but in the future you could make it even smaller by using 3-sided legs instead of 4, and simplifying parts the player will not be able to hit. For example, the center leg could be left out entirely, and the bottom of the globe stretched down to fill that space. I probably would have left off the bottom crossbeams, though I suppose they could be useful if it were on its side.

 

Shadowmesh looks good.

 

Quick question: If I place something in the air in Dark Radiant does it fall down to the ground or just keep on floating when I play the level in TDM?

 

If it's a movable, yes, but if it's a static mesh, no.

[Nosslak]

That's fine for this, but in the future you could make it even smaller by using 3-sided legs instead of 4, and simplifying parts the player will not be able to hit. For example, the center leg could be left out entirely, and the bottom of the globe stretched down to fill that space. I probably would have left off the bottom crossbeams, though I suppose they could be useful if it were on its side.

 

Shadowmesh looks good.

Alright, thanks! I'll try to do that next time.

 

Also I found this great photo of a manhole cover (not sure that's what it's called in english) and I just felt that I had to model it. I'm not sure if it'd fit anywhere in Darkmod but I thought I'd just post it anyway:

If you want I can try to turn it into a decal. I've never done this so I'd probably need some help with the stages beyond the texture creation process (if there is anything beyond it).

 

What do you think?

[Springheel]

I don't really want to encourage manhole covers, as they're quite anachronistic for the setting. That pattern would make a great motif for some kind of tile texture, however.

[Melan]

Or all sorts of ornaments - tile, metal, whatever. Even an engraved metal surface like metal>detailed>panel_circledesign01_green_etched. This sort of thing has wide applicability.

[Nosslak]

I don't really want to encourage manhole covers, as they're quite anachronistic for the setting.

That's pretty much what I thought too, but it felt like it could be used for other purposes than just manhole covers, especially if I just made it as a decal.

 

That pattern would make a great motif for some kind of tile texture, however.

Or all sorts of ornaments - tile, metal, whatever. Even an engraved metal surface like metal>detailed>panel_circledesign01_green_etched . This sort of thing has wide applicability.

This is more what I thought about when I created it. I'm not so sure about having it tiled but I was thinking that it could be placed on the floor around a pedestal or showcase as to really signify the importance/value of it or something like that.

[Radiatoryang]

Why are manhole covers anachronistic? A sewer grate is a sewer grate. They've been around since the invention of sewer systems. There's manhole covers in the city in Bafford's!

[Springheel]

Why are manhole covers anachronistic?

 

Cast iron manhole covers like the kind Nosslak modeled didn't start getting used until the late 1800s. They did have manhole covers earlier than that, but they were usually stone with metal grates.

[Melan]

Or simply stone plugs. Here is a photo of a manhole cover I took in Palma de Mallorca in December 2006 (with my then new briefcase on the edge of the picture):

 

Then again, Thief's manhole covers were way more advanced with a mass-manufactured look, although nothing so fancy as Nosslak's:

[Nosslak]

If it is all too detailed and beautiful for a manhole cover then I was also thinking that I could perhaps integrate the pattern into a round vault design. I think you may already have one of those (I couldn't find it anywhere though) but some diversity is always nice.

 

Also, again, could someone please export any of the characters (preferably with a head attached) so that I could use it for scale? As it is right now I always have to just guesstimate a good size for it and if that doesn't work I have to export the mesh again until I get a good scale. This isn't optimal at all so could someone please export a character to a format that Blender can open (.lwo, .obj, .blend, .3ds, among others) for me.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Nosslak

[Tels]

That's fine for this, but in the future you could make it even smaller by using 3-sided legs instead of 4, and simplifying parts the player will not be able to hit. For example, the center leg could be left out entirely, and the bottom of the globe stretched down to fill that space. I probably would have left off the bottom crossbeams, though I suppose they could be useful if it were on its side.

 

I wouldn't do this - it would not save that many tris (I have had CMs done with thousand faces and for statics, they work just fine, there is no need to really save a few dozend tris). For moveables, 16 are the limit anyway. However, for statics, if you make the modifications that SH talked about, you lose important properties, like the ability to shoot arrows underneath through.

[Springheel]

However, for statics, if you make the modifications that SH talked about, you lose important properties, like the ability to shoot arrows underneath through.

 

 

How exactly do you lose that ability?

 

First, as already stated above, collision meshes have no effect on projectiles, which use the visible mesh. Even if that weren't the case, making legs use 3 sides rather than 4 wouldn't stop things from going through the legs.

[Tels]

 

How exactly do you lose that ability?

 

First, as already stated above, collision meshes have no effect on projectiles, which use the visible mesh. Even if that weren't the case, making legs use 3 sides rather than 4 wouldn't stop things from going through the legs.

 

I thought that we had exactly the problem that projectiles collide with the CM so you cannot shoot arrows under our chairs. If it is like you say, I remembered wrong. (However, you still have the problem you cannot throw things through the gap). Maybe it was that you could not place f.i. a skull under a chair (which has an L-shaped CM as it is a moveable?)

 

As for 3-sided vs. 4-sided, that is true, and a way to reduce polies. However, I wouldn't waste too much time on it, the CM already has only 184 polies and this is an object that is used very seldom in maps. We have trees with waaayy more polies, no CM and they are used dozends in a map. If we want to save on CM tris, there are easier things to catch