Gothic Arch

[Fingernail]

Diffuse needs a little bit more work before I'm happy;

 

 

That's just 2 textures: one 512x256 diffuse with 1024 normal (no specular), and one 64x128 for the trim (2x size normal, again no specular).

 

I modeled the arch in Lightwave for the excellent normal; you wouldn't believe how 3D it looks when you move a pointlight across it.

 

For locations close to the player I'll make a lowpoly 3D model, to give even more depth, but this is fine for faraway walls or otherwise complex locations where polys are at a premium, for instance.

[god_is_my_goldfish]

Not bad, but i guess i'll have to see it in action before i can really judge. It looks extremely flat in that picture.

[Fingernail]

Being a flat brush, yes... but the effect is greater with a moving light, especially over the pillars.

[Fingernail]

Just because I'm a nice Fingernail, I made you a lovely 3D modeled version of it, complete with one error in the mesh (must sort that out!):

 

 

EDIT: it was a UV map problem, one triangle that got left behind. The entire mesh is 128 tris, so it's really performance-friendly, and looks better than the flat version when you're up close or at a < 45 degree angle to the surface as the pillars actually stand out now.

[DeepOmega]

You shouldn't use the same normals for the 3D version as for the flat version. Why, you ask? Because you get horrible shading artifacts around corners and curves - for instance, right at the, er, peak of the pillars on your model, where it goes pitch black. Think of it this way: the normal map is relative to plain, vanilla, flat normals, so if you're now painting it over a normal that's at a 45 degree angle to a flat one, it'll go crazy.

Edited March 12, 2005 by DeepOmega

[Fingernail]

That's why I was planning to re-render the normals.

[pakmannen]

I wanna see it ingame!

(Looks good)

[Fingernail]

That is ingame, pak.

[sparhawk]

Looks very nice. I like the lighting in that shot.

[Fingernail]

You know what, DO?

 

I re-UVed the model, re-rendered the normals and it looked exactly the same. I compared the colours of the sloped sections and they were EXACTLY the same...

 

So although your theory is sound, it doesn't seem to make any odds in practice.

 

Strange, I would've thought it would do.

 

And that black bit? It's probably just the position of that light.

 

Also those bits at the top of the pillars you picked out ARE 100% flat...

[pakmannen]

That is ingame, pak.

I know, but I wanna see it ingame.

[Fingernail]

 

CHECK IT OUT THREE WINDOWS.

 

Seriously, though, bottom 2 rows = model, third row = texture only. When seen from player-stance it should look as if there's hardly any difference as it goes up the building.

 

And the windows are just stupidly extravagant, I know, but it's just a test wall.

[god_is_my_goldfish]

Very nice, this will look quite nice in-game

[Fingernail]

and it's only 3 textures (third is very small band of fluting)!

When I've built enough to make a whole cathedral front, then THAT will be worth seing ingame.

[Napalm]

from this view it isnt very convincing

[DeepOmega]

The bricks themselves are basically way too low-rez - or just undefined. They're blurry and hard to distinguish.

[Fingernail]

Alright, I'm gonna stop posting WIPs until I'm sure I'm done... the diffuse map is only 256x512 and yes, the bricks need a better texture, but since my original plan was to put a statue in front of each alcove (I'm working from a photo here).

 

Bear in mind the distance-filtering that D3 does (at least on my video settings!). Textures get blurrier as you get a certain distance.

[Ishtvan]

Some people have gotten 'detail textures' to work in D3 also, but you probably know that already.

[Fingernail]

aye. working on the rose window normal now as well.

[Macsen]

Looks great Fing. I agree that posting simple textures for the upper parts of the Cathedral would be an effective way of making it appear more complicated than it is.