A triptych I'm working on

[Skaruts]

 

How many polys are the hinges? Given how small and obscured they are, they shouldn't really need to be very detailed.

True. They're a scary 684 tris each. (the picture is one of them)

 

 

I think I could have those bolts flat, maybe 1 less side on the cylinders (they have 7), and if I'll keep those corners I might be able to do so with one or two less verts in the curves (or make simple corners), and they might look ok without the rounded ends. I did a quick test and that might reduce them to ~150-200 polys each. I have to keep those edge-loops at the ends of the cylinders to keep the smoothing consistent (they look skewed without them).

 

They'll take the bulk of the polys either way, as the paintings themselves are just as simple as the ones already in TDM (~30 tris each). But I think I could streamline them a bunch.

Edited October 9, 2018 by Skaruts

[peter_spy]

Get rid of those bolts, bake them on normalmap. Same goes for those small edge loops at ends. They don't do anything here, as they are flush with the rest of cylindrical piece. You'll want to use edge loops for subdivision and baking high poly details, but not on low poly model.

[Skaruts]

Is a normal map justified if the only significant detail in it will be the bolts?

[peter_spy]

You didn't plan to use normalmap at all? Models will have different look and will respond differently to lighting, with and without normalmaps. Same goes for speculars. Using basic _d, _n, _s texture setup in materials is basically "free", i.e. it doesn't cost more drawcalls than using just one or two textures. Anything in { } brackets (glow maps, cubemaps etc.) does make the material more expensive though.

[Bikerdude]

Also on the subject of details, as they are small and mostly hidden just do things like the bolts in the texture.

[Skaruts]

You didn't plan to use normalmap at all? Models will have different look and will respond differently to lighting, with and without normalmaps. Same goes for speculars. Using basic _d, _n, _s texture setup in materials is basically "free", i.e. it doesn't cost more drawcalls than using just one or two textures. Anything in { } brackets (glow maps, cubemaps etc.) does make the material more expensive though.

I didn't plan to have anything in the model that needed any kind of details to begin with. The foldable models came as an afterthought that I thought might be nice to have. The first hinges I made had no bolts, it was only later that I thought they might seem too bland on a closer look.

 

Not sure how to proceed with this, tbh. On one hand I never made normal maps from models (only from textures), on the other hand I'm not sure how I would apply the normal map to it, since the bolts use a different material from the plaques. If that makes a difference; maybe I'm on the wrong mindset. The wiki doesn't seem very helpful.

 

Also on the subject of details, as they are small and mostly hidden just do things like the bolts in the texture.

Perhaps my quickest option would be to see if there's a texture that already has bolts in it and use it for the whole plaque...

[peter_spy]

If you use different material for bolts, you can use different set of UVs on such model, and different set of textures for that material. When engine sees a multi-material model, it separates them into chunks, so 1 model with 4 materials has the same cost as 4 models with 1 material.

 

Not sure how to proceed with this, tbh. On one hand I never made normal maps from models (only from textures), on the other hand I'm not sure how I would apply the normal map to it, since the bolts use a different material from the plaques. If that makes a difference; maybe I'm on the wrong mindset. The wiki doesn't seem very helpful.

 

So you are using normals in a basic sense, to fake details on a flat surface, like most stock TDM models do with multiple tiling materials. If you don't want to get into full model unwrapping and normal baking yet, you could find a bolt texture or "alpha" (there should be some free zbrush alphas around the web), and convert it into a normalmap. nJob is a free tool that's pretty good at that. You could even use a photo, just use Diffuse -> Heightmap option, adjust the level of details, and then use Heightmap -> Normalmap. It's a pretty handy tool, if you want to prototype your normals fast.

[Skaruts]

I was trying to stick with textures that are already in TDM. There's a metal_plate_rivets01 texture that could do the job, but I still need some extra faces (hexagons) that I can unwrap on top of a rivet. That still inflates the poly count somewhat, considering there's 32 of them (32 hexagons, 4 tris each = 128 tris). That would make the whole model roughly 650 tris if I'm not mistaken (with simplified hinges overall).

[peter_spy]

IMO this is the geometry that is unnecessary (red). Unless you plan the parts to be lying around somewhere, faces marked in red won't ever be seen by players.

 

[Skaruts]

Yes the parts are separate, and you never know what someone could do with that. That's the reason for that thing sticking out of the left cylinder, as well as the caps.

 

What I was suggesting in my last post was this:

 

For some reason the game isn't giving me bad smoothing without those edge loops now, so that's great.

[Bikerdude]

Is it an lwo or .ase model, do we know if the game does better smoothing with one or the other..?

[Skaruts]

Is it an lwo or .ase model, do we know if the game does better smoothing with one or the other..?

It was this problem, which seems related to .lwo. Perhaps it's also related to Blender. But I tried .ase and still had it, so I just went back to lwo. It actually depends on the lighting, sometimes it's there, sometimes it isn't. Either way, the hinges are small and dark, so I'm not sure I should worry about it.

[Skaruts]

You can see it if you zoom in on it, but not really if you don't.

[peter_spy]

There should be no bad smoothing with the topology you have here, one SG for the cylinder, second for the cap. I have similar setup myself, although I fake this on normalmap instead of geometry:

 

That's a bit more of "an art for art's sake", I'm pretty sure most people won't notice

[Skaruts]

Well I gave .ase another go and they seem better, except for the two on the left piece (left ones, top parts), which is weird. As far as I can tell they're exactly the same as the others... I moved the candle to different positions but didn't make a difference.

 

[Skaruts]

Can I apply one normal map for the model regardless that the model uses several materials? Or is each normal map tied to each material as I'm thinking it is?

[peter_spy]

You can use the same textures in multiple materials for a model. I often use the same set of _d, _n, _s textures for couple of materials, if I have to split the model into different surfaces, like wood and stone (as long as it matters to gameplay, I often reduce models to one material if it's not that important). You can also use e.g. the same diffuse for all parts but different normalmaps.

[Skaruts]

Wait, I'm actually not thinking straight here...

 

I'll need to use the same texture (diffuse) for the hinge and rivets, since the goal is to remove the tris from the rivets, and just keep the flat hinge, but with the rivets painted on its texture.

 

I think I really need to create my own custom diffuse and a normal map to go with it...

Edited October 20, 2018 by Skaruts

[HMart]

Can I apply one normal map for the model regardless that the model uses several materials? Or is each normal map tied to each material as I'm thinking it is?

 

Normal maps are tied to each material yes. Btw just so you know, if you don't use a normal map, the engine will automatically use a flat normal map in all your materials, regardless if you write it on the material or not. So not putting detail on a normal map, is a waste of opportunity imo.

If you don't want to bake a high poly to low poly, you can just paint a normal map on photoshop, GIMP, etc.

Edited October 20, 2018 by HMart