Cathedral Theme

[Fingernail]

I'm not sure exactly where this thread belongs, but hey.

 

Been doing a bit of playing around with DoomEdit, textures, looking at cathedral pictures, other maps in other games, and generally wondering.

 

In my mind, there are three ways we could approach this:

 

a) rely on normalmapped textures to provide details on windows, fluting around doors etc, mapped onto simple geometry.

 

b ) rely on lots of static mesh models for details such as pillars, fluting, vaults, pinnacles, arches etc.

 

c) rely on creating simple but reusable textures of surfaces of which all the above are composed, and let the FM author make all the complex architecture themselves out of brushes and patches - it IS doable.

 

Of course, the answer is a combination of all three - but where to draw the lines between them?

 

Should we model all the cornices, flying butresses, joists, pillars, complex ceilings etc, or should we leave those to the mapper to do with brushes and patches, which takes longer but ultimately allows for a more unique finish and less SAMEY-ness which I feel we shall see in T3 FMs, as many people will just use the bog standard meshes over and over again.

 

I think we should follow the rule that, for small and intricate details = models. Things like pinnacles and delicate arches, gargoyles etc.

 

Windows and walls and bricks and tiles and all that should still be made as textures.

 

However, I'm not too sure about things like, say, pillars. We all know gothic pillars/columns are quite ornate and fluted. Now they'd probably look better if modeled and properly UV mapped, but that's a lot more work, for us, than providing a PILLAR TEXTURE and letting the mapper get on with the brushwork. A benefit to modeling it and providing the prefabs would be that anyone could be able to make decent looking churches right away - I'm sure we've all seen bad ones done in T2 FMs. But that's a bit of a nannying attitude to take.

 

 

This is made more complex by the fact, well, cathedrals are bloody complex things, and next-gen engine requirements mean it's more work than it used to be too. So we have approximately double (more than double) the workload than for City, I'd say, especially since (parts of) City can be covered by existing textures like some from Mansion.

 

Not to mention all the statues, pews, doors, candelabras.... EHEU it's gonna be one helluva ride.

 

All I can say for aiming so high is that once we're there, we will beat the dull St Edgars from T3, and pretty much any other gothic architecture in any other game I've seen. Hell, we already beat most games in terms of art resource quality and we're not even 1/3 done. And the benefits of having so comprehensive a gothic framework is that many types of these textures can be fitted into all sorts of other locations to create a richer feel to them - a mansion with arches, museums etc. In fact, think of this theme less "Cathedral" than "Gothic" in some respects. "Medieval", even.

 

And don't feel limited to gaudy, showy crud (although we know how impressive that is) - people will want to build derelict, haunted little chapels with graveyards, too. Besides, in many cases, the simpler it is, the more places it can be used.

[oDDity]

Use your common sense. It should be pretty obvious where actual geomerty is warranted and where simpler gomerty with a normal map will suffice.

For an ornate pillar, I don't reallly think there's much differece between making the base cylinder in doom and then importing some fancy static models for the ornate parts, or just making the whole thing in a 3d app.

Static normal mapped models will always look the best, that's for sure, and I suppose a lot of people won't mind having a good supply of them to import into their maps.

[Fingernail]

Well aye, but that way is a lot more work for us. And turn out a lot of cookie-cutter-cathedrals.

[Renzatic]

Going the static mesh route isn't necessarily a bad thing...contrary to what I used to think. People can mix and match from other theme sets all they want plus use brushes and patches to add to theme as they see fit. Static meshes will just make their lives a little easier and allow you to go a bit farther with the geometry than you could otherwise.

 

Right now what you need to do is think of the quality of your map rather than the variety of objects you're gonna have to provide for people using the mod. If you worry too much then you'll never get anything done, just do what you need to do to make your cathedral then once it's done start adding new stuff for variety.

[SneaksieDave]

I personally wish we had/have some day (whether TDM official, or community contributed), a big selection of prefabs to use. They remain optional, so people who may not have as much design ability can make things easier/faster, or if anyone wants that level and type of detail, but at the same time, teh power of DOOM allows them also to use custom made brushwork.

 

Can't lose by having them, so I hope there will be many!

 

As far as the original point goes, yes common sense and circumstances should indicate what to use. However I see that there can be question. I was working on a cathedral type window a while ago and thought, while I was laying down patch and brush here and there, "hey wait... maybe this should all be a normal mapped texture..." So, "Should we model..." - I'd say if it's do-able, yep.

[Fingernail]

 

 

I found some good quality photos. None of those textures have normal or specular maps yet, and they already look pretty

 

I'm actually almost wetting myself to see what they will look like with normal and spec maps -

[Fingernail]

BTW it seems to be the same site BT is using - or at least, I've just found a couple of his texture sources also there!

 

http://69.44.157.231/index.php

 

EDIT: And yes, these WILL be "fun" to make the normalmaps for....

[Fingernail]

Reconsidering, I've realised that, due to the lack of ambient lighting in Doom 3, a pre-shaded texture for the diffusemap, if not shaded too strongly from any direction, can actually ADD to the realism, since it creates some ambient shading around it, whereas if you rely on JUST a normalmap, it can seem as if there is no ambient lighting, which is less realistic.

 

The best situation IMO, for D3, is for the normalmap to add directional shading to the texture, but the texture should still look good when lit by an ambient light.

[BlackThief]

BTW it seems to be the same site BT is using - or at least, I've just found a couple of his texture sources also there!

yeah I took 2 photos from this site most of the stuff isn't that good - however I must have somehow missed those cathedral-photos.

[Fingernail]

well they had some huge photos of cathedrals and other gothic buildings, which I just downloaded. Some of them were just crop and resize jobs, others needed some manipulation - still some in the works from that lot.

[Fingernail]

I'm quite astounded at the decent normalmaps the GIMP plugin has generated - no touching up whatsoever yet (although I may well do bits here and there, and model some of it).

 

 

 

 

There is absolutely NO match for decent photo sources.

[BlackThief]

hm, not THAT surpirsing because of the shadows - they help a lot in this case. I think at least the frame should be modelled, otherwise you won't get enough depth into the normal.

[Fingernail]

this is true, the window is a definite candidate for modeling - the bricks can stay, I did actually do a heightmap for those, as I think can the arch/brick textures on the butresses.

[Fingernail]

 

Work proceeds slowly between bouts of revision. Top bit done, lit dramatically to show the normalmap.

[oDDity]

THat looks great. Is it all modeled or a normal map? IT looks damn high poly if it is a model.

[Fingernail]

Normal map, from a model. I could put the model in so people can make transparent windows..... it'd need some poly reduction, tho. I didn't pay any attention to how high poly I was making it as it's a normalmap reference.

[BlackThief]

yeah that look great! you could try to roughen it up a little bit with the 2d normalmap, then it'd be perfect.

[Fingernail]

will do, when I've finished the rest of the model/normalmap.

[sparhawk]

That looks awesome! Good job.

[Renzatic]

Excellent job on the normalmap.

 

Kill off some of the specularity though, it's a little TOO shiny and makes it look plasticy.

[Fingernail]

There IS no specular map you big lummox.

[Renzatic]

:cry:

[Macsen]

Good stuff, exciting.

[Ishtvan]

Yeah, looks awesome! This is stupid question, but why would people need the model version if they wanted to make transparent windows?

[Renzatic]

Another thing Fing...you could do with making your curves a little more high poly on the model, you can tell it looks a little low where the shadows hit.