What to do with darkmod/props/textures

[PinkDot]

QUOTE

Is the texture folder also going to be reorganized (possibly with a similar structure, so we don't have that stupid huge folder anymore)?

 

 

Yeah, that's my next project, once we decide on where the models will go.

What's wrong with one folder for textures? I think it makes life easier - there's just one path to all models' textures, so you can't make any mistakes. And it's not like models folders - mappers don't go there looking for anything. And if they want a particular texture for some reason they can easily find it by name.

[Springheel]

What's wrong with one folder for textures? I think it makes life easier - there's just one path to all models' textures, so you can't make any mistakes.

 

It's very difficult to scroll through and find textures, primarily.

 

edit: There's also the problem that currently any textures for models in the darkmod/props/* folders go in darkmod/props/textures, and textures for models in darkmod/* go directly in their folder (so the textures for weapons are in the weapons folder, textures for rocks are in the darkmod/nature folder, etc.) Once we get rid of the darkmod/props/ layer, it will be completely unclear which textures should go where.

[Springheel]

Ok, here's the issue:

 

Currently, most (but not all) model textures are in models/darkmod/props/textures. Architecture textures are in Architecture and weapons are in Weapons, frex.

 

There is some concern that the textures folder is getting too unweildy--with 350 models, there are probably close to six hundred files or more, and more will continue to be added.

 

I'm torn on the issue of reorganizing that folder, but here are the reasons I see for both sides:

 

Why we should reorganize that folder:

 

1. It's so large it's a hassle to navigate.

 

2. Everything is thrown together so it can be harder to find the texture you want.

 

Why we shouldn't reorganize the folder:

 

1. With all the textures in one place, you don't have to search through different folders to find them.

 

2. It would be a big hassle to rearrange them.

 

 

Opinions?

[greebo]

If the pros and cons weigh up each other, I'd vote for leaving it. Better to use your time for something more important. There is also the possibility that someone else volunteers for the job, who knows?

[PinkDot]

Some models from diffrent folders (will) share the same texture - where would they go?

 

I think it takes more time to figure out what texture particular model uses (looking through material files...) than just to find that texture. You sort them by name and that's it. You don't search them by looking at thumbnails, do you?

[Springheel]

I have a strong leaning towards the "leave them alone" side. But I wanted to hear everyone's opinion.

[Baddcog]

Well, the material files would need editted to the new folder locations.

There are ALOT of materials and it might be a HUGE hassle.

 

I don't think it could be scripted as the script would have to know the name of each file, where it was going, and then put that into the material files.

 

I do see a point for organization, but I think this might be the most difficult reorg of all. I'm also used to searching thru thumbs in one folder anyway (well, T2 had txt16 for models and meshes [ai]. it also had the leftover txt from T1). So I guess it was more like 4 folder. It's actually better to have only one if you are searching for something to apply to a model (but then again, with D3 you then have to search for the material shader...)

 

It's kindof a pain either way.

[angua]

I'd rather have it reorganized, because I find it easier to search for a texture when everything is organized in subfolders, and it might make downloading easier (you only have to redownload a few textures when something goes wrong, not the whole folder). I'd also volunteer to do some of the work.

But I can also see the problems, and it's not a problem for me if it stays as it is right now, so we might as well leave them alone. The only thing that might really worth doing is moving the generic ones over to the textures so that they can be used for brushes and patches also.

[New Horizon]

The reason I used this method, was due to all the constant errors we were having with models appearing black, because material files and file paths were constantly not being correctly matched. We originally stored all the textures for a model, 'within' the models folder. Whenever you moved the model...the textures would be broken. With the current implimentation...you can move the model, and it will not break the textures. I also chose this method because it followed the T1/2 way of doing things for models, and it seemed to work fine there. Not saying it's the best way, but it is I think a good step would be to try and name the textures similarly to the model they are being used by. This won't work in all cases, but I think it could help.

 

We could potentially make a few extra folders to help lower the quanity to search through. As long as the textures are stored 'outside' of the model folder...the models could still be rearranged later, without breaking the texture paths.

 

darkmod/models/furniture/textures

darkmod/models/architecture/textures

darkmod/models/junk/textures

darkmod/models/paintings/textures

darkmod/models/shared/textures - for textures that are used on more than one model.

 

I wouldn't want to break it into too many, as it would make such a reorg a hassle...but this would keep it fairly close to the original.

[Baddcog]

I know this would be fine with ASE's as the material path is used in the file.

What about LWO's though? Don't they use a path to the tex? exported from lightwave/maya with the path intact?

I'm really not sure about it but thought that was the case.

 

In other words, will this cause all LWO files to need to be rexported with correct material paths?

 

In most cases I have tried to name my textures similar to the models, if nothing more than easy of use for myself.

 

In other cases though I used materials or textures and made my own materials out of existing textures to save file space.

So a shared folder might not be the way to go. There might also be more textures that end up getting shared at a later date, we wouldn't want to move them then.

Other than that I'd say if this is done than NH is correct that we should just follow convention on the folder names accordingly to the model folders. But we probably don't need to sub folder them (furntiture/seating, ect...) I think furniture would be fine.

[Springheel]

The problem with sub-folders like that is it falls apart when textures are used for more than one object, as frequently happens. I've got a wood handle texture that is used on tools (mop) and weapons (spear). No doubt junk objects will use the same texture as the non-junk versions. Etc.

 

We could potentially make a few extra folders to help lower the quanity to search through. As long as the textures are stored 'outside' of the model folder...the models could still be rearranged later, without breaking the texture paths.

 

Part of the problem last time was that people were including the path to the texture in the actual shader name. So they'd call their shader 'models/darkmod/weapons/mace'. Then, if the mace was moved to a different folder, the shader *name* made no sense. The model doesn't break, however, because D3 doesn't care what the name of the shader is, as long as it matches what is in the model file.

 

Now that we're not naming shaders with the path included (for model textures) that isn't really an issue anymore.

 

Still, I'm greebo on this one. I don't think we gain a huge amount by reorganizing those textures, and it would be a considerable hassle to do it.

 

My suggestion is that we do the following:

 

1. We move all generic, material-based textures (like generic wood or metal textures) into the brush texture folders.

 

2. We store all other model textures in models/darkmod/textures, with the exception of map-specific model textures, which should be stored with the model itself.

 

I'm tempted to make two more exceptions: architecture textures can be stored in an architecture/texture (or texture/architecture?) folder, and we should probably keep the textures for the player weapons in the folder with the model as well.

[Springheel]

You don't search them by looking at thumbnails, do you?

 

.tgas don't show up in thumbnails for me. Do you have some kind of plugin for that?

[Baddcog]

I can see dds and tga. I have windows XP media edition.

 

I'd have to check if I can see pcx (unrelated to darkmod), I know Xp had lost the ability to see pcx in thumbs without (thumbview? or thumblite?) Something like that anyway, you might try it for a plugin.

 

http://www.seriema.net/thumbview/

 

that should work for ya Springheel.

[PinkDot]

.tgas don't show up in thumbnails for me. Do you have some kind of plugin for that?

I used to use some plugin (maybe it was the one Baddcoq mentioned above) but I meant just using some image viewer (like Irfan View).

 

------

I'd be against any subfolders. It makes things unclear. I don't even see the reason to keep architecture and weapons textures separately except for the fact that they're already separate and it's better not too mess to much.

 

1. We move all generic, material-based textures (like generic wood or metal textures) into the brush texture folders.

That's good idea. My ship textures are all tileable so they can be used with brushes and patches.

That will encourage modelers (including me... ) to reuse more our existing textures instead of creating new ones, where the benefit of unique texture is very small. Somehow I'm worried that we're going too easy with models textures.

[SneaksieDave]

Considering pros and cons (and work involved, and the necessity of the change), I'd vote with SH and greebo. It seems like a lot of work is required for the sake of having them in separate folders, which IMO doesn't really gain much; you exchange looking through a long list of files in one folder for clicking through a ton of subfolders - and invite material errors as NH said - it just doesn't seem worth it or necessary. Plus as mentioned, the ambiguity of sharing textures - do you have duplicate copies? Of course not, so which model would "own" the texture? Move them into a communal spot, whenever a share is instantiated? Noooo...

 

The only potential issue I'm thinking of right now is that windows (old versions? I'm not sure about XP and up) has a maximum files per folder limit IIRC, but even that is probably enormous, so it's not really a concern (/textures2 anyone? ). I'd say leave it.

[Springheel]

Somehow I'm worried that we're going too easy with models textures.

 

 

What do you mean by "too easy"? Do you mean making too many when generic ones would suffice?

[PinkDot]

What do you mean by "too easy"? Do you mean making too many when generic ones would suffice?

Yes, separate texture for each model. Well, from artistic point of view it's the only way to go and I wouldn't mind preparing new texture for each new model. But considering the time it takes to load a large map and memory that it takes, I'm just thinking ahead of this problem. Well, ascottk was trying to make some generic textures, but so far they're not used too often... I try to make a one big common texture for set of models of the same theme.

But it's really difficult to mange this issue on large scale as we are only a team of amateurs and volunteers, not an experienced in game making team, where such things are thought ahead at the beginning.

[Springheel]

I think this notion is something we can definitely make use of, especially now that I understand the use of addnormals. We can start designing uvmaps to use tiling wood or metal textures that already exist in the brush folders, as well as making generic things like leather handle-grips, etc.

 

It is hard to coordinate efforts like that though.

[Baddcog]

Usually models tend to look best with textures designed specifically for them. So in that respect I think it's fine to have a tex for each model.

 

On the other hand, if there are alot of good base textures alot can be done with them to good end results.

I have reused a few where I could, unfortunately most of the textures are intended for a certain object and hard to use on others.

The 'magic ball lamp' I made uses the anvil diffuse and the gold plate and a tomb stone normal for details. It actually turned out pretty good I think but I had to pick through the textures quite a bit to find things that would work. This is the main reason I like one folder for textures, searching for things by shape, details, things I can rob for another object.

However, once these folders are changed I will just have a seperate texture directory with all of the tex in one folder for this purpose. This was fairly common with T2 also. There was no need to unpack the textures really, but it was nice if you used them to model.

 

The main prob I've noticed with reusing, mix and matching diffuse and normal maps is that in the object veiwer they show the 'missing shader' blue. Giving the objects an unfinished look. I think I mentioned this at one point as something that needed to be fixed if possible in model veiwer.

[Springheel]

Usually models tend to look best with textures designed specifically for them. So in that respect I think it's fine to have a tex for each model.

 

Generally this is true, but there's lots of cases where textures can be reused, and can even look better when they are. Furniture, for example, could often benefit from using the same wood texture, since it would then look more like a set. Wooden handles don't usually need to be specifically designed for the tool/weapon. Etc.

Lots of decorative things, like vases and statues, could also share textures.

 

The main prob I've noticed with reusing, mix and matching diffuse and normal maps is that in the object veiwer they show the 'missing shader' blue.

 

Why would they show as "missing shader"?

[Baddcog]

I'm not sure but check out the lamps and you'll see what I mean. If you create my sphere lamp in the editor it looks fine, but all blue in the veiwer. I attributed it to mixed materials in the shader since my other lamps are fine.

 

Maybe it is because those textures are used in other shaders in different groupings (the plate shader is all plate textures. My sphere lamp uses plate normal, anchor [i said anvil above] diffuse)

 

hmmm, just looked, maybe it's another issue that causes it. the anchor diffuse is 512x512. The plate normal is 256x256. Do you think mixed sizes would matter?

no, my carrot uses 128x256 diffuse and a 64x128 normal so that's not it. They do have the same name but with _local added to the normal though.

 

I think it's a mixed texture name in shader issue.

 

There is another sign of this problem too. ALMOST all of the lamp glass textures show as shader not found in veiwer but are also fine in editor and game.

[greebo]

This is because DarkRadiant doesn't understand all of the possible shader keywords yet. This is sometimes problematic for shaders without editor image (which applies to a few models, I guess).

[sparhawk]

Usually models tend to look best with textures designed specifically for them. So in that respect I think it's fine to have a tex for each model.

 

Since I'm not good at making textures, I usually always try to look up existing textures first. Also to reduce the space, because for many textures, it doesn't really make sense to create custom textures, if you can already use existing ones. For character models, or very special models it's true to make seperate textures, but if you create wooden or metal objects, there is really not much point in creating several different textures with the same material and basically looking the same.