Wood beam textures for cheap

[Tels]

For my houses I need different colored "big" wood beams. The current "fungi" texture is nice, but it is a bit green for my tastes

 

So, I had the idea that we could take that texture image, desaturate it so we end up with a medium gray version.

 

Then we could add 3..5 materials all using this texture, but shaderparams like so:

 

  red param0 * 0.5
 green param0 * 1
 blue param0 * 1

 

to effectively just color the same texture. That would save us texture space.

 

Is this generally a workable way? Should I go for it?

[New Horizon]

Sure, why not?

[Springheel]

If what you've listed above is the same as the rgb/color keywords, then it won't really desaturate the colour, it will just move it closer to black (or white if you use an additive blend). It's definitely useful for creating new textures without the need for more files, however.

 

http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?showtopic=6170

[Baddcog]

I think PinkDot also just released some beam textures.

 

@Tels, I think it's cool that you are showing alot of detail. This is obviously more of a challenge to see what you can make rather than a actual playable level so I wouldn't worry about performance too much, this is a good way to test those limits.

 

However I do think the double beam floor is a bit much. Most likely they would have only used one set of beams and then laid the flooring across those.

Probably any double beam structure like that would be either ornamental or used in a very large building, the bottom beams would probably be there to support the top beams, I imagine they'd be larger and fewer in number.

[Tels]

Sure, why not?

 

It works in theory, but in praxis DarkRadiant doesn't apply the shaders (at least under linux), so all wood textures look grey :/

 

 

[Tels]

I think PinkDot also just released some beam textures.

 

@Tels, I think it's cool that you are showing alot of detail. This is obviously more of a challenge to see what you can make rather than a actual playable level so I wouldn't worry about performance too much, this is a good way to test those limits.

 

However I do think the double beam floor is a bit much. Most likely they would have only used one set of beams and then laid the flooring across those.

Probably any double beam structure like that would be either ornamental or used in a very large building, the bottom beams would probably be there to support the top beams, I imagine they'd be larger and fewer in number.

 

Baddcogg, you might be right about the beams, it depends on the size of the floorarea, and whats on top of it, and it definitely looks a bit "too much" right now. Of course, they are inside and on th ceiling, so performance won't matter there

 

In my case, I think the beams are bit too dense. However, if you look at the photo, you see them sticking out both walls, so there was definitely some criss-cross beam structure.

 

Unfortunately, I do not have inside shots of that house :/

 

Edit:

 

It is definitely right to have criss-crossed beams:

 

Beams transfer the force from the top-storeys/roof down to the wall. Now, if you have beams in only one direction, then only the walls that carry the beams will take the force, the other two walls would just sit there and not get any force at all. Technically, you can build a house that way, but in praxis you want the force divided between all four walls (and thus make thinner walls) than just spead the force to two walls).

 

What I remember from my castle tours is that sometimes a really huge central beam is used, then all other beams are at 90° to this beam. However, having multiple smaller beams at 90°isn't uncommon, esp. as a big beam is more complicated to handle (massive!) and a single point of failure.

[greebo]

It works in theory, but in praxis DarkRadiant doesn't apply the shaders (at least under linux), so all wood textures look grey :/

DarkRadiant doesn't parse/understand the color keywords yet. It will work in D3 itself though, which is the most important thing, so your approach is still fine.

[Tels]

DarkRadiant doesn't parse/understand the color keywords yet. It will work in D3 itself though, which is the most important thing, so your approach is still fine.

 

However, DR uses the que_editorimage maps to actually draw textures, and since these are correctly colored, it all looks fine now - DR just doesn't seem to reload them or something, but after a restart, everything works as it should.

 

Will check these in in a minute.

[greebo]

You can use the "flush & reload shaders" command in the Texture Browser's toolbar (or assign a shortcut to it) to reload the material definitions and to refresh the texture files from your HDD.

[Tels]

However, DR uses the que_editorimage maps to actually draw textures, and since these are correctly colored, it all looks fine now - DR just doesn't seem to reload them or something, but after a restart, everything works as it should.

 

Will check these in in a minute.

 

Checked in as revision 3575. The dds/.../rough_wood_fungi.dds is no longer needed, the rough_wood_grey.dds replaces it. Should I delete it?

 

And can somebody please check that the .dds file I created (rough_wood_grey.dds) is well-formed? I am still unsure wether the Gimp plugin works and I used it properly (It works here on linux, so please test the textures

[Tels]

You can use the "flush & reload shaders" command in the Texture Browser's toolbar (or assign a shortcut to it) to reload the material definitions and to refresh the texture files from your HDD.

 

I know but that did for some reason not work - either the editor textures weren't properly reloaded or I goofed up something else. After a restart of DR and loading a different map it works now

[New Horizon]

Checked in as revision 3575. The dds/.../rough_wood_fungi.dds is no longer needed, the rough_wood_grey.dds replaces it. Should I delete it?

 

And can somebody please check that the .dds file I created (rough_wood_grey.dds) is well-formed? I am still unsure wether the Gimp plugin works and I used it properly (It works here on linux, so please test the textures

 

I would leave it in as an alternative.

[greebo]

Checked in as revision 3575. The dds/.../rough_wood_fungi.dds is no longer needed, the rough_wood_grey.dds replaces it. Should I delete it?

I noticed you actually replaced the rough_wood_fungi.dds by the greenish coloured version, which doesn't look the same. The rough_wood_fungi.dds diffusemap is not uniformly coloured and can't be replicated by changing the hue of a grey base texture to green.

 

So I'd say we leave the original rough_wood_fungi shader as it is and add your new shaders additionally to the fungi one. We're talking about a 170 kB diffusemap, so this is definitely worth it.

 

And can somebody please check that the .dds file I created (rough_wood_grey.dds) is well-formed? I am still unsure wether the Gimp plugin works and I used it properly (It works here on linux, so please test the textures

The DDS file is fine, I could load it both in DarkRadiant and in Doom 3.

[Tels]

I noticed you actually replaced the rough_wood_fungi.dds by the greenish coloured version, which doesn't look the same. The rough_wood_fungi.dds diffusemap is not uniformly coloured and can't be replicated by changing the hue of a grey base texture to green.

 

So I'd say we leave the original rough_wood_fungi shader as it is and add your new shaders additionally to the fungi one. We're talking about a 170 kB diffusemap, so this is definitely worth it.

 

Yes, that was on purpose, as I couldn't spot any difference between my green version and the .dds (apart from some very subtle color difference due to the hader params not matching exactly as I just fudged them).

 

I think in this case we should really keep the fungi version, but add a bit more color variations into the diffusemap so it isn't that subtle that everyone overlooks it

 

The DDS file is fine, I could load it both in DarkRadiant and in Doom 3.

 

Cool

[Springheel]

Yes, that was on purpose, as I couldn't spot any difference between my green version and the .dds

 

Regardless, please do not replace existing textures without first checking with either the author or myself.

[Tels]

Regardless, please do not replace existing textures without first checking with either the author or myself.

 

I restored it with revision 3578. Sorry.

[PinkDot]

That fungi texture was made for piers, that's why it's so green.

Certainly we need some more colour variations but I wouldn't rely on those red, green, blue keywords too much, cause the result looks too artificial. It's better to make entirely diffrent textures rather than repeat the same pattern with just diffrent colour.

[Tels]

That fungi texture was made for piers, that's why it's so green.

 

I know, my version was "greenish" too, but I apparently missed the white spots you had on your version. sorry again.

 

Certainly we need some more colour variations but I wouldn't rely on those red, green, blue keywords too much, cause the result looks too artificial. It's better to make entirely diffrent textures rather than repeat the same pattern with just diffrent colour.

 

Yes, but there are only so many hours in a given day I intend to do more photograph and textures from them, but well, things go slowly if you have to learn everything first

 

Speaking of that, is someone able to "paint" a hightmap for a rough-stone-wall texture? I made a perfect diffusemap (spent a few hours with Gimp on it , but the automatically generated normal map looks like..all wrong. And painting that height/normal map will take me ages :/

[Baddcog]

I think the best way to make the normal easily is to desaturate and give it less contrast. Then run a normal filter on it. try to get alot of detail out by decreasing the contrast first though.

[Tels]

I think the best way to make the normal easily is to desaturate and give it less contrast. Then run a normal filter on it. try to get alot of detail out by decreasing the contrast first though.

 

That doesn't really work, as the only normal filter I have in Gimp take sthe RGB value as the height - e.g. lighter areas get higher and darker areas get lower.

 

However, the rims between the stones should actually be lower, and lighter spots on the stones should still be higher etc. I don't think there is any way except carefully painting a heightmap, then convert this into a normal map. Lotsa work, tho

[greebo]

Speaking of that, is someone able to "paint" a hightmap for a rough-stone-wall texture? I made a perfect diffusemap (spent a few hours with Gimp on it , but the automatically generated normal map looks like..all wrong. And painting that height/normal map will take me ages :/

Creating good textures can take many hours, just like creating good models. Ask angua: she spent about four hours hand-painting a heightmap for one of the dirt textures and merging three bumpmaps into the final normalmap (I think nature/dirt/dry_earth or something).

 

I normally try to get around these type of work, that's probably why I would be unsuitable as a pure texture artist or modeler - I try to accomplish as much as possible with a given timeframe before I get tired, but good work (usually) takes more dedication than that. That's why I rather stick to coding, for some reason I have more stamina in that department.

[Fidcal]

Well, if it's the same one then that dirt looks pretty dang good for all that effort - I'm using it piled up in my cellar with a lowdown mushroom light and it looks great how the dirt catches the light. Never thought I would admire dirt but there you go!

[greebo]

I was referring to this one: http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?s=&am...st&p=121951

[Fidcal]

Ah, no, missed that one. I am using textures/darkmod/nature/dirt/dirt_001 in the cellar but I'm going to try that stony one in the yard where there is a pile of dirt.

[Tels]

I was referring to this one: http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?s=&am...st&p=121951

 

Uhm, is it just me or is the normal map reversed? the left one (without) has the stones sticking out, the right one looks like all the "stones" are actually depressions:

 

http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?act=a...ost&id=1492

 

I notice a similiar effect on "sloppy_bricks_red" or something, where the mortar actually sticks out and the bricks are depressed. That should be the other way, as mortar sticking out would be the first thing that gets broken off and weathered down by the elements. (unless the wall was made 2 weeks ago with plenty of mortar quelling out between the bricks