Tricko for object modeler

[greebo]

Where is the master list of models required? I'll get down to some more modelling if I can find it.

There's this one, I think that's the most current one: http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?showtopic=4888

[Tricko]

There's this one, I think that's the most current one: http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?showtopic=4888

 

 

Thanks Greebo, I just found it. Shall I just pick one to start modelling, or are some more urgently needed than others?

[Springheel]

Mappers will make special requests when they need something specific. Otherwise, take whatever strikes your fancy. We've surpassed 500 prop models, so most critical things are already done. Use your imagination.

[Crispy]

Welcome aboard, Tricko.

Cool, and ditto.

[Springheel]

I've got the throne into the game and it looks quite good. Just a couple tips for future reference...D3 tends to saturate colours a bit, so you may want to desaturate your diffuse textures just a touch to compensate. The picture below is with the default diffusemap...I found reducing the saturation of the diffuse by -20 was closer to your rendered shot (didn't include a screenshot of that though). Also, the specular you provided was VERY strong for wood. D3 tends to make things with strong specular maps look like plastic. I reduced it quite significantly for the shot on the right.

 

 

In general, we don't add specular maps for wooden objects unless they're highly polished, and then only a very low specular.

[Tricko]

Wow! Looks great Springheel. Will take that into consideration when preparing future texture maps.

 

Cheers!!!

[Tricko]

Silly question but does a model have to be completely closed.

 

For instance, if it was a tree and the trunk of the tree was going to be slightly below the surface of the terrain, so would never be seen in-game, would there be any need to close off the base of the tree with extra polys?

[Tels]

Silly question but does a model have to be completely closed.

 

For instance, if it was a tree and the trunk of the tree was going to be slightly below the surface of the terrain, so would never be seen in-game, would there be any need to close off the base of the tree with extra polys?

 

Technically, no. But in praxis, it creates problems when someone wants to use the model in an "unusual" orientation. For instance, our burntlogs aren't closed and just the other day I wanted to stack them into a larger pile, which doesn't work if you turn them around because of the "hole" at one side.

 

So better close the model, one or two more polygon's don't matter much.

[Crispy]

Non-closed shadow meshes may also produce funky results. And non-closed collision meshes would almost certainly preclude using the model as a moveable.

 

(I haven't tested either of the above suppositions; they're merely educated guesses.)

[Baddcog]

I can say for certian that non-closed shadow meshes can produce funky shadows. There will be a hole in the shadow where the missing polys are.

This is because only front facing polys of the shadow mesh will block light, the unside backside of polys won't block light.

 

Not for sure but most certianly an unclosed collision mesh would not work properly. Even if it did work for non-moveables it would certianly by quite buggy for any moveables.

 

So shadows and collision should be closed no matter what. Shadow meshes can have 'floating polys' though, as long as they intersect with other polys so the shadow doesn't show the gap between them.

 

I don't think it's a 100% on having an objects model closed. That's one way to save polys (by not closing) and can be good or bad.

For example, if you don't have polys on bottom of log or table legs and someone wants to turn it over it will show and that's a bad thing. But on something like a tree you could probably leave it open. Most likely someone will not turn a tree upside down, if they do what do they expect? Roots or a cut off cross section of the tree like a log. I can see having a 'cut tree' model and another stump model for that purpose, but I wouldn't give all trees a cross section or roots for that matter.

Of course 'root' models could be good also for tunnels under a tree. But the top of them could probably be open too as the player would never see that.

 

Another example would be a window facade. If it's a model just for looks, either inside or outside a building you wouldn't need a backside on it.

 

I know Springheel added backs to the paintings and that's good. First it is only a few polys so it's not gonna bog down the performance, Second alot of authors use paintings as 'doors' to hide a safe or secret passage behind. So the player will see the backs in alot of cases. Unlike T2 where they left the backs of paintings open thinking it was a good way to save polys because they wouldn't be seen.

[Tricko]

Thanks guys!

 

That certainly clarified that point. Always wondered how important this was but always felt to stupid to ask, not really being clued up or having experience on the technical side of things.

[Crispy]

Always wondered how important this was but always felt to stupid to ask, not really being clued up or having experience on the technical side of things.

Always ask. It doesn't make one look stupid; quite the opposite.

 

People don't mind being asked questions... in fact, some people even like it, especially if the question is technical, since it gives them a chance to show off their knowledge.

[Tricko]

Thanks for that Crispy!

 

I shall not hesitate with any further queries.

[Tricko]

Hey guys, would the team still like me to donate my horse and cow models. If so I may need to rework the meshes, as when I built them (which was a long time ago) I wasn't considering animation and joint deformation.

[Springheel]

Sure, that would be great, though we're short on people who can rig models and animate them right now. The horse one could also be used as a statue, with a stone texture, or shrunk down to be a decorative statue.

[Tricko]

Sure, that would be great, though we're short on people who can rig models and animate them right now. The horse one could also be used as a statue, with a stone texture, or shrunk down to be a decorative statue.

 

Ok I'll look into doing that with the horse model. Do I mail them to you again Springheel?

[Springheel]

You can, but eventually it would be easiest if you got yourself hooked up with SVN. Then you can download the mod and look at all our assets, as well as upload anything new that you make.

 

Instructions are here: http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?showtopic=5449

[Tricko]

You can, but eventually it would be easiest if you got yourself hooked up with SVN. Then you can download the mod and look at all our assets, as well as upload anything new that you make.

 

Instructions are here: http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?showtopic=5449

 

 

Ok I'll look into it. Doom3 runs like crap on my PC as I've still some driver issues to sort out. Have been to busy with work to fix it.

[Springheel]

Even if you can't play the mod, you should still be able to load either the D3editor or our own DarkRadiant editor so that you can see your models in game. Seeing them in an actual map setting can be very inspirational.

 

In the meantime though, you can always email stuff to me again. If you could save your textures in .tga format, that would save me a bit of time converting.

[Tricko]

Here's something I've done from the models list, it's from the 'mechanical' section. I intend to build a base mesh from the highpoly sculpt you see here.

 

Just wondered about the arms, or lack of them. Looking at the reference photo it seems the arms have been worn away by the elements. Now I could add some arms or I could leave it as is. I think this could well be dictated by the type of texture used. If using a stone texture it would work, on the other hand if this is going to be a metal or mechanical figure, I'm not so sure. What does the team think?

 

I must admit I quite like the lack of arms, reminds me of the old Greek sculptures with the arms missing.

 

By tricko

[greebo]

Pretty cool. Just out of interest: How many triangles has this hi-poly model?

 

We have some stone and metal/rust textures in our repository (tiling ones), so I figure we can make some interesting skins for this model, once it's been made lowpoly. As for the arms, I'd vote for leaving it like that.

[Tricko]

Pretty cool. Just out of interest: How many triangles has this hi-poly model?

 

 

The poly count is 610304 don't know how that translates into tris, (ZBrush only gives the poly info). This was after subdividing the base geometry x 6. Probably could have done it in x5 but I wouldn't have got the skin and armour detail quite as clean.

 

I vote no arms as well.

[Springheel]

Yep, looks very cool. I think the no arms version is fine. Look forward to seeing the low-poly version.

 

(btw, you don't have to keep posting in your contributor thread anymore...you can start posting your stuff in the modeling forum)

[SneaksieDave]

Oh! Wow, I didn't even realize the pic on the left was a model, until SH's post. I thought I was looking at a photo in a museum or something.