old_worn_blocks_001 bump to look at later

[Fidcal]

textures/darkmod/stone/brick/old_worn_blocks_001 bump looks poor in this shot. Not so bad on the far wall but not great. Just noted here to look at later. Can it be the player light?

 

[Mortem Desino]

Ewww...flat wall syndrome.

 

It looks like the normalmap just needs some exaggeration and more features to the stone faces, rather than just the cracks.

[Fidcal]

Also, I suspect it might help if the mortar was lightened where it is dark shadow on the texture. Make that deeper on the bump map too. If I finish my map early I'll take a look after.

[SneaksieDave]

Many might be surprised at the [this is going to sound really negative, but it's not meant that way necessarily, or in all cases] lack of consistency and standards within our texture archive. I admit it broke my spirit to do something about it (whether fix, replace, cull...) quite a while ago. Some too deep, some too shallow, some too bright, some too dark, some too blurry, some bad tiling, etc., etc...... With contributions coming from literally dozens of sources and authors differing in tastes and ability, it's near impossible trying to find that standard consistency, unfortunately. On a more positive note, things are improving in the texture library, though.

 

IIRC that one also has a seam in the diffusemap. A shame because it's quite nice.

 

Edit: no it's old_worn_blocks_small that has the seam.

[Fidcal]

Yeah, there are various pros and cons comparing a tightly controlled commercial project with a limited budget plus target date - and a group of mixed-talent enthusiasts working mostly independently. I think we have to accept a less than perfect, compact, set of resources. Some will get fixed and improved by others after the release - but possibly only issued with their personal map. I hope we guide and persuade users to contribute them to Release 2.

[Springheel]

We came up with a protocol for dealing with poor textures, but no one bothered to proceed with it. I take that to mean no one is sufficiently bothered by the textures to do anything about it.

[SneaksieDave]

I thought refining the library would be a good idea (literally years ago to date) but it was always met with resistance and disinterest, so I don't care to keep up the fight anymore. Quality loses out to release date pursuits; so be it. At the worst, I guess the mod will be hundreds of megabytes larger than it should be for the sake of textures that will (hopefully) go unused.

 

On topic: Needless to say, at least the one in question here doesn't fall into that category.

[Springheel]

I don't care to keep up the fight anymore

 

I posted and reposted the (drama free) steps for removing textures months ago. http://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?showt...5&start=125

 

There was no "fight". Just apparent disinterest. There was a grand total of one nomination, I believe, which tells me that people are not particularly motivated to pursue this issue. All it takes is one person who cares enough to create a list.

[SneaksieDave]

Getting personal about it, quoting my words "against me" or whatever, is not really necessary. In context, I was talking about my personal "fight" to get the effort moving, which is none of your concern. If you recall, I'm the one who started it in the first place, back when I was working with Gildoran before he moved on. Resistance and disinterest was the reaction by and large (which is fine), and you mention disinterest yourself. So what exactly am I being corrected on?

 

I'm not sure what's brewing here, but if some kind of debate needs to take place over this for whatever-the-fuck-usual-reason, I suggest we leave Fid's thread alone and take it to the actual "drama" thread.

[New Horizon]

We all need to have a meet up, in real life, and just take care of this with fists. No more talk. Lets take care of shit like MEN for once! WHO'S WITH ME?!?!?!

 

In any case, why does this always come down to a showdown? Why? Dave, I took your post to be somewhat hostile too...I don't think Spring was the only one. It's a message forum, and even after all these years...it appears we still need to take better care in how we phrase things.

[SneaksieDave]

Sounds good to me. I'm getting sick of having my every post chased down and jumped on. There's no hostility in doing that, right? I just want to be sure.

[Springheel]

What exactly is the problem?

 

People brought up the topic of poor textures.

 

I said a protocol exists for getting rid of poor textures, but no one has used it.

 

Dave implied that there was too much effort/fighting/hassle involved.

 

I posted a link to the protocol, which demonstrates that there was no fighting or hassle involved, just no one stepping up to do anything about it.

 

I have no idea how that qualifies personal or hostile.

[SneaksieDave]

It seemed that quoting me directly and alluding to "drama" was provocative, but I must have been mistaken.

 

It's one case in a series, though. There is a lot of friction here lately (cvar bickering, tracker issue defensiveness, other go-betweens like this thread), and it just feels lately that I can't do what I'm supposed to do (part of which is bitching about stuff) without having to defend it. On topic, the truth is I have lost my passion for textures, and I do think people would be a bit dismayed if they perused the library completely, and if that qualifies as "drama", oh well. It's an opinion and doesn't need correcting.

 

For the record, I do try to word things very carefully, though sometimes I wonder why I bother. Oddity was a very effective poster even if he was a rude cunt about it. (Lil' tip o' the hat there, Rod. )

[Mortem Desino]

My simple rule to keep my posts from being viewed as hostile:

 

Don't use apathy/dismissal (fine...so be it...) or negativity (I stopped caring about...I never bothered to...) or absolutes (People always...). Those catagories seem to be easily misunderstood or misinterpreted.

 

I cuss, you cuss, we all cuss for asparagus!

 

Now lets get this train back onto the tracks.

[Tels]

My simple rule to keep my posts from being viewed as hostile:

 

Don't use apathy/dismissal (fine...so be it...) or negativity (I stopped caring about...I never bothered to...) or absolutes (People always...).

 

I never can be bothered to care for this!

 

(Just kidding

[Ishtvan]

I find it's best to end each and every post with "and fuck all y'all!"

[Fidcal]

Here's a similar effect. This one is textures/darkmod/stone/brick/old_small_bricks_grey which is a nice texture (though probably would not tile well vertically on very tall walls.) This is the same texture that was used on the yard wall in Den. So maybe I'm getting more picky now. But you can see the bump effect is fine further along near the torch. Close to it is OK looking down at the lowest stones. But face on it looks flat in the player light. It can only be the dark shadows that are in the texture itself I think. Another one I'll try to look at after my contest map is done.

 

[Mortem Desino]

I'm going to be picky back and say that it's a little hard to tell with that lossy jpg.

 

But I agree, it is not nearly as good as many of the other stonework textures.

[angua]

How about posting a list of textures with minor flaws (like seams, needs better normal map...) so someone (me, for example, this is a good alternative for when I'm too tired for programming) can improve them?

 

Fidcal: is this with standard (Rebb/Doom3) or fast ambient? Have you tried switching the normal map on and off to see how much difference there is? (r_skipnormals I think)

 

I find it's best to end each and every post with "and fuck all y'all!"

Might lead to misunderstandings when I start doing this...

[Fidcal]

How about posting a list of textures with minor flaws (like seams, needs better normal map...) so someone (me, for example, this is a good alternative for when I'm too tired for programming) can improve them?

 

Fidcal: is this with standard (Rebb/Doom3) or fast ambient? Have you tried switching the normal map on and off to see how much difference there is? (r_skipnormals I think)

 

I could start a thread similar to the broken entity one - or I could just rename this one and use the first post to list any that are reported and mark any if they get fixed.

 

I get much the same with standard or fast ambient. If I disable normals (it's r_skipbump) then it is dramatically worse. There is no doubt that the bump map is working and as said, looks OK further along. But it strikes me as flat when you are face on with the player light. Naturally, all textures must look somewhat flat in a small central area since the only real indicator of depth is an angled light.

 

What I think is happening is this: With a 'good' texture this central flat area is tiny because the deeper parts are not dark on the texture so only a small distance away, say one brick, the bump map effect darkens the crevices more than the light areas immediately in front so producing the illusion of depth. With the subject texture, because many of the crevices are already dark, the difference between them, and the crevice in the next brick up, is imperceptible.

 

Let's talk imaginary numbers. Suppose the lightness of the perceived area is 0 to 100 and for a given bumpmap effect one brick away makes a difference of say 10%. Then if the mortar in the crevice is fairly light, say 50, the bumpmap effect reduces it to 45 and it is noticeable. But if the mortar is already so dark it is say value 10 then the bumpmap reduces it to 9 - hardly distinguishable from the 10.

[Springheel]

How about posting a list of textures with minor flaws (like seams, needs better normal map...) so someone (me, for example, this is a good alternative for when I'm too tired for programming) can improve them?

 

 

I'll start a nomination thread.