practicing

[Mr_Lamppost]

WOW! Those cliffs are amazingly detailed and realistic; Excellent work.

Thanks also for sharing the TGD. 

All that detail with no (Unless they are well hidden ), tricky functions or image maps. I am impressed.

[jmeyer]

Mr_Lamppost:thanks,and you´re welcome,too.Hee hee,nothing hidden ,at least nothing i´d
know of.

Let me show you another one.This was done to test object coloring inside TG2TP and some
other stuff,but i had a few annoying issues and so it´s not exactly what i was going for.
Got big squares in the coloring.And a red-spotted sky when i tried to add alight source.
(I could post examples ,if needed)
The arch has been done in wings3d and ZBrush btw.(and while i´m at it :will TG2 be
compatible with ZBrushs AUV and GUV tiling and maybe displacement mapping finally?)

[monks]

-no bark then?  - that's quality texturing.

monks

[jmeyer]

Have done some more tests with regard to the light source problem.
I had tried something similar to what i wanted for the arch pic earlier.
So i rerendered the earlier one with slightly different settings to
get a better visibility of the effect.The result is the first image in
this post.For this one GI is on (relative detail and quality set to 1).
For the second i used Ambient Occlusion with the same settings and as
can be seen there seems to be no light on the terrain anymore.
Then i closed and restarted TG2TP added a fractal terrain and a
light source to the default scene zoomed in a bit and rendered,this time
you could see the light on the terrain with GI on,off and with AO also.
But now there is another peculiar effect (see 3rd image).
Has anybody encountered this or something similar before?

PS:and i would really appreciate an answer to my ZBrush related
question posted above.Thanks,J.

[Oshyan]

jmeyer, we don't have specific plans to support Zbrush formats at this point, however if it is an open and easily implemented format and there is enough interest in it, we may do so in-house. If not there will always be the possibility of its implementation through a plugin as we will be providing an SDK with the final release.

- Oshyan

[jmeyer]

Thank you,Oshyan.Wail,cry,whine,too sad,sigh.So maybe someday someone...



As for the coloring problem i´ve loaded a low-poly version of the arch
into the default scene and tried to color it according to my likings,
but something is missing.See first image.
Then i tried the actual version again with the same settings as before
and there they were again the ugly squares.Second image.
Any idea anyone?

[Oshyan]

Are you applying displacement to the model?

- Oshyan

[jmeyer]

Not that i know.In case you refer to the indentions these are sculpted.

[Oshyan]

The reason I ask is that displacement can make model faces "explode" or at the least lose their cohesion and the effect can look something like this. Check to make sure no displacement is being applied. If that's not the culprit then I think I'd have to see the project file (along with the model in question) to make a further diagnoses.

- Oshyan

[jmeyer]

I´m going to check it out until tomorrow,running out of time now.The model file would be
a problem though,´cause it´s 64mb and i´ve problems with sending much smaller files.
I´ll post again tomorrow.

[sjefen]

But in the first image the arch is low-poly right?
And in the second image it looks like it is smoothed.
Could it be cause of the smoothing?

[jmeyer]

In the meantime i´ve scrutinized the original file and the 2 test-files
and there is definitely no displacement applied,in none of them.
I use a surface layer (with a child layer)directly connected to the
multishader and the displ multiplier is on it´s default of 1,but even
set to 100 there´s no visible effect.In the fractal breakup shaders
the displacement is unchecked.
(Only if a default shader is put between the surf layer and the multi-
shader and something is connected to the displ function port of the
default shader there´s some effect showing up.Attached the result,just
for completeness. )



sjefen:the smoothing is due to subdividing the model to almost
400,000 polys and normally it should not cause any problems.But
what do i know? Maybe Oshyan can tell,let´s see.

[Oshyan]

The only other thing I can think of without looking at the file is a UV mapping issue. Try changing the texture projection method to "Through Camera" and attach it to your render camera and see if the boxes still show up. The texture won't look right even if they don't since it'll be front-projected, but that should at least tell us something about the UV mapping. You could also try a purely procedural texture and see if it displays the same problem.

- Oshyan

[jmeyer]

As far as i understand it this is an all procedural texture already.
Just a surface layer(with child surface layer)connected to a multishader,
nothing else.
After my last post it occurred to me that i did another object-test in
march.So i took that one and tested some more.The results of these (some
with the appropriate image,some without)imply what you suggested that it´s
an uv-mapping issue.As long as i use the uv-mapped image along with the
object everything seems to be fine.When it´s left out though there are
problems.(The uv-mapping mode is uv-tiles,which means: if you have a cube
as base the image,let´s say a black circle,is applied to every side of
the cube so that you end up with a black circle on each side.That´s of
course an easy method and requires no unwrapping,but is also not appropriate
for anything,just like cylindrical or spherical mapping.That is one reason btw
why i asked if auv- or guv-tiling will be supported,which are superior
uv-mapping modes,but don´t require unwrapping also.)
But on the other hand there still the black stripe on the low-poly version
and this isn´t uv-mapped at all.
So,if you want to look at the tgd-files let me know.The low-poly obj could be
posted here as well(just 175kb or so),but as for the other one (64mb,
zipped 12mb)it could be difficult,´cause when i tried to e-mail something
bigger than 1mb or so before there was almost always some sort of trouble.

Don´t mind the jaggies and the blur in the pics ,just quickies.

[rcallicotte]

I would be curious to see what you're talking about, if you want to post the TGD.