Procedural shaders for models

[j meyer]

Tried to use procedural shading only (except the license plates) for this
model.Amongst other things I wanted to try Matts advice to copy the parts
shader to coat more than one part and leave others untouched,which worked
great (the method).

[attach=1]

[attach=2]

I couldn't find a satisfying solution for the glass parts of the lights,though.
Neither the white nor the colored glass.
I know that this model is too low poly for close ups so it doesn't really matter,
but anyway...
The main problem is that the light doesn't really pass the object,so you never
get the second hightlight on the opposite side of the first highlight.And anything
inside the glass object won't get a highlight,too,just reflections.
That behaviour also causes the light of a lightsource inside a glass object to stay
inside that object instead of shining through the glass and illuminate the environ-
ment.
One more reason for better transparency.

Feel free to participate.

[Kadri]

I think it looks quite good.
And yes we need better transparency.

[gregtee]

I gather his vehicle's five year mission is to explore strange new procedural worlds.  To seek out new methods of transparency, and new rasterizations.

Ok, back to work.   

[j meyer]

  You nailed it! 

[TheBadger]

Hey J,

On the model in the OP, was it UV mapped at all, or fully and properly UV mapped, or no mapping done at all?

To what advice from matt are you referring? Link?

I am asking because I have a model that is nearly done. Its of a greek empire ruin of a temple. On this model I modeled the crevices between most every stone (was going for realism on it). I have not mapped it though so the UVs look a mess. But I have read here that this may be a good thing when texturing procedurally. I can start testing on one of the columns, I have one properly mapped and I can test on one that is un mapped.

Some words of wisdom on this please?

[Hannes]

NCC-1701-D 

[j meyer]

Thanks Kadri and Hannes.

Michael - Only the license plates were properly UV mapped to be able to
             use an image as texture.The rest had no UV mapping at all,just
             material groups.(any material assigned to a group of faces in Wings3d
             results in a model part with the according default shader inTG)
             This mix of UV mapped and non UV mapped parts can cause minor
             problems,though.I haven't been able to find out what exactly is causing
             these problems,yet.What happens is that some of the non UVed parts
             need to have Power Fractals applied in World Space just like the UV
             mapped parts and other non UVed parts don't.

             Matts advice:http://www.planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php     /topic,17600.msg170911.html#msg170911
       
             As for your model it depends on what you want to achieve.
             Like if you want the crevices and stuff to be visible in rather close ups
             under the most lighting conditions it's probably better to have the objects
             UV mapped and texture them traditionally.Or if you need AO maps to bring
             out certain recesses or so.
             In case you don't care about things like that it's definitely better and by far
             less time consuming also to use no UV mapping at all.
             The above is of course just an opinion and most likely incomplete.


Feel free to ask or contribute anyone.

Edit: I have to apologize for that not working link again.I have no idea why I can't
        post working links anymore.

[TheBadger]

NCC-1701-D

Star trek?

thanks J.

UV mapped parts can cause minor problems,though

To what precisely are you referring? Because If you are talking about the reflectivity, I was guessing that this is more a problem of the surface type. I mean, I wondered if the problem would not be an issue for a stone surface vs the metallic surfaces of the truck?

[j meyer]

NCC-1701-D

Star trek?

Aye,Star Trek,Next Generation to be precise.

thanks J.

UV mapped parts can cause minor problems,though

To what precisely are you referring? Because If you are talking about the reflectivity, I was guessing that this is more a problem of the surface type. I mean, I wondered if the problem would not be an issue for a stone surface vs the metallic surfaces of the truck?

I'm refering to this (and was talking about the mix of UVed and non UVed parts)

           
             
             ......................What happens is that some of the non UVed parts
             need to have Power Fractals applied in World Space just like the UV
             mapped parts and other non UVed parts don't.
             .........................
             

[TheBadger]

Well I am definitely not looking for a "glossy" look laying over my textures. So thanks for the thread, and any answers that it will provide.

[j meyer]

I don't really get it,Michael,I didn't say anything about reflectivity or a glossy look
in the context of your questions at least not that I noticed.
Could there be some misunderstanding somewhere?

[TheBadger]

Hey J, I just re read this thread more carefully. probably that other thread you and I where talking about texturing in, in TG is where I need to post my questions. Apologies. I was thinking more generally than your specific topic.

I thought the problem you were posting on was how shinny the truck is on the shadow side compared to the side of the truck that is in the sun. And the glass issue (as in how the seats appear through the windows. The misunderstanding is mine.

[j meyer]

Noh prroblem mahn.

And an attempt to make some kind of metallic shader.

[attach=1]

[attach=2]

In comparison with the original color.

Has anybody noticed the paved road btw?

[Dune]

Yes, nice pavement! The problem with the glass not letting through any light can only be surpassed if you take out the lamps and save them as separate objects, and not have them throw shadows. I used that method for lanterns.

[j meyer]

Ulco - I'll have to try that,but it sounds like the lights wouldn't cast
         shadows then,which might look odd.
         Anyway,thanks for the suggestion.
         Didn't you do something with light cones on a car way back when?