as seen here: http://www.planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,18194.0.html
any questions please feel free to ask...
have fun...
:)
J
edit: included a tg3 only version too.
(doh!)
:)
Thanks a lot Inky!
I needed me some marble shaders!
no sweat M... my pleasure!
:)
Nice
Beauty, many thanks man. One can't have too much marble.
no worries Mick and Bobby!
:)
J
thanks, love your statue. Some nice files on that university server, I just have to remember the procedure for exporting as OBJ in Blender :)
thanks Otakar...just select the objest(s) in 'object mode' goto file export as wavefront obj... remember to apply any modifiers if necessary... :)
J
Very nice result with this experimentation !!!
hi
where in the clip file would I make changes for the size of the object. What I mean is that the texture feels very large on my object. Where do make changes to 'shrink' the scale of the texture so it fits my model better and shows the texture detail as less spread out over the model... If that makes sense.
Also, has anyone played with this yet? What kind of looks have you made from it, or are people just using it as is?
I am testing a temple ruins model I made, and just threw the clip on to see more details in my model. But I would like to alter the clip and get some different results. Going for something more like this: http://toristhoughts.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/dscn0926.jpg
http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/compact/zs_tz_globaljourney/greece/img/athens_0306.jpg
http://www.greecetaxi.gr/ATHENS/PARTHENON1.jpg
Can't you just add a transform shader?
hmmm, no thats not working.
Something is wrong here. I did not do any UVs. And I think that has something to do with this looking so bad.
I thought that having no UVs was good for using shaders as textures. But I am getting tons of stretching and other issues.
I saved a large number of objects out as one object (all the parts of the structure). I think that is a problem as well.
It does not matter though. I was just testing the workflow a little. I'll do everything methodically when the models a really finished. Im sure I'll get it all worked out.
I found that no UV at all doesn't always work well with world scale shader texturing, but any mapping will, so you might take it through Poseray and map XYZ planar just for TG.
To me it sounds like there may be some mapping you're not aware of.
My experience is no UVs = no problems with procedural shading (world space
is not needed at all).
There is a faint chance that maya and lightwave handle no UVs differently compared
to wings3d,though.
I'd like to take a look on one of the models in question.
Hi J.
I can send you one of the unfinished models of a temple Ruin if you want to have a play. The model is mostly finished, but I have to decimate it yet. But other then that its pretty good to go... Well, I still have more polygons than I need, I usually go back when Im done and get rid of unneeded polygons before I map and paint... But in this case the detail level is high for closeups.
If you want it PM me. You have to keep it for your self though.
Some unmapped models I made in Lightwave (9) were totally black in TG before hauling thru Poseray (or mapping in LW), so there might indeed be a difference between softwares.
Michael - PM sent
Ulco - yeah,I remember you mentioned it before somewhere and
I think it'd be worth a little investigation.
Hey Ulco and J.
Ulco. please look at the first link in one of my previous posts. Do you see how each stone block in the wall on the left has a different texture and details? I was thinking that if that is sorta what I want to achieve, than I need to make each block in my walls a separate object if I use TG shaders? I think you are right that shaders are a preferable way to go on an already detailed model. But I may have built this thing wrong if that is what I want to do?
Well, I am sure with the help of you guys I can make someing work and look good. Just have to keep going I guess.
J,
I want to work on it for a few more days (the modeling). I will send you the whole thing if it is small enough like you asked. Or I will send a piece of it. I will share a part of it with the community as I said I would in the Vector thread anyway, as a TGO. So if we can get it looking really good, than that will be very fun for me!
This is a really big modeling project for me. Im modeliing a lot of buildings both ruins and new :o So whatever brain power I can take form this forum to make things go faster will be good! As it is, I can only work on it a few hours a week :(
A separate object is not needed, but a separate part. If you pick some poly's that belong to defined blocks (not half a block), randomly chosen, and give them a texture name, and pick some others and give them another name, and a third set, you can color those differently in TG, and it would look quite random.
You could mail me one as well, so I can have a go, if you can't fix it. But I'm sure you can!
^^ Ill send one to you as well Ulco. this week. I want to do the decimation detail. I found a .mel script for maya that makes doing decimation a bit faster. And the ruins just wont look good without that detail. Or I would have to use a image map for displacement. But I am still thinking about the vector thread we had.
Ok guys. I see how this works now. This is really tricky. You have to UV map depending on the outcome you want first. Not map than seek an outcome. I did not understand that before, though now I understand that is what people were saying. Well, glad to get here anyway.
So I will keep working to finish, then send the files. And you can change them however you think they will look best. And then please tell me what you did and why.
soon! :)
Quote from: TheBadger on May 26, 2014, 02:12:47 AM
Ok guys. I see how this works now. This is really tricky. You have to UV map depending on the outcome you want first. Not map than seek an outcome. I did not understand that before, though now I understand that is what people were saying. Well, glad to get here anyway.
So I will keep working to finish, then send the files. And you can change them however you think they will look best. And then please tell me what you did and why.
soon! :)
hip hip hooray ;)
lol.
Its just funny. I spent so much time trying to make perfect UVs. But thats not the best way now :o
Quote from: TheBadger on May 26, 2014, 03:01:31 PM
lol.
Its just funny. I spent so much time trying to make perfect UVs. But thats not the best way now :o
Don't recall if I mentioned this but my original modeling software Imagine did not generate U/V mapping so anything I made in it is 'naked' as it were. I convert them to .obj and run them through PoseRay, mapping them cubic and have had good luck so far. There are somethings like walls that I use planar for, and spheres spherical logically, but for most stuff I just let PoseRay do the work.
Yeah you guys all mention poseray. But it does not run on OSX Last I knew). I sure wish it would though. I would love to see this miracle program you guys all use.
Quote from: TheBadger on May 26, 2014, 08:26:41 PM
Yeah you guys all mention poseray. But it does not run on OSX Last I knew). I sure wish it would though. I would love to see this miracle program you guys all use.
Sorry bout that...get a cheep win doze laptop for PoseRay would be my next advice, heh heh heh...I'm doing the same with a mac for my live recording.
just found this, I think it's a link for PoseRay mac
http://users.skynet.be/smellenbergh/poseray.htm
this is a quote from the forum I found it on
Hi,
PoseRay for Macintosh (PowerPC, MacOS 8.6 or later *with* Carbonlib 1.2
or later, this includes MacOS X 10.1) is available.
Special thanks to FlyerX for providing me with the sources.
PoserRay for Macintosh looks and works the same as the Windows version
except that:
- line endings are not important (dos, unix, mac);
- this version also reads objects with no normals;
Thanks for the current info bobby! I'll check that out tonight.
OK, thats not going to work. Its for a super old version that will not run now. But there appears to be a current version. Problem is I don't know which one is for me.
What is the difference between pov and pose ray? Which of these do I want? It looks like one is a renderer. But I am not looking for that. Is it all one in the same?
http://megapov.inetart.net/uberpov_mac/index.html#Mac
Quote from: TheBadger on May 27, 2014, 07:50:30 PM
OK, thats not going to work. Its for a super old version that will not run now. But there appears to be a current version. Problem is I don't know which one is for me.
What is the difference between pov and pose ray? Which of these do I want? It looks like one is a renderer. But I am not looking for that. Is it all one in the same?
http://megapov.inetart.net/uberpov_mac/index.html#Mac
POV is a modeler/renderer and PoseRay is a converter, written to enable POV users to incorparate Poser dolls. POV = PersistenceOfVision...cute name. Though I haven't tried it you may also be able to render in PoseRay but no point with TG3's fine renderer.
is this the link I gave you before...it's in a .sit package there at the top od the page. doesn't look familiar to me so it might be new
http://users.skynet.be/smellenbergh/poseray.htm
Yeah, thats from 2001. it wont even open. corrupted.
Quote from: TheBadger on May 27, 2014, 09:02:46 PM
Yeah, thats from 2001. it wont even open. corrupted.
sigh.....
Quotesigh.....
sigh.....Im blind? Or sigh.....that it wont work?
Anyway, I already mapped some of it the hard way. Hard to do but easy to understand. Im just going to stick with what I know I guess. Thanks though.
Quote from: TheBadger on May 27, 2014, 10:21:05 PM
Quotesigh.....
sigh.....Im blind? Or sigh.....that it wont work?
Anyway, I already mapped some of it the hard way. Hard to do but easy to understand. Im just going to stick with what I know I guess. Thanks though.
that it won't work
Don't mind Michael,PoseRay is definitely not necessary for a properly
done model.And with all respect to Bobby the method he suggested
wouldn't suit your needs anyway.
I for one use PoseRay for downloaded models that have flaws of some
sorts only.Mainly 3ds models appear to be broken very often and some-
times,not always,you can fix things with PoseRay.
One disadvantage of P-Ray is that you can't keep your model quads.
You can run into trouble with models that have sophisticated UV maps,
opposed to rather simple basic mappings like planar or cubic mapping.
And there is more that speaks against P-Ray to use in ones modeling
workflow or pipeline,at least from my point of view.
If your model is modeled properly there is absolutely no reason to use
PoseRay,or at least I never encountered one so far.
Quote from: j meyer on May 28, 2014, 12:40:05 PM
If your model is modeled properly there is absolutely no reason to use
PoseRay,or at least I never encountered one so far.
Mine
were all modeled properly, just not in an app that created U/V mapping...we can't all afford high end systems, or macs with whatever programs it will use....sorry, you touched a nerve of "high end program elitism" I run into often....Just bugs my butt...I could get a Max Crack but then I couldn't sleep at night or live with myself...
Quads are something I'd never run into or been able to create so I wasn't aware of that deficiency in PoseRay..what btw, is the advantage to quads...got me curious as max builders seem to be unable to live without em, always thought that was an abbreviation of Qualudes....hee hee hee, to chill with when modeling got too much.
Quote from: TheBadger on May 15, 2014, 10:51:23 PM
.....
where in the clip file would I make changes for the size of the object. What I mean is that the texture feels very large on my object. Where do make changes to 'shrink' the scale of the texture so it fits my model better and shows the texture detail as less spread out over the model... If that makes sense.
....
Hi Michael,
sorry for not replying sooner, I haven't been around much lately...
in the second 'darker' power fractal adjust the 'lead in scale' (decreasing this makes the pattern 'smaller')... you can also change 'feature scale' too of course, not much of an answer, and very a late one at that, I hope it helps... feel free to ask again... pm me if you're in a hurry!! ;)
I hope this helps a bit, I'm useless with normals :))
cheers
Jason
QuoteQuads are something I'd never run into or been able to create so I wasn't aware of that deficiency in PoseRay..what btw, is the advantage to quads...
Hi bobby. It depends I guess. But in my workflow I use sculpting and do that in MUd. Mud only takes quads. And in general (as I understand it) Quads sculpt better no mater what.
As far as I know, triangles cause issues in a lot of softwares, but quads can move between softs with less or no problems, again, as I understand it.
one reason I know is two triangles make one quad. So the geometry is less heavy with quads by one vert. So you see that in a huge model, you save space. I think thats right? Anyway. just make a square and see.
What is a max crack? You mean a pirate soft?
@J
Thank you for the clarification! I will skip it for now then, and just stick to what I have experience with.
@inkydigit
THANKS! ;D lol. I have been distracted by learning all the other aspects to this line of thinking. I had not gone back in and messed with your settings. I did copy your node tree and set up a shader tree of my own. But did not resize that , so had the same problem.
Thanks Michael, I suspected as much but wasn't certain...I never made really huge single models but Grouped many smaller ones together so am hip to the size problems. Really too bad Imagine started as a triangle modeler..a few users used to bitch about that all the time and now I get what they wanted. The work around Imagine had was sub groups os faces which were easy to select which was useful for Image Mapping as we had complete control over image placement via the image axis, and really had no need, within Imagine, for U/V mapping. But all the ones I've tried mapping in PR have responded beautifully.
Talking about high end programs... What about Blender? I never used it, but as far as I know it has a lot of features that high priced programs have. And it's free! So I think proper UV mapping should be possible.
But there might be a very steep learning curve....
Quote from: Hannes on May 29, 2014, 09:02:58 AM
Talking about high end programs... What about Blender? I never used it, but as far as I know it has a lot of features that high priced programs have. And it's free! So I think proper UV mapping should be possible.
But there might be a very steep learning curve....
I've installed and uninstalled, out of frustration, blender at least 3 times since it was first pointed out to me and I never actually managed to do anything in it. The last time was to convert a DAE model and even that escaped my ability to do...dunno what it is with that program. A friens(in another city unfortunately)uses it very well but I'd need a few hand's on sessions to grok that program and sadly would rather play guitar than learn a new program right now...summer is festival/music time for me.
It's the non standard/windows style interface it uses...nothing in it is logical/intuitive ...at least to me.
Hey Bobby,don't you remember that I'm the guy that uses Wings3d,a free
program? So definitely no high end elitism.
Have you ever mapped a human or other animals with planar mapping and
got an acceptable result?
Or complex geometric shapes?
I doubt that!
As for the quads I need them for sculpting in ZBrush (here you have it,high end elitism).
And it makes modeling in Wings and other apps easier,since you don't loose track or
your overall picture as easy as with tris.
You avoid the nasty poles and some smoothing problems in some renderers.Etc.
Quote from: j meyer on May 29, 2014, 10:26:35 AM
Hey Bobby,don't you remember that I'm the guy that uses Wings3d,a free
program? So definitely no high end elitism.
Have you ever mapped a human or other animals with planar mapping and
got an acceptable result?
Or complex geometric shapes?
I doubt that!
As for the quads I need them for sculpting in ZBrush (here you have it,high end elitism).
And it makes modeling in Wings and other apps easier,since you don't loose track or
your overall picture as easy as with tris.
You avoid the nasty poles and some smoothing problems in some renderers.Etc.
Heh heh heh, Yup Jochen...Wings3D would be a good choice and it's on my list to learn but ZBrush, well that's a whole other kettle of fish.
There is a program from Impulse who created Imagine called Organica that I might be able to pull off ZBrush results re: human/organic modeling but as it's from Impulse also has no U/V mapping so I figger it's time to just invest in one of the many mapping programs I've had recommended, or does Wings3D supply U/V maps like Blender? That would make just one program learning curve I'd have to shoe horn into my music time.
I didn't mean you have to get ZB.If you want a sculpting program,though,I'd
recommend Sculptris,it's free and you can use your beloved triangles,in fact
you have to as Sculptris accepts triangles only.
And as I told you sometime ago Wings does UV mappings.
But compared to high end apps or Blender it's not as comfortable as those
in some aspects.On the other hand the learning curve is not as steep and
or nervewrecking as the B app especially.And Wings is very TG friendly!
Quote from: j meyer on May 29, 2014, 12:42:23 PM
I didn't mean you have to get ZB.If you want a sculpting program,though,I'd
recommend Sculptris,it's free and you can use your beloved triangles,in fact
you have to as Sculptris accepts triangles only.
And as I told you sometime ago Wings does UV mappings.
But compared to high end apps or Blender it's not as comfortable as those
in some aspects.On the other hand the learning curve is not as steep and
or nervewrecking as the B app especially.And Wings is very TG friendly!
No Jochen, I know you didn't but ever since I first saw it I've wanted it...and if it does quads that's a real bonus
re: Wing3D and U/V mapping...sorry my 65 yr old brain ain't retaining as well as it once did. Even more reason to 'bite the bullet" and get my 'wings' hee hee hee.
BTW, don't so much 'love' tris but that's what I grew up with in 3D and am fairly proficient at adding lines and faces to make objects. But I don't love em as I realize they have their limitations.
@ Ulco and J
Hey, been working on this. Got everything figured out. I will still send when done. Would like to see what you think and how you would do different. Don't hold your breath though, On certain parts, Im mapping every stone so that there will be instant difference. ;D
^^We need a emotive smiley facee of a suicide by gun shot... Talk about a a tedious process, sheesh!
Ahh, heres one: http://www.footballforums.net/images/smilies/suicide.gif
Just going to put this here since most of the rest of the info needed to understand what Im about to say is already in this thread...
>:("F- WORD!!!" >:(
So I mapped a temple I made. I mapped EVERY SINGLE BLOCK individually (hundreds and hundreds!). I did this so that every block could have a unique texture space and look. I wanted to try some super high quality models to match really well a photo real TG world.
Well,
There is a tool in maya called "layout", you can find it in the UV editor under the polygon menu tab in the editor window. I used it to make all my UVs fit into the UV at a size equal to their world space so that the resolution of the faces would all be even and equal.
The thing about it is that layout will loose UVs, there is a bug. I found this out when I tried to import into mud to sculpt.
Many of the UV faces were lost. Hundreds of the little ones that fill the spaces between stones, right where the UVs were really tightly spaced.
It took forever to map in the first place. Not going to do it again. Im re-mapping now in a much more normal traditional way. So every stone will not have its own UV space, rather entire sides of walls will have the same space.
It was the most tedious boring thing I have ever tried in 3D. Just took forever.
What I learned
1) Never add detail before mapping! That is, once I have the form and shape, map, then add edge loops (I know I have said this recently, but it should be repeated often!).
2) Maya is an asshole. I knew already that I did not like Maya, but now I know maya hates me.
3) Im now really good at UV mapping. So thats good I guess.
4) No more doing anything out side of whats normal :'( I am defeated. Maya killed my spirit.
Edit*
When I say every stone I dont mean every stone as its own object. But every stone in an object, like a wall, or the floor for example... Just so you dont think im mental, or more mental :o