-= Gametoast.com =-

I'll probably have to create a number of models myself for the Peragus Station map I'm working on, barring some other GT members stepping up and volunteering to work with me on the project.

I taught myself the basics of XSI, and will be submitting models periodically to this topic. I'll PM a download link to anyone who would be willing to export these models into meshes.

A couple of questions, to start off. The first model I'll put up will be a simple droid unit model that doesn't need a skeleton or animations. However, what would be the correct hardpoints for me to place so that it can use a weapon?

The map WIP topic

T3-Droid Model

Mining Droid Model

well first youll need to UV map the droid and texture it, i recommend starting from cubic mapping object aligned and best fit then welding it toegether by parts like legs, body, head, etc. then stamping the UV map and painting over it, use a 1024x1024 then resize it down to a 256x256 24 bit targa, that should give you more than enough detail.

NO! do always paint at true resolution in order to get the best quality! Resizing always makes your work blurry and stuff... Qualitywise its definitively better to stay at true-res. I know i painted the utat tex much bigger than it'll be used ingame later, but since may be used in dragonums bf2142 mod, as well, it's good i have high res texes, too
So the issue is quality vs efficiency. If your client suddenly changes his mind about the texture size or you might want to convert your game for a next gen console or the like its an advantage to have the high-res stuff ready already, but since this is only swbf2 i advise you to stay at 256² or 512² 24 bit targa (+ alpha channel)

but if you size DOWN a targa it doesnt lose quality, i compressed 6 512x512 jpg's into a single 1024x1024 targa and the quality almost seemed sharper, using anything higher than 1024x1024 on the zero engine is a HUGE waste of memory. thats one thing that can make alot of glitches happen is when you overdo things like this, particle effects and such just stop appearing so your firing invisible bombs and things like that. that is one thing i never liked about a couple of mappers and modelers from JA, theyre maps looked so high quality but even on a good PC you lagged like crazy unless you were facing a wall. so it should always have good efficiency with quality that doesn bring it down.

Of course you lose quality when you size down o_O where shall all the pixels go xD so work on 256² from the off and paint pixel details. I dont mean you should use high quality textures, but work with the final size from the beginning, then nothing gets lost.
so in conclusion i advise you to paint at the conclusive size because you cant avoid the loss of detail when you resize. But however the final product counts, and if its perfect already you certainly shouldn't change your workflow

Now, I enjoy a stimulating debate about theory of texturing as much as the next guy, but as it is, whether to use a 1024 vs. 512 vs. 256 is really hardly consequential. I was planning on using a 512 or 256 texture anyway because that's more or less the standard for unit textures. And as DooFi said, any sort of resizing is going to mess with (to a degree) what I've made.

Anyway- as fantastic as all your discussion was, it was in relation to a creator that is still learning how to texturemap. I'm not even entirely sure what kind of result I should be getting for the texturemap I'm creating (and of course, I read all the pertinent documentation and threads).

I was sort of hoping that whoever would be willing to export my model would be kind enough to create a basic texturemap for me (by basic, I mean only that the parts of the model are discernible on the 2-D texture), but as it is, if the exporter will not, then it's only impetus for me to learn myself.

Go with 512², the standard battlefront II texture size. And if you want, reduce it later.

I gotta disagree with you Doofi, downsizing an image won't lose quality. Take a 1024² and reduce the size by half. The pixels will blend perfectly together. (4 -> 1 pixels) It will most likely have the same or greater quality than the 512². However if you, say... reduce it to two digit numbers, it will lose lots of quality. But you don't have to worry about that . Also, if you augment the size of an image by two, it will look terrible (1 -> 4 pixels).

yeah you only lose quality sizing down with jpg but with a 24 bit targa can remain sharp at 256² because thats what the ISDs texture is and that thing is an enourmous capital ship.

An enormous ship that's split into many chunks.

I've really never looked into the textures of the Capital Ships Are there more than one texture or just many meshes using 1 texture?

this might seem off-topic a little bit, but ... why 24 bit targa and not 32 bit targa (which I normally use)?

Dabrowski wrote: I gotta disagree with you Doofi, downsizing an image won't lose quality. Take a 1024² and reduce the size by half. The pixels will blend perfectly together. (4 -> 1 pixels) It will most likely have the same or greater quality than the 512².

lol wtf?!? you're lying xD What you call "blend" is actually called "blur" lol
Eg You canNOT make 1px seams and then resize because it will crap up the seam IN ANY CASE, whether you size down or up, it will look worse than the original picture o_O Whether its tga or bmp or jpg or 24bit or 16bit or whatever the original always has better quality if you do NOT apply any crappy algorithm to it o_O
some ppl say texes look better if you create them in 1024² and then downsize to 512² because you get more detail. <-- ROFL
1px = 1px
1px != 0.5px
1px != 4px^^
Make a 1px line and then resize
...

Dabrowski wrote:this might seem off-topic a little bit, but ... why 24 bit targa and not 32 bit targa (which I normally use)?

im not quite sure but i believe those 8 bits aren't used anyways. You could calculate that, but I dont think it would make a big difference.. as i said, not sure about that, save with at least 24 bit and it will look fine

minilogoguy18 wrote:yeah you only lose quality sizing down with jpg but with a 24 bit targa can remain sharp at 256² because thats what the ISDs texture is and that thing is an enourmous capital ship.

that has nothing to do with jpg or tga, because as soon as you load a compressed jpg into PS, you work with the plain pixels of the picture, you see compression artifacts, but what you are workig with is not compressed anymore. It has only lost quality at the compression before lol

Dabrowski wrote:this might seem off-topic a little bit, but ...

Don't feel too bad, the entire thread became off-topic when it got hijacked and turned into a texture discussion. I appreciate everyone keeping the thread at the top of the list, , but I think it might be more appropriate to take it elsewhere. And yes, I know that it was originally an attempt to help me. And I appreciate that. Really.

Anyway:



As you can see, I have a rough texture (really only to get colors)... is there any way to burn shadows onto a model's texturemap?

On a different note, to make this into a viable fighting unit - I am unsure as to what kind of null I would need to place to have a firing point. Would I be correct in guessing that I need to make a null called "hp_fire" and put it at the spot I want to shoot from, or do I need to do something different?

well - it's a good question, actually maybe look at the Droideka as some sort of template?

But yeah - basicly it'd be hp_fire you need. of course it's set in the .odf what it shoots from.

If this is going to be a normal unit, it will need an hp_waepon, which you will then have to attach a weapon (in this case invisible) to.

It's ready for an exporter, and yeah, I could really use one:

how big is that texture?

aghh! green! green is horrible, the blue eye look good though

DooFi wrote:how big is that texture?

The texture's 512^2... but in regards to the quality, I was working with screenshotted components, and with some of them, regardless of how much I sharpened them, they look subpar. I assume that's what you were asking about. (And like I mentioned in the map WIP thread, as soon as I get someone to export this for me, I'll open up the skin to be edited by anyone else.)

Penguin wrote:aghh! green! green is horrible, the blue eye look good though

Personal taste, m'dear. I like the color combination, and I think it'll work well for a low-light map.