I sorta see what you mean after staring at it for a while. Bumpmapping has a "bumpscale" in the tga.option that lets you make the bumps deeper. Can you add this parameter for normal maps?



O and in regards to the bumpmap with specular mentioned earlier: It says here the gloss map is in the alpha channel.

i suppose so since it acts as "bumpmap" but i think the problem is rather the quality than the scale
(the shading on the chest in battlefront has like 4 levels while in xsi/normally it should be a clean transition, is that understandabely explained? :-/)

edit:gloss mapping means the bump in this case

edit2: wrong, alright, i guess you cant have a proper specularmap, only a cretain specularcolor and the alphachannel determinating how bright it will be

edit3: i think the best go would be to get custom shaders to work (maybe we could create a proper specularmapshader then ) however i have no idea how you could actually apply the new shaders to a model

O wait I see what you mean now. The light hitting the chest in the BF pic looks like someone splotched it on with a brush, whereas the XSI one is smoother. I would still try the bumpscale though, just to see what it does.


Edit: these four links are four parts to an introduction to shaders, totalling about 50 letter-size pages:

• Part I - http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articl ... le1496.asp
• Part II - http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articl ... le1807.asp
• Part III - http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articl ... le1820.asp
• Part IV - http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articl ... le1837.asp

The problem with normal maps in SWBF2 and its version of Zeroengine is that it treats it more like a bumpmap instead of XYZ normal data unlike other game engines. However since it lacks the Black/white height detail of a bumpmap it doesn't even provide the extra detail that does.

Here's a decent example of what an applied normal map should do.
This is a flat plane area with a Tile normal map on it. In the Render Region window you see it as grey with allot of physical detail present. That is what the normal map should do. It should provide the appearance of physical detail where there is none. This is good for cloth textures and folds and small details that don't have a large physical presence (scales, scratches, dents, etc). That is actually how normal maps are used in current games. The Low-poly (around 6000-9000tris) is the holder of the main shapes in the model and allt he minor stuff that pushes the hi-poly to 1million+ tris is in the normal map.

In XSI 5.0 the normal maps are handeled through their own normal map node in the render tree and then put through the bump input.

lol, I'm only in this for the ENB part but ENB is only tested and works on Nvidia with bf2, thats 1 problem : |

Imperial Modder wrote:lol, I'm only in this for the ENB part but ENB is only tested and works on Nvidia with bf2, thats 1 problem : |

That, and ENB is really just the bloom, reflection and AO. While it is great and all, the only way we can make SWBF look better, as in quality better, is to fundamentally change shaders, animations and poly counts (only where it counts, pun intended).

I'm in for this test map thing. I was already planning to experiment with bump mapping and I've already made a new skydome .msh that can hold detail better than the shipped ones.
Would a "graphic enhancement" mod work on stock maps though? I think it should theoretically work, but we'd have to rip the collisionmodels of stock models and only change the things you can actually see, but will it be possible to apply bumpmaps and retain multiplayer compatibility?

mswf wrote:

Imperial Modder wrote:lol, I'm only in this for the ENB part but ENB is only tested and works on Nvidia with bf2, thats 1 problem : |

That, and ENB is really just the bloom, reflection and AO. While it is great and all, the only way we can make SWBF look better, as in quality better, is to fundamentally change shaders, animations and poly counts (only where it counts, pun intended).

I'm in for this test map thing. I was already planning to experiment with bump mapping and I've already made a new skydome .msh that can hold detail better than the shipped ones.
Would a "graphic enhancement" mod work on stock maps though? I think it should theoretically work, but we'd have to rip the collisionmodels of stock models and only change the things you can actually see, but will it be possible to apply bumpmaps and retain multiplayer compatibility?

Couldn't we port the stock map from the game into the zeroedit?

I've kind of got into this topic late, but here's my 2 cents.

Battlefront 2, in my opinion, looks really fake because of how the AI and human players don't seem to interact with the environment. Their corpses, pickups, bodies when moving, even the bullet collisions (or laser collisions. whatever) don't seem to interact with the world. It's like the motion and actions were recorded in a much simpler, blocky area, and then transfered to the playable area. This could just be bad hitboxes and collision, but it's not quite that.

Here's a picture I found of shadows in BF(1?) and as you can see, they're not even on the ground. They're floating there, inches above the ground.

I've thought about this a long time ago, and it really is a problem for BF1 and 2, compared to games like Half-Life 2 or Call of Duty. In those games, like Rep said a page or two back, you can pick up objects, shoot windows, etc. Basically just interacting with the environment. With CoD (Atleast the MW series) it has a "Press Space to jump" prompt when you near things you can jump over. It's little things like these that make a game seem "real".


Since some people commented on how the Battlefront series weren't really comparable to games like HL2 or CoD, and it was supposed to be cartoony, let's take a game that is in my opinion Battlefront 3, Team Fortress 2. Sure it came out in '07, but it's somewhat of a step down from the graphics of Half-Life 2, but still runs on the same game engine. They (BF2 and TF2) even have similar game modes, so I really think we should compare them. Here are some samples of what TF2 looked like (It's art style has changed since then. YouTube some videos to see what I mean.) (Also don't look at the videos in the link. They're made with special software and don't represent what the game itself looks like.)

Anyway, TF2 fits with BF2's "cartoony" feel, they have similar gameplay, but the difference is that TF2 looks good or "real" (For a cartoon) and BF2 doesn't. Why is this? Well, I think it's because of the interaction with the environment (Bullet decals, ragdolls colliding with the environment, general player collision, etc.)


I know I wanted to say more, but I think I'm rambling now. You get the general idea though--Interaction with the environment is what makes a game feel real.

Fingerfood wrote:I've kind of got into this topic late, but here's my 2 cents.

Battlefront 2, in my opinion, looks really fake because of how the AI and human players don't seem to interact with the environment. Their corpses, pickups, bodies when moving, even the bullet collisions (or laser collisions. whatever) don't seem to interact with the world. It's like the motion and actions were recorded in a much simpler, blocky area, and then transfered to the playable area. This could just be bad hitboxes and collision, but it's not quite that.

Here's a picture I found of shadows in BF(1?) and as you can see, they're not even on the ground. They're floating there, inches above the ground.

I've thought about this a long time ago, and it really is a problem for BF1 and 2, compared to games like Half-Life 2 or Call of Duty. In those games, like Rep said a page or two back, you can pick up objects, shoot windows, etc. Basically just interacting with the environment. With CoD (Atleast the MW series) it has a "Press Space to jump" prompt when you near things you can jump over. It's little things like these that make a game seem "real".


Since some people commented on how the Battlefront series weren't really comparable to games like HL2 or CoD, and it was supposed to be cartoony, let's take a game that is in my opinion Battlefront 3, Team Fortress 2. Sure it came out in '07, but it's somewhat of a step down from the graphics of Half-Life 2, but still runs on the same game engine. They (BF2 and TF2) even have similar game modes, so I really think we should compare them. Here are some samples of what TF2 looked like (It's art style has changed since then. YouTube some videos to see what I mean.) (Also don't look at the videos in the link. They're made with special software and don't represent what the game itself looks like.)

Anyway, TF2 fits with BF2's "cartoony" feel, they have similar gameplay, but the difference is that TF2 looks good or "real" (For a cartoon) and BF2 doesn't. Why is this? Well, I think it's because of the interaction with the environment (Bullet decals, ragdolls colliding with the environment, general player collision, etc.)


I know I wanted to say more, but I think I'm rambling now. You get the general idea though--Interaction with the environment is what makes a game feel real.

Well Said and Explained, Completely Agree : D

Problem is SWBF2 lacks basic interaction present in most games.

No Physics engine (just default gravity where down = towards terrain)
No door mechanics (except what you script as a function in .lua)
No Ladders (tf2 doesn't have but it wouldn't fit the play style)

Stock maps also tend to be open and lacking detail or the small nuances that add up to a well presented scene. Yavin maps and Dagobah maps tend to be the best detailed, along with Hoth or Rhen Var.

SWBF2 was rushed, thats why the graphics kinda fail. Meh i still enjoyed the game

One thing though guys, is that no matter what we say, no matter how we say it, What will truly change? Sure we can make mods and edit every single asset known to man (and several known to jawas) but in the end times will change and graphics will just improve and make swbf2 look like a NES platformed game.

I'm not dampening spirits but lifting another obvious one, as long as it can make money, Lucas arts will continue to provide games that seem to defy the ways games have been made. Honestly when i first played swbf1 i thought it was the bee's knees. When i first played a gamecube game after years of owning a n64 i wet my pants playing luigi's manshion and metroid prime because it seemed so real.

Now i know the graphics of swbf2are out dated and look rather silly compared to other games, but look at what it accomplished with triumph. The game regardless of the quality of graphics, the minimal brilliance of AI, and lack of a full fledged campaign mode (i personally thought it would be great to add in the campaigns of other eras as well) This game accomplished near immortality with it's release of the mod tools. I know other games (such as AOE3) that have a map editor built in, but you have to be as great a map maker as the makers of the game to make an actual enjoyable map. While in battlefront 2 no matter what your skill level, after a little elbow grease anyone can make a enjoyable map (replay value is a different matter however)

All I'm getting at is that another day, another year, there will be another SWBF, but it will be differently named, with slightly different rules, and (hopefully) better graphics. Just look at RC, from what I know, It is near the same thing as SWBF but in CW era only, and you get to play as commandos. Star Wars Galaxies and the (possibly coming but i havent read up on it in a while) Kotor online game are just the same but in different timelines. Just give it time and Lucas Arts will give us another SWBF, with a different name, and a new world to satisfy our trigger fingers.

but as far as understood this isnt the point of this thread, the point is to analyze which cretain characteristics make swbf2 look unrealistic/fake and then iscuss/find out how the could be improved

I think it is more fair to compare SWBF2 with Battlefield 2. they were only released a few months apart and they both use the same concept. To be honest they both look similar on the highest graphical settings.

Well with a lack of interaction, it IS possible to do that in battlefront. Just give the props health and make the explosion look realistic. It would take a while, but it is achievable, at least in the sense of destroying things. Knocking down doors is another thing, though. I'm not sure if that would work, both in the player's kick animation, and in the door animation....

Is it possible to fix up the unit collision meshes? I'm sure you can make them a bit more complex, no?

With the bullets, can't you set an effect to be played when it hits water, units, shields, props etc?

With messages, you would never even use them in bf2, but if you really wanted you could do it, by setting up a region which, when entered, spat out some text.........But you really don't need things like that in bf.

SG-17 wrote:I think it is more fair to compare SWBF2 with Battlefield 2.

This isn't about being fair. We're comparing the render output of SWBF2 with the real world, to see how to could achieve a higher level of realism.

unit-collision is hardcode and kicking doors wont be worth the effort if somebody would get it to work

What about the reload, its stupid, it doesn't even take the magazine or whatever the blasters uses out. There should be 2 chunks, one chunk is the gun, and the other is the magazine. And in fps mode the reload isnt 'reloading' its just 'reload away from viewpoint so we can make this game cheap'.

DarthD.U.C.K. wrote:but as far as understood this isnt the point of this thread, the point is to analyze which cretain characteristics make swbf2 look unrealistic/fake and then iscuss/find out how the could be improved

The reloading issue has already been discussed on the site several times, and i think everybody said that it was impossible to fix. fps cannot have animations, and i don't think third person works either....

Then I'm gonna be the first person to invent a program that will be able to make that happen.

I'm superman