Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

3 Dimensional Chat / Blender and 3D Talk

Author
Message
SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 15th Jun 2009 21:44
Ok, as some of you know this thread is to take the place of the other thread I made, "Blender .x or .3ds texture ". The answer to the original question in that thread was answered, and we got way off topic. Just continue the discussion over here, but if anyone wants to check out or reference the last thread, just go to this link: http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=151269&b=3. Think of this as the same thread as before except now with just a different name.
SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 15th Jun 2009 21:45 Edited at: 15th Jun 2009 22:05
Oh, and by the way, the last topic of the thread before (or rather last topics) were shading, normal mapping, texturing, 3D modeling, and animating, a long with making textures and UV Maps. Yes, I know I could have edited the message above and said this, but I forgot to turn my mail back option on, so I just posted this message as an informant and a way to get mail back on. And just to make sure we're all on the same page, just go back to the thread that I posted in the message above (click the link). This way I know we're all on the same page and we start off from where we left off.
Phosphoer
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2007
Location: Seattle
Posted: 16th Jun 2009 00:38
Quote: "IS ANIMATION IN BLENDER MOTION AND SHAPPE TWEENING OR FRAME BY FRAME?"


Animation in Blender ( and every other 3d package AFAIK ) is keyframed. Motion is interpolated between keyframes to achieve smooth movement. I believe this is what you meant by 'tween'.

SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 16th Jun 2009 00:49
Yea, thats it. When I said tween, I really didn't know what other word to use, so I just used the phrase "tween" from flash animating. Also, that's very good to hear ^^. And to make sure, blender animation does support skeletal structure, and for that matter you can export the animations as .x or .3ds files to use in games, right?
Phosphoer
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2007
Location: Seattle
Posted: 16th Jun 2009 01:38
Quote: "And to make sure, blender animation does support skeletal structure"


Quite well, yes
http://www.blender.org/features-gallery/features/

Quote: "and for that matter you can export the animations as .x or .3ds files to use in games, right?"


It can( with some work ) export animation to .x. I don't believe it can do animated .3ds files though.

SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 16th Jun 2009 01:52 Edited at: 16th Jun 2009 04:24
I went to that link of yours, and to be honest with you, I'm quite happy with the skeletal structure . I've done animating in 2D with bones, and to be honest the bones in that program, along with the bones of a lot of other 3D animators, look like a kite. I think this skelteal structures is a lot easier to work with . And about exporting the animation to .x files. What do you mean when you said
Quote: "( with some work ) "
Are you implying that blender cannot directly export an animation as a .x, so you have to go through a series of steps and other programs to format the 3D models and animation to a .x file, or are you just saying that it is a bit hard to export models that are animated from blender (as a .x file).

EDIT: By the way, whenever I go to the blender homepage there's this grey bar covering a top section of the screen (the section under the tabs that say features and gallery). Ok, anyways, is this only on the browser I'm using, or is it for everyone?
SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 16th Jun 2009 04:31 Edited at: 16th Jun 2009 21:08
THIS IS FOR PEOPLE NEW TO THE CONCEPT OF NORMAL MAPPING
Oh yeah, and just so people can see the effects of normal mapping, I found a picture the blender features page in phosphoers last message (the link). Look at this, the model on the right is the model without any normal mapping; the normal model, and the picture on the left is with the normal mapping. Look at the detail, not only will this add major and great effects to your game, but it will also save so many polies, that a low poly model can look like it takes a million! (Just trying to convince the poeple who just started this subject about the effects of normal mapping).



Normal mapping, in my opinion, is especially great for hair of 3D models. The only con is that you can't controll each strand of hair you see, so be carful how you use normal mapping for hair (unless you make the hair like theo picture above, how the beard is two little tails of hair, then you can assign a bone to those sections and justmove the the group of hair at a time, still not every single strand).


EDIT: Here's another picture of a person made in blender. Notice that in the face count in the top right corner of the picture, it says 309152. In the picture above the face count is at 7285. The quality is about the same (except the tere is more of a reflective shader in the picture below, but that's a part of blenders modeling.) Now think, if they made an accurate texture for this model, then the normal map would be simple to make. And when the normal map is applied to a model, you can have a low poly model look extremely high poly without many polygons at all. In fact, you can ask anyone that knows of the concept of normal mapping, and when you ask "do professional games have models that use normal mapping?" they will say yes. I once found a picture of a cutscene of a game called "metal gear solid 4 guns of the patriots" (this was from the "in the making" section of the MGS4 Website) All of the models weren't as high poly as you think. Here's a link to a image list (all the images area bit small):http://www.konami.jp/mgs4/us/top.html. In the top right corner click making of MGS4, and then click the third option. This will take you to an image browser. If you look at some of the pictures that show the models being modeled (in a program which I do not know of) you notice that the models are quite low poly/medium poly, not at all high polie. This is a key to game making. In 3D animation, a poly count only matters when exporting the animation. When its all over with the polycount won't cause a lag, it'll be just normal, but either way normal mapping is an essential for the creation of high quality games, and its quite simple. I mean, for a 3D model you have to make a textures, and if you're making a high quality game, then the texture of yours should look high quality. If you already made a high quality texture, then all you need is to use a simple plugin, determine a few values, and you have a UV map. For every texture you can take about 30 seconds to a minute to make a normal map. But be careful, as covered in the old post, phosphoer told me that overuse of normal maps can cause lag. But don't worry, if you look closely at games out there that have normal mapping, you notice that the main things that have normal maps are things that are intentianally made to show a special effect (such as the windshield of a truck or car) and other things that are rounded and the main focus of games (such as a character in the game). Just so you all know, yes, I'm a metal gear fan, and during an online play from metal gear solid four online, I noticed the windshield thing in outer outlet, and the normal map of the characters is common sense after seeing the low poly models "in the making".



Also to phosphoer: in many games I've noticed that the ground ussually has bumps and other things, such as snow or a rock hard mud ground. IS this also a normal map? I would think so.
Phosphoer
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2007
Location: Seattle
Posted: 16th Jun 2009 05:24
Quote: "Are you implying that blender cannot directly export an animation as a .x, so you have to go through a series of steps and other programs to format the 3D models and animation to a .x file, or are you just saying that it is a bit hard to export models that are animated from blender (as a .x file)."


No, sometimes it's just hard get the exporter to work correctly. One of those things where the stars have to be aligned for it to work.

SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 16th Jun 2009 05:45 Edited at: 16th Jun 2009 20:35
Ohhh. Then would it be a good idea to animate the blender models outside of blender or in it. (Becuase inside blender itself, I think, it would be easier to move the vertecies and faces). Anyways, after that I want to explore normal mapping a bit more. I've pretty much got the hang of modeling and texturing, but shading and normal mapping are still concepts that I want to explore some more. Anyways, normal mapping something like the picture above, would it be possible to make a normal map in which one part of the normal map has small bumps but another larger bumps? What my guess is, make two normal bumps, in something like photoshop or the gimp (as seperate layers) and then deleting a section of the normal map that is really bumpy and then adding the same deleted section size of the not so bumpy normal map onto the current one and merging the layers. What I'm saying is can we add and delete parts of the normal map like adding objects to an image? If we can then I'm positive something like the magic wand tool or lasso tool could help accomplish this deed. Oh yeah, and in my last message, I left a question for you at the bottom, for it was relevant to the post in that message.
greenlig
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Aug 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posted: 17th Jun 2009 03:34
You can export from Blender predictably, but there are a few steps that need to be taken. I was writing a tutorial about it, but the uni load was a bit too heavy and I left it alone! One day...it will be done I regularly export animations, and to be honest, once you get it right and realise what you need to tweak, the sky's the limit. Blender has amazing animation tools, and it's well worth utilising them!

Greenlig

Blender3D - CS3 - VISTA - DBPro
SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 17th Jun 2009 03:52
I hear you greenlig. Personally, I'm not trying to brag, but animation is my strong suit. Modeling and coding, I'm ok at. Its good news that blender is good at animating. The only concern I have is exporting.
Quote: "You can export from Blender predictably, but there are a few steps that need to be taken."
Are those steps hard, or just a bit complicated.
greenlig
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Aug 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posted: 17th Jun 2009 09:33
None of them are that hard, or that complicated, they are just usually things you might easily forget.

Essentially, you need every vertex in the model to be attached to a bone, every bone needs at least one vertex assigned to it, you need to have the view split, with the 3D view visible as you export, and the frame clip set to the amount of frames you want. When you export, if it doesn't work, or you need to re-export, you haveto have closed the export dialogue. Keeping it open corrupts the exported .x file.

If you have those elements in place, you can usually get it to work. So it's not really complicated, just a bit pedantic about what's happening!

Greenlig

Blender3D - CS3 - VISTA - DBPro
SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 17th Jun 2009 20:07
Oh! Now it makes sense! I remember when I used to animate how sometimes I exported the animation with the wrong file type or as an image sequence, or some other thing that held me back. Just one more thing about animation in blender, when you animate it does show each object as different right? As in when you're trying to make a cutscene it is easy to pick the different objects right? Ok, let me rephrase it: Is it easy to tell the difference between objects and pick different objects when animating?
SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 17th Jun 2009 21:16
Ok, I was modeling something in blender, when I thought "getting the start of the modeling is so hard!" I was just wondering, when you guys model in blender, do you start with a plane like I do (which I'm sure is a bad idea) or do you make a plane, delete 3 of the vertices, and then extrace that one vertice into an edge, that edge into a face, and that face into a model, and so on. I really want to know because it is really hard starting with a normal plane, and seeing as you guys, I'm sure, know more than me about modeling in blender, maybe you can pass some advice on how to start a model.
Phosphoer
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2007
Location: Seattle
Posted: 17th Jun 2009 21:53
Quote: "Ok, let me rephrase it: Is it easy to tell the difference between objects and pick different objects when animating?"


I don't understand, are you asking if it's hard to select different objects? What does that have to do with animating?

Quote: "maybe you can pass some advice on how to start a model."


I start with the primitive shape that most resembles what I'm going to make. More often than not, it's a cube. I generally start with a cylinder for bodies, and faces I do vertex by vertex. Some some really flat things ( like blades ), I start with a plane.

SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 17th Jun 2009 21:57 Edited at: 17th Jun 2009 22:30
Ok, I was making a model, but then an extra face that was missing an edge showed up out of nowhere and I have no idea how to get rid of it. Here's the picture: If anyone can, please tell me how to get rid of it . Oh yea, and phosphoer, I ment when animating in blender, how does the interface look? Does it show the vertices of every object and model in the animation, or does it keep the other models in object form and you can only see the faces of the model you're animating, or does it keep all models in object forn (cannot see any vertices) and makes you just use bones to animate the whole thing? BTW thanks for the tip on starting a model. I guess when I want to make something complicated I'll just use that single vertex idea, but overal I understand, thanks for the tip.
Azunaki
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Feb 2009
Location:
Posted: 17th Jun 2009 23:15
it kinda looks like faces are over lapping.
SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 17th Jun 2009 23:20
Thanks for that info, but how do I get rid of i? It won't let me select the secion as a face, so I can't delete it. Where did I mess up exactly?
SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 18th Jun 2009 00:26 Edited at: 18th Jun 2009 00:33
Ok, as much as I would like to know the answer to the question in my last message, I just took away that little part and replaced it with a flat face. There is one question though. I put the question in the picture, it says, "see how noticable the smoothness and straightness of the faces are in this model? Will this affect quality? Or is it that when I add the texture this affect will not be noticable?"
Alucard94
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Jul 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden.
Posted: 18th Jun 2009 01:31
That would probably be an issue with the smoothing groups, try selecting all faces or alternatively the ones with the strange smoothing and then hitting "W" and "Set Smooth". One tip for easily spotting things might be to consider keeping all faces hard (Entering edit mode > a > W > Set Solid) as it helps the eyes with seeing details and such, at least for me.


Alucard94, the member of the future of the past.
SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 18th Jun 2009 04:03
Alucard, I think you might be mistaken. I know about the set smooth and set solid function, what I'm asking is that in the final render of the model, whether the noticibility of the smooth and solid parts of the model will still be there. (Just as a tip, instead of hitting W you know you can just click the set smooth and set solid buttons at the bottom left corner of blender [while in in the editing button *Hotkey F9*]. Anyways, I'm pretty sure that when you add a texture these noticable effects between the smooth and solid parts of the model won't be as noticable as they are right now, right? Is there a way to make the set smoothed faces look differently? Here's what I mean. When you smooth an entire model with many face, you notice how the faces of the model all look strange when smooth? Is there a way to make it normal, or is that the reason why we smooth certain sections and solify others? Also, I know that smoothed out faces are affected differently by the lighting, but in the final render do the faces still react the same by being shaded with the lighting? Ok, let me fix that. Do solid faces react to ligting by being shaded as though smoother (in the final render) or is that what smoothing is for? And if that is why smoothing is for, should I just smooth out the entire model and in the final render those little shades that are shaded strangely in edit mode?
SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 18th Jun 2009 05:31
You know what, If I make the whole thing smooth, (and you know how when you make a model smooth the smooth faces look a bit strange?) I'll just add a texture and normal map to it and then see what it looks like. It should look fine. (Unless solid faces can be shaded by the lighting, and I mean different shades of light on the same face, or is that what smooth is?).
Phosphoer
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2007
Location: Seattle
Posted: 18th Jun 2009 05:57
I really have no idea what you were trying to say in those last two posts... >.>

SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 18th Jun 2009 06:15
Yeah I thought so... I got confused trying to write what I ment! What i'm asking is, in blender's edit mode, when you move the object around, and the light is shown on a solid face, the light is one color, it doesn't shade the face, it just changes is brightness. Is that the power of smoothness? Should I just try making the whole thing smooth?
Ortu
DBPro Master
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Nov 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 18th Jun 2009 08:00
smooth affects the way light is blended from one face to another, in order to get a smooth curvature to the surface.

leaving it solid will give the surface distinct facets like on a diamond, whereas smooth clears off those hard edges and makes it more like a glass marble


SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 18th Jun 2009 08:03 Edited at: 18th Jun 2009 08:09
Ooooooooh! Now I get it. Just to double check, when you make somthing like a gun, a knife, a human, or a battleship, wuold a majority or all the faces use smoothing? And If you make a die with round edges, would you use solid and smooth faces or just smooth? And here's another thing: you know what a gradient line looks like, right? Is it possible to have a gradient line of light shining on a straight face? Or is it that when Light shines on a solid face there is no shading of light or gradient light affects, just the brightness of the face?
greenlig
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Aug 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posted: 18th Jun 2009 10:51
I think what you are referring to in the last post is face normals. Setting the normals of a face to 'Smooth' as you have been doing, is the gradient light you are talking about. Basically, it averages the shading over a face's neighbouring faces, and applies it to that face. Un-smoothed normals only calculate the light for that specific face. BUT - does this fix your hidden face problem? NO!

I think I know what it is though. What you have there is a quad, and one of the triangles that makes up that quad is overlapping the other. It's no biggie, it just means you have manipulated the vertex a bit too far. I suggest grabbing that vertex, and moving it till that overlapping face disappears. To see this problem properly, you could select that face, and press "ctrl - T" I believe, and that triangulates it.

I think that's what is happening.

Also, when you apply a texture and render the model, it will still have the normal shading it has in edit mode. SO, unsmoothed will look...unsmooth When you export a model to use in a game engine, you can choose a few different types of smoothing - use blenders, recalculate, or something else - I usually just use blenders. With low poly modelling, you want to use your textures to make the detail as much as you can

I hope I answered something in there...

Greenlig

Blender3D - CS3 - VISTA - DBPro
SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 18th Jun 2009 20:51
Thanks Greenlig, you did! Phosphoer once told me about normals being messed up when I smoothed out a part of a samurai sword I made once, and the handle was lined with strips that looked very strange. Phosphoer just told me to hit control + n to recalculate the normals, (and at one point he did tell me the ctrl T thing or triangulating faces. I never knew exactly what normals were, but now you shed some light on it. I still don't fully understand normals, but I know something about them. (this was all in that last thread in the link in the first message). And about that overlapping triangular face: I did what you said a while ago. I decided that it might be too complicated to remove that face, so I just decided to hide it. This morning, I also took about 30 minutes going through each section of the gun and deleting extra edges and vertices that made extra faces. Now I took away about 200 quadrilateral faces, which in my opinion is good . Anyways, I did what you said, but I decided that just covering the face was easier, so I undid it all and just covered the face. The face count (without being triangulated) is around 1200, a nice clean number for something as complicated as this gun. Anyways, thanks for the advice on the smoothing thing, you pretty much answered my question in my last message. Also, I have one last question on this subject: what would faces that are smooth and solid look like next to each other (and I mean with a texture)? Would it look natural, as in there wouln't be anything strange, (for in edit mode, having solid and smooth faces next to each other does look strange...). Just as a question, like in the last message, if you make a die, as in a die with round edges, would you use smoothing on all the faces or would you use solid, or will the smoothness and solidity of the faces all depend on what you want the material to be (as in bark-like wood be solid and glossy marbe [like Ortu said] by smooth). I think I'm starting to understand what you guys mean. If you have a guy carrying a box, or a giant machine gun or something (with a rough metal texture), you wouldn't smooth it, but rather let the sunlight that is chining on the faces be cloked by shadows of other objects, and any leaking sunlight on the object would give it a more lifelike look. BTW I'm starting to texture that gun, first I should make the seams to make things easier though.
SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 18th Jun 2009 21:19
Ok, I finished modeling and wanted to see what the model would look like, so I added some lights and a camera, and the took a render. I noticed some very strange things, like the end fo the barrel of the gun looked strange, and other parts of the gun looked very awkward, and those "awkward parts" that you can see I did not intentianally make. I'm just going to throw a guess, but it as something to do with the normals doens't it? (Also, when I did solify the faces, I saw some gradient lighting, not from edge to edge but from the center to another part of the center. Here is the weird render thing: and here's the gradient light on the solid face (its at the top of the gun) .
Phosphoer
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2007
Location: Seattle
Posted: 18th Jun 2009 23:41
If you post the .blend I can take a look at your mesh and see what's causing those lighting artifacts.

AndrewT
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Feb 2007
Location: MI, USA
Posted: 18th Jun 2009 23:49
Most likely you've got some weird geometry going on or messed up normals, those are the only things that'll cause shading like that.

i like orange
SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 18th Jun 2009 23:51 Edited at: 18th Jun 2009 23:53
Ok . But just to warn you, I went a little overboard with the amount of lights, but even if you have a single lamp light, the same lighting problem will occur. http://www.mediafire.com/?wj23ycnyqyn. And AndrewT, weird geometry huh? Well figures, but when I add the texture I think it would be safe to assume that this affect will not be noticable or won't show at all (hopefuly [in my opinion]) once a texture and normal map are applied to it.
Phosphoer
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2007
Location: Seattle
Posted: 19th Jun 2009 01:17
Well I don't really see any problems with the mesh. It seems quite unnecessarily detailed, but other than that, it should look fine when textured.

Good luck unwrapping that o.0

SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 19th Jun 2009 01:45 Edited at: 19th Jun 2009 03:55
Thanks for the good news phosphoer. Unwrapping this model is actually easier (in my plan) than you think. You know that tip you have me a while back about picking a mesh in an object via ctrl + L? Well I'll just split the model up with that trick, add the seams in all the appropriate places, and then put it back together again using the image I used to trace the model. The only problem I think I'll run into is the size of the UV map. I mean with the setup of this model, I'm going to need a lot of space to make the texture, and the way I see it, the UV map that I need to trace the texture onto has to be big for me to make the texture (or atleast I can scale it bigger and use the magic wand and lasso tools to make the textures. EDIT: What did you mean by unnnesacary detail? (I'm not offended) I traced the model directly from a real picture of a colt .45, and actually left out A LOT of detail from the actual model. I spent about 30 minutes this morning deleting many edges, faces and vertices and then reconnecting the missing wholes in the mesh, and took away about 200 polies. I'm actually quite happy how the gun turned out .
AndrewT
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Feb 2007
Location: MI, USA
Posted: 19th Jun 2009 02:34 Edited at: 19th Jun 2009 02:35
Quote: "But just to warn you, I went a little overboard with the amount of lights, but even if you have a single lamp light, the same lighting problem will occur."


Actually the problem appears to be the number of lights (or rather the types of lights). Here's what I get with one hemi-light and AO on:



The geometry is fine, the problem was all the spotlights you were using.

i like orange
SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 19th Jun 2009 04:24 Edited at: 19th Jun 2009 04:41
HA! I thought so (not really). When I started modeling this model, I just made the gun's slide. I then saved and quit and worked on it later that day, (and I didn't use the open recent function. When I opened the model there was no light or camera. I new how to get a camera in, but when it came to lights I had noooooo idea what type to use. I put in a spot light, then I thought "There isn't enough lighting here or there" and I made more. I get to use a hemi light, which I still don't know how exactly (do I scale it to make the lighting affect more affective? And what is AO? EDIT: I tried the hemi light thing, and it works pretty well. I just don't know how to set the limits other than scaling the light. (I notice how you [AndrewT] made the lighting so that the light is techincally [weakly] shining on each spot of the mesh. Can't achieve that. Can someone post a link or make a small tutorial about blender lighting?). And anyways, the barrel of the gun still looks a bit funny in the lighting (but I assume, as Phosphoer said, that when a texture is applied the model with look fine).
AndrewT
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Feb 2007
Location: MI, USA
Posted: 19th Jun 2009 05:00
Quote: "(do I scale it to make the lighting affect more affective?"


You can change the range of a hemi-light using the 'Dist' value, and you can change its energy using the 'Energy' value.

Quote: "And what is AO?"


Ambient occlusion. It's a useful effect that simulates light bouncing off the surfaces of materials and creates soft shadows around sharp edges.

Quote: "I notice how you [AndrewT] made the lighting so that the light is techincally [weakly] shining on each spot of the mesh."


The best way to do that is with AO, but using only AO won't look very good. I typically use a hemi-light, which simulates light shining from the surface of a dome, such as the sky. However there are better ways such as three point lighting, I just use my method because it's really quick and easy. If I need shadows I'll use a Sun light.

i like orange
SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 19th Jun 2009 05:17
Honestly I'm still clueless about AO. Is it a function you can turn on in a menu or something? The only thing I got is energy, distance, and the fact that hemi lighting exists and what it does. I think I'm still missing some stuff. I'm going to blender.org to check out some tutorials, but in the meanwhile I would appreciate it if someone could shed some more light on the subject .
Phosphoer
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2007
Location: Seattle
Posted: 19th Jun 2009 05:31


There's the controls for Ambient Occlusion ( AO ).

Quote: "What did you mean by unnnesacary detail?"


You have a lot of geometry inside the mesh which will never be seen, like the bullet for example. Assuming this is a model for a game, there is no reason for the bullet to be there.

It's generally safe to say that if there are faces on your model which can't be seen from any angle, they can and even should be deleted.

SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 19th Jun 2009 05:48 Edited at: 19th Jun 2009 05:52
Wow, thanks phosphoer. That was fast . And about that "unnecassary detail". When I put those in I thought about that animation bit we talked about earlier in this thread. I thought about how a gun works, when you fire a gun,the slider slides back and releases the empty bullet shell, which is why that bullet is there. Then there's reloading, where you can reload as long as there is ammo left and when you never reload as long as there is no ammo. Anyways, I made it according to animation. Should I make like three different models? As in one idle model that has no bullet and no magazine (or at least no top half of the magazine), one that is an for an animation of shooting where the trigger is pulled and the slider pulls back releasing that extra bullet shell (since I made this model thinking it should be automatic), (and maybe a model of a bullet shell so that when you shoot somewhere the bullet shel stays there on the ground... MAYBE), and one for reloading, where there is a magazine and the bullet in the magazine but no empty bullet shell. Then, assuming I'm on the right track, make use those three different models in a game, but at different times, like I said, for idle, for shooting, and for reloading. (I think I said this before, but I made this model generally to be ready to animate or make those models). I am right, am I ? (Oh, and a thought just occured to me: when you export a model, the light(s) and/or the camera don't get exported right? [when you export it as a .x or .3ds]).
Phosphoer
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2007
Location: Seattle
Posted: 19th Jun 2009 06:17
Quote: ". I thought about how a gun works, when you fire a gun,the slider slides back and releases the empty bullet shell, which is why that bullet is there."


I suppose you could do it that way, but it would be much easier and much better to simply not include a bullet in the model of your gun, and just spawn casings from the gun when the player fires. In this scenario, you'd have a model of a gun with an animated slider, and a model of a shell casing. This way you can control the casings with physics and have them pile up :p I believe you'd just use the one gun model for all of it's animations, but could be wrong as I have never been interested in making an FPS.

Quote: "when you export a model, the light(s) and/or the camera don't get exported right? [when you export it as a .x or .3ds])."


No, because you are exporting the object. If you ever encounter an exporter that claims to export the entire 'scene', then cameras and lights might be included.

SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 19th Jun 2009 08:29 Edited at: 19th Jun 2009 19:14
I've concidered this method before, but to tell you the truth I'm still a bit of a newbie when it comes to coding and actual game creation. By spawning the bullet shell, do you mean like in the coding spawn it or in the animation (if it is possible in the animation). Like you said (and believe me, I'm going to talk for a while about WHAT YOU SAID from once sentence to a paragraph, so if you don't have the time just read a word or two in each line and try to find where I stop quoting what yous say in my own words) I would find that spawning a bullet shell in the coding would be simpler to keep track of, but since I'm a newbie I wouldn't know if that would be an easy task. I mean, when you spawn the bullet in the coding, do you have to input the code as in you make it so that where ever the character is you tell the program to find the character and then spawn the bullet in a location a little bit away from the player (in the gun) and then tell it to move here and there and etc. until the shell is completely free on its own, (and assuming if you wanted to do the bullet shells on the floor techniques which I think would indeed be a bad idea in case of lag) you could have some sort of physics engine that makes the empty bullet shell drop to the floor and bounce a little until it find a permanant locationl. (BTW, this whole bullet shell idea brought up a theory that I think many games do: whenever an object in a game is used up, as in it no longer has any more purpose in the game and you see stays there for a while, (I think I am right) the unusable objects get disposed of, as in get ridden from the game, and this technique is the thing that keeps those professional games from lagging when it comes to keeping unusable objects that just add polies to the game, right? On this one I'm just going to assume I'm right, for I have seen this technique done in some games, but since a lot of games have objects that are used then stay in the gaming world without being disposed of, I assume they will add major faces to the poly count of the game, therefore there is an overall limit to the polycount that when the program or game finds the limit exceeded it starts ridding the game world of unusable objects. (And I think this is unnoticable because when the game finds the limit exceeded it was to be when the player is doing something, (from shooting a gun and empty bullet shells falling on the floor to enemy characters dieing and their remains staying), the player is distracted by this action and the game rids the most unnoticable useless objects or the useless objects farthest from the player... I'm assuming this is a common technique used (key word assume). Anyways, back to the point. Next thing, when you say the scene being included, that sounds more like an animation made in the 3D modeler like blender rather than the modeling itself for the model to be exported. Anyways, I think one day I'm just going to try that technique I mentioned earlier, maybe make a program where the program keeps spawning random objects like spheres, cubes, and cones onto a plane, and the character is free to move freely as well as the random objects. There should be a poly count, and a limit to the poly count, and when the poly count is exceeded the program finds the farthest object, or any object not withing the players (the camera fitted on the player to show the view of the game, i. e. fps the camera is at the face) field of view and deletes it, without the character noticing. I think my "ideas" for a game might be too complicated for me to do it in a breeze, so I think I should test some stuff out first. But enough of my thoasand point plans, back to blender... actually I'm starting to run out of questions. But don't worry, there's always more: When a UV map is made in blender, is there an option that you can put it so that you can change the scale of the UV map, or do you have to export it and then scale it in a different program, in which then the quality might be bad? (I underlined the question because it is the main focus of this message... I think...) Also, about the adding faces while animating idea you said, should I just deleted the bullet and top half of the magazine (which contains another bullet) and save this as an idle gun, and then have another gun with the same model but a different name to animate the gun's shooting (the slider sliding back), and a third model with the magazine and just the reloading? I would think so, as this would save polies. . OH! and by the way, I was thinking of making a small little for-practice program that is like modeling, a bit. Actually, the models are already loaded, its just that the UV map is displayed, the user can use some paint brush tools to color over the UV map in their own detail, save the UV map, and then load it to that model and see what it looks like (all of it in one program). I dunno, I guess I just like games that have EXTREME interactivity between them. DOUBLE EDIT: Nevermind about scaling the UV map question, I just found a little size meter when you save the UV map as an image from blender. (I finished the UV map for the gun but since this is my first complex model and since this is probably my fourth UV map IT LOOKS HORRIBLE (I mean some of the stuff doesn't ever look like the unwrapped gun parts). Either way, I figured out each part of the gun on the map and organized it so this part is here and that part is there and so on. I'm going to try to make the texture today, but I might be a bit busy. Also, I'm going to try to make a texture for this UV map, but it will probably look horrible, and I'll have to make new seams, for the one's I made on my model are, in my opinion, in horrible spots and positions for a UV map.
SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 19th Jun 2009 20:00 Edited at: 19th Jun 2009 20:27
Ok... I just wanted to test if I was making the texture right, and I made a very quickly made bad little texture. It looks like this: . Honeslty I made it to test where I would put certain textures (THERE IS NO WAY I'M USING THIS AS MY TEXTURE, I'M JUST USING IT AS A GUIDELINE). Apparently it turned out... bad... honeslty I'm going to scrap the whole UV Map and try to make a good looking one later, so I can make a decent texture. And another thing, I made the normal map for the bad texture, but I do not know how to apply it (in blender, to see the preview). I thought with a normal map the texture might look better, but I have no idea how to apply it; how do I apply it in blender? EDITI just realized something when I was going through a some dark matter UV maps that came with the dark game studio DVD. Since the entire gun has symmetry, can I just put the two pieces of the model (like the handle) in the same spot so the UV mapped texture affects both of them? I mean, here, look at this:. You see the UV map? You see there's only one side of the handle in the UV map texture? And the real model has two sides to the handle? That made me think, when I make the UV map, can I take any two symmetrical sides of the gun in the same spot and make the texture for one side, thus making that texture for the one side the texture for both sides? I think so...
Alucard94
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Jul 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden.
Posted: 19th Jun 2009 20:50
Yes, that is overlapping, it's been used quite a lot for developing models and such. Just remember if you want to do any sort of sculpting on the model or such you can't use overlapping since it fudges up quite a few things with the normal map and such.


Alucard94, the member of the future of the past.
SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 19th Jun 2009 21:31
That's ok, I tend not to use sculpting. I suppose It's time that I remade the UV map so I can make the texture mor easily. Tell me, when an object has reflective symmetry should I just make the seams where the imaginary line of symmetry is, that way I could just make half of the texture for the model? Not all the meshes I have have edges that are coincidentally the line of symmetry, but all the hard, complex meshes do, so I suppose I'll just make the seams on the symmetry. I like it when things get easier ^^ but I can't make the texture today, I'm quite busy today.
Ortu
DBPro Master
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Nov 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 20th Jun 2009 02:07
normal mapping in blender is done thus:

http://www.blender.org/development/release-logs/blender-236/normal-maps/

you basically just include it in the material setup similar to a texture image. You'll need to fiddle with a couple of settings but it's all listed on that link


SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 22nd Jun 2009 03:12
Ok, I remade the UV map a while ago (I had to delete many faces on my model and remake it so the model had perfects symmetry. It didn't so I had to take the time to move the vertices of the UV map so that they were perfectly on top of each other). Compared to the last one, this one is much better and easier to make a texture for. I was starting the texturing of the UV map when I remembered what someone (I can't remember who) told me about the texture size affecting the lagging of a game. For this gun model that I have made (I have made many changes as I said, from the last post with the link to downloading the model, but both the gun models are about the exact same size) what would be a good size of the texture? I mean, anything could help: the file size, the width/length of the texture (in pixels), and so on. Here's the pixel length of the UV Map I exported: (I know, I probably oversized the size of the UV map thinking that I could make a good looking texture this way) 5000 (its a square UV map, the default form of UV map in blender, so as many/all of you know, the 5000 accounts for the width and the lenght).
Phosphoer
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2007
Location: Seattle
Posted: 22nd Jun 2009 03:39
5000 is probably far too large for the average needs. Also, you are going to run into problems using image sizes that are not in powers of 2.

I recommend using 1024x1024 UV maps for high res, and 512x512 for smaller, less important objects.

SJH
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 23rd Jun 2009 00:46 Edited at: 23rd Jun 2009 00:46
Ok, I started making the texture after finally finding the time, and then when I started I started to try and make the metalic texture. I circled the spots in the picture below where I ran into problems. I ussually use a motion blur to give it that scratchy metal look, but I'm not sure exactly how to make it look more natural. Seeing as the gimp and photoshop are very identical (just with a few different features and a different interface) I was hoping someone could give me advice on making a more natural look. Should I just use the smudge tool on some grey noise? (In other words, how do I make a rounded steel texture, should I use the smudge tool [I have a wacom tablet] or should I make a new image with a radial blur of what I want and the copy-paste a corner of the image into the part I want?) (plus I'm going to remake the texture, again, to get the best look).
Ortu
DBPro Master
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Nov 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 23rd Jun 2009 04:08
mabye straighten out the uv layout so that the grain in the texture image doesn't need to bend? It should still flow across the mesh the way you want it.


Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-25 06:52:23
Your offset time is: 2024-11-25 06:52:23