The main difference between dim3 and professional engines? It's the artwork -- I grabbed a couple of textures from the Doom3 demo to check bump mapping. Note that these are on flat cubes and the specular isn't working yet.
It looks very 3D, even though it's only a cube. The bottom of the orange texture is especially impressive; I suspect they actually rendered all these textures from models or are just that good.
I have two possible bump equations:
1) Current way of bumping:
2) New heavier bumping (gives it that modern "plastic" like look):
Which one looks more "modern"? The heavy one shows more depths but is also less smooth.
[>] Brian
Hard to say as the second one might look good in a dark area and I'm not sure what part of the first screen is bump mapping and what part is texture.
Can you show us a screen with bump mapping off and a screen of the new method with darker lighting?
Can't you add a "strength" or "intensity" value for bump maps?
A lower value would produce something like the first picture and a high value something like the second one.
How about doing that via transparency: If its fully opaque its really strong, and if its highly transparent, its only a little bump.
Why don't you just make the bump map a little less contrasty and it should fix yer up, Bink. I want to see those with specular working. It's hard to tell what I want unless I see it.
I think that the top image looks more modern then the bottem. I don't like the blocky look of the shadows.
Heh, those are very well done textures, nice amount of detail.
Its hard to tell how good the bump-mapping is without seeing how it reacts to a moving light source.
Chuck the swinging lamp in there and record a movie with screenflow (the demo will let you record and save, but it will watermark the movie)
Should i make a normal mapped creature in ZBrush for testing?
Should i make a normal mapped creature in ZBrush for testing?
I'd love anything good to test.
If you look at the texture above, the texture itself is rather plain; the real "look" of the texture comes from the bump. These are really professional. My "auto bump generator" is OK for getting started, but shows the big difference between me and them:
1) My auto-generated bumps just add more depth to features already on the texture
2) Their bumps actually ADD features to the texture
It's like the brick texture -- it's pitted but it should really be flat and the pits should be in the dot3.
I'm working on further refinements to the system, one where the distance of the lighting hitting the polygon will effect the "depth" of the bump, i.e., more like the light one when far away, and more like the heavy one when up close.
[>] Brian
I'd love anything good to test.
If you look at the texture above, the texture itself is rather plain; the real "look" of the texture comes from the bump. These are really professional. My "auto bump generator" is OK for getting started, but shows the big difference between me and them:
1) My auto-generated bumps just add more depth to features already on the texture
2) Their bumps actually ADD features to the texture
It's like the brick texture -- it's pitted but it should really be flat and the pits should be in the dot3.
I'm working on further refinements to the system, one where the distance of the lighting hitting the polygon will effect the "depth" of the bump, i.e., more like the light one when far away, and more like the heavy one when up close.
[>] Brian
It works like this:
* Modeling a high-resolution model (About 3 000 000 polygons)
* Creating a low poly mesh over the high-poly version (2 000 polygons)
* Exporting the low poly mesh for UV mapping in Wings or other
* UV mapping of the lowpoly mesh
* Import the OBJ back with the new UV coordinates
* Bake the highpoly version as a normal map/texture on the lowpoly version.
* Export - Done. 