BrokenPillar

Very, very cool. I love tools that are elegant enough to only really be limited by how creative the user is, and WYSIWYG on top of that. Thanks for this tool, it is a welcome addition for anyone using Max.

I think displacement maps don't so much create geometry as tell geometry where to go once it is created. From how I understand it, the typical method is to create a mesh that can be subdivided nicely (like you would for sculpting). Then the displacement shader would tell the geometry to tessellate, and then use the displacement map to tell the new geometry how far to displace. I don't think Leadwerks currently supports it, but then again using it in any kind of meaningful way in real time 3D apps is a fairly new thing as far as I know. Parrallax occlusion mapping is more similar to normal mapping than displacement mapping in that it "fakes" geometry rather than adding more. It basically occludes pixels from being drawn based on viewing angle, which gives a false sense of depth. Think of brick pixels hiding the mortar pixels as your viewing angle gets closer to parallel to the surface. It isn't creating bricks out of geometry to cover up the mortar, just telling the engine not to draw the mortar pixels anymore. You have to really understand how POM works and what it is and isn't good at to get it to look decent. You also have to create a POM map by baking it from a high res mesh. Subtle differences in value dramatically effect the end result, which makes creating one from hand near impossible. Crazybump can create POM maps, but that is just because it is basically creating a high res mesh, displacing it off a gray scale image of the image you feed it, then baking the maps from that (behind the scenes). If you are going to use Crazybump, you really need to clean up the image first since the POM effect needs to be so precise to look right. -edit- Ha. I just saw that this thread was marked as solved. Sorry for the TMI.

That makes sense if game art was purely about art, but unfortunately there are as many technical considerations as there are artistic considerations. 3D modeling is as much about the math that creates and moves the geometry as anything else. Every line (edge) is by nature more perfectly straight than any ruled line can be. Making a beautiful character won't mean much if the edges collapse unnaturally into each other when it is animated, or if the texture stretches in unusual ways whenever it lifts its arms. These problems don't add charm, they just make it obvious that something is wrong, even if the average user has no idea what an edge loop is. I agree that subtle variation and stylization is nice, but if you fail on the technical part it is likely that no one will notice the artistic value of your piece. Unless you are going for abstract or overly stylized, basic anatomy and topology should not be the areas that you should accept large imperfections and call it charm. If you are going for abstract or toonish, then this tool obviously wouldn't be of much use to you. It is also a base mesh, which implies it is just a starting point. The artistic merit comes from what you add to or how you manipulate the base. Starting with an anatomically and technically correct base will only help ensure that these two elements do not inadvertently detract from your piece's artistic merits. Sorry, I didn't mean this too turn into an abstract discussion about what art is. I just thought the tool was cool and wanted to share.

I think the purpose is to start from the best possible base for your character. Knowing how to make a passable base mesh is one thing, perfecting a base mesh with correct anatomical proportions and the best possible topology for deformation, muscle simulation, and variation is another. Starting with a standard primitive and trying to make your own base mesh for a human character is re-inventing the wheel. It's a puritanical approach to making game art that does not have any real benefit other than being able to say that you did it. It will also most likely only result in an end product that is of poorer quality, unless you are willing to dedicate however many years of development and expertise went into this product. I also really don't see how this takes the human element out of art any more than any other software tool does. It just lets you spend less time re-doing stuff that has already been done, and gives you more time to spend on the things that would make your character unique or 'artistic".

A co-worker sent this to me and I thought it was pretty amazing. The app is in alpha stage right now and so is a little rough around the edges, but it has the best humanoid base mesh I have seen, plus it is fun to mess around in. It is also open source, so you can't beat the price. http://www.makehuman.org/ Check out this link to see the topology they are using. The mesh has been evolving for about ten years by some really talented artists. It is also all in quads for compatibility with sculpting apps and smoothing: http://sites.google.com/site/makehumandocs/the-humanoid-mesh

Being able to use a POM shader for terrain textures would help as well. Then you can bake a normal, AO and parallax texture set and use it for both the underlying terrain texture and the individual rock pieces that you insert into it. That is how it is done in Crysis (you set a "3d Texture" check box for the terrain texture, which just adds a POM shader and map, if I recall correctly). Using the same (or a similar) texture set for the underlying terrain and the rock pieces is important to make it fit together without obvious seems where they meet. Having the option to use POM would also work great for other terrain textures like cobble stones, cracked and broken asphalt, gravel, etc.

Thanks again for another great tutorial. You have a gift for creating tuts that explain things clearly and at the same time aren't boring or dry. Keep up the good work.

Zeus can come whiz on my scenes anytime if it will help them turn out this awesome . Great work Ubu.

This is really amazing stuff. It is really hard to put together a level that is so three dimensionally interwoven like that. I hope this turns into a game, but honestly this would be fun to just walk around in and explore. The biggest thing missing right now that would add a ton of visual impact is a bunch of gnarly roots coming through the bottoms of the isles. Keep it up, I look forward to seeing more.

You have to use a shader that has "specularmap" in the name instead of "specular". For example "mesh_diffuse_bumpmap_specular" will always use the alpha of the normal, and "mesh_diffuse_bumpmap_specularmap" will use the texture that is in slot #2. If there isn't a specularmap version of the shader you want to use, just swap out the line that says "#define LW_SPECULAR" with "#define LW_SPECULARMAP texture2" in a text editing program and then save the file with a different name (just add "map" after specular if you want to maintain the same naming convention).

I am, but only for this week on vacation. Does that count?

well, that is correct for a spec map in the alpha of the normal map, but what solved the road texture not showing up for me was adding the transparency map into the alpha of the diffuse texture. There is one in the diffuse of the original road texture you should be able to copy over. It is mostly white, with thin gradients to black along the left and right sides, like this:

Your textures did the same thing for me until I copied the alpha channel from the original diffuse into the alpha channel of your diffuse. The alpha gives a soft transparent gradient on the edges of the road to help it blend with the terrain. I'm not sure why it wouldn't show up at all without one, it seems like it should show up just with hard edges, but it worked for me just fine once I added it. It also looks like the alpha in the normal map is solid white (in yours and in the original). I would copy the diffuse into it and tone down the brightness until it is almost black. This is where it gets it's specular intensity from, and white is much to strong for asphalt (the .mat for the road has a .5 for specular, probably to compensate for the solid white alpha, but I would bump that value up and give it a more accurate spec map instead).

I think Vetal is asking if the triangles of the terrain mesh that are not in the camera's view are supposed to be getting culled. His screenshots show that the same number of triangles are being drawn up close as when he is zoomed out.

Looks great, but I have a few questions that weren't answered by the .pdf, and I thought that it would be good to add the answers to it. 1. What model formats do you get? (.obj, .fbx, .gmf, .max, etc) 2. What texture formats do you get? (.dds, .tga, .psd, etc) Getting at least one non-compressed format (.tga or .psd) would be great for people that want to use different compression methods. Of course getting the .psd would be very useful for modifications if they are cleanly organized and separated into useful layers. 3. For models with LoDs, what are the poly counts for each LOD? Example: Grass Long LoD 01 448 triangles LoD 02 ___ triangles LoD 03 ___ triangles Good work. It will be interesting to see the Game Development Division grow, and what packages will be added.

Along the same lines of this topic, does anyone know if there is a way to add parallax maps to terrain textures, or how to modify the terrain shaders to allow for them? This would be nice since many terrain materials are typically the kind that benefit the most from parallax occlusion. You can also store displacement maps in the alpha channel of the diffuse map of terrain textures since they don't need transparency.

I think you have to save the parallax map into the alpha of the diffuse texture if you are using the "mesh_diffuse_bumpmap_specular_pom.frag" shader that Macklebee posted. If you are using the "mesh_diffuse_bumpmap_parallax.frag" shader you originally had you need a normal map assigned to texture1, and your displacement map would need to be assigned to texture2 in your mat file, like this: texture0="abstract::BrickRound_D.dds" texture1="abstract::BrickRound_Dot3.dds" texture2="abstract::BrickRound_Disp.dds" shader="abstract::mesh_diffuse_bumpmap_parallax.vert","abstract::mesh_diffuse_bumpmap_parallax.frag" shadowshader="abstract::mesh_shadow.vert" I think the code you had posted was trying to use BrickRound_Disp.dds for normal information, and then didn't have a height map to use for the parallax effect.

No problem. I saw no reason to keep the updates to myself if other people can use them. I know a lot of people use them since everyone here is limited on time and resources.

I uploaded these to the Assets, Materials section in the Download area for anyone that wants to use them. They are named the same as the original textures that are in the download section, which are also the same as the ones that come with the SDK, so all you should have to do is copy them over the original textures and they should work.

File Name: Terrain Textures, Updated File Submitter: BrokenPillar File Submitted: 22 Mar 2010 File Category: Materials Resolution: 1024x1024 License: Same as the originals: You may use these in any Leadwerks Engine game. Do not distribute these as part of a media pack. These are updates to the original Terrain Textures created by Rich DiGiovanni and uploaded by Josh. Here is a list of changes: 1. The black pixels scattered across the normal maps were removed. 2. More depth was added to the normal maps. 3. The specular maps stored in the alpha of the normal maps have been significantly toned down to better represent dirt/stone materials. 4. The white alpha channel was discarded in the diffuse textures and they were re-saved using DXT1 to reduce the file sizes by half at no quality loss. The file names are the same, so all you need to do is paste them over the old ones and they should work. Click here to download this file

Wow. Everyone else summed it up pretty good, but I thought I would add a huge thanks from me. This is really fantastic and will come in very useful. I can tell you spent a lot of time on it.

No problem. What is this shader going to do, if you don't mind me asking? No need to ever fear that from me, as I don't know how to do anything by programming it...

what compression setting are you using with the Photoshop plugin? The DXT methods compress by creating 4x4 blocks of color where only the two extremes are stored. Here is a link that explains it: http://www.fsdeveloper.com/wiki/index.php?title=DXT_compression_explained Here are a couple of quotes from that link: so you are basically setting up a "worst case scenario" for a compression method meant to be used for larger diffuse textures with more subtle changes in values. This is also why standard DXT methods butcher normal maps, which usually have sharper and more significant changes in value. Try using some of the other compression types that result in larger file sizes, but use different methods, like 8.8.8 RGB and see what results you get from that. I am not sure if that will be good enough either, but it is worth a try. As far as support for other texture types, I am pretty sure LE does not support any type other than dds. Some of the users that have been around longer can correct me if I am wrong. *edit* I tried it, and 8.8.8 RGB works. Here is a screenshot: The image on the left is a 4x4 saved as 8.8.8 RGB and the one on the right is the same 4x4 saved using DXT1 (blown up of course)

Thanks for the comments. They are about as far as I can take them without having the originals and without spending an insane amount of time trying to sculpt out the normals to match the diffuse. I wanted to clean them up, but didn't have the kind of free time laying around that sculpting them out would take. Plus, I sort of have a little issue with how some people tend to apologize for using Crazybump and/or Photoshop for normal maps. If you know how to use the tools appropriately, you can often get results that most non-industry professionals would have a hard time telling the difference between the map generated procedurally vs the map baked from a high res sculpt used in a game (that is just my opinion). Most of the assets I make have about equal parts high res bake and equal parts procedural generation in the end normal map. So I did this work entirely in Photoshop, trying to push the methods I knew of to generate higher quality normals a little bit and to learn some new ones, but still be able to do it all in a reasonable amount of time. I agree with you about the tendency for people to make spec values too high. This coupled with HDR and Bloom can make for some very blown out/shiny scenes. I guess that comes down to a style preference though, which is subjective and depends on the result you are going for. *edit* I do not mean for this to sound like I am taking credit for other people's work. Obviously the bulk of the work on these textures was done by some one else. However, I did recreate many of the updated normal maps from scratch using the diffuse texture, or combined elements made from scratch with the originals. I am only saying this to give people a better idea of what is possible using Photoshop by itself to generate normal maps. *edit*

very nice work, and it's great to see it in action. Is this a game or a sim? That seems accurate enough to train with. Also , just out of personal curiosity, what is your connection to the Longbow? This seems like the work of someone passionate about helicopters (as I myself am, I was a crew chief on a CH-53E Super Stallion helicopter for 5 years). I am not very familiar with the Longbow, but it is an active platform with the US military, right? If so, is there any classification status of the cockpit? I know that for most active platforms the cockpit controls are classified as Secret. We weren't allowed to even take pictures. I know other games like this exist, but I have always been curious to know if you have to get some sort of authorization or something. Not really pertinent questions to your video I guess, which is looking fantastic. Great work so far and I look forward to seeing more.