Models by MaNGusT (AR)

Improving the artwork in Warzone2100 - not for mod discussions
Jorzi
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1987
Joined: 11 Apr 2010, 00:14

Re: Models by MaNGusT (AR)

Post by Jorzi » 09 Mar 2019, 23:32

MaNGusT wrote:
09 Mar 2019, 23:13
btw, why do we use inverted values for object-space normal maps? Spent a lot of time find out how to make it properly. In 3ds max I can't choose values for Z channel, only for x and y, so I export red +x and green +y and then invert colors in a 2d editor to get red -x green -y and blue -z. Different standards?
This is simply because blender 2.49, which I originally used, had its own slightly nonstandard implementation of object space normals. After that I ended up flipping the channels of existing maps, rather than just changing the code and converting the existing stuff. Sorry about that :P
ImageImage
-insert deep philosophical statement here-

User avatar
MaNGusT
Art contributor
Posts: 1039
Joined: 22 Sep 2006, 10:31
Location: Polar region, Russia

Re: Models by MaNGusT (AR)

Post by MaNGusT » 10 Mar 2019, 12:45

when creating ao maps, I always think about ssao. Are there any problems to integrate it nowadays? The dilemma is should I bake basic shadows from propulsion, turret and terrain to universal models like bodies and weapons because in some combinations they are not needed and look wrong (vtol). SSAO, at this point, could solve this artist's dilemma.

update:
rebaked the ao texture, added some dust
Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
MaNGusT
Art contributor
Posts: 1039
Joined: 22 Sep 2006, 10:31
Location: Polar region, Russia

Re: Models by MaNGusT (AR)

Post by MaNGusT » 11 Mar 2019, 13:12

sсorpion body
Spoiler:
Last edited by MaNGusT on 11 Mar 2019, 17:28, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Jorzi
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1987
Joined: 11 Apr 2010, 00:14

Re: Models by MaNGusT (AR)

Post by Jorzi » 11 Mar 2019, 16:36

Good stuff man 8)
I think the orange part looks a bit plain though. The roughness texture you put on the mantis was good. I think it would be a nice contrast to have the yellow panels have some surface roughness (perhaps the hardening process erodes the surface a bit?), while the details could be more shiny and metallic.
ImageImage
-insert deep philosophical statement here-

User avatar
WZ2100ModsFAn
Trained
Trained
Posts: 357
Joined: 15 Apr 2018, 17:25
Location: United States.

Re: Models by MaNGusT (AR)

Post by WZ2100ModsFAn » 11 Mar 2019, 17:34

Good models wish to see the v-tol remastered too.
Maybe when you guys have more time.
Mantis + V-Tol Remastered will be awesome
I use Ubuntu GamePack By UALinux for gaming. Best Ubuntu Distro for Warzone :D

User avatar
MaNGusT
Art contributor
Posts: 1039
Joined: 22 Sep 2006, 10:31
Location: Polar region, Russia

Re: Models by MaNGusT (AR)

Post by MaNGusT » 24 Mar 2019, 19:00

Basic colors and details of Bug body. WIP
Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
MaNGusT
Art contributor
Posts: 1039
Joined: 22 Sep 2006, 10:31
Location: Polar region, Russia

Re: Models by MaNGusT (AR)

Post by MaNGusT » 29 Mar 2019, 12:34

Broken shadows on rotated buildings in 3.3.0 :D Did It work this way before?
Image
Image

pastdue
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 13 Aug 2017, 17:44

Re: Models by MaNGusT (AR)

Post by pastdue » 30 Mar 2019, 14:07

MaNGusT wrote:
29 Mar 2019, 12:34
Broken shadows on rotated buildings in 3.3.0 :D Did It work this way before?
Image
Good catch - looks like this has been broken for a while. Fix incoming.

User avatar
Berserk Cyborg
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 811
Joined: 26 Sep 2016, 19:56

Re: Models by MaNGusT (AR)

Post by Berserk Cyborg » 30 Mar 2019, 17:48

I found another shadow related bug while I was testing your patch (however, it isn't caused by your patch). Stretched structures have broken shadows that look similar to what MaNGusT posted earlier. Other than that, everything else looked good with my tests.

At a glance, static shadows are used for some features like buildings, skyscrapers, and oil drums which otherwise suffer the same issue.

User avatar
MaNGusT
Art contributor
Posts: 1039
Joined: 22 Sep 2006, 10:31
Location: Polar region, Russia

Re: Models by MaNGusT (AR)

Post by MaNGusT » 31 Mar 2019, 14:19

Bug body :ninja:
Spoiler:
Image

Jorzi
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1987
Joined: 11 Apr 2010, 00:14

Re: Models by MaNGusT (AR)

Post by Jorzi » 31 Mar 2019, 15:55

Excellent paintjob :) Just the right amount of roughness imo.
ImageImage
-insert deep philosophical statement here-

User avatar
MaNGusT
Art contributor
Posts: 1039
Joined: 22 Sep 2006, 10:31
Location: Polar region, Russia

Re: Models by MaNGusT (AR)

Post by MaNGusT » 31 Mar 2019, 19:20

According to pie.md optional materials directive should be placed after connectors but it's wrong, it works as before and should be placed for every level after LEVEL # directive.
Also, looks like shininess parameter is not working anymore. I don't see difference between value 10 and 128, while it has to be. Shininess controls the spot area of specular effect. The higher the value is, the thinner area will be used.
I need it coz optimal value for my specular maps is ~30. Default value is 10, that makes shine's area very big.
Examples:
Spoiler:
in game it looks even worse( I think partially problem is that we use Phong's light formula, while Blinn-Phong's formula gives much smoother result in cost of little lost of performance.
Image

pastdue
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 13 Aug 2017, 17:44

Re: Models by MaNGusT (AR)

Post by pastdue » 31 Mar 2019, 20:00

MaNGusT wrote:
31 Mar 2019, 19:20
According to pie.md optional materials directive should be placed after connectors but it's wrong, it works as before and should be placed for every level after LEVEL # directive.
Also, looks like shininess parameter is not working anymore. I don't see difference between value 10 and 128, while it has to be. Shininess controls the spot area of specular effect. The higher the value is, the thinner area will be used.
I need it coz optimal value for my specular maps is ~30. Default value is 10, that makes shine's area very big.
It looks like support for the MATERIALS directive was removed many years ago in this commit:
https://github.com/Warzone2100/warzone2 ... ad5c48ccd8

That also seemingly removed support for providing a shininess parameter to the shader.

EDIT: What would be the best way to re-implement support for shininess in the pie files for your purposes?

User avatar
MaNGusT
Art contributor
Posts: 1039
Joined: 22 Sep 2006, 10:31
Location: Polar region, Russia

Re: Models by MaNGusT (AR)

Post by MaNGusT » 31 Mar 2019, 20:49

I really don't know how it could be but it should be editable and optional at least per model or per mesh in ideal.
also, it would be good to return back the emitter(afair it's called so; update: LIGHT_EMISSIVE) parameter of materials to work per mesh(level), coz currently all meshes of a model are rendered in game. it's very useful to be able to make self-illuminated parts of models. ofc fake illumination but... it's better than nothing. :)
Last edited by MaNGusT on 31 Mar 2019, 21:17, edited 2 times in total.
Image

Forgon
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 289
Joined: 07 Dec 2016, 22:23

Re: Models by MaNGusT (AR)

Post by Forgon » 31 Mar 2019, 21:02

pastdue wrote:
31 Mar 2019, 20:00
MaNGusT wrote:
31 Mar 2019, 19:20
According to pie.md optional materials directive should be placed after connectors but it's wrong, it works as before and should be placed for every level after LEVEL # directive.
Also, looks like shininess parameter is not working anymore. I don't see difference between value 10 and 128, while it has to be. Shininess controls the spot area of specular effect. The higher the value is, the thinner area will be used.
I need it coz optimal value for my specular maps is ~30. Default value is 10, that makes shine's area very big.
It looks like support for the MATERIALS directive was removed many years ago in this commit:
https://github.com/Warzone2100/warzone2 ... ad5c48ccd8

That also seemingly removed support for providing a shininess parameter to the shader.

EDIT: What would be the best way to re-implement support for shininess in the pie files for your purposes?
@MaNGusT:
Could you edit the PIE.md file so that its information is correct?

Post Reply