Cliff Face quandary was Re: just a quick question...

[cumandgetit]

berg posted a screen of his new radar tower in the v.3.0 new models thread

viewtopic.php?f=33&p=71547

the cliff rocks looked pretty good but I do not know anything about them.

[macuser]

Berg is part of WZGM (which he started) it is warzone graphics mods at http://www.wzgm.net/joomla/ you can download it there

[alto1234]

IIRC, with the old terrain you can set both texture and terrain type per tile independently, while the new terrain determines texture by terrain type. Not sure if there's a benefit of using only one, maybe it could be changed to use the texture instead.

if the new terrain determines texture by terrain type alone and doesn't respect individual texture and terrain type per tile, then many old maps will become obsolete as will editworld.

[macuser]

i don't think it does. but this is a mod made by berg - not the new terrain render

[stiv]

but this is a mod made by berg - not the new terrain render

It is using the new terrain renderer from WZ trunk.

[macuser]

well but does the new terrain determine texture by terrain type alone and not respect individual texture and terrain type per tile or is that just berg's mod that does that?

[lav_coyote25]

IIRC, with the old terrain you can set both texture and terrain type per tile independently, while the new terrain determines texture by terrain type. Not sure if there's a benefit of using only one, maybe it could be changed to use the texture instead.

if the new terrain determines texture by terrain type alone and doesn't respect individual texture and terrain type per tile, then many old maps will become obsolete as will editworld.

we dont want to be screwing with that... thankyou....

[Rman Virgil]

berg posted a screen of his new radar tower in the v.3.0 new models thread

viewtopic.php?f=33&p=71547

the cliff rocks looked pretty good but I do not know anything about them.

I definitely am seeing what you mean and why you left the question for Berg in the v.3.0 Model Thread.

That is the new terrain renderer for sure but those cliff-rock formations are UN-like any I've seen of the 2 new texture sets - thus your question.... "What up there ?".

I'm loving these and they give me hope of NOT having to go back to making cliff like Pumpkin did in the Campaign maps - fine for 11 years ago but super boring to me in 2010... plus with flaME maps running in v.2.2.x my cliff making is way more interesting and much like what I'm seeing in Berg's screen cap.

If Berg doesn't get to answering in the viewtopic.php?f=33&p=71547 thread, then I'll PM him. This being a more practical route for now than downloading his files and ripping 'em apart to figure it out.

BTW - these pups remind me some of those pics I posted of Cliff-Rock Formations done as 3D Map Feature Models earlier on here in this thread - a complex & very time consuming process to make and get in-game to be sure (in v.2.2.x ... have no idea if it would be viable for v.3.0).

- Regards, RV
.

[Rman Virgil]

.

Nexus tower texture and tcmask



Whats up with that ?

<---- these cliff textures and models run in trunk, wzgm release and now the new branch pre-3.0 they use the standard method trunk uses (gerard's textures I believe) The texture shown here will copy and paste straight into trunk without much effort.

Regards Berg

That simple. Hmmmm.

Since flaME at present does not support WYSIWYG for v.3.0 textures / New Terrain Renderer one possible relief strategy would be to create a sampling (lets say 12) of various Cliff-Rock Formations using the present stock flaME matrix, run the test map in v.3.0, using Berg's substituted Cliff Texture, and see how the sampling formations look..... and go from there.

- Regards, RV

.

[Rman Virgil]

.

................

<---- these cliff textures and models run in trunk, wzgm release and now the new branch pre-3.0 they use the standard method trunk uses (gerard's textures I believe) The texture shown here will copy and paste straight into trunk without much effort.

Regards Berg

That simple. Hmmmm.

Since flaME at present does not support WYSIWYG for v.3.0 textures / New Terrain Renderer one possible relief strategy would be to create a sampling (lets say 12) of various Cliff-Rock Formations using the present stock flaME matrix, run the test map in v.3.0, using Berg's substituted Cliff Texture, and see how the sampling formations look..... and go from there.

Berg kindly posted his cliff texture file in the thread viewtopic.php?f=33&t=4951&p=71785#p71785 for those interested in running like experiments.

- RV

.

[Buginator]

Still tinkering with this...

Better ? Worse ?


before

...and after (really this time )

[Buginator]

P.S, it would be lots easier if I had a map that I don't have to move to a specific location... it is a PITA trying to line everything up, and it still don't turn out correct.

[cumandgetit]

Still tinkering with this...

Better ? Worse ?

wz2100-20101022_234005-Sk-Mountain.jpg

wz2100-20101022_235008-Sk-Mountain.jpg

better.

P.S, it would be lots easier if I had a map that I don't have to move to a specific location... it is a PITA trying to line everything up, and it still don't turn out correct.

what kind of test map exactly would be of more practical use here ?

[NoQ]

Certainly better!! (The top one, i mean )

Well, my concerns are mostly about this map for Arizona, this one for Urban and this one for Rockies. All of them have complicated mountains, and turned out to be hardly playable with the new renderer. I think they have most of the test cases you'll need (:

I also think that apart from being too blurry, Rocky tileset mountains with current Mangust's textures have one more problem: cliffs and gravel have a very similar texture, they look very alike. Probably just embedding Gerard's cliffs into Mangust's texture set could be really helpful. I think i've told it before. Something needs to be done here as well.

I also wonder how those snowy cliffs work with the new renderer. Wouldn't they be confused with "just snow" terrain (which is passable)?

P.S. Buginator, I'm really thankful for your efforts on this. Moving to a new renderer is good (well, it's great!), necessary and inevitable, but it should be free of any obvious regressions. And i feel as if artwork is something much more painful for an opensource project than coding (i'm saying it merely as an observer, watching how games like openttd and freeciv evolve, trying to replace original artwork with free graphic and sound sets )

[Buginator]

Certainly better!! (The top one, i mean )

Well, my concerns are mostly about this map for Arizona, this one for Urban and this one for Rockies. All of them have complicated mountains, and turned out to be hardly playable with the new renderer. I think they have most of the test cases you'll need (:

I also think that apart from being too blurry, Rocky tileset mountains with current Mangust's textures have one more problem: cliffs and gravel have a very similar texture, they look very alike. Probably just embedding Gerard's cliffs into Mangust's texture set could be really helpful. I think i've told it before. Something needs to be done here as well.

I also wonder how those snowy cliffs work with the new renderer. Wouldn't they be confused with "just snow" terrain (which is passable)?

P.S. Buginator, I'm really thankful for your efforts on this. Moving to a new renderer is good (well, it's great!), necessary and inevitable, but it should be free of any obvious regressions. And i feel as if artwork is something much more painful for an opensource project than coding (i'm saying it merely as an observer, watching how games like openttd and freeciv evolve, trying to replace original artwork with free graphic and sound sets )

Whoops, I meant to do a before /after, but it turned into a after / before ..

For a map, all that needs to be done is cut & copy from another map that has these issues, so I don't have to scroll the window to do before / after comparisons.