works great for me, cant wait to see more
« Reply #90 on: June 11, 2009, 02:52:51 PM »
This forum is now archived!
- Welcome to the archive!
News:
The 3DRad community can be found at classdev.net.
- 3D Rad - Free 3D game maker - Forum >
- General Category >
- 3D Rad - Artist's Discussion Forum >
- Killer Arcade Racer in the works!!
Author
Topic: Killer Arcade Racer in the works!! (Read 66566 times)
« Reply #91 on: June 11, 2009, 03:43:24 PM »
the bloom is what is messing it up. i get about 2 frames, then it gets stuck. same with the last one
they look great from the pictures though
so what does UV mapping do?
they look great from the pictures though
so what does UV mapping do?
Currently using 7.22
« Reply #92 on: June 11, 2009, 04:22:08 PM »
UV mapping is a way of texturing a model by mapping a model's vertices to a 2D map to....if clandestine's screens are any indication, he uses a grid type color mapping method... explained here -
http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread?t=11462
Im not a big fan of this method, which may explain why my models look like ass...
http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread?t=11462
Im not a big fan of this method, which may explain why my models look like ass...
« Reply #93 on: June 11, 2009, 04:28:14 PM »
Quote
the bloom is what is messing it up. i get about 2 frames, then it gets stuck. same with the last onethats strange... a friend of mine said the same happened to him... why the bloom messes it up?
i have 3 objects in the project: the model, the camChase and the HUD Sprite...
.... hmmm...
might it be that the Moleboxing is breaking it?
he uses a grid type color mapping method...its a simple texture, i use it to hunt distortion, flipping, etc
« Reply #94 on: June 11, 2009, 04:31:20 PM »
too much stuffs lol, i like simply doing the ctrl+a and painting all with 1 color in sketchup then fill the rest in with other things.
i use sketchup, so that's why my models probably look worse. look at my attempt of a car(based off of a saleen s7)
in sketchup
in 3d rad
and my attempt of a dodge charger
in sketchup
in 3d rad
compared to Clandestine'e on a balance scale where goodness= heavy, it woulda thrown my cars to space
i use sketchup, so that's why my models probably look worse. look at my attempt of a car(based off of a saleen s7)
in sketchup
in 3d rad
and my attempt of a dodge charger
in sketchup
in 3d rad
compared to Clandestine'e on a balance scale where goodness= heavy, it woulda thrown my cars to space
Currently using 7.22
« Reply #95 on: June 11, 2009, 04:39:46 PM »
Quotethe bloom is what is messing it up. i get about 2 frames, then it gets stuck. same with the last onethats strange... a friend of mine said the same happened to him... why the bloom messes it up?
i have 3 objects in the project: the model, the camChase and the HUD Sprite...
.... hmmm...
might it be that the Moleboxing is breaking it?he uses a grid type color mapping method...its a simple texture, i use it to hunt distortion, flipping, etc
OK, removed the bloom and Moleboxed again, please if you had problems before check it out again
check it out in realtime 3D Rad here
« Reply #96 on: June 11, 2009, 04:46:07 PM »
I dont know if it was a molebox issue, worked great for me.... didnt notice the bloom effect, come to mention it....
I was having a lot of shader problems until v 6.35 came out... im 99% sure that any problem would be caused by GPU/shader conflicts.
Dart- Your models are not too bad. I see a definite style emerging... The renders look pretty good, but as far as in game goes... I suggest messing around with mapping techniques, you are on the right track...
I was having a lot of shader problems until v 6.35 came out... im 99% sure that any problem would be caused by GPU/shader conflicts.
Dart- Your models are not too bad. I see a definite style emerging... The renders look pretty good, but as far as in game goes... I suggest messing around with mapping techniques, you are on the right track...
« Reply #97 on: June 11, 2009, 05:17:08 PM »
works much better now and it looks awesome
bloom always causes me problems. even if i have that shader version 4 or whatever in my graphics card. maybe its cause it's a mobile nvidia
Thanks, although in sketchup, all you can really do is paint the triangles/surfaces and there's really nothing for normal mapping or uv mapping,etc. the only thing that i found useful was project images so you can texture a terrain from an image.
one good thing about not being able to model advanced things, is to purposely make classic graphic models. i recently made one that looks like something from F-Zero
still doesnt really compare to clandestine's work though
bloom always causes me problems. even if i have that shader version 4 or whatever in my graphics card. maybe its cause it's a mobile nvidia
Thanks, although in sketchup, all you can really do is paint the triangles/surfaces and there's really nothing for normal mapping or uv mapping,etc. the only thing that i found useful was project images so you can texture a terrain from an image.
one good thing about not being able to model advanced things, is to purposely make classic graphic models. i recently made one that looks like something from F-Zero
still doesnt really compare to clandestine's work though
Currently using 7.22
« Reply #98 on: June 11, 2009, 05:29:18 PM »
UV mapping is really not that hard...Its just sometimes time-consuming with the more complex models 
Its all about applying the correct "projection" to the corresponding pieces and laying them out efficiently
Its all about applying the correct "projection" to the corresponding pieces and laying them out efficiently « Reply #99 on: June 11, 2009, 06:17:12 PM »
Blender is great in that regard, because you dont have to worry about distortion with unwrapping the UV's you can rotate the model the way you want, highlight the polys you want to unwrap, then project them from that view....
« Reply #100 on: June 11, 2009, 10:28:38 PM »
I didn't know 3drad supported soft shadows- or does it? In the sample of the Trabi, is the shadow static or will it work in real time (moving)?
« Reply #101 on: June 12, 2009, 12:47:48 AM »
PS: @ digitalsoapbox, sorry i totally missed your PM...if you still need help with UVing in SILO, i'll share it here for everybody.
I think I had asked specifically about the track UV mapping, which other people would probably like to hear if they plan on using silo - which they should! I can't believe how easy it is to model in compared to what I'm used to (maya + zbrush). Totally replaced my modeling pipeline for my personal AND commercial stuff with it.
« Reply #102 on: June 12, 2009, 04:19:07 AM »
@clandestine,
please keep in mind that bloom requires a lot of video memory, especially if display mode is hi-res. Users with video cards that have 256 Mb of memeory or less should be able to play bloom effects by setting diaply mode to 1024x768 or less.
Your demos use maximized windowed mode which, in most cases, depending on their Windows desktop settings, results in a rendering window much bigger than 1024x768.
please keep in mind that bloom requires a lot of video memory, especially if display mode is hi-res. Users with video cards that have 256 Mb of memeory or less should be able to play bloom effects by setting diaply mode to 1024x768 or less.
Your demos use maximized windowed mode which, in most cases, depending on their Windows desktop settings, results in a rendering window much bigger than 1024x768.
« Reply #103 on: June 12, 2009, 04:28:01 AM »
@clandestine,
please keep in mind that bloom requires a lot of video memory, especially if display mode is hi-res. Users with video cards that have 256 Mb of memeory or less should be able to play bloom effects by setting diaply mode to 1024x768 or less.
Your demos use maximized windowed mode which, in most cases, depending on their Windows desktop settings, results in a rendering window much bigger than 1024x768.
Thanks for the explanation... i tried it on my DELL inspiron laptop and the framerate was practically nonexistent... 2~3 frames and everything stops, then i removed the bloom and everything moves perfectly... i see now...
« Reply #104 on: June 12, 2009, 01:16:39 PM »
@clandestine,
please keep in mind that bloom requires a lot of video memory, especially if display mode is hi-res. Users with video cards that have 256 Mb of memeory or less should be able to play bloom effects by setting diaply mode to 1024x768 or less.
Your demos use maximized windowed mode which, in most cases, depending on their Windows desktop settings, results in a rendering window much bigger than 1024x768.
Fernando, do you have any information you can provide on the amount of video memory required to enable bloom at higher resolutions? I haven't run into any issues with it yet myself, but I'd like to make sure people don't have an issue when they try to run my project on something less than a workstation. Testing will help with that obviously but any technical info would be extremely helpful.