I gave that a try and it seems pretty amazing to me... the terrain looks way better and the blending is much more as I would expect. I definitely think this should be the default.
For some reason the terrain painting tools are a bit broken for me... the mouse movement seems inverted which is weird. Probably not related to your work though.
I do find the distance texture still lacks any sort of detail at all though once you get past the 100 range the detail texture is set to and increasing the detail distance just makes it look obviously tiled. I would like to see a bit of detail, but not as heavy as the up close... perhaps we could have a fall off setting on the detail texture?
So say your detail texture is now at 100 distance with falloff being 0 (default, same as it is now). If you set it to 200 with falloff 0.5 then from 0-100 it will be at full power and then get gradually less powerful until reaching zero contribution at 200 range. That way the land 180 away will have a subtle amount of detail rather than just looking blurry.
[New Texture Blending] Flip-flopping on the flip-flop
-
Monkeychops
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 11:53 am
Why thank you!I gave that a try and it seems pretty amazing to me... the terrain looks way better and the blending is much more as I would expect. I definitely think this should be the default.
For some reason the terrain painting tools are a bit broken for me... the mouse movement seems inverted which is weird. Probably not related to your work though.
I do find the distance texture still lacks any sort of detail at all though once you get past the 100 range the detail texture is set to and increasing the detail distance just makes it look obviously tiled. I would like to see a bit of detail, but not as heavy as the up close... perhaps we could have a fall off setting on the detail texture?
So say your detail texture is now at 100 distance with falloff being 0 (default, same as it is now). If you set it to 200 with falloff 0.5 then from 0-100 it will be at full power and then get gradually less powerful until reaching zero contribution at 200 range. That way the land 180 away will have a subtle amount of detail rather than just looking blurry.
When you say that the terrain looks way better etc, are you then talking about some of the detail changes I've made, or solely the height-based blending method described here? Odd with the terrain tools, I don't get that here.
The fall-off thing is definetly something which could be investigated in order to improve the results in the future, but isn't that issue exactly what the macro-maps sought to solve?
He has probably a case of confirmation bias, the terrain does not look much better to me, just the blending is different.
The colors of the detail texture are just more like the original texture, probably exactly like that.
Only problem with that, you created some new big problems:
1.The texture in the distance looks different than close.
2.You see the repeating pattern in the texture, that was previously blended out by adding the base texture into the detail texture, as it is supposed to be.
3.No more variation in close up in the detail texture as the base texture does not blend in.
Yes, the diffuse texture now looks like it is intended to be, but at the cost of breaking the whole terrain system.
However there is a point to it as it does improve the looks close up a bit.
Can you make a slider where you can determine how much the basetex will influence the detail texture? One for brightness and one for saturation. That might be an improvement, but otherwise you created too many new problems.
Here is an example:
Close up: http://duion.com/files/temp/bugs/lkpj1.png
And all close textures gone: http://duion.com/files/temp/bugs/lkpj2.png
The colors of the detail texture are just more like the original texture, probably exactly like that.
Only problem with that, you created some new big problems:
1.The texture in the distance looks different than close.
2.You see the repeating pattern in the texture, that was previously blended out by adding the base texture into the detail texture, as it is supposed to be.
3.No more variation in close up in the detail texture as the base texture does not blend in.
Yes, the diffuse texture now looks like it is intended to be, but at the cost of breaking the whole terrain system.
However there is a point to it as it does improve the looks close up a bit.
Can you make a slider where you can determine how much the basetex will influence the detail texture? One for brightness and one for saturation. That might be an improvement, but otherwise you created too many new problems.
Here is an example:
Close up: http://duion.com/files/temp/bugs/lkpj1.png
And all close textures gone: http://duion.com/files/temp/bugs/lkpj2.png
Alright, so as I mentioned, was gunna see about drafting up a new set of textures that are in a modern resolution so we can all work from the same base and try and figure out the best approach to the workflow. Weither that means we use this new method, the old method, or some compromise version. The important part is coming to a agreement, and then ensuring it's very well documented and exampled.
And the old terrains get replaced because they're sad and old.
So here's the textures for the moment: 5 materials, Dirt, ForestGround(darker dirt with some sticks and stuff), Grass, Rock and Sand. All 2048x.
Link.
Each have an albedo color, normal map with height-imbedded alpha channel, and a composite map for the PBR stuffs. I'll do some testing around with them tonight and document my findings with Lukas' new demo build, and Duion mentioned he'd take a look at producing the highpass versions of them that work with the current method.
With that, we can have a good baseline to test everything in both methods and dial in on the best, most flexible workflow.
And the old terrains get replaced because they're sad and old.
So here's the textures for the moment: 5 materials, Dirt, ForestGround(darker dirt with some sticks and stuff), Grass, Rock and Sand. All 2048x.
Link.
Each have an albedo color, normal map with height-imbedded alpha channel, and a composite map for the PBR stuffs. I'll do some testing around with them tonight and document my findings with Lukas' new demo build, and Duion mentioned he'd take a look at producing the highpass versions of them that work with the current method.
With that, we can have a good baseline to test everything in both methods and dial in on the best, most flexible workflow.
Yeah that is good idea, the current art work for the example terrain is pretty ordinary.
I don't want to harp on about it but i vote for the terrain to copy the CryEngine method which is pretty much along the lines of the current system, here is a very short example i recorded to try and show a few different features of it.
I don't want to harp on about it but i vote for the terrain to copy the CryEngine method which is pretty much along the lines of the current system, here is a very short example i recorded to try and show a few different features of it.
Don't let my dodgy video sway you, check levels created by pro's not developers lol, the results speak for themselves . It does have macro map support http://docs.cryengine.com/display/SDKDO ... +Cryengine ... anyway don't wanna turn this into a put T3D vs engine X, totally not my intention. I only posted the vid to show how they do the terrain which is very similar to how T3D does it, there are a few small differences i think would be handy to add.Terrain in Cry Engine looks exactly the same to me, except that it is uglier since they do not have a macro layer.
That looks complicated, they have like 11 texture maps.
Maybe that they have a macro map, but I cannot see from the page how it works.
I made levels with Cry Engine before years ago and they did not have a macro layer, nor did I ever see that in any other engine or game.
But I wonder what a blending map does...
Torque could need some better method of blending between the layers, since often you can see that the texture is painted on squares.
Maybe that they have a macro map, but I cannot see from the page how it works.
I made levels with Cry Engine before years ago and they did not have a macro layer, nor did I ever see that in any other engine or game.
But I wonder what a blending map does...
Torque could need some better method of blending between the layers, since often you can see that the texture is painted on squares.
TBH i wouldn't have a clue when it was added but it's clearly documented in their engine docs, i haven't really followed the engine that closely and don't really know it all, i only downloaded it to take a quick look at the terrain while this discussion in here was taking place.That looks complicated, they have like 11 texture maps.
Maybe that they have a macro map, but I cannot see from the page how it works.
I made levels with Cry Engine before years ago and they did not have a macro layer, nor did I ever see that in any other engine or game.
But I wonder what a blending map does...
Torque could need some better method of blending between the layers, since often you can see that the texture is painted on squares.
@
Timmy it seems like it's mostly the same, except that filter-color they use when you paint it on there. I'd be interested in learning more about that, as it seems like it gives a great deal of control on how the painted texture looks like, and how "wrong" it looks compared to the original texture.
I think we could gain a lot by learning from that feature.
I think we could gain a lot by learning from that feature.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests
