Development > Artwork

New Rocket Launcher

<< < (4/19) > >>

Origin:
I personally like to bake an ambient occlusion map for the model no matter what, makes for a good base for textures but doesnt stand out too much.


Not gonna comment on color stuf, I dont know :P

MCR:
Looks really cool. The old rocket-launcher has a rather ugly texture. I can imagine this one looking much better in-game.

MCR:
Regarding the textures & our existing models:

Our current weapon (& other) models are all .md2 files.

Our current weapons models have just their (mostly painted) textures applied. Afaik none of them has even a normalmap nor do they have roughness or specularity maps (yet), but many of the currently used models already have glowmaps.

So if you want to help us out with any of those or want to exchange any of the models I suggest you extract base/models.pk3 (a simple zip) & have a look @ the models/weapons folder to see where work has to be done for yourself.

Imho we do not need too much detail for the weapons, but afaik the engine even supports different model LODs, so you could provide several (afair up to 3) .md2s for the weapons also if you like.

Again, great job, thanx a lot for helping, 'Flying Steel' !

Hertzila:
Regarding the color/pattern, one neat choice would be to change it according to what the soldier wears (but I'm fairly sure the code doesn't support that).

I don't know if my opinion will carry any weight but I think a non-reflective black would be the best choice. Barring that, the glossy black.

Flying Steel:
@Origin

Indeed, AO bakes are very useful. You can use them for high quality self shadowing, to see where unconnected geometry intersects in UV space, and for scorch or grit effects. I just finished a final quality AO bake for this model earlier today.

Out of curiosity, what's your strategy distributing your AO bakes across the diffuse and specular textures?


@MCR

Thanks. I think I'll look for more direction from the design folks directly though when it comes to replacing more of the legacy weapons' graphics, to cut through some of the red tape of the approval process.

As for levels of detail, this model is only 500 tris, which is the max the wiki said weapons should be, and LoD's don't make sense for a model that will at most add 16,000 tris to a battlescape scene, which is nothing. So the polycount for weapons would need to be raised for there to be any sense in making LoDs, imo.


@Hertzilla

My guess is dynamic camo on weapons probably isn't supported either.

A non-reflective, matte look would basically make the normal, specular and roughness maps pointless. It could be done, but it wouldn't enhance the visual quality over the model it is replacing. Plus, looking at some real world references, it wouldn't be any more accurate or realistic, I don't think.

But if there is no disagreement put forward, I think I'll go with your second choice of glossy black. :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page