Messages

106

Artwork / Re: MIMIR Telescope/Carrier Animation

« on: January 22, 2008, 12:14:30 am »

It's . . . not quite what I was expecting. Very different from what we discussed, and I don't think it works. The zoom box looks very cheap in this implementation, and it's horribly unclear what's going on with the whole video, which is why I suggested the double pass in the first place.

The camera moving all over the place just makes it all more confusing. At the resolution the video will be playing, I don't think the player would be able to get a clue what it's all about.

Sorry if I seem harsh, but that's what I'm getting away from it.

Regards,
Winter

I don't mind harsh.

Here's what I had in mind for the camera movements. The satellite is controlled by momentum wheels, giving a gyroscopic effect to its movement. The telescope is also computer controlled, with a program that tries to focus on anything unusual. Because it has to react quickly to this sudden object, the gyroscopic effect of the momentum wheels adds a rotation while the camera tries to track the UFO.
The zoomed in version is done after the fact, and stabilized to the initial view.

I'll try to get another version done tonight.

107

Artwork / MIMIR Telescope/Carrier Animation

« on: January 21, 2008, 10:56:29 pm »

It's almost ready, I think.

https://webdisk.ucalgary.ca/~djetowns/public_html/misc_files/UFO_AI/MIMIR_final60001_0425.avi

There are several things I want to fix:

Starfield: Overall I'm happy with the look and feel of the starfield I'm using. There are just some weird streaks that I suspect result from the post processing combined with adjacent pixels. I'll have to find a way to fix that, somehow.

The engine is lit by sunlight. It should stay dark until it lights up to fire.

Jaggy zoom boxes.

The atmosphere in the zoomed version should have a longer falloff. Overall I'm very happy with the look of the atmosphere. (Too bad it turns white as the camera turns away from the planet. I wonder how to fix that.)

There are black borders around stars that can be seen through the atmosphere.

I can also add graphs and charts and a bunch of numbers, to make it look more NASA-sciency.

So. Feedback? Direction? Criticisms?

108

Windows / Re: New User - Gameplay stuttering

« on: January 18, 2008, 04:33:54 am »

I had similar problems with the previous release, and it turned out that the process priority defaulted to 'high.' Try setting it to normal priority. I don't know if the latest release fixed that or not.

109

Design / Re: UGV Control Facility

« on: January 02, 2008, 12:01:07 am »

On the initial discussion, something else to note was that you could only carry 80 items into a mission, and HWPs only accounted for 1 item, versus the equipment loadout of the 4 men it replaced. That was one reason I always took a maximum allotment of them.

I also agree that UGV maintenance and control is sufficiently accomplished by Workshops and Command Centers. There's barely enough room in bases as it is. (Can I mention that invulnerable/unbuildable rock tiles really irk me? ) Data networks and wireless bandwidth will be high enough in 80 years that the UGVs could be reliably controlled halfway across the world, with advanced enough AI and image recognition software that human operators need only be supervisors.

I agree that with the current maps, 12 soldiers is probably the upper limit.

Another idea for transport limits would factor weight in, and/or allow a trade off between UGV mounts/bays and extra fuel capacity. Later transports could have the advantage of allowing a squad full of powered armour troops plus UGVs greater range, which in earlier transports one would need to sacrifice external fuel tanks in order to simply lift off the ground.

110

Artwork / Re: Renders

« on: December 10, 2007, 11:22:28 pm »

I agree with you that it seems off. I figured it had an onboard computer set to focus on and track anything not predicted in the database. I figured it was that or have the carrier be only several dozen pixels large - though that might work neat with artificial zooming showing a grainy picture.

I never would have thought of splitting up the shot into two passes - that should work really well.

Technically, a long exhaust trail means high efficiency, rather than high thrust, but I see what you mean. I've toned it down, and changed the colour to whitish-green. I don't like the idea of the carrier riding on a soft, fluffy green cushion, though, so I'll try to find a balance.

Edit: Okay, rendered out.

https://webdisk.ucalgary.ca/~djetowns/public_html/misc_files/UFO_AI/MIMIR_Jump_Final30001_0850.avi

It's fun when you set something to render overnight, then when you get back you immediately see several things wrong with it. 
-Stars don't move properly for the second 'zoomed in' pass. This is because I used a different method of tracking for the second 'zoomed in' camera. I had to use two cameras because Blender doesn't allow cameras to zoom in far enough.
This is why the carrier's movement seems so erratic - it's actually moving properly, but the stars in the background are what's moving erratically.

-You can barely see anything of the carrier in the first pass. The two ways to fix it are either to zoom in (thus clipping off the Earth to the left) or to move the carrier closer to the Earth.

-The Earth is pure white. For some reason, whenever the camera isn't looking directly at the Earth the atmosphere turns really really bright. I can pan the camera out from the Earth to show that there actually is stuff beneath (and the thing actually orbits the Earth, too), or try to reduce the glare, or just leave it as it is as a stylistic choice showing overexposure. (The Hubble telescope doesn't point anywhere near the Earth, Moon, or Sun to avoid damaging its optics.)

I also haven't added the post-pro zooming effect yet, either. These are just the 'raw' passes (plus compositor post-pro for effects).

111

Artwork / Re: Renders

« on: December 10, 2007, 07:45:55 am »

Actually, cutting the video up into several shots would also cut down on rendering times. You'd only have to re-render parts of animation, and the overall length could also be cut down. I also render to multiple image files - sometimes you'd only have to re-render a matter of frames.

Oh, I'll also plug Blender's sequence editor here for vid-making from existing video/image files. It's capable, plus the only thing it costs is a bit of time to learn.

And the thing's rendering right now. It'll be done in the morning and if it (hopefully! ) looks okay I'll post an xvid of it. A lot of the effects I've wasted time on worked on won't be in the video, namely Earth (plus its atmosphere) and post-processed overexposure.

But it does include shakeycam as applied to a gyroscopically-controlled orbiting telescope.

Edit: Done

Here's the initial draft. https://webdisk.ucalgary.ca/~djetowns/public_html/misc_files/UFO_AI/final_anim10001_0325.avi

There are a few things I'd want to fix. One of the biggest is that the shot passes in front of the moon, but I forgot to turn the moon on. (Oops). I could probably extend the shot of the engines burning for several seconds. I also think the pace is much too fast. And I also meant to have an initial movement of the camera (search mode.)

112

Artwork / Re: Ufopedia tech pictures?

« on: December 10, 2007, 07:32:55 am »

Alternatively, only brighten up the external light a little, but add self-illumination to panels and screens. If you need ideas for detail on the screen, try orbital trajectories, gravity wells, complicated schematics things with telemetry, etc...

Also, personally, I think the antimatter engines are a good start but look too simple. They need texture, and possibly modelled greebles. The green glow could also be brightened. (Or remove the volumetric stuff altogether and put a bright green light inside the mechanism).

113

Artwork / Re: Renders

« on: December 09, 2007, 07:40:01 pm »

Actually, Winter, if you want to be "really" accurate with the turnover, it would take several hours to complete the transition from the Moon to the Earth even at 1g acceleration. In an overly simplified calculation, ignoring gravity and orbital velocities, starting and stopping from zero speed, we get these figures for an Earth-Moon transition.
0.3g: 12 hours
0.5g: 9.3 hours
1g: 6.5 hours
2g: 4.6 hours
4g: 3.3 hours
16g: 1.6 hours
200g: 27 minutes
800g: 14 minutes
10000g: 4 minutes

Sitters' animation falls under the 4-minutes category, but I doubt even the incredible antimatter drives can pump out the bone-liquefying acceleration of 98100m/s^2 .
Of course, the best way to present these would be to cut between different shots of the carriers at different points of their travel.


And in other news: I'm somewhat an idiot. For the simple shot of a space telescope observing a Carrier's in-jump, I had it all set up with planetary atmospheres and overexposure and stuff, wasting time without actually getting any important bits of the animation done. /Thwack Self

114

Artwork / Re: Renders

« on: December 07, 2007, 12:26:01 am »

I've made a better emission map, after understanding more of Sitter's texture files. (There's one with illuminance baked directly in, and a larger one with only base colours.)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/Psawhn/UFO-AI/skin_carier_emit_4096.png

This is about the best I can do to 'recover' the emission source. (Being able to isolate things like these is one reason I have dozens of layers in my source .xcf files.)

But I think these images look much better with self-illuminating bits.

115

Artwork / Re: Renders

« on: December 06, 2007, 07:44:30 pm »

Wait... did I volunteer? Actually, why not? Going at it from the POV of a UFOPedia animation, I can worry less about the more 'realistic' lighting style I plan to use. (Of course, I'll post samples for approval ). Essentially, you can't see stars unless the image is overexposed (http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/raw/casJPGFullS35/N00098077.jpg - some stars are barely visible, but the planet and moon are overexposed - and that's with what little sunlight gets out to Saturn!)

Sitters: I need a mask that basically determines which parts of the texture are self-illuminating or not, so if the carrier goes into shadow then these parts will still be lit up. I can try to extract it myself, but it's always best to use the source files if you have it.

As for the Carrier mission: I had always thought that the mission was using an antimatter-powered human/alien hybrid transport that tries to sneak onto the ship. Either that, or shoot it down with a squadron of antimatter-powered interception craft.
But antimatter-powered missiles are a good idea, too. Much cheaper, much higher payload, less chance of killing valuable pilots, etc...


In other news, I can't wait until Blender 2.46/2.50 comes out. I've been thinking of doing some dogfighting scenes, and the new particles patch would make that so much better.

116

Artwork / Re: Renders

« on: December 06, 2007, 07:14:07 am »

For a shot like that, it would really help if some of the self-lit/emitting parts were actually self-lit. If you had an emit map, would your program allow you to do that? Otherwise, it's definitely improved on the previous image.

Sitters, do you have the emitting parts separated in your source texture files? I've made an emitting matte based on pure colours, but it's inaccurate (see the posted carrier a page or two back).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/Psawhn/UFO-AI/emit_matte.png

117

Artwork / Re: Renders

« on: December 04, 2007, 06:26:07 pm »

Shakeycam works well if it's done well. As much as I love nBSG, and other series that use shakeycam, sometimes it's just too much. It's like they deliberately put the cameraman on a vibrating platform.

What shakeycam tries to emulate is a documentary-style camera, where you only have handheld cameras and no such thing as steadycam, dollys, cranes, etc...

Have a look on the wiki at the research article 'Alien Origins'. If we get to be able to play videos in the UFOpaedia, it would fit perfectly. Wink

We may have to adjust the distances cited in the article to fit, but that's no problem at all.

And having such a video would, I'm sure, convince our coders to implement it . . .

That's where my inspiration came from.

118

Artwork / Re: Renders

« on: December 04, 2007, 08:14:55 am »

Actually, here's a couple tests just separating the 'loudest' pure red, blue, and green colours from the image using Blender's compositing tools. (Typically used for taking out green screens, but seems to work just as well for this)





This is an extreme example - most space scenes have a bit of ambient light, (which might be explained by a nearby planet or moon), plus stars and that . Also, the emitting surfaces were very crudely separated. I could try to spend more time, allowing more accurate areas and softer edges (plus things like the red reflections at the top.)

Still, notice the difference in the dark areas of the ship.  I can't think of the proper words for whatever it bring to an image, but it does do something positive.

119

Artwork / Re: Renders

« on: December 04, 2007, 07:26:27 am »

BTW: here an link to the carrier psawhn, if you also like to play with rendering.
Willem

Thanks a lot! Do you have a version of the texture with the glowing parts isolated? Setting those to be light-emitting (not CPU-sucking radiosity, but just independent of any light sources) would look really cool with realistic dark (or pitch-black) shadows found in space.

Oh, Winter, how partial are you to a sequence that looks more documentary-ish, from a space satellite picking up a flight of carriers jumping into LEO? I was also thinking more along the lines of a BSG-like flash (but different and brighter!) representing a volumetric/spherical wormhole needed to transport larger ships. (I was thinking a capacitor-like buildup would allow the energies needed to open a rift large enough to send the massive carriers through, without needing the immense power requirements that could only be satisfied by the mothership.)

Or maybe I should render one out anyways?

120

Discussion / Re: 2.2 Release: Dead Civilians count?

« on: November 25, 2007, 09:00:38 pm »

I don't think that's quite a good idea, the way the game is set up currently. There are many maps where there is absolutely no way to save some civilians - they are quite out of range of PHALANX soldiers, and the aliens kill them on their first turn.

Obviously this puts the player on a timer, but I thought that's what infection spread is for? Something like this could cause players to chose to abstain from missions simply because of civilian deaths, or (if an abstained mission counts as full civilian deaths) make some games simply impossible to win - there would simply not be enough time to research the bare minimum of techs needed to finish the game before too many civilians die in missions.