Game Editing > 3D Modeling & Content Creation

Is projection painting available in Blender 2.5?

<< < (3/4) > >>

kat:
Although 'stencils' and 'overlays' are typically used in heightmap based terrain, that's only because that's pretty much the only 'cheap' way to make a terrain in game and why it's used so extensively, anything else is just far too 'expensive' to implement (see further comments below).

Looking at the screen shot you linked to, I'd say the terrain is based on a simple heightmap deformation of a mesh (in 3D Studio Max or whatever 3D application they used for the asset), there's nothing present in the *structure* to suggest anything to the contrary really as the features of the landscape are all pretty much Z-axis adjustments.

The blending could be the result of either good UVW maps and/or good texture blending, neither of which is mutually inclusive or exclusive - you can get that result with or without either component and not necessary exclusively to a modelled mesh either. You will have noticed as well that the entire scape appears to be textured using the same limited palette, just two textures for the most part. So irrespective of the underlying structure they're still deliberately limiting the resources to make the game run in a manageable fashion (even if the terrain were uniquely modelled). This is actually a key and critical component of the decision making process, and again why it's important to pick and engine first (unless you're coding your own).

You mention Fallout/Oblivion/UT above, they're all games that make extensive use of heightmap based terrain (and 3D assets to disguise the result where appropriate). However, they have relatively complex terrain editors that allow the user to generate some pretty complex texture mixes. But it's still heightmapped - z-axis adjustments.

As of right now there's only one technology (that I know of) that can do what you're thinking to any degree and that's idTech's MegaTexture. This allows the user to model a mesh (any way they please) and then paint that 'uniquely' in the editing tools with textures that are then 'baked' out as a single unique 'map'. The downside is the end result, it's a massive file, hundreds of megabytes. And that's your main problem with doing anything with any form of 'baked' (included) uniqueness; it uses a lot of file space.

Incidentally you wont get any argument from me not to do what you're thinking, but it is advisable to think about it within the context of the technology limitations you have at hand. Building a terrain from modelled sections is all-well-and-good only if the engine has a way of dealing with the poly-count. In other words, if you're building a world using models instead of a terrain made in an editor (you're swapping out the terrain for models), you have to think about how the game treats inbuilt terrain versus models because they're not the same thing - terrain engines typically have some **** mesh optimisation built into them that may not translate that well to model culling techniques.

So again, this is why it's critical to nail down what game engine you're going to use and then work within the context of that. I can't really say much more than that I'm afraid; if you're wondering how certain engines do "X", "Y" or "Z", then that's a slightly different discussion compared to how you would do it in your own project  ;)

Oh almost forgot... those 'dropped on' assets are usually more noticeable not because of texture mixes, but as a result of mesh smoothing differences. If you look at the scene again, you note that the ground has a 'bright' smoothing angle (it's well lit), whereas the bottom half of the dropped mesh has a dark one (probably because they've not split the groups properly). So there again you see, you have another problem to think about, smooth groups over several terrain sections, get that wrong and it won't matter how your textures are blended!

Wolfsong:

--- Quote from: kat on July 11, 2011, 05:50:16 PM ---Looking at the screen shot you linked to, I'd say the terrain is based on a simple heightmap deformation of a mesh (in 3D Studio Max or whatever 3D application they used for the asset), there's nothing present in the *structure* to suggest anything to the contrary really as the features of the landscape are all pretty much Z-axis adjustments.
--- End quote ---

Well, that's only a single screenshot. I chose that shot because it was a quick and easy example of the overall technique.

I can say for certain, it's not a basic heightmap system with z-axis manipulation. For one, on a heightmap, you cannot get 90 degree, perfectly vertical surfaces, there's always going to be a slight slope in there between each vertex on the terrain mesh. The points in the heightmap cannot be moved horizontally (along x or y if z is up). A portion of the cliff in that shot is at *least* perfectly vertical, if not silghtly leaning outward, in which case it's creating a concave angle, something else a traditional height-map can not do.

I could take the time and go in-game to take screenshots of specific locations that really demonstrate this if it would be helpful in illustrating what I'm getting at. There are actual overhangs, tunnels, tiny cracks and crevasses in the ground, etc... and they all blend perfectly smoothly into the terrain surrounding them. There is no seam line where one meets the other. It's seamless in all cases. I have never, in any game or game engine I've ever used (especially from the time frame XI was developed in, ~2000-2002) with heightmap tech that could seamlessly achieve what they do in that game.

Also, understand that while you have a screenshot to look at, I've basically "lived" in the world for ~7 years, and have passed through, looked at and analyzed these environments more times than I can even begin to count.

Suffice to say, they are definitely not using height-maps in FFXI. Further, there is very little - pretty much zero - doubt that they are using tiles. They use a similar technique in FFXIV where it's *very* obvious because they do it on such a large scale and with very distinct and recognizable geometry being re-used, sometimes in close proximity to each other.


--- Quote from: kat on July 11, 2011, 05:50:16 PM ---The blending could be the result of either good UVW maps and/or good texture blending, neither of which is mutually inclusive or exclusive - you can get that result with or without either component and not necessary exclusively to a modelled mesh either. You will have noticed as well that the entire scape appears to be textured using the same limited palette, just two textures for the most part. So irrespective of the underlying structure they're still deliberately limiting the resources to make the game run in a manageable fashion (even if the terrain were uniquely modelled). This is actually a key and critical component of the decision making process, and again why it's important to pick and engine first (unless you're coding your own)
--- End quote ---

All the environments in XI are limited to between about 2-4 textures, due to hardware restrictions at the time, specifically on the PS2 which the game was originally built around. Its PC counter-part is basically running on a "PS2 Emulator", for all intents and purposes, and there are various quirks in the way the game is configured that reflects that.


--- Quote from: kat on July 11, 2011, 05:50:16 PM ---You mention Fallout/Oblivion/UT above, they're all games that make extensive use of heightmap based terrain (and 3D assets to disguise the result where appropriate). However, they have relatively complex terrain editors that allow the user to generate some pretty complex texture mixes. But it's still heightmapped - z-axis adjustments.
--- End quote ---

Indeed... but it's still based around height-maps and 3D props placed on top of it. The obvious seam where one meets the other, and how they seldom "mesh" well texture-wise is one thing that really turns me off to using them.


--- Quote from: kat on July 11, 2011, 05:50:16 PM ---As of right now there's only one technology (that I know of) that can do what you're thinking to any degree and that's idTech's MegaTexture. This allows the user to model a mesh (any way they please) and then paint that 'uniquely' in the editing tools with textures that are then 'baked' out as a single unique 'map'. The downside is the end result, it's a massive file, hundreds of megabytes. And that's your main problem with doing anything with any form of 'baked' (included) uniqueness; it uses a lot of file space.
--- End quote ---

Not at all. That would be to say that the Dungeon Siege games, all based on pre-modeled 3D tiles would require mega-texture tech. Or that Neverwinter Nights 1 would require that. Or that any other game based on 3D tiled geometry would. Or FFXI. Or FFXIV.

It is definitely possible and do-able.

I understand and appreciate your conclusion. However, it seems to be based on the assumption that FFXI's maps are made up of heightmaps with z-axis only modification. Again, that's not the case.


--- Quote from: kat on July 11, 2011, 05:50:16 PM ---Incidentally you wont get any argument from me not to do what you're thinking, but it is advisable to think about it within the context of the technology limitations you have at hand. Building a terrain from modelled sections is all-well-and-good only if the engine has a way of dealing with the poly-count. In other words, if you're building a world using models instead of a terrain made in an editor (you're swapping out the terrain for models), you have to think about how the game treats inbuilt terrain versus models because they're not the same thing - terrain engines typically have some **** mesh optimisation built into them that may not translate that well to model culling techniques.

Oh almost forgot... those 'dropped on' assets are usually more noticeable not because of texture mixes, but as a result of mesh smoothing differences. If you look at the scene again, you note that the ground has a 'bright' smoothing angle (it's well lit), whereas the bottom half of the dropped mesh has a dark one (probably because they've not split the groups properly). So there again you see, you have another problem to think about, smooth groups over several terrain sections, get that wrong and it won't matter how your textures are blended!

--- End quote ---

Not really. Again, you're basing that conclusion on a single screen-shot. The lighting definitely helps. No question. However, you also can see a clear seam-line where the texture on the ground intersects the texture on a cliff wall, etc... You can tell where props are because they do not mesh smoothly into each other.  Even with completely flat lighting and no shadows, I could tell the difference.

If I come across as somewhat "snarky".. I don't mean to. I just want to emphasize that my conclusion about how FFXI handles its environments is not really in contention here. It's clearly tile-based. No question.


Anyhoo... lunch break is over. Back to work!

kat:
If you're asking "how can I build a terrain that looks good", you've got much of what you need above. If you're asking "how did they do that", then that's another question and discussion entirely. If FF takes your fancy then you need to dig into the code to find out what they did, have you actually looked at the assets in 3D Studio Max or whatever it was they used and not just wandered around the game? If not, it's simply observational speculation (because there are dozens of ways to do certain things) that doesn't help you answer your specific problem; how are you going to do it.

The point is... without choosing an engine this is all merely a sophistic and academic discussion. So "yes" you can model your terrain any way you like, "yes" you can texture it uniquely or not, and "yes" to whatever abstract process one might want to add during or after the fact. But... and this is the central point you're dancing around... without choosing an engine you are not actually getting anywhere with it. Choose your tech then work to it's limitations.

ratty redemption [RIP]:
i might be wrong but it sounds like the technique wolfsong was talking about is what some people call 'projection painting' here is a youtube search on the subject, seems to cover both 2.4x and 2.5x

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=blender+3d+projection+painting&aq=f

personally i'm sticking with 2.49b for the time being as i don't have time yet to learn the new interface, but i would be interested to hear what you guys think of the 2.5x implemention of this?

kat:
Yep that's it. Looks like it has had a massive make over. Doesn't look as if it can be used over several meshes in one go though (everyone seems to be doing heads with it!) so it might mean having to duplicate and join a set together beforehand, that will then just automatically overwrite any texture assignments.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page