[project1dev] Re: Scale
- From: Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:47:56 -0700
Wow, that really is impressive. That gives artists and builders so
much more freedom it's crazy. I don't even know how one would go
about creating that system!
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Alan Wolfe<alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Oh and something really interesting to note!
>
> The geniouses at ID software (carmack etc) have their current engine working
> where artists submit huge high resolution textures and way high polycount
> models, and the engine scales each down to only what is needed and
> automatically gets rid of the waste.
>
> it's a neat system, but ID software is like the best of the best so it's no
> surprise :P
>
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Well the scaling issues should all but disapear because the artists are
>> going to make models to scale and building won't require making things the
>> right size for the most part. This is important too because an artist
>> makes a model to be a specific size. If a builder make it bigger than that,
>> it's going to look bad like you saw with the stretched textures.
>>
>> The solution to the problem you hit is just to have the artists make
>> objects the right size and have the builders not have to worry about it.
>>
>> the idea of being able to place a bunch of models down in specific
>> intervals is a good idea, its probably something we'll need a lot. This can
>> be done via some script magic currently but i'll put it on the list as a
>> wish item for later (:
>>
>> something you might like, is if you type "clone" in the console when you
>> have something selected, it will clone your selection so that when you
>> click, it will place an object rotated and scaled the exact same place where
>> you click. that should help with this point you bring up too.
>>
>> In general we want to only use as many verts and texture resolution as we
>> need.
>>
>> It's true that if we give a higher res texture to an object and extra
>> verts then we can scale it up and it will still look good, but with the
>> artists making objects of the right size for the game, we won't ever be
>> scaling things past where they should be so i think the artists should keep
>> on doin like they have, just use the lowest res texture needed to make an
>> object look good at the scale they want it.
>>
>> make sense?
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Not to keep begging for more editor features....
>>>
>>> But if we have setscale combined with being able to see exact
>>> dimensions of a model when you click on it, then we could have setsize
>>> and keep placing models to that exact dimension set. And then
>>> combined with the snapto command, we could actually keep placing
>>> models every set amount of space, and they would be exactly aligned.
>>>
>>> I don't know if this makes full sense but it did when I was typing it :x
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Chris Riccobono<crysalim@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>> > When I was building I found it easier when a model had a good, high
>>> > res texture. They can't be too big cuz of cost, of course, but if the
>>> > texture is unrepeating and pretty, you can almost scale the model any
>>> > way you want and not have to worry.
>>> >
>>> > When making floors, walls, and ceilings, it seems better to have lower
>>> > res and lower size models. This helps when tiling and aligning
>>> > things. For example, the first version of the voidmap had some issues
>>> > because the main asteroid was very large and oddly shaped. I had to
>>> > almost scale it to a pancake on the Z axis because of that, and even
>>> > then there were still problems with being able to walk under and
>>> > around things placed on it.
>>> >
>>> > Oddly shaped models are very pretty as decoration though, like the
>>> > fortune teller tent props, the rock piles in cavemap, and the new
>>> > trees in voidmap.
>>> >
>>> > Hey Alan, maybe we can get around the iffyness of scaling in the
>>> > editor by being able to set a value of default scale in the console.
>>> > Maybe something like "setscale 0.5 0.5 0.5", so then everything you
>>> > place will already have a scale of that value.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Alan Wolfe<alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> Yeah, just to re-iterate, scaling in the editor is just like what
>>> >> happens in
>>> >> real life if you stretch an object.
>>> >>
>>> >> the texture stretches too and will look distorted if you stretch it
>>> >> too
>>> >> much, or stretch it too far on one axis vs the others
>>> >>
>>> >> the idea is that when we make models we want to make it so 10 units =
>>> >> 1
>>> >> meter so that when a builder places an object in the level that they
>>> >> dont
>>> >> have to scale it, since the artist has an idea of how big the object
>>> >> should
>>> >> be in the world, and scaling takes extra time when building.
>>> >>
>>> >> thats the ideal, but of course it may take us quite a few iterations
>>> >> before
>>> >> we are all on the same page about how to make that happen (:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Nick Klotz <roracsenshi@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Textures get stretched and compressed at the same ratio you scale.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:45 AM, katie cook <ktmcook@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Hey Guys,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> When you scale a model in the level editor, does it scale the
>>> >>>> textures
>>> >>>> proportionately? OR does it stretch them as you scale?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>
>
>
Other related posts:
