Post your screenshots! WIP thread
Created 17 years ago2007-12-16 00:58:58 UTC by
doodle
Created 17 years ago2007-12-16 00:58:58 UTC by
doodle
Posted 9 years ago2015-01-09 03:48:29 UTC
Post #323163
Surely it's just easier to create a large texture that already has the blending you want baked in?
Posted 9 years ago2015-01-09 04:39:58 UTC
Post #323164
14?... That seems like more than should be necessary for that there. Can thou elaborate how you're using them?
With rotation and negative scales, seems like that should only need about... 5. Maybe 7.
With rotation and negative scales, seems like that should only need about... 5. Maybe 7.
Posted 9 years ago2015-01-09 05:43:02 UTC
Post #323165
It probably would be PB if you were only doing this for one map, but I suppose if you ever wanted to build up a large texture library for multiple projects, like perhaps multiple maps across a mod, it might be easier to do it this way, and you could potentially end up with a smaller filesize if you were making large outdoor areas. Like if you had multiple large outdoor areas in the same kind of environment each prebaked texture would probably have to be split into 512x512 squares anyway. This has a set maximum of fourteen textures for any two blended textures, so it might end up being smaller.
In any case the only reason I actually did this was to see if it could be done. I doubt I'll ever actually end up using it in a map.
And the reason it is 14 in this case is because the texture only tiles on opposite edges. Rotation and negative scaling would reduce the number of textures, but it would leave a seam at the edges. You might get away with that depending on the texture though.
Tutorial for CT
The blending can be achieved in Paint.NET by putting each texture on a separate layer, then using the transparency mode of the gradient tool:
Set the primary colour to black, and the secondary to white. Clicking and dragging from left to right on the upper layer causes the left side to be opaque, and the right to be transparent, exposing the layer below.
Example
Lower Layer:
Upper Layer:
Gradient:
Use the cursor position to make sure this is correctly horizontal/vertical and consistent. If you really want to do this method you'll have to do this a few times.
End Result:
Make sure you have each of the textures shown below, then in the map just fit them together like jigsaw pieces:
In any case the only reason I actually did this was to see if it could be done. I doubt I'll ever actually end up using it in a map.
And the reason it is 14 in this case is because the texture only tiles on opposite edges. Rotation and negative scaling would reduce the number of textures, but it would leave a seam at the edges. You might get away with that depending on the texture though.
Tutorial for CT
The blending can be achieved in Paint.NET by putting each texture on a separate layer, then using the transparency mode of the gradient tool:
Example
Lower Layer:
End Result:
Posted 9 years ago2015-01-09 07:32:53 UTC
Post #323166
Is it possible to make a texture that tessellates even when rotated, or would that always look a bit dodgy?
Actually, while we're at it, you know how textures that should fit squarely onto a block always have a sliver of the next loop on the very edges? Is there any way to deal with that short of making the texture scale slightly bigger?
(I'd screenshot what I mean, but it didn't work when I tried once and now I'll not bother unless it's needed.) (It's especially prevalent on gradients where one edge is significantly different in colour to the opposite edge.)
Actually, while we're at it, you know how textures that should fit squarely onto a block always have a sliver of the next loop on the very edges? Is there any way to deal with that short of making the texture scale slightly bigger?
(I'd screenshot what I mean, but it didn't work when I tried once and now I'll not bother unless it's needed.) (It's especially prevalent on gradients where one edge is significantly different in colour to the opposite edge.)
Posted 9 years ago2015-01-09 23:59:07 UTC
Post #323167
I compensated by just scaling up to around 104% and centering it. I had thought of a way to allow this while still scaling seamlessly, but I haven't gotten around to testing it.
Software mode might fix it, iirc it doesn't blend between pixels. If you move far away from it it might start blurring due to mipmapping though.
Also, four way (or even eight way) tiling should be possible, but for textures such as grass I don't have the skills needed to fix seams so I can't really use it. I could test a method later though to see if someone else wants to use it.
[Edit]
I tried picking one edge and duplicating it so it is the same for each edge so that it tiles even when rotated or reversed.
It does work in the sense that there is no discontinuity between the textures, but the edges are very visible if any rotation or reversal is done. Even if they're not, the corners are still noticeable.
Software mode might fix it, iirc it doesn't blend between pixels. If you move far away from it it might start blurring due to mipmapping though.
Also, four way (or even eight way) tiling should be possible, but for textures such as grass I don't have the skills needed to fix seams so I can't really use it. I could test a method later though to see if someone else wants to use it.
[Edit]
I tried picking one edge and duplicating it so it is the same for each edge so that it tiles even when rotated or reversed.
Posted 9 years ago2015-01-11 23:31:15 UTC
Post #323217
@up
there are faces hidden in the picture :@
work in progress...
there are faces hidden in the picture :@
work in progress...
Posted 9 years ago2015-01-11 23:59:43 UTC
Post #323218
Aparture?
Posted 9 years ago2015-01-12 00:50:16 UTC
Post #323223
Ninja doesn't want any lawsuits.
Posted 9 years ago2015-01-12 00:58:41 UTC
Post #323225
What engine is that? That can't be source.
Posted 9 years ago2015-01-12 01:15:56 UTC
Post #323226
Probably a render in Blender.
Posted 9 years ago2015-01-12 01:19:11 UTC
Post #323227
become?
Posted 9 years ago2015-01-12 06:03:13 UTC
Post #323235
It's bauhaus standard practice.
Posted 9 years ago2015-01-12 07:59:00 UTC
Post #323241
What engine is that? That can't be sourcecycles render engine
Posted 9 years ago2015-01-21 16:05:26 UTC
Post #323436
Just wanted to show this project wich I have worked on for... Since I first heard of Half-Life.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/131fs4m5klur2qb/bmn1a10000.bmp?dl=0
More to come when there is more to show.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/131fs4m5klur2qb/bmn1a10000.bmp?dl=0
More to come when there is more to show.
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 07:37:43 UTC
Post #323867
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 09:59:37 UTC
Post #323870
@Orange: Please don't embed bitmap images... Save a jpeg, bitmaps are 10 times larger in size :/
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 10:30:31 UTC
Post #323871
PB i think we are way past the problem of not enough speed or i have bandwidth caps on my connection to care if someone posts bitmaps 
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 10:44:35 UTC
Post #323872
No, "we" aren't even close to being past that problem. Not everyone has access to high-speed Internet, you know. And when the same image can be saved at 200kb instead of 3mb, it damn well should be a jpeg.
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 10:53:32 UTC
Post #323873
Indeed, plus I know several members including myself who browse TWHL from their phones. Mobile data is often still capped and unnecessarily huge filesizes are problematic for that.
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 12:11:25 UTC
Post #323874
I did a quick test out of personal curiosity. A quick export to a .jpg of quality 30 was x75 smaller in filesize, while still having far more than enough quality to be recognizable. Especially given this is a goldsource screenshot, where image quality is far from a necessity. Hell, a smaller picture can make it look better.
On that note, another test using resizing as well, while keeping it where details are still clearly visible, got it down to 4.5 kB, right around x666 smaller.
Now that is mobile-phone-friendly. The TWHL logo is bigger.
On that note, another test using resizing as well, while keeping it where details are still clearly visible, got it down to 4.5 kB, right around x666 smaller.
Now that is mobile-phone-friendly. The TWHL logo is bigger.
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 13:20:57 UTC
Post #323876
Oh yeah there are phones.
The lack of an alpha channel makes me hate jpeg.
PNG anyone ?
The lack of an alpha channel makes me hate jpeg.
PNG anyone ?
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 13:22:40 UTC
Post #323877
PNG is good for computer graphics (logos, screenshots of text and so on), jpeg is good for photos and game screenshots. Bitmap is good for nothing.
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 14:27:13 UTC
Post #323879
I just copied the image directly from my HL directory, put it on my DropBox and pressed "share link". Whas that wrong by me? Have I done anything wrong? 
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 14:34:44 UTC
Post #323880
You just need to take it into an image editing program (even something as basic as MS Paint) and resave it as a JPEG first.
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 14:42:38 UTC
Post #323881
Or people will hate you, loudly.
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 14:58:11 UTC
Post #323883
Hey, bitmap appears to be the standard screenshot format of HL. Not my problem. I'm not a coder.
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 15:04:14 UTC
Post #323884
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 15:07:47 UTC
Post #323885
So what? I Think jpeg existed back in 1998. Why couldn't Valve make it the standard format? I don't get what you are trying to say. I allready knew when HL was released.
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 15:11:10 UTC
Post #323886
JPG / PNG has been internet standard since the beginning of time and everyone in the universe knows that...
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 15:11:52 UTC
Post #323887
So, why isn't Half-Life's standard screenshot format jpeg or png then?
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 15:21:16 UTC
Post #323888
Because the Internet wasn't as big in 1998. I know I certainly didn't have internet access at home.
The screenshot function was mostly for personal use (creating wallpapers and such) and BMP was the best option for quality.
The screenshot function was mostly for personal use (creating wallpapers and such) and BMP was the best option for quality.
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 15:24:33 UTC
Post #323889
Bitmaps are uncompressed - they are a fully accurate representation of the image captured in the game. For promotional purposes such as printing or box art, a high quality bitmap is the best option as a starting point.
As with any destructive process (e.g. image compression) you always want to start with the highest quality - in this case a bitmap.
Further, as an uncompressed format, bitmaps are faster to write than a compressed format which was important on older tech.
These are the same reasons FRAPS records uncompressed video, but you don't upload the 250GB uncompressed video to Youtube; that would be madness. Exactly the same as uploading the 3MB uncompressed image. Neither are fit for web.
You convert them first to suit the medium you're using them in - in the case of web use, that means using a compressed format.
As with any destructive process (e.g. image compression) you always want to start with the highest quality - in this case a bitmap.
Further, as an uncompressed format, bitmaps are faster to write than a compressed format which was important on older tech.
These are the same reasons FRAPS records uncompressed video, but you don't upload the 250GB uncompressed video to Youtube; that would be madness. Exactly the same as uploading the 3MB uncompressed image. Neither are fit for web.
You convert them first to suit the medium you're using them in - in the case of web use, that means using a compressed format.
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 15:26:39 UTC
Post #323890
but you don't upload the 250GB uncompressed video to YoutubeActually nearly did that once by mistake. I think it was going to take a couple of months on my connection...
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 15:38:46 UTC
Post #323891
Speaking of long upload times, I wonder how long these took to upload.
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 15:39:53 UTC
Post #323892
but you don't upload the 250GB uncompressed video to YoutubeWould take me a day, two at the most. I wonder how would youtube servers respond when you hit them with a quarter terrabyte video. Encoding would take forever though.
Why dont we just use PNG, its lossless compression, has that lovely alpha channel and takes way less than a bitmap. Jpeg was good for what it was, time to move on.
Topic derailing is a very fun thing might i add.
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 15:42:50 UTC
Post #323893
There's nothing preventing you from using PNG, rufee. I use PNGs on TWHL all the time, but only when I need to use the alpha channel.
Youtube converts every video to a h.264 file anyway, so the original quarter-terrabyte file would not be retained. It just makes the upload and encode time utterly pointless.
Youtube converts every video to a h.264 file anyway, so the original quarter-terrabyte file would not be retained. It just makes the upload and encode time utterly pointless.
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 15:44:14 UTC
Post #323894
My WIP shots are in another thread...
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 16:01:57 UTC
Post #323897
Iv'e switched from using Jpeg's long ago, i might spit one out by mistake from time to time though.
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 16:20:15 UTC
Post #323900
On topic, I was experimenting with texlights that aren't all one colour.
Bottom screenshot is to make the differences more obvious.
Bottom screenshot is to make the differences more obvious.
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 16:47:59 UTC
Post #323902
So you have one texture generating multiple light colours? How?! 
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 16:53:17 UTC
Post #323904
Trickery. A grid of invisible texlights emitting these colours:
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 17:34:21 UTC
Post #323906
That's really cool, I never thought of using invisible textlights before. That could be really useful for big screens with varying content!
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 18:41:04 UTC
Post #323921
That's so hawt!
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 18:47:41 UTC
Post #323922
I'm surprised you didn't get the "too many light styles on face" error
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 20:35:45 UTC
Post #323924
Isn't that when the lights are individually toggleable?
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 21:59:45 UTC
Post #323933
Probably because nothing was toggling, and they were the only lights in that test map.
I also tried it in an actual map with C1A0_FLIPSIGN5, but the colour variation was too subtle, and the lightmap grid of the surrounding surfaces too large for it to have any noticeable difference.
I also tried it in an actual map with C1A0_FLIPSIGN5, but the colour variation was too subtle, and the lightmap grid of the surrounding surfaces too large for it to have any noticeable difference.
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 22:17:06 UTC
Post #323934
i might be wrong but vluzacns tools might be able to cast light correctly off that first texture in your first screenshot, without any additional invisible stuff
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 22:50:01 UTC
Post #323936
How would that work? You have to put in a particular RGB value into the info_texlights entry for the texture.
[Edit]
Actually, doesn't it have a feature where light bounces are affected by the colour of the texture? That might be what you're thinking of, but I've got no idea how much if at all it's affected by colour variation within the texture itself.
[Edit]
Actually, doesn't it have a feature where light bounces are affected by the colour of the texture? That might be what you're thinking of, but I've got no idea how much if at all it's affected by colour variation within the texture itself.
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 23:50:50 UTC
Post #323937
There's a light_surface entity or something, IIRC. I think it samples colour from the rgb values of the texture. Haven't played around much with it.
Posted 9 years ago2015-02-10 23:52:02 UTC
Post #323938
Actually, doesn't it have a feature where light bounces are affected by the colour of the texture?Yeah, that's a Vluzacn's compile tool feature. It's pretty sweet
You must be logged in to post a response.