Author Topic: HT: Suggestions that can SIGNIFICANTLY increase AH2 quality (Read 1904 times)

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #30 on:** May 30, 2004, 06:43:00 PM »

Thank you sir. That is what I was looking for.

TDeacon · « **Reply #31 on:** May 30, 2004, 07:25:09 PM »

My 2 cents:

1) Both Kweassa's and Nopoop's efforts are definately a step in the right direction. Thanks guys!!

2) However, although lightening the tiles improves things, I think the plane needs to be a bit better lit as well. Look at the wing in the Kweassa's 2nd image in the first post, it looks a bit dark.

3) So, I think that the overall lighting / reflection of light from ground needs to somehow be increased, if possible, in addition to lightening the tiles.

4) Agree with the comments about visiblility over water, as I have mentioned in several other posts. With my 52-year-old eyesight, I just can't see to shoot when target is over water in AH2; AH1 was ok.

nopoop · « **Reply #32 on:** May 30, 2004, 08:07:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TDeacon
However, although lightening the tiles improves things, I think the plane needs to be a bit better lit as well. Look at the wing in the Kweassa's 2nd image in the first post, it looks a bit dark.

So, I think that the overall lighting / reflection of light from ground needs to somehow be increased, if possible, in addition to lightening the tiles.

Agree with the comments about visiblility over water, as I have mentioned in several other posts. With my 52-year-old eyesight, I just can't see to shoot when target is over water in AH2; AH1 was ok.

I may be at a disadvantage here. I can't see in the game unless my gamma is at 1.4 minimum. Over water that's almost not enough. I agree with Deacon lighting, reflection of light etc. It should be correct without messing with it. And from this side it's way to dark/dreary.

My disadvantage is this. EVEN with a posted screen shot as with Greebo's beautiful hog....it's too dark for me. My desktop is at 1.2 gamma and that's on the light side.

Is it dark to everyone else ?? I can't adjust my Sony to adobe specs as it doesn't have the brightness adjustable setting.

From my moniter THIS is the correct brightness for the screenshot.

Does it look correct to you guys, or is it too light ??

I haven't a reference point to "know" I'm looking at what everyone else is.

Drives me crazy, but not as crazy of this skin/photoshop interface thing that is making it difficult to the point of not putting in the time..

BTW Deacon I'll be a year older than you on Thursday

Mugzeee · « **Reply #33 on:** May 30, 2004, 08:26:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by nopoop

Is it dark to everyone else ?? I can't adjust my Sony to adobe specs as it doesn't have the brightness adjustable setting.

From my moniter THIS is the correct brightness for the screenshot.

Does it look correct to you guys, or is it too light ??

I haven't a reference point to "know" I'm looking at what everyone else is.

The sky color in the upper right looks turquoise green.

Chortle · « **Reply #34 on:** May 30, 2004, 10:08:38 PM »

Excellent work guys, looks great.

214thCavalier · « **Reply #35 on:** May 31, 2004, 05:05:07 AM »

Nopoop, the picture you prefer works for me as well apart from the sky but i suspect you get that as well.

The F4U and the sea however looks good.

Mugzeee · « **Reply #36 on:** May 31, 2004, 09:39:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by nopoop
As as experiment taking two screenshots and bringing them up in photoshop I did two things only ( besides making them smaller).

screenshots taken at gamma 1.4.

First I clicked "auto levels".

Then I desaturated both to -30.

This is what you get. No olive drab, brown is introduced in it's absense. The sky looks right, the colors look more natural. I like it.

nopoop. The picture looks real nice. However i have a question/comment.
I have built a few maps, and i dont recall a way to disect your Screen Shot into the proper .tex folder of the terrain editor. Are you just trying to illustrate the way the colors/brightness/contrast should look? One that a tile maker can use as examples?Or am i missing something?

nopoop · « **Reply #37 on:** May 31, 2004, 10:04:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mugzeee
Are you just trying to illustrate the way the colors/brightness/contrast should look?

That's all I was attempting to do. It "looks" good. How to duplicate the "look" using tiles, ambient lighting, contrast, color and such I don't have a clue.

I wanted to see if using photoshop I could duplicate the change from clicking "auto levels" by doing in manually so I'd have some numbers ie: hue, saturation, color balance, contrast etc. To work with. So far I haven't been able to.

If I had numbers in photoshop, then maybe it could be transposed over to ingame parameters.

No luck so far.

The other thing to remember which is very important. The terrain tiles being used now probably won't be around long. I think of them as place holders. Aren't you able to use your own colors when making tiles ?? Will they be 1024 tiles ??

Can you imagine what our terrain builders could come up with using 1024 tiles ??

If so the only real thing that needs work is the ambient lighting.

Mugzeee · « **Reply #38 on:** May 31, 2004, 10:32:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by nopoop
That's all I was attempting to do. It "looks" good. How to duplicate the "look" using tiles, ambient lighting, contrast, color and such I don't have a clue.

I wanted to see if using photoshop I could duplicate the change from clicking "auto levels" by doing in manually so I'd have some numbers ie: hue, saturation, color balance, contrast etc. To work with. So far I haven't been able to.

If I had numbers in photoshop, then maybe it could be transposed over to ingame parameters.

No luck so far.

The other thing to remember which is very important. The terrain tiles being used now probably won't be around long. I think of them as place holders. Aren't you able to use your own colors when making tiles ?? Will they be 1024 tiles ??

Can you imagine what our terrain builders could come up with using 1024 tiles ??

If so the only real thing that needs work is the ambient lighting.

256x256 8 bit as i remember And the actual folder is the "texsrc" folder.

vorticon · « **Reply #39 on:** May 31, 2004, 04:28:14 PM »

the only problem with nopoops and kweassas pics is that the colours are completly wonky...i aint never seen grass that colour of green...

214thCavalier · « **Reply #40 on:** May 31, 2004, 05:36:37 PM »

Unfortunately the IL2 shot at top of thread is still the only one showing realisticly coloured grass.

Creamo · « **Reply #41 on:** May 31, 2004, 07:14:47 PM »

Ya, but still, besides the flamethrowers, Il-2's ground is the only thing I just can't get used to in an otherwise brilliant sim. It's like WWII Fighters, and adds a bit of cartoonish feel to it. Not sure why, I just don't like it. It seems 'fat' in the graphics dept, not that that explains it any better.

I like poops ground. Actually, it looks terrific.

Arlo · « **Reply #42 on:** May 31, 2004, 07:19:25 PM »

Same here. That IL2 shot looks like astroturf to me.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #43 on:** May 31, 2004, 07:28:55 PM »

You grow up on a farm and haul hay for 20 years you see every color of grass there is. I've seen grass every shade from near pure blue to green (every shade), to yellow, to brown. None of what I've seen from nopoop or Kweassa looks far enough off to be unacceptable.

That one shot from nopoop with the turquoise sky is off in sky color, but I notice it didn't show up when posted again.

Since both HiTech and Pyro were here today I was hoping they'd weigh in on what's been posted here, but maybe they're waiting for more or there's some stuff we don't know about yet.

Ecliptik · « **Reply #44 on:** May 31, 2004, 10:44:29 PM »

Nopoop's pictures are a little bit too sepia: They look at lot like the oversaturated colour photos from WWII. However, they are quite a bit more vibrant than AHII currently, and real-life colours are very vibrant. There are faults with both sets of pictures (Nopoop's sepia tones and Kweassa's slight neon-glow effect), but both are definitive steps forward.