Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Custom Skins => Topic started by: Vraciu on March 18, 2017, 11:04:31 PM
-
So, I'm revising my old skins to give myself a break from bashing my head into the monitor on these two D Ponies of mine...
Can anyone tell by looking here what I've done differently between these two and what needs to be adjusted? I always take my screenshots without shadows so you can see the details. Not even sure why I mention that...
Any way...
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=385955.0;attach=27097)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=385955.0;attach=27099)
-
Which is(are) the before pic(s)? Why are there 2 different planes?
-
Which is(are) the before pic(s)? Why are there 2 different planes?
They are different skins. I used different techniques with each trying to see how the maps behave.
-
Does the skin viewer care if shadows are enabled or disabled in the game?
-
First, guessing games are annoying.
Second, your not giving us a clear baseline. Read up on the scientific method and the necessity of constants and controls. There is nothing constant across these 3 pictures other than the 3D model. Pick only one skin and only one way of showing it, either in game or in the skin viewer.
Does the skin viewer care if shadows are enabled or disabled in the game?
No idea about the skin viewer, but the film viewer will always uses the current game settings you used when playing.
-
First, guessing games are annoying.
Second, your not giving us a clear baseline. Read up on the scientific method and the necessity of constants and controls. There is nothing constant across these 3 pictures other than the 3D model. Pick only one skin and only one way of showing it, either in game or in the skin viewer.
No idea about the skin viewer, but the film viewer will always uses the current game settings you used when playing.
I'm not trying to compare identical skins. I wanted input on them as they are--in contrast to one another. (I'm not gonna' revise one or both only to have to go back and undo it. Some changes in one cannot be undone on the top skin. I want to be sure it's the right call before converting the second one.)
One is bluer...uses lighter shades of gray on the spec and e maps. They use different base layer mottling, too, among other things.
I was hoping that was somewhat obvious so I wouldn't have to bias the feedback.
I have a Master's Degree. I'm well aware of the scientific method. :) It isn't possible here, unfortunately, nor would it help now any more than it has in the other thread where I'm as lost as I was when I started. :headscratch:
I just want to know which one looks better--if that's possible--and what needs tweaking.
I figured as much on the film viewer. I keep forgetting to turn shadows back on. I disable them when playing. They flicker and stutter too much on my system to bother with. As a result my forgetfulness means my skin snapshots sometimes don't have shadows. Facepalm.
Doesn't matter any way. As soon as Hitech sees these he will have the motivation he needs to revise the B object model. :D
-
I like the darker gray and metal weathering in pic 1 and I like the paint weathering in the last one. It looks like your wings in pic 3 are too glossy based on the highlight on the inner leading edge.
-
I like the darker gray and metal weathering in pic 1 and I like the paint weathering in the last one. It looks like your wings in pic 3 are too glossy based on the highlight on the inner leading edge.
I thought for SURE you were gonna say not glossy enough.
I feel like that Muppet who can't get the song right.
At 0:40 - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RrJnzBFzEEY
I tend toward the darker also. Glad you concur. That idea came from something you said. Glad it worked somewhat.
-
Okay...this is becoming a fool's errand.
In some shots with the higher specularity level these skins look like they have a gel coating. Was I not criticized on my P-51C for this very issue?
On another it is "not picking up much specularity". Was I not "corrected" on that issue, also?
I think my original spec level looked better than any of these on the red nose. I may have needed some tweaking to the POWER map but the SPEC map that was called "gray paint" looked more realistic than any of these as it struck a balance--and did not have a gel coating.
What am I missing here? Pump up the spec and turn down the power? Turn down both?
:bhead :bhead :bhead
I am in no way bashing Cactus, either. That guy forgot more about skinning than I'll *EVER* know. :salute
First the gray then the gel. Note how much specularity it is *NOT* catching despite the brightness of the map. Also note the squaring effect caused by the Normal Map converter. This is a big issue that detracts/distracts from an excellent bit of artwork.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=385955.0;attach=27135)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=385955.0;attach=27129)
Now we have the gel coating... I pumped my specularity up to try and accommodate what I thought Hitech was asking for. The Default has the same problem, albeit partly mitigated by color tone (I think any way).
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=385955.0;attach=27131)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=385955.0;attach=27133)
The bottom two shots clearly show the gel effect that comes with pumping up the specularity.
Now let's go back to my modified Red Nose which is what started this whole deal... THIS DOES NOT have the gel effect and looks better to my eye for UNPOLISHED, UNPAINTED, possibly tarnished aluminum. I need to tweak the COLORING some but I don't think specularity is the issue. Certainly if it is then it is worth it to avoid the gelatinous look.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=385906.0;attach=27056)
Also, my rivet details are easily noticed but not overpowered by the Normal Map which turns them into squares and rectangles.
-
Try throwing the maps I put up in that directory as see what it looks like.
-
Try throwing the maps I put up in that directory as see what it looks like.
The diffuse maps?
-
What we called "gray paint" was the end result of all the maps, not just the _S map.
As for the default Pony, the gel coat look is very much apparent and I believe is the result of the original _S map being copied to the _E or _P maps as well. This skin was originally an AH2 skin and converted by HTC. I downloaded the default P-51D and there are no _E or _P maps in the folder. I'd limit comparisons to the default skin to baked-in effects and detailing from here on out. The baked-in details are what makes the default look good, not the spec maps beyond general AH2 abilities.
-
Also, turn on your shadows and reflections for screenshots. It really does make a difference in spotting and correcting flaws.
-
What we called "gray paint" was the end result of all the maps, not just the _S map.
No, the "gray paint" was the original version. We adjusted it based on your input to add some blue to the hue. Then Skuzzy said it was "not picking up much specularity" so I increased that. Now it looks like I flew it through paraffin.
What needs to be adjusted to kill the gel look?
As for the default Pony, the gel coat look is very much apparent and I believe is the result of the original _S map being copied to the _E or _P maps as well. This skin was originally an AH2 skin and converted by HTC. I downloaded the default P-51D and there are no _E or _P maps in the folder. I'd limit comparisons to the default skin to baked-in effects and detailing from here on out. The baked-in details are what makes the default look good, not the spec maps beyond general AH2 abilities.
1) The Default is widely considered to be the creme de la creme of Mustangs in the game. If it meets the standards being a converted AH2 skin then I don't see the problem with Horse's Itch, especially after Skuzzy's adjustments. I also don't think the shine on the Red Nose (QP-J) was "off". I think even you said so (though I could be wrong).
2) The issues with the normal map shown in the default are endemic to every skin in the game, including the B-29 Skuzzy was kind enough to create for us to show the effects of the maps. (I wish he would pin that thread.)
Ultimately the changes I made to the NMF belly specularity on QP-J had a deleterious effect on the appearance of it overall. If it did not come close to being worthy before I've since taken ten steps backwards.
So what to do?
-
Try throwing the maps I put up in that directory as see what it looks like.
Fencer, you want me to put them in *MY* directory not the default, correct?
-
No the Enviro, Spec and Power BMPs I uploaded in your other thread.
Yes, put them in for Horse's Itch and see what it looks like. I am interested in seeing if you get that shiny aspect with them.
-
No, the "gray paint" was the original version. We adjusted it based on your input to add some blue to the hue. Then Skuzzy said it was "not picking up much specularity" so I increased that. Now it looks like I flew it through paraffin.
What needs to be adjusted to kill the gel look? The _P map. metal areas need to be black on it.
1) The Default is widely considered to be the creme de la creme of Mustangs in the game. I agree with it being the best Mustang skin - but the spec files keep it from being perfect. If it meets the standards being a converted AH2 skin then I don't see the problem with Horse's Itch, especially after Skuzzy's adjustments. I also don't think the shine on the Red Nose (QP-J) was "off". I think even you said so (though I could be wrong). I said it could do with some desaturation, but it does look acceptable to my eye like it is.
2) The issues with the normal map shown in the default are endemic to every skin in the game, including the B-29 Skuzzy was kind enough to create for us to show the effects of the maps. (I wish he would pin that thread.)Very few skins made it through the conversion perfectly. And those that did were fully painted schemes.
Ultimately the changes I made to the NMF belly specularity on QP-J had a deleterious effect on the appearance of it overall. If it did not come close to being worthy before I've since taken ten steps backwards.
So what to do? Just jeep swimming.
-
No the Enviro, Spec and Power BMPs I uploaded in your other thread.
Yes, put them in for Horse's Itch and see what it looks like. I am interested in seeing if you get that shiny aspect with them.
Ok. Will do.
For clarity... The skin I am wrestling with the most is that 4th FG one because of the metal belly. Hitech and Skuzzy didn't like the shine. Too dull is how I took it.
-
I didn't say YOU said it was off. Skuzzy did. Hitech did.
Keep swimming. Lol. :)
-
I've got my work cut out for me on this one.
Gotta test Fencer's maps. Adjust mine with black like Devil said. Then study Skuzzy's, Greebo's (thanks for the email), Fencer's, and Devil's maps...
I think the light bulb 💡 is about to come on....dim though it may turn out to be.
Thanks everyone. :salute
-
Okay guys.
1) I took cues from all the maps I have (Skuzzy's, Devil's, Greebo's, and Fencer's).
2) I incorporated some of Bustr's comments on panel lines.
3) I took in every word that was offered in commentary by Hitech, Skuzzy, Lyric1, all the above named people, and others not listed here.
Let me know if this is anywhere near close to right. There are a few things left to clean up and move around (paint chips, normal mapping, etc.) but I'm worried about the overall look.
<S>
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=385955.0;attach=27147)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=385955.0;attach=27149)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=385955.0;attach=27151)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=385955.0;attach=27153)
The red somehow doesn't sit right with me though...
-
The OD looks good, but the panel lines from the normal map look overdone on the wings over the puttied panel lines. Is this Fencer's normal map, perhaps?
I think you need to add more weathering to the underside. Oil, dirt, and general grime - anything to break up the monochrome look of the large metal panels.
Another thing that's been bugging me is the black rectangles you have for the radiator and oil cooler vents. Take a good look at Cactus' default for some insight on using gradients to mimic these recessed areas.
The red is too bright - looks like a cherry Popsicle. :devil
How do you like the red tailband on this 109?
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/Aces%20High/Jg1%20G6%202_zpsx4iumsmx.png~original) (http://s241.photobucket.com/user/DropkickYankees/media/Aces%20High/Jg1%20G6%202_zpsx4iumsmx.png.html)
-
The OD looks good, but the panel lines from the normal map look overdone on the wings over the puttied panel lines. Is this Fencer's normal map, perhaps?
That's my original normal map prior to all these changes. I will be doing it over again once I get everything settled. I agree with you they're too heavy.
I think you need to add more weathering to the underside. Oil, dirt, and general grime - anything to break up the monochrome look of the large metal panels.
I also need to add some paint chips on the OD belly that are in the photo. Good catch and reminder.
Another thing that's been bugging me is the black rectangles you have for the radiator and oil cooler vents. Take a good look at Cactus' default for some insight on using gradients to mimic these recessed areas.
They ARE gradiated. I used Cactus' to tweak mine and they actually got worse. The problem I'm having is they turn charcoal gray in shadow and look like hell. I can't figure out what's causing them to flare up.
Here's how they were before I adjusted them.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=385955.0;attach=27155)
The red is too bright - looks like a cherry Popsicle. :devil
LOL And I've toned it down since we talked, too. :bhead :headscratch: :joystick: :furious :O
How do you like the red tailband on this 109?
Not bad. I think I need to land somewhere in between yours and mine based on the photo I am seeing (which hints at being fairly bright). Desaturate more?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=385906.0;attach=27018)
All things considered we've made a lot of progress in only a couple of days wouldn't you say?
-
I knocked off another six percent from the red. Obviously the cowl lines are screwed now but I will wait to adjust them until after we land on the right color.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=385955.0;attach=27157)
-
Red looks a bit better there. Try darkening it some.
The tail band is RGB 154,57,47
As for the gradient, are you making it black to transparent or black to white. Another tip for gradients: always make the layer stronger than you want and then lower the layer opacity to make it blend.
-
Red looks a bit better there. Try darkening it some.
The tail band is RGB 154,57,47
As for the gradient, are you making it black to transparent or black to white. Another tip for gradients: always make the layer stronger than you want and then lower the layer opacity to make it blend.
Black to dark gray.
-
To add to what Devil said about the underside grime here is a belly shot of a NMF P-51D. Look at all the dirt stains around the gun ports, behind the gear legs and tailwheel bay and around the oil and rad exit flaps. Also there are oil streaks being bent around the lower scoop on the lower wings. ou can also see a tone mismatch between gear doors and the wing.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=385955.0;attach=27159)
-
To add to what Devil said about the underside grime here is a belly shot of a NMF P-51D. Look at all the dirt stains around the gun ports, behind the gear legs and tailwheel bay and around the oil and rad exit flaps. Also there are oil streaks being bent around the lower scoop on the lower wings. ou can also see a tone mismatch between gear doors and the wing.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=385955.0;attach=27159)
I have the tone mismatch already built in. I can bump it up some.
Let me work on the other stuff. I have ZERO skill here.
-
Black to dark gray.
There's your problem. you're trying to replicate a simple shadow so just work from black to transparent.
Greebo's pic is a great example that shows just how dirty they could get. Replicate this level of weathering as best you can, then reduce the layer opacity of the weathering layers to a more moderate level.
-
Something else looks odd to me - the OD green completely wrapping under the fuselage. I know you are basing this on the fact that the tailwheel door is green, but I just don't see somebody sliding under the plane to paint the bottom. Also, it looks like there are lighter patches on the fuselage below where the flaps sits when raised and also aft of the tailwheel. If I were doing this scheme, I'd paint the OD down the sides aft of the flaps and only as far down as the tailwheel doors.
-
Something else looks odd to me - the OD green completely wrapping under the fuselage. I know you are basing this on the fact that the tailwheel door is green, but I just don't see somebody sliding under the plane to paint the bottom. Also, it looks like there are lighter patches on the fuselage below where the flaps sits when raised and also aft of the tailwheel. If I were doing this scheme, I'd paint the OD down the sides aft of the flaps and only as far down as the tailwheel doors.
The only way that would work is if they just painted the doors because they're already open and are there to paint. I had some beautiful feathering that I've now destroyed to do it this way. Thank goodness I have no intentions of submitting this any time soon. :bhead
I didn't like it at first either, but it has grown on me. Sources are not definitive so I will just have to think about it. I will work my way back around to that issue once I get everything else... Still gotta' nail down this red...
-
There's your problem. you're trying to replicate a simple shadow so just work from black to transparent.
Better?
-
Red looks a bit better there. Try darkening it some.
The tail band is RGB 154,57,47
I can't seem to get GIMP to change the color the way I want. I go in and set the color levels but nothing changes. I went with a darkening instead. I'm hoping this is better. Cowl lines got wiped out a bit as expected.
-
Follow this path in GIMP: Colors->Map->Color Exchange
Have the original color you want to change selected as your foreground color so the tool can automatically pick it up.
Inside the tool window the original color will have 6 sliders under it: one each for the red, green, and blue values of the selected color and a threshold for each value. Moving the threshold slider right opens the allowable variation off the original color to still be changed.
The new color has 3 sliders for setting the RGB for the new color. There is also an eyedropper tool for grabbing any color on your screen.
The outlet gradients look better, but you should reduce the opacity of them by at least 50%. They're still too dark. Set it so that you can just barely see the first line of pixels in the gradient.
-
I'm working on my all-NMF skins and am wondering if removing the skin mottling and panel gradients from the spec map is required or not. Does it harm the look to keep them?
If so then I need to go wipe it off the spec maps.
-
Keep them in. The gradients will add depth to the shapes. and the mottle is a type of weathering, you want it both on your diffuse map and the spec maps.
-
Arbitrarily changing the specular, on materials and coatings, which are identical, will get a skin rejected. Just FYI.
-
Arbitrarily changing the specular, on materials and coatings, which are identical, will get a skin rejected. Just FYI.
Well, that's good to know but my question isn't about that exactly. I'm not wanting to arbitrarily change something at random. If have a metal panel that has mottled and gradient finish does it need to be a solid color on the spec map?
I take it from the previous comment that leaving these effects in is the way to go.
-
Keep them in. The gradients will add depth to the shapes. and the mottle is a type of weathering, you want it both on your diffuse map and the spec maps.
Got it. Thanks.
-
I need to be more clear, you do not want the shading gradients on the spec maps. You do want them on the Normal map, but you will need to change them to different ones to mimic the shape and not the shadow from it.
-
I want them on the NORMAL map?
-
Regarding Spec Maps. Let's say my metal Mustang has different panel shades. . . Are these all the same color on the Spec Maps or do I allow the variations in shading to remain?
-
I want them on the NORMAL map?
You want the shadow gradients on the normal map. But don't just reuse the one from the diffuse map. You need to represent the shape on the normal map not the shadow.
Regarding Spec Maps. Let's say my metal Mustang has different panel shades. . . Are these all the same color on the Spec Maps or do I allow the variations in shading to remain?
You could do that. Might look really cool. I imagine the visual difference seen in reference pictures is partially due to variances in individual panel specularity.
But be consistent across your spec maps. I'd make the darker panels to shine more and be both more reflective and focused. Remember that aluminium dulls and tarnishes to lighter shades. Just don't overdo the effect.
-
I think Skuzzy is saying that if all the bare metal panels are made of the same material, i.e. aluminium, then they should be the same base shade on the spec, power and environment maps, excluding weathering effects. I'd add that if there are some metal panels made of heat proof metal or armour plate then these might have a different finish and be shaded differently on the maps. Making individual aluminium panels darker or lighter on these maps so they reflect light differently to each other would help the illusion of the skin being made of a patchwork of metal panels but doing this is likely to get your skin rejected. Making the panels different colours on the diffuse map is OK because they plainly were different shades in RL (different gauge and alloys etc).
-
Spot on Greebo.
If you want to create the uneven specular of a metal which is wavy or distorted, then you do that in the normal map.
-
Spot on Greebo.
If you want to create the uneven specular of a metal which is wavy or distorted, then you do that in the normal map.
I am not talking about wavy panels. I'm talking about different shades of aluminum and the mottled appearance of same. This is about material composition/specularity/color not shape.
See what I mean?
Also, perhaps someone can help me but panel waves on the normal map are creating random squares around rivets not waves or dimples. It looks odd. The screenshots of the default I posted show this. I believe Devil posted some from his skin conversions.
-
I have a theory that the squares are limited only to shallow indented areas being represented by the normal map. I can get nice subtle bumps but not divots.
What I need to test is making raised rivets to see just how the system handles them. If raised rivets look good but recessed ones bad, then my theory would be confirmed.
-
I think Skuzzy is saying that if all the bare metal panels are made of the same material, i.e. aluminium, then they should be the same base shade on the spec, power and environment maps, excluding weathering effects. I'd add that if there are some metal panels made of heat proof metal or armour plate then these might have a different finish and be shaded differently on the maps. Making individual aluminium panels darker or lighter on these maps so they reflect light differently to each other would help the illusion of the skin being made of a patchwork of metal panels but doing this is likely to get your skin rejected. Making the panels different colours on the diffuse map is OK because they plainly were different shades in RL (different gauge and alloys etc).
Here's the ubiquitous photo that people reference for metal composition.
(http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/history/images/p-51_mustang_hero_med_01_1280x436.jpg)
Is it more effective treating the different panel colors the same by making them all the same shade of gray in the specular map or should I allow the variations to remain?
It seems the consensus is to convert them a single color in the spec maps. That's what Devil's 109 has.
-
There will be some artifacts, in the normal map, due to texture compression. It is something we have on the list.
-
There will be some artifacts, in the normal map, due to texture compression. It is something we have on the list.
Is that what is causing the squares with the divots?
-
Is that what is causing the squares with the divots?
In all likelihood.
-
Spot on Greebo.
If you want to create the uneven specular of a metal which is wavy or distorted, then you do that in the normal map.
I think I'm getting mixed up. The normal map replaced the bump map, correct? And its function is to alter the reflection of light to simulate variations in surface height, such as dimples around rivets, recessed areas, deformations in fabric with ribs underneath, etc?
I wouldn't think that all aluminum is created equally or have identical specularity. For example, an aluminum panel with a grease stain on it. The section of the panel with the grease stain would exhibit lower specularity than the clean section of the panel - even though it is made from the same material.
In other words, weathering (oxidation), grime, exhaust soot buildup - they would each alter the specularity of different areas of the same panel they contaminate, wouldn't they? Or would these contaminated sections of the same panel constitute different materials for the purposes of specularity?
-
I think I'm getting mixed up. The normal map replaced the bump map, correct? And its function is to alter the reflection of light to simulate variations in surface height, such as dimples around rivets, recessed areas, deformations in fabric with ribs underneath, etc?
I wouldn't think that all aluminum is created equally or have identical specularity. For example, an aluminum panel with a grease stain on it. The section of the panel with the grease stain would exhibit lower specularity than the clean section of the panel - even though it is made from the same material.
In other words, weathering (oxidation), grime, exhaust soot buildup - they would each alter the specularity of different areas of the same panel they contaminate, wouldn't they? Or would these contaminated sections of the same panel constitute different materials for the purposes of specularity?
Yes oboe, but that also means your diffuse will reflect the differences as well. I am sure there is the rare case where the diffuse is constant and the specular might need to be changed, but that would be the exception, rather than the rule.
-
Yes oboe, but that also means your diffuse will reflect the differences as well. I am sure there is the rare case where the diffuse is constant and the specular might need to be changed, but that would be the exception, rather than the rule.
I think I need a picture to make sure I'm understanding what I've asked and what you're answering. Here's the default specular map file for the P-51D:
(http://i.imgur.com/JwBoCrL.png)
If I look at the wing underside for example, even though its all made of the same material (aluminum), I see all sorts of variation in shades - light for rivet heads, dark for gun muzzle stains, even the hint of a bump mapping effect to show the depressions in areas where the rivets attach to the wing ribs. You can also really see this effect well on the horizontal stabilizers. When I look closely at the 3 signal lamp lenses on the lower left wing tip, I can even see shade variations to simulate reflections from the curved glass of the lense. But the lense glass is all one material, so should are you saying it needs to be all the same shade?
Or looking at the screw heads on the fuselage side where the wing fillet is depicted - you can see the light-dark shading (shadow/glare) which depicts the local deformation of the metal by the screwhead. Now, I would expect this to also be built into the normal map - but are you saying this technique is not allowed in spec maps?
I also see white panel lines, which give the edge of the panel higher specularity than the rest and thus simulate the glare effect from the panel's edge - but the panel edge and the panel surface are the same material, so I thought I understood you to say they should have the same specularity shade.
I hope I'm just misunderstanding. But the way I interpreted what you said would cause a skin submitted with spec map similar to this one to be rejected...
-
That's how I took it as well. :headscratch:
-
The default P-51D spec map looks to have been grey-scaled from the diffuse and then had the painted areas crudely blacked out. It is not a very good job as only some of the paintwork has been blacked out, the stuff on the nose was missed. I suspect this may have been done when specular maps were first introduced into AH2 and Waffle, Superfly and the Skinner Team were rushing to create these maps for all the default skins in the game.
If that map was submitted now it would almost certainly be rejected for the issues Oboe and I have mentioned. With new skins in AH3 it seems HTC are clamping down on issues that would have got by in AH2. So ignore what the default skin looks like if it dates from AH2, many of those are not up to the standards required in AH3.
-
Greebo is on a roll. Spot on.
I'll also add, we have been replacing default skins with better skins, as they come along. Not been in a big rush to do so, as it requires a lot of time from Waffle and HiTech to get a default skin replaced.
-
Anyone willing to explain why it would be rejected since it is widely considered the Cadillac of Mustang skins?
It has a few minor issues due to the conversion but overall it's pretty slick.
Wish I had known to ignore it months ago as I was taking a lot of my cues from it thinking that was what was expected... *facepalm*
-
Thank you both. Its probably unfortunate that a default spec map may not comply with the new standards, seeing how the default files are provided to the skinner as a working base and the skinner would probably assume that following that example would be OK. I do understand how it came about though. Are the new standards written down anywhere? I feel like there are probably many standards that I am unaware of and would get tripped up by.
Greebo's tutorial has been an excellent resource, but I wonder whether that is up-to-date. It talks about the bump map file, and how it is no longer used except to create the Normal map. I'm not sure I ever created a bump map file in my earlier skinning days - I think I used to just bake in my surface effects the best I could using shadow and glare layers described in Fester's old tutorial. However I have created usable Normal maps by starting with the Diffuse map, eliminating the layers that don't have anything to do with surface deformations or texture, and then applying the nVidia plugin filter. Is that OK to do? If I need to create a bump map file as an intermediate step toward the Normal file, I'll need some refresher on how to create it.
Here is another point of confusion I have, and it came up as a result of this discussion on different materials and how they are depicted in the Specular map. I'll use Greebo's Ki.43 maps, directly from his tutorial. This is a bare metal Ki.43 with fabric control surfaces and some painted stripes and a painted band around the rear fuselage:
(http://i.imgur.com/AFLJmfb.jpg)
I have two questions. First, the rivets. Rivets are all made of the same material and depicted as dark grey dots against the unpainted aluminum fuselage. In the area of the painted band however, some rivets are shown as white dots. I assume this is depicting paint chipped off the rivet head, but why then wouldn't it be the same color as the other bare rivet heads shown on the unpainted fuselage? Why would having the paint chipped off a rivet head alter its specularity to bright white? It should be the same material now as the other unpainted rivet heads. So we have two different specular values (dark grey and bright white) for the same material (rivet heads). Isn't that incorrect, given the standard?
My other question is about the control surface (elevators and rudder) hinge shadows. Why are shadows being depicted on a specular map? Again, the surface is the same material whether it is in shadow or not, so why the difference in specular values? Honestly I don't know where the shadow layers belong now, or if we are not even suppose to create them directly - maybe the graphics engine is supposed to show them based on the sun angle and the Normal map?
I think I do understand correctly that a single material, aluminum for example, may have different specular values based on surface weathering and discoloration, paint, grease or exhaust stains, etc. But a shadow seems like a wholly different kind of effect...
EDIT: I just realized that last question may contain the explanation for bright white rivet heads - the unpainted rivet heads have weathered for some time, exposed to the elements, and are no longer shiny as they were when newer. But a rivet head that had been protected by paint until it was recently chipped off would have that shiny newness exposed....
-
The tutorial is not up to date. I wrote it during the beta as a guide for the then current skinners who were used to bump maps. I've altered it once already but it could do with another update with the bump map references revised and the required bit depth of the various files added.
If your existing skin doesn't have a bump map then yes you use the diffuse map as the starting point. Rename a copy of it xxxx_N.xxx and edit anything out of it that isn't height related. Typically you might leave the panel lines, fastener and rivet layers, raised fabric strips and so on. I tend to do stuff like fabric sag as well but that's just me.
If the level of grey on the paint-chipped rivets is lighter than on the bare metal rivets that would be a mistake on my part, but its not going to be noticeable on the skin.
The shading effect on the rudders is ambient occlusion. This is where light gets bounced around between two adjacent surfaces before being reflected back. The effect is to make the concave junctions of a shape darker and I have been adding it to my diffuse files for ages. My view is that the specular and environment maps control how much of the sun's and the environment's light is reflected back to the viewer and ambient occlusion would reduce some of this reflected light and so should be included in the maps. Note I haven't included it in the power map, which just controls how rough the surface appears.
-
Should panel lines and aileron/flap/rudder gaps be removed from the Power Map?
-
Thanks, Greebo. I think your Ki.43 looks fantastic, and I thought in my post above I may have come up with a reasonable explanation for why some rivet heads could have higher specularity than others.
Regarding the rudder shading, its this statement Skuzzy made in this thread that has me concerned:
Arbitrarily changing the specular, on materials and coatings, which are identical, will get a skin rejected. Just FYI.
I've added shading on my diffuse maps for a long time too, and probably would've carried it over to the specular map also. But I can imagine Skuzzy using this rule to reject my P-51D skin (if had I submitted it), and it also concerns me that I happened to learn about it in such an incidental manner, in a discussion of someone else's skin submission. It makes me wonder how many other FYI-type rules I don't know about that would also be cause for rejection, and further to have the current default P-51 specular map unable to pass HTC's own standards, well, it makes it pretty difficult to know what's acceptable and what's not.
When I look at all the specularity differences within a single panel due to weathering, oxidation, etc in the aluminum in the picture below, I wonder how Skuzzy would apply that rule.
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd148/tjlaven/DSCN6593.jpg)
-
I think the key word in Skuzzy's post was arbitarily. Changing the specularity is OK if you have a good reason, i.e. a dirt stain. Changing two identical metal panels to different levels when they'd reflect identically in RL isn't.
-
I hope that's the case. I wouldn't know any other way to show surface stains, oxidation, weathering effects, etc - other than by painting them in the diffuse map and then having the same area also represented in the spec map with reduced/variable spec values.
-
I think the key word in Skuzzy's post was arbitarily. Changing the specularity is OK if you have a good reason, i.e. a dirt stain. Changing two identical metal panels to different levels when they'd reflect identically in RL isn't.
This still isn't exactly answering my question though. Or maybe I'm just too dense to get it.
You guys are the experts at this so spell it out for me like I'm a two-year old.
If the panels vary in color they will not necessarily vary in specularity, right? So I need to go into my Spec Map and DELETE the gradients and mottling layers so the aluminum panels all have the same specular values(?).
-
Yes, delete any variation in tone from your aluminium panels on anything but the diffuse map. Making the silver painted wings a different shade ought to be acceptable assuming that surface reflected differently in RL.
-
I think the key word in Skuzzy's post was arbitarily. Changing the specularity is OK if you have a good reason, i.e. a dirt stain. Changing two identical metal panels to different levels when they'd reflect identically in RL isn't.
And again, spot on.
-
If the mottling represents weathering on the diffuse map then leave it in the spec maps.
-
And again, spot on.
I love how he won't answer me today. :P
I guess arbitrarily is the key word. Thus the gradients in Cactus' skin would qualify because they are not arbitrary.
-
If the mottling represents weathering on the diffuse map then leave it in the spec maps.
Got it.
I think I took it out in the skin I just posted in another thread. I turned the opacity down and kept the layer in case I need it but it is not shown in the skin.
-
To add to what Devil said about the underside grime here is a belly shot of a NMF P-51D. Look at all the dirt stains around the gun ports, behind the gear legs and tailwheel bay and around the oil and rad exit flaps. Also there are oil streaks being bent around the lower scoop on the lower wings. ou can also see a tone mismatch between gear doors and the wing.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=385955.0;attach=27159)
So here is my first attempt to try and get some streaks. I tried several different methods. Not sure any of them are right.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=385955.0;attach=27482)
-
The streaks look pretty good.
I think you need to work on the placement of the stains on the belly though. What I like to do with oil coolers is to make a stain on the door itself at the front edge and another stain that begins inside the outlet and flows along the fuselage - for you that means having your outlet stain start at the point where the outlet door ends.
-
The streaks look pretty good.
I think you need to work on the placement of the stains on the belly though. What I like to do with oil coolers is to make a stain on the door itself at the front edge and another stain that begins inside the outlet and flows along the fuselage - for you that means having your outlet stain start at the point where the outlet door ends.
Okay. Will try that. I also need to update the outlets. This is the old version. I shoulda' fixed it before I posted.