Topic: Are Lod's still usefull with tech we have now?

[marstone]

question to you guys then. If you could make a few minor tweaks to the graphic engine of SFC:EAW what would you do?  And what is the number one important thing you think should be done?  This is for debate and my own interest, not from the standpoint that it would or can be done.

Since you asked . . .

1. Ability to Edit the Q3 file. I have been following your progress! Thanks for your work here.
2. Support for wide screen and higher resolution monitors.
3. Transparent texture support for *.tga, *.gif, and *.png formats in SFC1, SFC2, SFCOP (SFC3 already has it)
4. Animated *.gif support.
5. SFC3 allows selection of different spectacularity on individual models in the *.gf file. It would be nice to be able to have different spectacular on  different model groups.
6. Spectacularity and/or bump maps enabled.

1. Editing is limited right now, but will expand.  But will probably not be put out for general use.
2. easy and hard to do.  Expanded resolutions should be able to be done for the main 3d screen, but the UI will continue to shrink as it will not expand.  Hardcoded blitter that does a pixel for pixel copy so the final image is always the same size in pixels.  Make the resolution bigger, images get smaller.
3-6.  Varying degrees of difficulty (for various reasons).  But on my list.

[GotAFarmYet?]

Think IM has a good list, but I would go with a different order.
6,3,4 then 2,1,5 would be my order on those.

The Spec and BUmp maps along with other texture support will get us even with other games. This allows model wsharing between games again and can bring modellers and players back. If the only real difference between what game I port a model to is based on a exporter then things become easy for multiple games.

Yes I know there are certain aspects of special files for most of them py files gf file etc but it would make it easier, because the model would work in all the formats

[marstone]

Think IM has a good list, but I would go with a different order.
6,3,4 then 2,1,5 would be my order on those.

The Spec and BUmp maps along with other texture support will get us even with other games. This allows model wsharing between games again and can bring modellers and players back. If the only real difference between what game I port a model to is based on a exporter then things become easy for multiple games.

Yes I know there are certain aspects of special files for most of them py files gf file etc but it would make it easier, because the model would work in all the formats

I can see that.  Question is how does number 5 work in SFC3?

[Tus-XC]

sfc3 does a specular to the ship based on a predefined color and intensity.  It is not texture dependent

[Panzergranate]

So a modeller would ahve to make three complete ships for every release, a nice thing about the exporter is that if you do not have other models to assign to the export slots it will assign the orginal model for you to those slots. Now only the exporter made for Max let you do this, the other exporters for GMax, MS, etc did not have this ability and only export a 1 model.

So now back to your question:
I make a LOD1 model and assign textures to it, I can make a LOD2 model and assign the same textures or make reduced textures for it and assign them. Note if you rescale them, the textures by the way will need fixing after you do this. One way for making a LOD2 is to run the ship through a poly reducer, note this will cause mesh errors that have to be corrected. In both these cases the errors can be so severe that it will be easy to make a new one than correct the current mesh.

So a LOD is a complete model, with textures, damage points, hardpoints, and mapping. Depending on the camera distance from the target will determine which LOD is used. Only a export from 3DMax versions 2-5 will allow you to place multiple models into the exported MOD file.

Yeah I know clear as mud, but hope it helps ask away where you need it clearified.
[/quote]

Not the only way to do it....

I make three sepearate models, then using the freeware MFCSFCED modelling tool, copy and insert each model in place of each LOD layer in a three LOD model, usually a Taldren original game model. I then rename the model. All hardpoints are as set on each model before overlaying into each LOD.

I use the same process to convert downloaded SFC 2 and SFC 3 models so that I can run them on SFC 1. Some require hours of texture re-mapping and patience, others convert in under a minute. I have converted an SFC 3 model to SFC 1 and added in LODs for it before now.

[Starfox1701]

The reason I asked is in Amada 2 the mesh and texture LODs run indpendent of each other. By that I mean that a model does not need on to have the other. When you make a model for A2 you asigne the top level textures to all the apropriate mesh groups. though each groups needs a corisponding material. then when you down size the textures you rename them by ading _1, _2,_3, and _4 for a total of 5 LODs. Now the model doesn't have to have mesh LODs to use the texture LODs and vice versa. This is a very flexable system that lets you add some LODs to ships that never came with them. It also doesn't requier any modeling skill to improve the proformance of large models

[Adonis]

Well, the other question is what kind of specularity exactly? BC for instance only had specular color, but not intensity too...With bumps (you guys want to mean normal maps here?) you can have less model detail, but it adds onto the texture load. This is how my Keldon I talked about in an earlier post looks like in Excal's graphical demonstration engine (meaning, it isn't a final look), has specular color and intensity, normal maps and RGB lightmaps:

[GotAFarmYet?]

The reason I asked is in Amada 2 the mesh and texture LODs run indpendent of each other. By that I mean that a model does not need on to have the other. When you make a model for A2 you asigne the top level textures to all the apropriate mesh groups. though each groups needs a corisponding material. then when you down size the textures you rename them by ading _1, _2,_3, and _4 for a total of 5 LODs. Now the model doesn't have to have mesh LODs to use the texture LODs and vice versa. This is a very flexable system that lets you add some LODs to ships that never came with them. It also doesn't requier any modeling skill to improve the proformance of large models

Unfortuantly we did not get that with SFC so the model only used its assigne textures no mater the distance. Although that would be a nice thing to add, that way one model can be made and smaller textures to reduce the load at distance.

Well, the other question is what kind of specularity exactly? BC for instance only had specular color, but not intensity too...With bumps (you guys want to mean normal maps here?) you can have less model detail, but it adds onto the texture load. This is how my Keldon I talked about in an earlier post looks like in Excal's graphical demonstration engine (meaning, it isn't a final look), has specular color and intensity, normal maps and RGB lightmaps:

Yup, that is what I am asking for to allow us to use that type of mapping to reduce model size and you can actually reduce RBG details and let the normal and Spec maps cover the details instead. over all if properly done it would still use less processor and memory then the current system. It would also allow the model itself to be usuable in other games or from other games with less conversion work needed

Edit: removed Adonis color to make it more easily read in the gray

[Adonis]

Well, the other question is what kind of specularity exactly? BC for instance only had specular color, but not intensity too...With bumps (you guys want to mean normal maps here?) you can have less model detail, but it adds onto the texture load. This is how my Keldon I talked about in an earlier post looks like in Excal's graphical demonstration engine (meaning, it isn't a final look), has specular color and intensity, normal maps and RGB lightmaps:

Yup, that is what I am asking for to allow us to use that type of mapping to reduce model size and you can actually reduce RBG details and let the normal and Spec maps cover the details instead. over all if properly done it would still use less processor and memory then the current system. It would also allow the model itself to be usuable in other games or from other games with less conversion work needed

Edit: removed Adonis color to make it more easily read in the gray

No GAFY?, you misunderstand, bigtime...

With normal maps you need to have a Pixel Shader capable graphics card (which are most of the cards in the last 15 years, however, you have normals since PS2.0 IIRC), and huge amounts of RAM help too (like at least a gig in physical RAM and 256 on GPU to make it playable enough in the scales we're talking about). Excal is so far Pixel Shader 3.0.

Normals and Specs aren't mapping, they're engine capability. Just as the illum maps in SFC are, you just add textures with the appropriate suffixes in the names to it besides the diffuse ones that are made in a specific way to serve a specific purpose. The games engine does the rest of the work. And RGB details are a whole separate can of worms altogether, spec and normals add to the feel and depth of a model, they don't substitute stuff. And normals aren't even the end of the line here, there's a whole load of other engine-based stuff that makes something look really good and feel real, and none of those can be run on machines that are older than say 2 years correctly because the hardware wasn't built for it or isn't powerful enough.

Conversion-wise, it would depend on the exact way that an engine "sees" the said maps, this mostly goes for the normal maps (we got through 3 separate ways of doing them for excal at least that I'm aware of before we got to the one we will use now, becaus ethe earlier ones where problematic). And I'm not talking here the grayscale bump maps, but the RBG normal maps, there's a big difference between those.

[marstone]

sadly, as the person who asked the question I am slow on the uptake on the tech of 3d.  I got stuck last time on the illum maps when doing a conversion of the .MOD translators to a different 3d graphics program.  The terms seem to change depending on the programs used, and who is doing it.  It is a very confusing topic for someone who is just barely a programmer to start with.

might be nice to get some good training sites pointed out so I can educate myself so I can work on this stuff. 

[intermech]

I can see that.  Question is how does number 5 work in SFC3?

Not a programmer, but I will try to elaborate on GAFY. There is a text file in each model folder which acts as a call-out sheet to give SFC3 some additional graphical capability. It is the *.gf file.

The file does the following:

1. It lists the coordinates of the system icons in both the ship/equipment selection screen and in-game ship status screen
2. It lists the "glare" sprite locations, colors, sizes, and intensities. In the developer's official glare editor, these glare sprites are assigned to specific polygons on the model. But, if you swap the *.gf file to another model, the sprites keep the location, and are not tied to a certain polygon.
3. There is a number for spectacularity for the particular model. Specularity in this case calls how light reflects off the model. 0 specularity gives a very flat finish. Higher, say 256 makes the whole model glow. This is independent of the texture. I am wondering if it would be possible to assign different specularities to different groups within the same model.

Hope this is clearer, it may just be the blind leading the blind, lol.

[marstone]

Done alittle digging. Bump mapping was added to directX in DX7.  Even tho we are using DX9 for compiling, the calls in the game are those of DX6.

So more digging is needed.  But who knows.

[intermech]

Are you talking for SFC3, or the others? Because when you install SFC3 it calls for DX7.

[marstone]

Are you talking for SFC3, or the others? Because when you install SFC3 it calls for DX7.

others.  Specifically EAW.  Now I would like to get my hands on the code for SFC3, even tho I personally didn't like the game, I would like to get some of the updates.  And a few other ideas what to do with it.

[GotAFarmYet?]

At this point i would like to thank:
Adonis for bringing up the difference we would have to cover to get to a more current format of models to make this game more compatable with other games.
Marstone for trying to be a voice of reason and trying to do what he can to update this game to prevent its' death.
Kreeargh, Interstellar Machine, and Panzergranate for the additional information they provided through this topic.

Fallen Warrior,
Thanks for the reminder about the 5MB file size as the limit, forgot that one. About your mod do what you want, but it seems silly to let Dizzy stop you from release after 3 years of work. Mind you I am not a good guide for this as i have not completed over a 100 of retextures for one reason or another and none of those will see the light of day either. The reason is different it was because I chose not to complete them or lost interest in the idea I was following. Either way let no one make your decision for you, if you decide to stop working for your own reason good for you if you stop because Dizzy pissed you off I think a new thread with how you really feel should be added here

[Adonis]

But None of it will see the light of day because people like Dizzy have to jump on a bandwagon of anti detail.

My friend, never let the weak minded win with their lack of perspective.

[intermech]

Fallen, you made me very sad to read your comment. I can think of no one who has had more enthusiasm and greater vision for modding SFC3. I think that the decline of SFC modding can be attributed to the fact that the game is 10 years old, is not widely available, and it ceases to be graphically competative against more modern games. Besides this wonderful community, the only alluring thing about the game, for me, is its moddability. I just don't have the gumption to learn  another game. To be honest, my lack of activity can be attributed to tme constraints, but lack of kudos from actual players (if there are any, anymore) encourages me to put my efforts elsewhere. I am sorry for any part I might have played in your dissolussion.

If anyone has a suggestion for a different game or even more relevant project utilizing the same skill set that we can all move to and still work together, I would jump at the opportunity, because I am concerned about losing what we have here.

[marstone]

Can't say much on the  modding side. I don't comment much on others models bwcause my taste for models diffwr from most others.  But wanted to put a word out on the SFC:CE. It shall make it to the light of day. It will be slow. It is being worked on by people on their spare time. So major changes will take time.

As I am a cog and not driver of the development I never talk of specifics, not my place. But as said the game will be updated. Nothing can stop that now, but time is a factor.

[Kreeargh]

I should have never posted this or in any other topic since  my quit thread  Flames, ppl quiting their dreams ect.  from now on.

[marstone]

I should have never posted this or in any other topic since  my quit thread  Flames, ppl quiting their dreams ect.  from now on.

While it is not a good things that people let things boil over in a discussion.  It doesn't really have anything to do with the start of the post.  We should be able to disagree and talk about that.  It is part of being an adult.  Disagree with someone, talk about it (sometimes alittle forcefully) and then either agree or agree to disagree on it.