INI / Mapping Problem

[+Timmy]

Moving right along with the Lansen - I've tried to minimize the number of .bmp files while fillinf up as much space as I can. The problem lies in my mapping - I have mapped the vertical tail in halves on the left and right wing bitmap respectivly. Not knowing that there was a limitation in the game regarding multiple materials on a mesh (It renders fine in MAX but doesn't show in the game.) My idea for a work around is to split the vertical tail into two vertical tails while retaining the aerodynamic properties of only one tail. This will allow me to keep the current mapping - reducing textures - and allow for proper damage modeling by making the hit boxes the same on each mesh they should, in theory, be damaged eequally.

 

Like this:

 

VertTailLeft

ParentComponentName=Fuselage

ModelNodeName=VertTailLeft

DestroyedNodeName=DAM_VertTailLeft

ShowFromCockpit=TRUE

DetachWhenDestroyed=TRUE

DamageRating=DESTROYED

MassFraction=0.027

HasAeroCoefficients=TRUE

CD0=0.0007

Cyb=-0.3201

Cyp=0.0202

Cyr=0.2895

Clb=0.0031

Clp=-0.0002

Clr=-0.0028

Cnb=0.1447

Cnp=-0.0091

Cnr=-0.9511

CD0MachTableNumData=4

CD0MachTableDeltaX=0.469300

CD0MachTableStartX=0.00

CD0MachTableData=1.876000,0.999480,0.996480,13.299700

ClbAlphaTableNumData=15

ClbAlphaTableDeltaX=4.00

ClbAlphaTableStartX=-28.00

ClbAlphaTableData=-23.562,-20.743,-17.822,-108.739,-72.182,-8.599,-5.421,-2.216,1.000,4.211,7.401,10.555,13.658,16.694,19.649

ClpAlphaTableNumData=15

ClpAlphaTableDeltaX=4.00

ClpAlphaTableStartX=-28.00

ClpAlphaTableData=156.409,119.508,86.496,58.047,34.743,17.070,5.402,0.000,1.000,8.415,22.134,41.920,67.422,98.173,133.606

ClrAlphaTableNumData=15

ClrAlphaTableDeltaX=4.00

ClrAlphaTableStartX=-28.00

ClrAlphaTableData=-20.253,-18.526,-16.439,-14.032,-11.351,-8.450,-5.384,-2.214,1.000,4.194,7.307,10.277,13.047,15.564,17.777

CnbAlphaTableNumData=15

CnbAlphaTableDeltaX=4.00

CnbAlphaTableStartX=-28.00

CnbAlphaTableData=0.860,0.893,0.922,0.947,0.967,0.983,0.993,0.999,1.000,0.996,0.987,0.974,0.955,0.932,0.905

CnpAlphaTableNumData=15

CnpAlphaTableDeltaX=4.00

CnpAlphaTableStartX=-28.00

CnpAlphaTableData=-5.706,-5.146,-4.477,-3.711,-2.864,-1.951,-0.990,0.000,1.000,1.991,2.952,3.867,4.716,5.482,6.152

CnrAlphaTableNumData=15

CnrAlphaTableDeltaX=4.00

CnrAlphaTableStartX=-28.00

CnrAlphaTableData=0.102,0.110,0.117,0.123,0.429,0.710,0.913,1.038,1.000,0.884,0.604,0.130,0.126,0.120,0.113

MinExtentPosition=-0.06,-8.07,0.57

MaxExtentPosition= 0.06,-3.27,2.77

CollisionPoint 001=0.00,-2.543,0.78

CollisionPoint 002]=0.00,-4.952,2.709

CollisionPoint 003]=0.00,-5.092,0.708

SystemName 001]=Rudder

SystemName 002]=RedTailLight

SystemName 003]=TailLight

HasArmor=TRUE

ArmorMaterial=ALUMINUM

Armor FRONT].Thickness=7

Armor REAR].Thickness=7

Armor RIGHT].Thickness=7

Armor LEFT].Thickness=7

Armor TOP].Thickness=7

Armor BOTTOM].Thickness=7

 

VertTailRight

ParentComponentName=Fuselage

ModelNodeName=VertTailRight

DestroyedNodeName=DAM_VertTailRight

ShowFromCockpit=TRUE

DetachWhenDestroyed=TRUE

DamageRating=DESTROYED

HasAeroCoefficients=FALSE

MinExtentPosition=-0.06,-8.07,0.57

MaxExtentPosition= 0.06,-3.27,2.77

CollisionPoint 001]=0.00,-2.543,0.78

CollisionPoint 002]=0.00,-4.952,2.709

CollisionPoint 003]=0.00,-5.092,0.708

HasArmor=TRUE

ArmorMaterial=ALUMINUM

Armor FRONT].Thickness=7

Armor REAR].Thickness=7

Armor RIGHT].Thickness=7

Armor LEFT].Thickness=7

Armor TOP].Thickness=7

Armor BOTTOM].Thickness=7

 

Question: Will this work the way I want or should I re-map the vertical tail, rudder, stabilizers and ailerons into their own bitmap? The latter causing problems with space utilization within the bitmap (There will be gobs of free space on the tail bitmap if I keep everything to scale. Not being lazy - as I've yet to map the right side, but trying to be efficient (that's what I keep telling myself.)

 

TD

[+p10ppy]

map the whole airframe to a 2k bitmap ;)

I've never understood the reason for multiple smaller bitmaps except for modular bits (other aircraft)

makes it a pita to camo and colour match and there's more bigger holes to utilise for small things on a single 2k map

 

otherwise you are right

you need to do what you are saying for the damage modelling and it works fine

Edited November 11, 2008 by p10ppy

[+Timmy]

Right now I have four bitmaps - Nose, Fuselage, Right Wing and Left Wing. The standard has been five (adding tail) so that's the way I've always done it - I don't mind multiple maps as long as I can figure out what is what. I really hate the TW default aircraft maps as they make no damn sense with parts everywhere. My opinion is to split the model up into top, bottom and sides so that it doesn't distort too badly - but leave it together so the skinner will know what is what.

 

The current maps are 2048X2048 and render beautifully in MAX. Not so much in the game - hmm, have to check out the detail levels...

 

Thanks for the answer. I'll get to testing.

[Lexx_Luthor]

Timmy::

and allow for proper damage modeling by making the hit boxes the same on each mesh they should, in theory, be damaged eequally.

Be careful of random variables in damage creation.

 

This is something you need to ask TK at Thudwire.

 

 

The FM -- I have only glanced at it once so far. I've been working alot, tired, and I got pretty much StrikeFightered out sometime after Patch 2008 and only now admitting it to myself. FM is kinda stressful to me...work. I hate working when I get home. The weirdo stuff I always do is pure fun, but even that I'm giving a break now.

[+Timmy]

Ahh - the voice of doom...

 

I thought about the random damage factor. The only solution I can think of it to scale the vertical fin down and put it on one of the wing bitmaps. That won't cause major problems and the re-mapping won't be terribly difficult or tedious (no more than normal.)

 

I'm not too worried about the FM. Get to it when you get to it. I've still got some heavy lifting to do on this end.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Timmy

[+p10ppy]

with the damage boxes I've overlapped them before with no noticeable problems

each inied mesh is its own entity with hitpoints so you are in theory giving the total vert tail area double the structure

you can always compensate with a smaller hit box or reduced structural factor if it seems to be a issue

 

4 x 2k maps you say

just let me expound the virtues of a single map a little more (4k now giggle)

makes it easier to understand the whole model

and means you can do much longer continuous segments of individual mesh parts (up to 4k/2k long instead of 2k/1k)

only one map to worry about

much easier to keep it all in scale

just my opinion :yes:

 

reduced rez

[+russouk2004]

I cant see the point u are making..what you are trying to do?...I map my stuff on one bmp if possible...if you need to apply different diffuse \reflections etc ,i use another mat editor slot to apply the bmp again with the different settings to get what I want ...IE matt tyres...from the bmp,while getting glossy parts such as dampers,which are supposed to be chrome effect.......using one slot of the material editor it cant be done,but applying the texture to another slot,then assigning it to the parts I get individual severaleffects from one bitmap...

if you detach both sides of a tail,when you are mapping you can apply the texture how you like ...I dont use subobjects as it doesnt seem to work as you prefer..

you dont need to split tail to apply the damage effect...just map the polys of each side,one side at a time....then you can use different damage effects to either

Edited November 11, 2008 by russouk2004

[+Timmy]

Look at the bitmap below. In the upper right corner is the left half of the vertical fin. I was planning on mapping the left half on the left wing bitmap and the right half on the right wing bitmap. The problem is that the game won't recognize multiple maps on the same mesh. So I've mapped myself into a corner. Just looking for a solution.

 

 

As you can see below - the vertical fin is mapped - but it shows up as a blue material in the game. (I have already solved the material problem with the fuselage that appears in this pic)

 

Edited November 12, 2008 by Timmy

[+FastCargo]

Well, how about mapping the vertical stab on the fuselage map...it would be a logical mapping if you have the room.

 

Here's what I did on the F-111 tweaking...

 

 

 

FastCargo

[Guest Stiglr]

One other thing that jumps out at me from Fast Cargo's map is that he allocates the space to make his work easier and more accurate.

 

Timmy: Note how the fuselage parts of that F-15 are aligned as if "unwrapped" around the nose-to-tail axis. This makes things like creating panel lines much easier when editing and painting. Cutting up various parts and (mis)aligning them all over the graphic creates all kind of unintended effects and issues, especially if the person doing the artwork doesn't have access to the mesh as he works. How can one line up the left side of an object with the right side of the same object if they're on very different parts of the graphic? This will show up when panel lines that span the girth of the aircraft don't align precisely.

 

Kudos to Fast Cargo, though, for approaching it the right way.

[+Timmy]

So am I to understand from all of this that the majority would rather have one 2048x2048 map rather than 4-5 1024 or 512 k maps?

[+Julhelm]

One other thing that jumps out at me from Fast Cargo's map is that he allocates the space to make his work easier and more accurate.

 

Timmy: Note how the fuselage parts of that F-15 are aligned as if "unwrapped" around the nose-to-tail axis. This makes things like creating panel lines much easier when editing and painting. Cutting up various parts and (mis)aligning them all over the graphic creates all kind of unintended effects and issues, especially if the person doing the artwork doesn't have access to the mesh as he works. How can one line up the left side of an object with the right side of the same object if they're on very different parts of the graphic? This will show up when panel lines that span the girth of the aircraft don't align precisely.

 

Kudos to Fast Cargo, though, for approaching it the right way.

Also note all that black texture space wasted for no reason. Ploppy's map is a hell of a lot more efficient.

[+p10ppy]

Timmy its totally up to you how many maps you use

I paste all of TK's (and your Mig-9) together in a grid anyway when i skin them and cut them apart at the end

big file, but if you use lots of PS overlays its the best way to colour/effect match

 

To disagree with Stiglr a little

When I UV map (which is by far the hardest part of modelling IMHO)

I focus on things in this order...

 

1. Good unwrap with no distortion and the ability to paint features fairly easily in PS (panel lines perpendicular to the BMP if possible, etc)

 

2. Packing the UV chart as tightly and efficiently as possible, Every blank unmapped pixel on a bmp is still loaded in the game

you are wasting resources if you don't do this, fill all the holes and have the wires almost touching

 

3. Scaling thing fairly consistently and as large as possible, the widest mesh span should go from one side of the map to the other etc...

Sometimes its a good idea to upscale small but important features so you can paint them reasonably (and you may as well fill those holes completely)

downscale things that are not seen often or are very dark so you can get a bigger overall scale on the rest of the model

 

4. Making it easy for the skinner (what Stiglr is talking about),

a well named template with wires will achieve most of this anyway

in game efficiency and as large a scale mesh UV per map as you can achieve is more important than being able to line up a few bits easily in PS

a little trial and error in and out of the game soon fixes that.... :yes:

 

You have to juggle all this stuff and it never quite works out... but that's the way I prioritise my compromises

 

IMHO

Edited November 15, 2008 by p10ppy

[+Timmy]

I agree that mapping is the most difficult part of any 3d project.

 

So far I have little distortion. I understand the need to have panel lines running perpendicular but that need is compromised by the need to have everything as large as possible and for everything to look like the object you are trying to paint. As I stated earlier - I hate trying to paint the stock 3rd wire models because I can't figure out what anything is. IMHO, mapping swept wings as disjointed - straight panels butted up against each other makes no sense. I'd rather be able to see what I'm painting and sacrifice a bit of space rather than filling up every pixel with map.

 

This is what I now have (basically taking the 4 maps I already had and combining them.) This probably isn't as good as could possibly be done but I think scaling every major piece the same is important as well. Having wings with larger rivets than the fuselage looks goofy to me. I'll grant you that there is room for improvement here - but I doubt that I'll change it much from what you see. Thanks for the help!

 

Edited November 15, 2008 by Timmy

[+FastCargo]

Also note all that black texture space wasted for no reason.

 

There is a reason...everything is to the same scale (except for some landing gear parts) and there is minimal breakup. Makes it easier to make things line up.

 

Think that's bad...wait til you see the wing mapping.

 

I'll take ease of skinning over pure efficiency any day.

 

But like others have said, different strokes for different folks.

 

FastCargo