van HellSing on 6/12/2005 at 08:34
I can't really say I like any of those :erg:
But I guess there's still some work to do on them, right? Right?
Crispy on 6/12/2005 at 09:37
Wait, which side is before and which side is after? :p
str8g8 on 6/12/2005 at 10:26
I think left is before and right is after.
It looks to me like you've lost the normal map on most of those textures (possibly due to adding the spec map?) Certainly, it's more realistic, and the uncompressed normal map in the last comparison looks WAY better, but if I had to choose between a normal and spec map I would choose the normal map every time. I think a "realistic mod" would be better off with just higher res, uncompressed versions of the original maps? so that you lose all the ugly artifacts and jaggies etc, but retain some of the atmosphere and style of the original.
ProjectX on 6/12/2005 at 16:30
I think the bumps on the right need to be bigger (i.e. the normal map should be stronger) but other than that I prefer the right.
Good job!
ascottk on 6/12/2005 at 17:21
Yeah, there's still more work to do. I've looked all around trying to find suitable replacements but all the brick textures I found are total crap :eww: I'm satisfied with the speculars because the stones are not shiny & look less like plastic thus the normals are not emphasized. I could compensate & exaggerate the normals. The second picture shows that texture on the headstone needs to be more bumpy. That's why I said in the post that this side by side comparison should be done more often.
@ str8g8: There's no source files of the original maps so I don't have decent versions of those. Besides, John P already went along those lines & did a great job but the OM textures are still too cartoony for me.
Maybe I should've put a big WIP into the post. Have any of you looked at the CEM textures? They are totally awful to begin with.
All the free textures on the net have camera lens distortion, photographed at odd angles, or do not fit the OM designs very well.
If any of you find any decent brick textures that could replace the CEMwall512B or CEMwallB let me know.
OrbWeaver on 6/12/2005 at 19:10
You can't really create brick textures from photosources - you need the brick outlines to tile perfectly which won't happen no matter how much image editing you do.
Bricks basically require modelling a section of wall and rendering it to a normal map (with some added roughness), then the diffusemap can be just blotches of colour and surface noise.
ascottk on 6/12/2005 at 19:17
Quote Posted by OrbWeaver
You can't really create brick textures from photosources - you need the brick outlines to tile perfectly which won't happen no matter how much image editing you do.
Bricks basically require modelling a section of wall and rendering it to a normal map (with some added roughness), then the diffusemap can be just blotches of colour and surface noise.
Not true. I've been following this tutorial & it works like a charm:
(
http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Tileable_Textures/)
& (
http://66.70.170.53/Ryan/nrmphoto/nrmphoto.html)
I've been doing normals this way for a while now.
OrbWeaver on 6/12/2005 at 19:29
I can't quite see how you would do bricks with that, but if it works for you...
