demagogue on 15/6/2006 at 18:24
It's getting better with each pass. V3 looks great.
This is one version that very credibly looks like it's oozing and growing right along the walls. I can finally enter Hydroponics and not laugh a little at all this ooze that's supposed to be blocking up the elevator but is really just a paper thin decal on the wall.
Kolya on 15/6/2006 at 19:41
Agreed, the pulsating effect which makes this look so lively really comes out much better now. Goo goes 3D! :)
Vigil on 15/6/2006 at 19:51
How about posting screenshots in this thread too? It's difficult to dig through those other two threads and then figure out whether what's being shown is the most recent or not.
ZylonBane on 15/6/2006 at 20:20
Ooh, I like the way it intersects the wall.
Now all the models need is to be upgraded to the dual-sided configuration Vigil and I were discussing near the top of the thread. Currently they look quite odd when you come across one that's placed the wrong way around.
sny^ on 15/6/2006 at 21:32
Very neat stuff! Props to all involved in this mini-project.
On an amusing side note, I doubt the fans of any game other than SS2 would be this excited to see higher quality goo on the floor/walls. :rolleyes:
So let none say that we are hard to please!
IceNine on 15/6/2006 at 22:21
Quote:
Now all the models need is to be upgraded to the dual-sided configuration Vigil and I were discussing near the top of the thread. Currently they look quite odd when you come across one that's placed the wrong way around.
The problem with that is that even if the triangles were tagged as single sided, when the model is viewed edge on ( the best angle for noting its' lumpy depth ) both copies will show their edge tri. Worse, it becomes possible that the viewpoint can exist in 'between' the backplanes, showing both sets of backplanes and edge triangles simultaneously. Or at less than the required culling angle as calculated on a per-triangle basis, meaning that you see shreds of the backfacing model.
(
http://img157.imageshack.us/my.php?image=badhmgoo3my.jpg)
Inline Image:
http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/261/badhmgoo3my.th.jpgI can post up a set done in this fashion, if the pic isn't descriptive enough of the problem. I'm still thinking of a way around it myself, and haven't come up with any solution not flawed, except the original convex models I built. This is the reason I originally averaged the depth of the model and used that as a common base plane for a mirrored convex model reaching both min and max heights.
Edit - I realized that I didn't make clear above that I am willing to try other solutions, I just can't see any that don't have variations of this result. Suggestions?
ZylonBane on 16/6/2006 at 04:54
You're right. Damn.
The backwards ones do seem to be in the minority though. Perhaps just throw a backplane on to hide the inverted geometry?
Also, I noticed a texture crack in one of the models.
IceNine on 16/6/2006 at 07:57
Texture crack located ( due to BSP merging a vertex, just had to squiggle it a bit ), and noticed a section where the UV weren't updated when I removed a few faces between v2 and v3, leaving a funky edge as well. Both fixed, and backing planes added.
Zip updated to 3b.
ZylonBane on 16/6/2006 at 13:41
Y'know, something ironic I noticed about all these updated models is that they actually look better with the original low-res textures than they do with the high-res ones I've been experimenting with. By that, I mean the added depth is much more apparent with the low-res textures. It's like the high-res textures (which are admittedly a bit "busy" looking) act to obscure the 3D features.
As a result of this I'll probably instead go with textures that add sharpness, but not necessarily much more detail.
