Runway Textures
-
Nice!!
I’m looking forward to seeing the download link -
Yes.
I’ll play with the reverse-stretching/shrinking.
well this is phait’s project… I just poped up like a xxxx (as always :rofl: )
phait the yellow lines will have to go to the runways too… I have some textures and libraries with seamless textures etc I will send u a link… The thing is that the libraries are a bit huge and I will have to take out the ones that are of interest…
I must have and some cracks and general wearing somewhere…Also it would be nice to do and some wearing effects on the runway markings like the paint levels or whatever…
Yeah I’m a stickler for detail which is also why I tried the faux bump-mapping, but DeeJay has a good point. Interested in your resources, check my thread in Software forum about file transfer P2P
-
It is pretty amazing that after up to 5 pages of this discussion participants cannot arrive together at understanding of true and main problem of this project.
Do not want to sound grumpy guys, but here are some comments:
a. just take look at the texture of runway and see that lower right quarter of it has been “compressed” to fit the 1/4 of the texture. To make matter bad, other left half was also compressed but not as much (but to what degree precisely anyone’s guess) .
b. in the game both parts are being STRETCHED over the partial length of the runway and due the fact that they have no details as the lost it due to compression , they do not fit other “unstreached or uncompressed” components of the runway and taxiways (not to mention they look bad).
c. remedy to that, as pointed earlier by Dee-Jay, is to create new textures and remap the runways. Can this be done in LOD Editor? - perhaps yes, but that could be a torture.
d. can it be better done in 3ds Max or other 3d Editor, possible, but can we export LODs to 3ds or other 3dsMax format? Unless, using 3D grabber perhaps not.So this is in the nutshell.
PS. not that this really matter, but using term “dpi” as a description of resolution of the picture is of no relevance (“dpi” is dot per inch - is anyone printing here anything?)
-
-
I’ll play with the reverse-stretching/shrinking.
Once the texture has been downsized, that is it, there is no magic way to return to original detail.
-
I’m aware of that, and I know this “solution” is not ideal. I did in fact try it, before my grid diagnostic ^ and results were meh.
-
PS. not that this really matter, but using term “dpi” as a description of resolution of the picture is of no relevance (“dpi” is dot per inch - is anyone printing here anything?)
Yes polak u print. U print on the screen… like goes also for monitors with the lpi and dot pitch. As I explained most of the textures are 96 dpi which is very low… u can have a picture at 96dpi and one at 300dpi.
Now when gfx designers work on gfx they work on 300dpi or even higher depending on the project and wanted outcome. So when u do transformations and u apply effects u don’t loose much detail and the result is crisp and clear compared if u worked only on 96dpi that causes more color overlapping which is what we have now in many areas and specially in runways and taxiways.
Now the 300dpi has major effect when u work with vectors. if u work on 96 dpi u will start with pixelation so with the 300dpi u eliminate this to the minimum.
I hope this makes u understand the difference.
About the only way is 3dstudio max and re mapping the object.
On the runway if u use a seamless texture all those stretches u see will be gone. what u see is cause phait tries to fit a texture to another texture which is obvious it will never fit unless u r lucky.
So this was my recommendation to phait to create a new base layer with a seamless one, then on top put the runway markings and etc. I have done it in the past and it was superb, I just didn’t keep screenshots.
I will try and create a quick one for u to see… just give me some time please. It will not be final but just to give u an idea.
-
-
Wrong example. The dpi has effect when u r on the same resolution. comparing different resolution isn’t the same there is no comparison. Also this example is bitmap or photo. I’m talking about vector, totally different think.
The result comes to 72dpi which is what falcon uses with the dds IIRC.and here is a quick and dirty example of the runway:
The ontop markings are bitmap from the original that is why they look like that. Do u spot any stretch?
And yes there is:
but hard to spot. With a bit more tweaking it can be gone this too. The markings are all perfectly positioned and if I do them by vector they will be just perfect. then it’s left the surrounding and the tire markings.
Another trick is to use darker base on the runway… -
Sorry, I’m still not comprehending this.
A DDS is a flat raster file, am I correct?
So, if you design something in vector, save as DDS, altogether it is a raster (pixel) image.
OR, are you saying that DDS can contain actual vector data and this somehow eludes the stretching problem?
And are we talking about 1 flat DDS file here, or layers in BMS 3D world?
-
the result is one flat one layer dds file.
Now if I design the vector in 72 dpi and I create the arc for the taxiway it will be pixelated from the very start and when the dds compression comes in it will get worst. So doing it at 300dpi it is in it’s highest detail when it will be converted to photo with same 300dpi setting… then photoshop comes in and compresses it down to the 72dpi of the dds.
It has to do with the way Corel Draw works. Photoshop and photo prgrms or photoeditors don’t mind of it as they don’t work with vectors but with pixels only.
Another example if I zoom in 4000% in corel draw the arc is not pixelated. If u do this in Photoshop u see only pixels.
-
Right (just FYI I’ve been doing graphic design for 11 years Illustrator/Photoshp, and have printing experience, lol). I get the basics here but maybe not your method. I think this makes a little more sense, now in some way.
-
Why is it so hard to make new airbases from scratch? As I understand they are 3d objects? It must be fairly easy to draw for a 3d guy? Is it the darn AI that causing problems where to go on the base?
/F -
i wish nove would do those airbases of his for korea instead of a bug filled balkans
-
Why is it so hard to make new airbases from scratch? As I understand they are 3d objects? It must be fairly easy to draw for a 3d guy? Is it the darn AI that causing problems where to go on the base?
/Fthat’s the problem, most of you think that modding is easy. It is far from being easy when one had to make sure he doesn’t screw things up another dev will have to fix …
an airbase is not only a 3d model, it entails tile work, elevation work, terrain work, 3d objects, ai taxi path, parking spotrs, spawn points, eyecandy stuff, taxi signs, taxiway lines etc etc
it requires a huge team work effort.
One guy working alone on one aspect only will do nothing but screw things more or will end up with a poor effect (like all those airbases misaligned on non airbase tiles or on Google earth like tiles or stolen FSX scenario) on third party terrainDoing it the right way is difficult and requires time
-
Also another reason why 3ds MAX files are needed.
and here some in game shots:
Edit: lol those cracks will kill the tires…
And dark covers the errors:
-
This post is deleted! -
taxiway looks better than runway IMO.
could the RWY become any sharper?did any coder ever look into this stretching issue???
-
another thought:
don’t Russian airstrips often look like these concrete blocks? I would love some north korea highwaystrips / or even smaller airports like that taxiway.
-
well the stretching has nothing to do with code. its pure 3d gfx texture mapping, the reason 3ds max files should be available.
on the other one some airports are common on both sides so having the runway with blocks on one side doable but hmmm needs work on other areas and it is mp critical. Sure it is the correct way I’ve done it for Aegean for the shelters.