Add lensflares
Add lensflares
My question is simple: Why is it so difficult for AI driving warthogs to understand a command list? Granted, the list has many curves to it, but nearly every run is different than the first and they have runs that wind up at the finish point without actually running the exact list.
are you adding puases between each command to go to each point?
if not that could be a problem.
I'm in the process of making lightmap UV's right now, and I'm wondering what the best way to go about doing this is. Unwrapping my cliffs using my usual method of minimalizing seams creates several large complex irregular-shaped sections. These sections would be great for normal texturing using tiled bitmaps, but since I'm dealing with lightmaps I need to conserve UV space as much as possible. To do that I figure I need to chop up my cliff UV's into rectangular sections, but I'm not sure how much the obvious seam placement will show through in game.
tl;dr version: How much do seams show through in lightmap UV's?
The thing to remember is that lightmap uvs rewrite themselves to the size of whatever your uvs are. Therefore, do what you were doing with the cliffs, but then shrink the entire cliff down. My overall suggestion is to take the largest chunks of the lightmap, seamlessly uv them, fit them together like a puzzle, and then fit all the little pieces left over in between the larger chunks. It's a total pain in the ass, but it results in fairly seamless uvs. That's what I did for Precipice.
First of all, how is this thread "official"?
Second, start a new thread, this one is way too old.
Could you clarify this? Do you mean that lightmap UV's scale themselves to better fit the BSP UV's?Originally Posted by Siliconmaster
Shrinking the cliffs down would limit the amount of detail that can be in its UV space. I assume you just mean that every poly in a single lightmap mesh should fit within the 0-1 UV space without overlapping?
So basically, seams do matter for lightmaps. The method you just described is what I thought would leave a lot of wasted UV space, but from what you are saying it seems like the benefits would outweigh the cost. Jesus though, I'm not looking forward to this.
I do have one more question about lightmap meshes though. How exactly does Sapien decide how to separate the BSP into sections? Some of my lightmap models cover large areas of the map, some cover very small areas, and one only covers a single rope (where the other rope belongs to a larger lightmap mesh). Is there any logic to this? It seems pretty wasteful and disjointed.
It's "official" because I thought that was a good thread name at the time. Also, why does it matter how old the thread is? I've posted my questions in this thread over the years so I don't have to create a thread for every little question I have.First of all, how is this thread "official"?
Second, start a new thread, this one is way too old.
Well, if you're redoing the lightmap uvs, then it is my understanding that you also must be doing custom lightmaps in 3ds max, since running radiosity in sapien resets all lightmap uvs upon starting. Therefore, while shrinking a section of uvs will lose detail, 3ds max will still rerender it at the new size on the bitmap- therefore, keeping the sizes of the uvs that sapien made is not necessary at all, and those sizes are usually pretty screwy to begin with.
A better-worded version of my original sentence would be more like :
The thing to remember is that when 3ds max renders out new uvs, they match whatever you set your lightmap uvs to, so conserving space by way of shape is not as important as conserving by size.
Yeah, basically. Then just up the size of the overall map to something far higher than 32x32 or 64x64. I had a few 1024x1024 maps in Precipice.Shrinking the cliffs down would limit the amount of detail that can be in its UV space. I assume you just mean that every poly in a single lightmap mesh should fit within the 0-1 UV space without overlapping?
It sucks, but it's worth it in the long run. Just make sure not to modify your bsp after you start, or it'll all go to hell.So basically, seams do matter for lightmaps. The method you just described is what I thought would leave a lot of wasted UV space, but from what you are saying it seems like the benefits would outweigh the cost. Jesus though, I'm not looking forward to this.
Sapien is retarded when it comes to doing that. My guess is that it tries to do it by portal areas- if you have a single room portalled off, it's likely you'll get most of those faces on a single lightmap uv- not guaranteed at all though. When doing Precipice's lightmap uvs, I found that one side would be perfectly split up while another would have, say, every other vertical surface on one map and every third horizontal on another. It's totally bizarre, and unfortunately there's not much you can do about it.I do have one more question about lightmap meshes though. How exactly does Sapien decide how to separate the BSP into sections? Some of my lightmap models cover large areas of the map, some cover very small areas, and one only covers a single rope (where the other rope belongs to a larger lightmap mesh). Is there any logic to this? It seems pretty wasteful and disjointed.
Last edited by Siliconmaster; June 1st, 2011 at 05:50 PM.
For the same reason that many forums auto-lock threads which are older than 1 year, or some other specified amount of time.
Notice, however, that I did not lock the thread yet. You can finish this question out but please don't bump again.
...I honestly don't know what that reason is, but the question is finished, so I'll make another thread next time.For the same reason that many forums auto-lock threads which are older than 1 year, or some other specified amount of time.
Anyway, thanks a bunch Siliconmaster. I'd rep you, but it seems that was taken out in my absence.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
TheGhost
Bookmarks