|
Posted by metlslime on 2002/12/23 18:27:46 |
This is the place to post screenshots of your upcoming masterpiece and get criticism, or just have people implore you to finish it. You should also use this thread to post beta versions of your maps.
Need a place to host your screenshots? Upload them here:
http://www.quaketastic.com/
Username: quaketastic
Password: ZigguratVertigoBlewTronynsSocksOff
File size limit is 128MB. |
|
|
Which Is Good, Cause It Wouldn't Have Made Sense...
#3214 posted by Drew on 2006/09/07 20:26:15
Quake "Portal"?
#3215 posted by . on 2006/09/08 04:14:38
As I was about to go to sleep I got this idea and I had to get up and do attempt it :)
Unfortunately, it's rather dissapointing! Here's a 2.6MB video, right-click and save-as, else it might just appear as gibberish in your browser:
http://www.faqtion.org/crap/qportal.wmv
I figured, to make a portal where you see into the other room ala Prey, but not exactly like it... just similar - you could screenshot the destination room, and make this a texture. Then, add that to a .WAD and name it something like *portal1 - this way, it'd appear wavy like the teleport texture, yet you'd clearly see it was your destination room.
Well unfortunately it seems you can't scale the teleport texture, I tried. The result is ugly tiling, and a less convincing view of your destination. So I just mirrored a vertically-reverse image of the screenshot (512x512 texture), and tried that - but that's silly, too.
Ah well. If you could scale tele textures, though - you could just "crop" or "zoom" to where you wouldn't see the tiling, yet still get a glimpse of where you're about to go to.
Yeah
#3216 posted by tron on 2006/09/08 04:19:47
I tried that in an old map and could never get it to work well
Or
#3217 posted by Ankh on 2006/09/08 04:49:44
you could also copy the whole architecture around teleport destination and place it behind the teleporter if there was enough room for it (and if r_speeds allow). This could look very realistic. There would still be a problem with monsters and items though.
Well
#3218 posted by R.P.G. on 2006/09/08 09:34:19
Could you make the warping less obvious if you took the screenshot using FishEyeQuake?
Scaling Water Textures
#3219 posted by Preach on 2006/09/08 11:09:35
You can scale water textures, but the main problem you'll encounter is that all water textures are resized to 64x64 before you factor in the scale factor of the texture. So a 256x256 texture is first scaled 4 times smaller before it is transformed. If you use a 64x64 texture and stretch that to fit the surface, then replace the texture with *portal without changing the scale factors.
You still can't translate a water texture like this, which is a bit of a pain. The final problem is that the warping gets much more excessive when you scale water textures, but it's worth having a look to see if it's worth doing.
NB: I tried this out using a func_wall for the water brush, I don't think it should affect rendering, but try that if it doesn't work otherwise.
You Could Use
#3220 posted by HeadThump on 2006/09/08 11:16:26
animated (+) textures instead. Switch the opacity levels of the same image between frames. Results could be interesting. Good Going on the concept.
JPL
#3221 posted by Lunaran on 2006/09/08 11:51:54
Lunaran: Well, after your comment, I checked the Doom3 texture set I converted into Quake wad format, and I have to admit that many of the textures already have "pre-implemented" shadow zones...
No no no. Look, uh, how did you do the conversion exactly?
Portals
#3222 posted by . on 2006/09/08 12:49:52
Hadn't thought about using animated texes - a bit more work, but would be better, yes.
I took the screenshots for the portal texes using Panoramic Quake, actually.
Also, the issue with actually constructing brushwork behind it is - you would only be able to build portals into/against walls - and at that point, it would probably just appear like a fancy door or entryway. But if you use it with a texture, you can place the portal almost anywhere and make it funky like portals are.
Lunaran
#3223 posted by JPL on 2006/09/09 07:52:56
Oh, you wanted to know how I converted the Doom3 hi-res textures into Quake wad format ?
OK, I'm not used with hi-res textures "naming", nevertheless I will try to give you the method I used.
First, I noticed each textures are composed by a set of tga files: there are
- the normal file that is the texture in itself: no shadow, no relief, only a flat colored image
- the 3D-fx file, that is completly blue, and I guess it is used for relief rendering in game
- some others that are completly black or white (what is the use I don't know), but I didn't use them
- some contain only 'lights' (on a full black background)
Well, let's start:
Take the 3D-fx file an convert it into grey scale. Increase contrast by 40%, and decrease brightness by 40%. Now you have the "relief" of the texture
The use this file and make a full overlap with the normal using transparency (set relief file transparency up to 65%)
Now take the resulting file and adjust brightness, contrast: this part is really not easy, because it depends of the rendering you want to obtain. This is the hi-res converted texture file.
If you have lights (fullbrights pixels actually), now you have to select the light part only and overlap this with the hi-res converted texture, with no transparency, on the exact point it has to be located.
Make some bluring around the lights part in order to avoid visible pixel break on the texture..
Well, it is almost done: now you just have to reduce the siwe by 2, and convert it to the Quake Palette, and load it in a wad file...
there are also some tricky things when you have several part of the texture in different files: more overlaping manipulations are required.
BTW, it is very difficult to find an automatic scripts to do the job on a full set like Doom3 texture set....
I hope it was clear ;P
Heh
#3224 posted by tron on 2006/09/09 20:45:54
It would be clearer if you didn't pick a silly naming convention.
For example, the map you refer to as the 3d-fx texture is actually usually called the normal map, while what you called the normal map is the diffuse. :D
The Horror
#3225 posted by metlslime on 2006/09/10 00:06:35
Lol
#3226 posted by Kinn on 2006/09/10 03:18:05
"3D-fx" that takes me back. "But will it run Quake 2?" I remember my na�ve younger self enthusiastically chirping in the local PC World.
OK, OK
#3227 posted by JPL on 2006/09/10 23:13:13
Please, calm down everybody: if you read carefully the begining of my previous post, I said I'm not used with hi-res texture naming conventions... I already know that I'm a french morron, blah blah, blah... but in anyway, thanks for this helpful clarification... :P
Okay
#3228 posted by Lunaran on 2006/09/11 18:07:56
Yes, thank you for explaining how normal-mapped textures work to me. I've never done any work with the Doom3 engine so I have no idea how any of that works.
Take the 3D-fx file an convert it into grey scale. Increase contrast by 40%, and decrease brightness by 40%. Now you have the "relief" of the texture
This is what you did wrong.
Like I already pointed out, the green channel of the normal map isn't oriented like you think it is. Full white in this channel is for normals pointing down, and black is for normals pointing up. Thus, if you grayscale the normal map, you're not going to have a relief map that follows the typical convention of light coming from above and a little to the left, you're going to have one of light coming from below.
Thus why your textures look like that.
LOL!
#3229 posted by distrans on 2006/09/11 20:58:41
...the sarcometer I installed last week just burned itself out :)
Hmmm,
#3230 posted by HeadThump on 2006/09/11 21:17:55
...the sarcometer I installed last week just burned itself out :)
you may want to turn it in for a higher grade model that can handle higher readings than 'common' if you plan on reading O'Rourke, Mencken or Waugh anytime soon.
Hm..
#3231 posted by necros on 2006/09/11 21:22:05
i wonder if this is why the shadows are upside down when you use ambient lighting in d3?
But Whatever You Do...
#3232 posted by than on 2006/09/12 21:02:38
Do NOT buy an American made sarcometer. They may be cheaper, but I heard that they cannot easily handle the highest levels needed for life in Britain.
No
#3233 posted by inertia on 2006/09/12 21:04:48
The sarcometers made in the secret weapons plants of this country are superior to any other free country's.
And...
#3234 posted by metlslime on 2006/09/12 21:32:38
the ones in non-free countries were all sold to them by the CIA anyways...
Tsk Tsk
#3235 posted by HeadThump on 2006/09/12 22:06:02
Do NOT buy an American made sarcometer. They may be cheaper, but I heard that they cannot easily handle the highest levels needed for life in Britain.
still under the impression Jaguars are still being made in Coventry . . . it's a little sad.
British Industry...
#3236 posted by than on 2006/09/13 03:34:31
the only the thing we have left is the sarcometer!
You've Still
#3237 posted by inertia on 2006/09/13 12:10:24
got waging war to sustain your economy.
Some Myths Seem To Never Die
#3238 posted by HeadThump on 2006/09/13 13:02:37
got waging war to sustain your economy.
http://www.mises.org/story/1428
But at a cost of half a trillion dollars, the idea war is an economic stimulate is a much tougher sale to this generation than previous.
|
|
You must be logged in to post in this thread.
|
Website copyright © 2002-2024 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.
|
|