Free Allegiance Forums

Adaven wrote:QUOTE (Adaven @ Aug 12 2006, 09:35 PM) But back to the issue of color in general. If the generic rocks being predominately brown isn't realistic enough, what do you think of the tech rocks? Are Silicons too green, and would a high concentration of Uranium actually be orange?

<RockGeek> Uranium Ores are Black-Brown so red is not totally unconvincing as an 'enhanced reality' version. Si is a common element in just about every rock ever so colour as you like (pure Si can be a wide variety of colours too based on the various phases), C crops up in lots of stuff too. Asteroids tend to be Black-Grey-Red/Brown depending on composition (iron rich 'roids are reddy brown). </RockGeek>

Like i said though, Alleg should be an enhanced reality so looking cool is far more important than any sort of scientific accuracy imo.

Wow adaven, I'm freaken impressed! /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />

Great work, keep it up!!

Adaven wrote:QUOTE (Adaven @ Aug 12 2006, 03:10 AM) Here's bgrnd03, this and bgrnd05 are all the generic asteroids I think, just tech and he3 rocks remain.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e313/Ada...grnd03-big2.jpg

Again, some source material courtesy of NASA/JPL-Caltech.
Now that I have a better idea what to do, this one was much easier and has more detail in the right places that the other one I did. I really like making rocks.

I've still got a seam issue I need to take care of, but it shouldn't be too hard.

I'd start sending the files to whoever wants them, but I'm on dialup until the 21st and each one tops out at 8.2 MB.

Nice Rock
Send them to me ill drop them in the Repository... or u can wait for me to commit the folder hierarchy and commit them urself..

That is a pretty cool looking rock. Even with the current models I am surprised at the detail when you get up close but it is about to get a lot better with these new textures /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

Have you guys had a 1024^2 versus 2048^2 discussion?

I'm thinking 2048^2 is over kill given they are 4 times the size of 1024^2 textures and 1024^2 will be a significant improvement over the current 256^2 ones.

I think the idea is to future proof as much as possible Dog, whilst the 2048^2 textures may not be seen in all their glory just now, in a couple of years there'll be more people with better tech in their machines.

Dogbones wrote:QUOTE (Dogbones @ Aug 15 2006, 09:41 PM) Have you guys had a 1024^2 versus 2048^2 discussion?

I'm thinking 2048^2 is over kill given they are 4 times the size of 1024^2 textures and 1024^2 will be a significant improvement over the current 256^2 ones.

Are u working on an opinion where we say that 1024 is good enuf? Cause it is... But the major ships in the game are cramped on a 256 and even on a 1024.
The 1024 is still a major leap texture wise and 2048 would be warp jump.
But to be honest our raster engine is way overdue and there are several features i would rather see, that can enhance the quality of the game in a "beautiful" sense.
If we stick with the 1024 and say that is fine, i would not mind... its the same job!
I think ill run a crazy test with all the textures in high rez... if i make it out of the hangar and i crash the machine ill tell u we can't handle high rez textures /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />

Zap

Yes, increasing res size is always "better" but it depends if people are flying at the resolution to actually view it.

What is the highest resolution anyone is going to play allegiance? I'm thinking 1600x1200 or widescreen equivalent. There is no point in having textures that put more detail on the screen at any given moment than that resolution.


Environments: You only see a fraction of the total sphere anyways, 2048^2 is probably useful.

Asteroids: You can only see 1 side at any given moment. A lot of people get pretty close to asteroids. 2048^2 is probably overkill, but you never now.

Ships and Bases: All ships and bases have some degree of symmetry (belters less, bios more), So you can potentially put twice as much detail with a single texture. And except for cap ships, rarely does another craft take up most of your screen. So 2048^2 is probably excessive, even at 1600x1200 resolution.

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Aug 15 2006, 03:44 PM) I think the idea is to future proof as much as possible Dog, whilst the 2048^2 textures may not be seen in all their glory just now, in a couple of years there'll be more people with better tech in their machines.

I agree but at what cost?

[Zap replied in here as well.] If the 2048^2 textures really look that much better and don't take a lot more effort to make then fine go for it. I would however say, do the work now, but release the textures as 1024^2 to the 'masses' and in a few years follow up with 2048^2. And for those that want the higher ones NOW they can download them.

95+% of the time you are too far from the object to see the enhanced detail, but the enhanced textures do look much nicer when you shimmy up close to a roid.

Edit: Adaven posted while I was replying /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" /> His comments are exactly the discussion I was looking for. Now after hashing it all out (it does not have to be a drawn out process) 2048^2 still makes sense, by all means do it, but if 1024^2 is sufficient it will take a hell of a lot less disk space (1/4).

I think 2048^2 as my card can handle it, and if mine can and its an old card, then Im sure there are others that can as well.

I dont think the few gig of disk space we would save by doing the original art in 1024^2 justifies the risk that at some point there would be people that would want the 2048^2. No reason to do the work twice, just to save a few gigs.

I think we should do it the best we can the first time around. It saves work later, and gives us a nicer product sooner.

/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />