Another terrific WWI update from Gennadich.

[bzhyoyo]

Making textures can be as time-consuming as creating a model. However, the advantage with textures is that you can hide bad modeling with them whereas a good 3D model can be ruined by bad textures.

It's just a matter of balance.

And these screenshots (and the pace with which progress seems to be made) really show the difference between professional modelers and amateurs.

[FlyXwire]

......and the difference from working in "spare-time" as modders, and as professionals who are paid to produce "full-time", and to compete in a marketplace.

Two very different experiences I would think, and with different consequences for the time invested in the effort put forward.

[rabu]

Really good points from all. I would also say that really good textures are not completely possible when you have bad models either, or choices in how the aircraft are modeled. i.e.: In Wings of War, they opted to mirror wings, rudder, tail, port starboard as well as top bottom, but used very good textures, problem is, no way of getting good decal work... probably done to keep file size down. In off, working on the N17, the arrangement of some of the model parts relationship to the cockpit makes it very difficult to get any detail from the inside cockpit view, like the edge padding, etc. I'm in no way criticizing, I think it's a limitation of how CFS3 allows the modeling parts to go together, anyway, it all works together, and when there is good communication between the texture artists and the modelers, and they both have a lot of experience, they can be very fast workers, doing things at a rate you are seeing with the GT team, unlike most of us who are experimenting and learning how to do things, but have a lot more time for it.

Good line templates are really important, I'm also learning that as I try to texture the N17, with no templates, and unclear edge perimeters, it's taken me a whole day to try to locate edges correctly and they still aren't completely right, so I am going to be limited to what I want to do texture wise unless I can get it right on... so I'm still plugging away at it.

[FlyXwire]

Absolutely Rabu, and this goes back to bzhyoyo point too, in that skinners can make some models look very good despite the lack of 3D complexity, but then painters do have their hands tied by the amount of exactitude available on the object's texture template(s)......or not.

As amateurs working in mod groups, there's all sorts of non-standard operating conditions that have to be dealt with.....inexactitude, challenging communication barriers (different time zones), and differing styles and skills presented by the modders themselves......oh, and often working self-managed without direction from "above"......

I wonder what is more diificult from a production standpoint, working as a professional to pre-determined standards, or as amateurs having to hassle with all these conditions (and still trying to get "professional-like" results)?

[rabu]

I think we saw the problem of organization and communication with the failure of the WWI "Knights Over Europe" (I think that's the one), where the parent company wanted to make it arcade, etc.? Organization and leadership is vital in a commercial or a major, non commercial mod like OFF, and it's really difficult. I would guess that the Promised Land Full Canvas Jacket is probably the last major mod that will ever be done that involved most of the work of just one person.. they are just getting too complex and time consuming, especially when models have to be made for planes, structures, etc., not to mention all the fm issues, etc.
And the big problem is to do it fast enough to produce something with a game engine that isn't out of date with the computer cpu/graphics potential by the time it comes out. That's one reason that OFF, using the CFS3 engine, even though it has a lot of problems and short comings, is still going to be good for several more years. And, meanwhile, GT's Knights of the Sky, with the IL2 engine looks to be the best commercial WWI sim coming up, if they can control things, and get a good marketer that doesn't try to dictate the audience again.

Originally Posted by Polovski

Yep great textures are what make these models look so good. Poly wise they are good but not higher than most modern sims, but if you have great textures you can make even simple models look great. Unreal 2007 uses such tecniques, and looks stunning. Basically render a high res model with great texture to a texture, then use that on the more basic lower poly object.

Great stuff anyway.

Yep agreed .... good textures make a good model look even better and as Lionel says bad textures will bring it down. I'd be interested to see what resolution textures GT use on these screenshots. It would be difficult to produce such detail and sharpness on a single 1024 texture for the entire aircraft. Also GT have yet to apply effects to these models. I think these will be previewed soon to which I look forward immensely.

Unreal 2007 looks stunning, however the realism in UT 2007 is more than just good texture work. The technique Pol describes above, creating a hi-res version of the model and rendering to texture and applying to a low resolution mesh is known normal mapping. Normal maps are a special map used to simulate bumps, grooves indentations etc and are not part of the texture itself. UT 2007 also uses effects such as per pixel lighting and a variety of shaders. CFS3 was an advanced 3D engine for its time [2001/02] and more advanced than some of the other engines out there, however these days CFS3 is also getting a bit dated. Flight Simulator X looks as if it will support features such as normal mapping and probably other advanced shading features. In the future the ability to write shaders will be another important requirement for the 3D modeller. [possibly even amateurs ]

Also the defnition of low poly modelling is constantly changing. What would be considered hi-res today will be lo-res a few years down the track. In the not too distant future there will be little difference between meshes used for pre-rendering in movies and meshes used for game content.

On the subject of normal mapping and low poly modelling these two links featuring the art work of Jason Sallenbach illustrate what can be achieved with low poly modelling and normal bumpmapping. Even though they are not aircraft they are worth a look. http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthre...8&page=1&pp=15 and http://www.horribledeath.com/2d3d.htm

BTW I did experiment back in Dec '05 by creating a high res version of the Biff's wing, with small leading edge ribs and using the texture on a medium res version of the wing as shown at SimHQ http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimat...=000145#000000 On these pics the external Biff model is largely untextured save for the wing experiment, national insignia, and ambient occlusion maps blended into the fuselage texture. I decided I did not like the artificial highlight shading on the pre-rendered textures and am doing these in photoshop for the time being.

As for pros v amateurs - freeware v payware. I can see where Dave's coming from as far as consistency goes though that doesn't stop me from enjoying most freeware. In a pro environment the specs for the project would be set by an art director working in conjunction with software engineers and artists would work to spec. Working that way would spoil the enjoyment many amateur artists derive from their hobby. The Bristol Fighter has been both an experiment and learning experience for me. Prior to the Bristol Fighter my total scale 3D experience comprised of 2 incomplete models only one of which was textured. In many ways to be invloved in a debate such as this quite flattering.

Returning to topic I look forward to the release of WW1: Knights of The Sky with immense anticipation. I hope GT find a decent Western publisher. As I mention in my blogs it looks like 2006 is going to be a bumper year for flight sim/combat flight sim enthusiasts with the projected release of a mumber of sim products.

[BarkhornXX]

GT's Knights of the Sky, with the IL2 engine looks to be the best commercial WWI sim coming up, if they can control things, and get a good marketer that doesn't try to dictate the audience again.

I fail to understand the marketing mindset that runs - "we need to make it arcady to appeal to the kids, forget about the grogs." I don't get that at all - immediately giving up a slice of your audience - a small but VOCAL slice - just doesn't make much sense. Not much more difficult from a design standpoint - and a much more effective approach - is to make sim that is HARD CORE - and the provide options to dumb it down according to user taste.

Both RBII and IL2 present these type of options. I hope that this product follows that lead.

Barkhorn.

[rabu]

Barkhorn:

I agree, but I guess the big companies, like UBI, etc., have thier marketing "experts" who have kids and .... So, even if the intentions of the small companies that made them were good, they are at the mercy of the "mother" company that markets and distributes them. I don't know what position GT is in, does anyone else know?
RedBaron was not of sim quality when it came out, by the way, even on its hardest settings, after thier patches, it was still pretty bad, it took a lot of user mods to get it up to speed, not to mention all the graphics improvements. Another case of a huge company, Sierra, putting the pressure, and screws, on a small one, Dynamix, to get the product out on time for the investors, even though it was full of bugs and almost unflyable in the early versions... really amazing.
IL2 is a breath of fresh air in the commercial sim world, but it has its short commings too, with out a dynamic campaign, etc. But GT apparently is going to have these really valuable requests, I hope.

[BarkhornXX]

Originally Posted by rabu

RedBaron was not of sim quality when it came out, by the way, even on its hardest settings, after thier patches, it was still pretty bad, it took a lot of user mods to get it up to speed, not to mention all the graphics improvements.

You are quite correct here. The original 2D release was a disgrace. Looking at the original a/c and terrain models and comparing them to the fine work done by the SWISSA guys, Kess, etc. makes one want to puke.

Still, one must admit that the RB dynamic campaign - and the paintshop/killboard/event cut scenes, etc. - have seldom been equaled and never surpassed.

I just hope the GT guys expend some effort in this area as this is the one area that the IL2 series comes up short.

Barkhorn.

[bzhyoyo]

Originally Posted by rabu

RedBaron was not of sim quality when it came out, by the way, even on its hardest settings, after thier patches, it was still pretty bad, it took a lot of user mods to get it up to speed, not to mention all the graphics improvements.

Sounds awfully familiar