Treasure chest - How to bake correctly normal and ambient occlusion maps

nimlot26

I've wrote a little tutorial trying to give a few tips about baking normal and ambient occlusion maps. I hope you'll find it useful.

You can read it here:
3d how i see it: Treasure chest - How to bake correctly normal and ambient occlusion maps

kdm3d

hmmm... I'm gonna have to disagree with you there on the good and bad thing. The problem with using a lot of smothing groops like that is you aliasing is going to really show in engine. Yes, there are some odd curves on the non smoothing group version, but those can be fixed by manually editing the normals on your final. The no smoothing groups version IMHO looks a bit flat. Some smoothing groups are fine, but tends to have harder edges in your final bake.

Max has a funny way of shifting your normals around with the preview material. Try this: Set up everything like you did, with your normal map in the right slot and everything for your preview. Then just add an "edit normals" modifier on top of your stack. This will "reset" the normals and make them look more proper with the normal map assigned.

Good workflow though! both finals look good, depending on what style you are going for. The left one up there would fit well in a realistic environment, where as the one on the right would fit well in a more softer setting.

Nice tut too! very well explained.

PredatorGSR

Unfortunately you only got it half right. If you have smoothing groups/hard edges, you have to split the uv shells everywhere you have a hard edge. You didn't do so in the example, and as a result you can see seams on all the places where the uv shell isn't split. There are a lot of preventable errors in your normal map, including the rounded parts (baking with the same number of segments in the high and low and beveling corners instead of turbosmoothing will solve this).

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I don't think this is a very good tutorial since you don't have a full understanding of normal mapping and there is a lack of information on many factors that have a huge impact on the normal map, like proper uv layout, when to use hard edges, and when to use bevels and soft edges, and when and how to use a cage.

PredatorGSR

kdm3d wrote: »

hmmm... I'm gonna have to disagree with you there on the good and bad thing. The problem with using a lot of smothing groops like that is you aliasing is going to really show in engine. Yes, there are some odd curves on the non smoothing group version, but those can be fixed by manually editing the normals on your final. The no smoothing groups version IMHO looks a bit flat. Some smoothing groups are fine, but tends to have harder edges in your final bake.

Max has a funny way of shifting your normals around with the preview material. Try this: Set up everything like you did, with your normal map in the right slot and everything for your preview. Then just add an "edit normals" modifier on top of your stack. This will "reset" the normals and make them look more proper with the normal map assigned.

Good workflow though! both finals look good, depending on what style you are going for. The left one up there would fit well in a realistic environment, where as the one on the right would fit well in a more softer setting.

Nice tut too! very well explained.

kdm3d: The bad one has an incorrect normal map. I don't think you should ever try to pass off normal map errors as "stylized". If you want the rounded pillowy look, as an artist you should be do it on purpose in the high poly, not creating a bad normal map and trying to pass it off as stylized. I agree that the pillowy look is slightly appealing in the example, but you should be doing it on purpose if that is the look you want and not by accident with a bad normal map. Not saying you do that, just that that's not the right way to achieve that effect.

Bal

Yeah you're oversimplifying a bit too much here, using hard edges is definitely important in the right situations, but not using them will make for a more optimized mesh as long as your normal map can correct the wonky smoothing (this is not the case in your chest model, I'll give you that).

kdm3d, what? The model on the right is just wrong, having messed up smoothing is not a "style".

cryrid

(It might just be me, but I'm actually liking how the metal is catching the light in your bottom-right/final example. As if the metal itself isn't perfectly smooth, but is a bit warped from being hammered in).

Edit: since there were a few posts made before I posted, I'll just state that I'm talking about the metal bits only. The wooden parts shouldn't have the bad normals or anything.

kdm3d

PredatorGSR wrote: »

I agree that the pillowy look is slightly appealing in the example, but you should be doing it on purpose if that is the look you want and not by accident with a bad normal map. Not saying you do that, just that that's not the right way to achieve that effect.

Right, I know its wrong and should be fixed and on purpose... BUT I was referring to the above example as a finished product. It doesn't look HORRIBLE if he was in a crunch for a specific type of environment.

Adding that Edit normals on top of it would make it look even bettter!

We all know what its like to have 4 hours to get SOMETHING on the plate:)

nimlot26

kdm3d wrote: »

hmmm... I'm gonna have to disagree with you there on the good and bad thing. The problem with using a lot of smothing groops like that is you aliasing is going to really show in engine. Yes, there are some odd curves on the non smoothing group version, but those can be fixed by manually editing the normals on your final. The no smoothing groups version IMHO looks a bit flat. Some smoothing groups are fine, but tends to have harder edges in your final bake.

Max has a funny way of shifting your normals around with the preview material. Try this: Set up everything like you did, with your normal map in the right slot and everything for your preview. Then just add an "edit normals" modifier on top of your stack. This will "reset" the normals and make them look more proper with the normal map assigned.

Good workflow though! both finals look good, depending on what style you are going for. The left one up there would fit well in a realistic environment, where as the one on the right would fit well in a more softer setting.

Nice tut too! very well explained.

thanks for the reply
the left one is a somehow realistic representation of the high poly....it has the flat look where it was supposed to be flat
the right one is just...wrong in my opinion....i've modeled recently some props for a game and baking them with only one smoothing group just sent them back as a feedback....and of course 1 day + work
this tutorial comes as a response to that issue.
I didn't say it's the best option but is the most reliable when time is a factor and u need a nice looking prop. Normally i would strengthen the edges using a bit more polys(obvious if it were a more important prop) and scan with only one smoothing group.
Thanks again for your reply.

PredatorGSR wrote: »

Unfortunately you only got it half right. If you have smoothing groups/hard edges, you have to split the uv shells everywhere you have a hard edge. You didn't do so in the example, and as a result you can see seams on all the places where the uv shell isn't split. There are a lot of preventable errors in your normal map, including the rounded parts (baking with the same number of segments in the high and low and beveling corners instead of turbosmoothing will solve this).

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I don't think this is a very good tutorial since you don't have a full understanding of normal mapping and there is a lack of information on many factors that have a huge impact on the normal map, like proper uv layout, when to use hard edges, and when to use bevels and soft edges, and when and how to use a cage.

U are right. I'm only half right...and only showing an example...but i've seen a lot of baked normals around here that looks like hell and ruined some beautiful models. I know i have a lot to learn but i think that if i found an solution for one problem i've encountered it is ok to share it.
Thanks for ur reply.

Bal wrote: »

Yeah you're oversimplifying a bit too much here, using hard edges is definitely important in the right situations, but not using them will make for a more optimized mesh as long as your normal map can correct the wonky smoothing (this is not the case in your chest model, I'll give you that).

kdm3d, what? The model on the right is just wrong, having messed up smoothing is not a "style".

Yup....i'm oversimplifying...that's because it is an example...and it is an example made for pretty much beginners. As i've said....i know it's not the perfect way but it is a good solution.
Thanks

cryrid wrote: »

(It might just be me, but I'm actually liking how the metal is catching the light in your bottom-right/final example. As if the metal itself isn't perfectly smooth, but is a bit warped from being hammered in).

Edit: since there were a few posts made before I posted, I'll just state that I'm talking about the metal bits only. The wooden parts shouldn't have the bad normals or anything.

It kinda look ok but it's not....it doesn't follow the high poly...as it should.
Thanks for the reply

kodde

Have a look at the old Superspecular thread for another intersting approach to this that doesn't involve going overboard with hard edges/mutliple smoothing groups.

http://boards.polycount.net/showthread.php?t=66139

nimlot26

kodde wrote: »

Have a look at the old Superspecular thread for another intersting approach to this that doesn't involve going overboard with hard edges/mutliple smoothing groups.

http://boards.polycount.net/showthread.php?t=66139

this is one of the best tips i've heard lately...thank you!

PredatorGSR

The polycount wiki has a ton of info on normal mapping. http://wiki.polycount.net/Normal_Map#SGAHE