MM wrote: »
no, it does not. weapons, vehicles or props can be organic as much as characters.
your definition is a bit narrow i think.
3DKnight wrote: »
Also textools for max 2012-13 is super buggy, lot of studios won't allow it to be used because of the lack of updates. maybe add a link to another tool that would work for later versions. I max i still don`t think there is a native way to split smoothing groups based on UV islands.
EarthQuake wrote: »
There are shots of just the low+AO bakes on our site if you want to take a look, nothing fancy just the high AO + low AO + CB cavity map thing
Oniram wrote: »
a bit off topic but whats the purpose of having a high AO and low AO on a texture? will that tend to overdo the shadows in some areas?
metalliandy wrote: »
CE3 has an xNormal tangent basis plugin and a CryTIFF plugin now, so I'm assuming that it is all synced up correctly. http://freesdk.crydev.net/display/SDKDOC3/Normal+map+baking+with+xNormalhttp://freesdk.crydev.net/display/SDKDOC3/Using+the+Xnormal+CryTIFF+plugin
It is generally better not to use smoothing groups or hard edges to add definition to the low-poly game mesh. Smoothing groups cause the vertex normals to be split along the hard edge. This can cause normal map baking errors because the split normals each "see" a different part of the high-res mesh during the raycasting process.A single smoothing group should be applied to the entire in-game mesh before baking. However this can produce extreme shading differences across the model, as the lighting is interpolated across the extreme differences between the vertex normals. It is usually better to reduce these extremes when you can (mostly by adding bevels) because the tangent basis can only do so much to counteract the extreme lighting variations. Less extreme gradients are also better if your game engine doesn't use the same tangent basis as the baker (or doesn't make its own properly).
When you use object-space normal maps the vertex normal problem goes away since you're no longer relying on the crude vertex normals of the mesh. An object-space normal map completely ignores vertex normals.
Amsterdam Hilton Hotel wrote: »
found this flagrantly (and not-so-flagrantly) wrong information on a so-called "tech artist" wiki -
haiddasalami wrote: »
Just as a heads up. The tech-artists wiki for the normal maps if I recall were just what Eric had from around 2009 and then kinda went downhill with bot spamming. I was supposed to help Eric move the relevant stuff over to PC wiki (got swamped ) and the tech artists wiki would just mirror the PC wiki.
Amsterdam Hilton Hotel wrote: »
ah. i hope no one takes offense, of course sometimes we make tutorials only to later realize errors (i have certainly done this myself, more than once). i just wanted to point it out because i really do see that exact advice all the time w/r/t baking normals and this was like, a perfect example
Ged wrote: »
Hey guys are there any guidelines to getting a really good set of uvs ready for baking a hard edged mechanical shape? Pelt mapping is easy but nearly always results in a little bit of stretching, especially if you are trying not to create uv seams everywhere, so do you just use planar mapping a lot? or what?
Good info in this thread so far, thanks!
Hamza wrote: »
can i get some help here plz?
after 2 days of trying i got better result but still not perfect, i have giving to undersatnd that to keep may hard edges i need to split the uvs where they meet,so thats what i did and definitely i got better result but still have some artifact whith fine details, as you can notice the small details added on the hard edges.
Joopson wrote: »
EQ, I understand a fair amount of the information in this thread, but what confuses me at this point is the best method to build the cage, and what is or is not a reasonable tweak to make manually to it.
And when to adjust the cage to get a better bake. At the moment I just "Inflate" the mesh, so to speak, and use it. For simple stuff that works with only very minor distortion, but I can imagine for a more complicated object, with notches and crevices, this could produce some weird things...
And I remember seeing, (not sure if it was misinformation), that if you're baking a cylinder, the caps should be much closer to the low-poly mesh than the sides are, to prevent distortion.
So, any tips on the actual building of a cage that supports quality baking? Or any good tutorials on the subject that get the EQ stamp of approval?
Notes wrote: »
Great article/read EQ...I was wondering if you could clear up a few things for me???
1)I think I might have the terminology wrong...are UV splits and UV borders the same thing?
2)Are edges considered hard because its on a 90 degree bend or because the edge is between 2 separate smoothing groups?
3)Is this what you were refering to in text tools when you said
"add hard edges along your uv borders with a Max/Maya script."
When I ran this script I get this in the normals on the corners...is it due to my topology?http://s7.postimage.org/ofynh0yix/question4.jpg
Thanks hugely in advance EQ, this is the stuff they don't teach in school and when they do we get errors and they say it's us and don't give a solution.
It looks like you're not using a proper averaged projection mesh/cage,
looks like you're getting gaps/seams at the hard edges or something.
I would say in general, you're probably using too many hard edges, it almost looks like every face has a hard edge here, which will mean a uv seam on every face too if you want to get a bake without seams or errors, so thats way, way too many seams.
Maybe try with a less complex mesh and make sure you know how to get a seamless bake, and then come back to this?
timotronprime wrote: »
As I understand, a proper Averaged Projection Mesh is a mesh that has the same topology as the in-game mesh, but with all soft edges, correct?
All the edges with the black gap are indeed all hard edges and they also have UV seams, which from what I understand, should be able to avoid getting black gaps.
The edge that the green arrow is also a hard edge and has split UV's. It is giving me the results I want. Is it right to assume with a proper set up, all of my edges will be able to look like that? Or is it unavoidable to have some gaps/seams?
On the topic of too many hard edges, I was under the (maybe wrong) impression that as long as the projection mesh was properly set up and the UV's split where the hard edges are, using hard edges would not be a problem as it helps minimize gradients on the normal maps.
So... is the lesson I should be learning from this is that I should still be using hard edges with discretion? I shouldn't make every hard angle from the concept/design a hard edge as that is technically incorrect? Please do correct me on anything that is wrong.
I will certainly do this.
dustinbrown wrote: »
Thanks for writing this EarthQuake. My take-away was that an "Averaged Projection Mesh" is essentially a cloned "cage" mesh, with one smoothing group for the entire mesh. So you can have hard edges on your model but they will be ignored when baking using an Averaged Projection Mesh. You still get the smoothing (and other) benefits of having hard edges on the mesh itself, but none of the baking errors derived from hard edges you would otherwise get when baking using Explicit Mesh Normals.
I do have a question regarding the "Destructive Baking Workflows" bit. I don't disagree with anything that was said, but I've found that I'll often need to use a smaller push value when baking (for example) the fingers of a character, and a higher push value when baking larger forms like armor. I'll then need to combine the bakes in Photoshop. I can definitely see how this would fall under the category of destructive workflow practices since there is some Photoshop voodoo happening, but I'm not certain it's always avoidable.
Also, regarding averaged normals when working under tight triangle budgets. You may not always be able to afford to round out every cylinder with plenty of sides to get a nice bake, or add control edges. Or maybe you can do it, but sacrifices would definitely need to be made in other areas to make up for it. I'd just like to know what your thoughts are on this.
timotronprime wrote: »
I did a rebake after separating the UV islands and below is the result:
It seems a little bit better but I'm still getting some hard edges. Are those unavoidable or there's still some tweaking I have to do for a truly seamless bake?
MightyPea wrote: »
eq: would snapping your uv's to the pixels help with that? If so it might not fix it 100%, but might be worth a try, as this looks like it might be related to filtering.