Problem with wires and smooth stuff.
Hiya,
I've been modelling this submarine-wall-panel prop for practice and came across a very interesting problem - I cannot, for the life of me, make good wires for my models XD
In all seriousness, though, here's my prop:
If, for some reason you (like me) still can't see anything bad with this, here it is from an angle, with contrast turned up to better show the bad shading it gets:
Could someone show me where exactly I effed up and how to make my wires in a correct way?
I really am curious of other ways to do this, as I can't think of anything else.
And btw. modelling the 'window' as a separate cylinder is out of the way for two reasons:
a) I want to learn to model stuff like that
b) the 'window' is deeper than the wall (it goes through it).
Thanks!
EDIT:
Here's how much UDK hates it:
I've been modelling this submarine-wall-panel prop for practice and came across a very interesting problem - I cannot, for the life of me, make good wires for my models XD
In all seriousness, though, here's my prop:
If, for some reason you (like me) still can't see anything bad with this, here it is from an angle, with contrast turned up to better show the bad shading it gets:
Could someone show me where exactly I effed up and how to make my wires in a correct way?
I really am curious of other ways to do this, as I can't think of anything else.
And btw. modelling the 'window' as a separate cylinder is out of the way for two reasons:
a) I want to learn to model stuff like that
b) the 'window' is deeper than the wall (it goes through it).
Thanks!
EDIT:
Here's how much UDK hates it:
Replies
If its maya go to normal -> set to face it should now look nice xD
Edit:
Tried inverting the normals but that just inverted my mesh. And here's how my normals look like without inverting:
Seems pretty good to me?
OR you could just add a few extra cuts to get rid of those big tris.
There's only "obey hard edges" and "consolidate output geometry", both of which seemed to do nothing.
Still, going back to XSI, you can clearly see the geometry is not that good. What cuts were you speaking of, Ruz?
@Piflik:
I tried your suggestion but... This just seems so wrong O.O Now it looks like an early, unoptimized version of most of my models.
Plus it doesn't work.
If you are expecting nice clean shadows on that mesh using vertex lighting, you have to add more vertices. Lots more.
Otherwise use a lightmap.
All the UDK meshes are similarily low-poly, AFAIK so you sir are wrong.
Double wrong, actually, because it's noticeable as hell when you put a texture on it. I know 'cause I tried it that way using other models.
Edit:
Example of how lowpoly these things get. Sample model from UDK, courtesy of Epic Games:
Hopefully, this proves that it can be done without wasting 5000+ polys on a simple wall panel...?
Surely someone can explain to me why my models render like sh** compared to Epic Games'?
Ott was just trying to help you there, and his advice was good.
In your first UDK image it does look as though you are using vertex lighting.
UDK does not automatically generate "good" lightmaps for you. You need a second UV channel made specifically for lightmaps to get the best results from baking lights.
You should follow your own example from epic here, float your details over simple flat planes. Just separate the circle part from the rest of the wall. Also double check to make sure the wall part is perfectly flat where you are getting smoothing errors.
Lightmap or not, there is obviously a problem with the exporting method (or rather, what I do with my mesh before I export). Some of my meshes are quite fine in XSI and then turn to trash in UDK. See this thread:
http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?p=27083506#post27083506
And scroll down untill you see the pillar thingy. It's as fine as can be and yet doesn't render good in UDK.
So I propose to ditch the UDK problem as we won't be able to solve it on this forum and get back to my original problem which is geometry on my wall panel.
I'm 100% sure the flat planes are flat in all places. Separating the circle geometry would get me nothing. I already set the edges around it to 'hard' (which gives the same effect).
Obviously, something is wrong with my wires.
Edit:
Btw. quoting me from one of my previous posts, I can't use floating geometry for that because:
a) I want to learn to model stuff like that, I might have to do something similar some day
b) the 'window' is deeper than the wall (it goes through it) so if I used floating geometry, the wall would cut off some of the 'window' (the circle-thingy)
Edit2:
I edited the wires a bit. How good are these?
Now please, only comment on the wires/edge flow/whatevs. Ideas like 'use floating geometry' don't really help me learn how to deal with this stuff. I'd obviously use floating geometry if I could. The problem in this scenario is that the window has to go through the wall.
If your normals are getting messed up on export then all the more reason to separate the meshes. Unreal can't smooth over split edges.
If it's not the normals then it's the lightmap.
Why would you want to learn how to model things inefficiently?
I still recommend separating the two parts, in this case the window is not so deep that you can't fake it. You can probably get away with floating it as an entirely separate mesh. That way you have two modular models one clean wall and one window that you can place anywhere.
If you still insist and must have a hole in that wall then separate the window and make the wall like this:
Less wasted vertices/triangles that way.
EDIT:
Like this in UDK, lighting is baked. It still exhibits a few lighting artifacts but seems to be working alright.
i highly doubt that, lightmaps are nothing more then extra textures and as you can plug in any texture you want, i don't see how they even could prevent you from using your own lightmaps
@Neox:
One word - Lightmass. I have no idea how custom lightmaps could be a problem for Lightmass but I've heard people complaining about there being no lightmap support for UDK.
This may make the beveled area appear two hard though, so you'll have to add an extra edge-loop so that the beveled top/bottom ends up planar with the disconnected faces.
Notice the normals where the flat face meet the circular area - they are averaged instead of facing the direction of the polygons . You'll see the same effect where the edge starts to bevel, as the angle created is probably less than your surface discontinuity setting (default is 60ish degrees, I believe). Now the lighting has to blend from those angles across the entire surface, which is why you start to see the shading issues (at this this is how I understand it, there are technical artists here who could explain it far, far better) . Disconnecting the components works as it forces those edges to be separate, which means there's nothing for the normals to average with. Alternatively you can adjust (not invert) the usernormals so that those specific normals face the proper direction to create the shading you would prefer. The steps to do this depend on if you're using 2010 or not. I've never tried using actorx to export the usernormals though, so I'm not sure if that is what it looks at when you tell it to obey hard edges.
no one forces you to use lightmass, turn it off and place your lightmaps into the material, i'll soon do that and i really doubt it won't work, as its just textures
Note: I made them in Modo so I had to split the edges to control smoothing.
Tried exporting your mesh:
Something is obviously wrong with the exporting method in XSI o.O
@Cyrid:
That's a very good and well explained idea
@Neox:
You don't just ditch one of the best lighting systems around, it's there to use it. If other models work with it, that means it can be done. If everyone thought the way you're suggesting, we'd still be in the dark age of 2D o.O
EDIT:
On another forum, someone just told me I'm very, very wrong.with the lightmapping thing and I probably need this. Terribly sorry for all the trouble (and liez, terrible lieeeeeeeeeeeez!) that I caused if it's true! Gonna go check right now.
EDIT2:
Checked. Looks like I wasn't 100% wrong. It WAS a bug, after all! In UDK -_- I went to my mesh in the editor and changed the Lightmap Coordinate Index from 1 to 0 and it seems to work like a charm:
(although I must say this bottom shading is WEIRD XD)
In the end, hadn't you guys insisted so hard that it's something to do with lightmaps, I would've probably never figured that out. Will have to do some more tests but it looks like the case is solved. Thanks guys and sorry for all the trouble
Still gotta read up on custom lightmaps and whether they work or not.
EDIT3:
Yay for long posts! Looks like everything works:
And, oh the irony, the UDK documentation on content creation is down atm so I can't check out the lightmap docs XD
Oh and don't mind the z-fighting in that last pic, it's entirely my fault/laziness.
Cheers for getting it to work though
And please, stop talking about 'custom' lightmaps. By their nature, all lightmaps need to be 'custom', and UDK definitely does support baked lighting.
Glad you got it to work, but you seem to be rather combatative with people who are offering suggestions.
Perhaps it's not a bug but it seemed to me that the editor should assign the first working UV to the model, not just insist on the second one, whether it exists or not.
And if we're going to be such language purists, lightmaps aren't custom by nature, lightmap coordinates may be, but the lightmaps themselves are calculated by the engine when building the map. That's why I'm not such a purist, so easy to get lost in it all.
And I'm not combatative, I just wanted to solve my problem which I started the thread from - how to reorganise my wires. For quite a few posts people wanted me to just ditch the problem.