Next gen problems(normal map)

woody

I have been posting for help on other forums to aid me through the process of learning next gen texturing and modeling. However, getting a response is taking days! So I thought polycount is kinda' the main place to get fast help.

My first go at next gen/normal mapping. But my normal map doesn't look like other normal maps?? It looks ok on the model as you can see in the bellow pic, but on the normal map it seems to have what look like smoothing errors. I just need to know that I am doing everything correctly. I used as few smoothing groups for the bake as possible which to my knowledge is the correct way. I think it's mainly the blade I am sceptical about..



Help/suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

EarthQuake

woody wrote: »

I have been posting for help on other forums to aid me through the process of learning next gen texturing and modeling. However, getting a response is taking days! So I thought polycount is kinda' the main place to get fast help.

My first go at next gen/normal mapping. But my normal map doesn't look like other normal maps?? It looks ok on the model as you can see in the bellow pic, but on the normal map it seems to have what look like smoothing errors. I just need to know that I am doing everything correctly. I used as few smoothing groups for the bake as possible which to my knowledge is the correct way. I think it's mainly the blade I am sceptical about..



Help/suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

A. The gradations in the texture are to account for the smoothing/mesh normals of the lowpoly mesh, this is required to achieve accurate shading.

B. Depending on what will be done with the asset(what engine it will be viewed in) not using any smoothing groups/hard edges may cause visible smoothing errors in game. This is dependant on whether your baker and renderer are synced up(most arent).

C. Smoothing groups can be a solution to smoothing errors caused by differing tangent bias in your baker/renderer.

D. For every hard edge/smoothing group split, your uvs need to be split as well, or else you will get seam artifacts on those edges. If your uv splits and your hard edges/smoothing groups are the same, there is no performance loss. If your bake is set up correctly(IE: using an averaged projection mesh/cage, default option in max, not "use offset") you will not get seams from missed detail around hard edges. So, there really isnt any need to "Use as few smoothing groups as possible" this is sort of an old wives tale.

E. If it looks good on the model, it is correct. =P

Sean VanGorder

Generally the rule for this kind of thing is that if it looks right, then it's right. It looks like a pretty decent bake to make, as I don't see any glaring problems jumping out. But I'm sure EQ or some of the other vets will be along to either confirm that or make me look dumb, either is cool.

Might help to post a bigger image as well.

Edit: See, I told you. God damn it EQ, haha.

woody

I am going to seperate the mesh into different smoothing groups, which ultimately means using seperate uv islands...OK, if by seperate uv islands means they can be just detached but kept touching? Which helps with keeping the texture consistant later on?

Can you do that? or does there need to be a space? Surely you can just make a space so small that it won't cause inconsistency problems later on?

Thanks for the replies btw