GametagAeonFlux wrote:By "clean" I meant it doesn't look battle scarred, a la Chief/Spartan from Halo 3.
Oh, well I got the normal map with the "battle scar" just like it without it. But if you like I can render up a new one with the "battle scar" if you would like???
To Tural: I agree I do need some more detail maps. But I am trying to finish my diffuse and normal map before so I don't need to worry about it afterwards. If you know what I mean.
Well what I mean by that is sort of recreating/modifying them because I am enlarging the diffuse from its original 512x512 to 4096x4096. Then after that I am making the normal map from my diffuse.
Well no matter to me. The way I see it the bigger the better. If I have a bigger diffuse and I put a new detail it would be much clearer on a diffuse that is 4096x4096 then it would be on a 1024x1024. That is what I am trying to get at.
Keablr wrote:Well no matter to me. The way I see it the bigger the better. If I have a bigger diffuse and I put a new detail it would be much clearer on a diffuse that is 4096x4096 then it would be on a 1024x1024. That is what I am trying to get at.
You realize that Unreal Tournament III barely utilizes that texture resolution on their most detailed bipeds and vehicles, right?...
Hijikata wrote:The fact you love Jesus doesn't change the fact you're a *** mental patient. It just means you're a mental patient with a great imaginary friend.
Using a large texture resolution is a waste of resources unless you plan to do some incredibly detailed, large, close, realistic renders. History of Halo rendering stands to counter the possibility of that. To achieve the best detail, one would have to go further than just increased texture size which won't end up being utilized properly in the long run.
Tural wrote:Using a large texture resolution is a waste of resources unless you plan to do some incredibly detailed, large, close, realistic renders. History of Halo rendering stands to counter the possibility of that. To achieve the best detail, one would have to go further than just increased texture size which won't end up being utilized properly in the long run.
Well it would be useless for through your point of view. I want to have more of a realistic render without having to make a whole new model.
Realism can be achieved with less effort and more efficient methods in shaders. At best, your optimal texture size would be 2048. There isn't going to be a dramatic quality difference in your renders once you're getting past there.
Keablr wrote:Yeah I kind of figured that but wasn't really sure, but since you have told me that, I can make my normal map at 2048x2048. Thanks for tip.
That resolution is not necessary.
Hijikata wrote:The fact you love Jesus doesn't change the fact you're a *** mental patient. It just means you're a mental patient with a great imaginary friend.
Keablr wrote:Yeah I kind of figured that but wasn't really sure, but since you have told me that, I can make my normal map at 2048x2048. Thanks for tip.
That resolution is not necessary.
I would have to say it did make a difference I made the normal map that I got so far at 2048x2048 and it looks a lot better than it does if it were at 1024x1024. The 2048 came out much clearer.
