Page 2
Super Llama wrote:
Lazaroth wrote:
I agree that realism isn't what we should strive for,
mah boi, this realism is what all true warriors strive forsorry, couldn't resist... been watching way too many YTP's
I agree too though, the "official" texture project should just make the original textures the way 1996's bethsoft would have if they had better technology-- not the way 2010 bethsoft would have. However, I also think that there should be a SEPARATE texture project for high-resolution photorealistic versions of the textures. Personally, I'd have to see them side-by-side to decide which one I'd use. I think a photorealistic HD texture set would be more suited for a Daggerfall where all flats are replaced with high-poly 3D models, but this texture set is better for DaggerXL on its own.
StoneFrog wrote:
Gez wrote:
Higher resolution textures have to be somewhat more realistic anyway, or they make the material look like plastic toys. It doesn't mean going all the way to photorealism, but you can't be as cartoony as lowres without exaggerating that cartoony aspect.
Pretty much - this is something that often gets on my nerves when remaking textures. Going from, say, 64x128 to 512x1024 gives me a chance to remake all those cracks and bumps in crisper detail and with smoother transitions, yes. At the same time, the "clean" areas on the low resolution textures now look disturbingly bare. You almost want to grunge them up just to create some visual interest, but that results in a lot of obvious tiling, not to mention lack of faithfulness to the originals.
My things aren't as cartoony as these, since I'm somewhat caving in to that "add some visual noise" urge, but I do agree with Llama in that we should tackle these new textures the way Bethesda would have back in 1996, if they ever got that damned high-resolution version of the game done.
PatchyPegleg wrote:
So let me get this straight,
Quote:
I think a photorealistic HD texture set would be more suited for a Daggerfall where all flats are replaced with high-poly 3D models, but this texture set is better for DaggerXL on its own.
You're saying that my 1024x512 brick wall, is better suited for keeping the feel of the original Daggerfall? Whilst a photo-realistic brick wall, would be for a heavily modded DaggerXL?
And StoneFrog is agreeing that I should be aiming for keeping the feel of Daggerfall in the textures?
Soooo, do I just keep it up, but try to make them more realistic?
I just want to be sure, that's why I ask. Because if I'm wrong, it would be miles easier to Photoshop rape everything as there is very little skill to it. The marble pillars, that's how I got that done, I just found pictures that worked and made them seamless. Maybe tweaked them a little bit, but there was overall no skill put into them.
Super Llama wrote:
I'd say, realistically redo things that look stupid, but make sure when you look at them side by side you can tell that they're supposed to be the exact same thing. For example, with the npc flats, the guard looked stupid with smooth chainmail, and when the artist updated it with a more realistic texture, you could still tell that they were the same object in-game. Basically, a little grunge is good, but don't overdo it. I'd say to add a realistic rock texture overtop of it but set its opacity to very low. That way it won't look like details are missing, but it won't look like a completely different texture.
StoneFrog wrote:
Agreed. A faint overlay may not be a bad idea, because as clean and wonderfully high res as your current ones are, they almost look awkward at such a large scale (at least when looking at the texture head-on, ingame it's more natural). I'm finishing up my temple textures, for example, and check out the evolution of the pillars over time:
The left is the
current rendition, much cleaner and Daggerfallesque than it was before, on the right. Even though Bethesda had to work with limited dimensions and colors with the original, there certainly was enough room there for them to make them "dirtier" if they wanted to. They clearly opted not to, although whether this was to keep the column distinct at a farther distance or just as a matter of preference is unknown. Still, some faint overlaying is alright in my book.
Lazaroth wrote:
Super Llama wrote:
I'd say, realistically redo things that look stupid, but make sure when you look at them side by side you can tell that they're supposed to be the exact same thing. For example, with the npc flats, the guard looked stupid with smooth chainmail, and when the artist updated it with a more realistic texture, you could still tell that they were the same object in-game.
I agree completely, this is IMO the way to go
StoneFrog wrote:
They clearly opted not to, although whether this was to keep the column distinct at a farther distance or just as a matter of preference is unknown. Still, some faint overlaying is alright in my book.
I think you also have to consider where it's used ingame, which you seem to have done. The pillar is used in temples and I would say they are clean, in contrast to e.g. dungeon-textures which probably are dirtier.
"I clean the temple sera, mind you keep it that way." (or similar)
What I would want in the future is detail textures. I.e. textures on textures, e.g. adding dirt to a clean pillar. That way you could get more variation of the same texture without that much work.
PatchyPegleg wrote:
(NOT ACTUAL SIZES, JUST SHOWING BOTH TEXTURES TO COMPARE THE TWO)
(I was in a rush and somehow cut off a little bit of the right on the top picture when re-sizing for posting purposes
)
I thought that it was a vast improvement over the original in detail and realism, while staying true to the original. I did aim for a detailed clay brick. But I did think if they looked damp or 'oily' if you will, it would add to the "Desert Crypt" look. And as far as the second brick texture that I did goes, the two were so similar that I was about to just use this one for both of them. But I decided to make a barely darker variant instead, not that anyone in game will ever notice that I went out of my way for such a minor detail. So I'm not worried at all if they look too much alike.
___
Quote:
What I would want in the future is detail textures. I.e. textures on textures
I don't understand how to fix that issue, because I already did that. When I finished the texture, I put an emboss bumpmap on both textures to give them a gritty, darker, and rough look.
Quote:
I'd say to add a realistic rock texture overtop of it but set its opacity to very low. That way it won't look like details are missing, but it won't look like a completely different texture.
Now that, is a great idea!
I can do that in future textures. Because there is still an amount of work to be done after you do that, instead of just Photoshop raping it.
I dig it, alright.
___
To Lazaroth,
Okay, you meant using multiple layers. I failed to catch on to that
___
When I get the time to texture again I'll post something good. But as of late I've been worried about starting my college on time, moving out, and playing Monster Hunter Tri in my free time. Oh, and work... When I have free time from any of these four things I'll be sure to texture periodically, and pump out some new stuff.
Super Llama wrote:
I think it turned out pretty well. It could be a LITTLE brighter-- remember, this texture is a dungeon texture, which means it's not under direct light in most situations.
Waxonator wrote:
Cut the work out for ya.
Malentor wrote:
The hazy, blurred texture in the middle of the bricks somehow disturbs my eyes, as if I was looking at something without being able to focus properly. I don't know if it's just my monitor making it look weird though.
)
Just cause 
Also, 007 and 008 are the same thing, so you get double the credit for normal work.