423 réponses à ce sujet

[Zarathustra217]

Oh my, oh my! All bow down to the all-knowing old sage and let his wisdom shine upon us!

He has been taken many screenshots, and certainly, something is terrible, terrrible wrong. The ignorants must be redeemed!

But what is that? A strange burlap texture? How can we objectively assess the amount of detail?

Let us set up a test. We shall use the following texture, containing shades from the darkest black to the lightest light!



We will need two models as well, one with ambient and diffuse set to 1 1 1, and one set to 0.5 0.5 0.5

Left is 1 1 1, and right is 0.5 0.5 0.5

First, we shall test the hypothesis that 1 1 1 may actually cause loss of detail if diffuse lighting is very bright. We set up an area with rgb(255,255,255) diffuse and ambient, that should be enough!

This is how it looks:



Huh? They look perfectly the same? So there was no loss then?

But wait, that was both diffuse and ambient at 255 (totalling 510), and we all know there's only 256 shades of gray in 24-bit textures. Could it then be more appropriate to use something else - as in rgb(128,128,128)?

That yielded the following result:



Does it not appear that the texture to the left - the one using the "1 1 1" setting has the widest range of shades? Indeed, as we look at the histograms, this is how they compare:



But what does all that mean? To some extend, the use of the "1 1 1" setting is a design choice - and as the above indicates, it does not seem to entail any loss of detail.However, Bioware could alternatively have chosen to make all the lighting settings of areas brighter (twice as bright had they gone for 0.5 0.5 0.5), but the point is that they didn't. What this all comes down to is consistency - and for the most, Bioware went for (1 1 1) and all area lighting and everything else is tailored to that.a

And a second point. Will you drop the arrogancy? Too many good people have left the NWN community over the years over exactly that. I know what I'm doing - I've been modelling for NWN since release, long before there was anything called NWMax or whatever, so I'm well familiar with the technical workings of the model format versus the rendering engine. If you want to contribute to the constructive discussion, do so nicely and without boasting yourself, and perhaps we can all learn some.

[Tarot Redhand]

Seems like the title of this thread is more apt than AD expected. I may be getting towards the age when senility can set in but it seems to me that the current argument ultimately boils down to taste. There is one thing that does bother me about bulk setting of ambient and diffuse though. Have you considered that the original author may have deliberately given their models the values for these for a reason unbeknownst to either you or me?

TR

[FunkySwerve]

Zarathustra217 wrote...

Oh my, oh my! All bow down to the all-knowing old sage and let his wisdom shine upon us!
*snip*

And a second point. Will you drop the arrogancy? Too many good people have left the NWN community over the years over exactly that. I know what I'm doing - I've been modelling for NWN since release, long before there was anything called NWMax or whatever, so I'm well familiar with the technical workings of the model format versus the rendering engine. If you want to contribute to the constructive discussion, do so nicely and without boasting yourself, and perhaps we can all learn some.

A few remarks:

1) I agree that some of your models look improved in the screenshots in the previous page
2) Your demonstration in your most recent post is moderately convincing - moderately, only because I don't know enough to pass a more complete judgment
3) When you respond to several telling critiques by OTR with name-calling, accusations of arrogance, and other assorted ad hominem nonsense, you throw whatever credibility you have out the window. While I agree at least tentatively with your point of view, he's not the one that comes off as arrogant.

If you have a legitimate point of view to convey, there is no reason to resort to this sort of thing, and many reasons not to. Food for thought.

Funky

[Michael DarkAngel]

Taken from the BioWare Neverwinter Exporter Documentation

Materials Editor
Simply put, there are only two things that should be read from this area. The first
is the actual texture name and location.
The second is the diffuse colour. We can use this colour to tint the lighting of an
object, which is useful in many cases. It should be noted that if you use this
tinting as an actual colour changer (which we did), dynamic lights can still bring
it up to its full value… e.g., if you want to have a dark wood using a lighter wood
texture, this is fine, except that if a player walks by with a torch, he will make it
look like a light wood colour again. For the most part, this is not noticeable
though.

BioWare does in fact use this to darken the cliff terrain of the raised tiles in the Rural tileset (that is only one example, I'm sure there are others).

My opinion, FWIW

If you were to look at each model and see the following (or something relatively close based on rounding)

ambient 0.5859375 0.5859375 0.5859375
diffuse 0.5859375 0.5859375 0.5859375

then I would say you might have an argument for artist oversight.

The above would be the default settings that both gMax and 3DSMax use when creating a new material.  Anything other than that should be considered artist choice.  Even then, in some cases, those defaults may be left that way by artist's choice.

My measley two cents


 MDA

[Zarathustra217]

FunkySwerve wrote...

3)
When you respond to several telling critiques by OTR with name-calling,
accusations of arrogance, and other assorted ad hominem nonsense, you
throw whatever credibility you have out the window. While I agree at
least tentatively with your point of view, he's not the one that comes
off as arrogant.

If you have a legitimate point of view to
convey, there is no reason to resort to this sort of thing, and many
reasons not to. Food for thought.

Funky

Well, I apologise if it was too blunt - it was simply a (somewhat immature) attempt at illustrating a point. I'm very open to discussing all these things (and I certainly have no ambition on including it without the consent of people), but it becomes tiring when someone returns to this topic time and time again only to point out how ignorant and misguided the things I'm working on is.

Michael DarkAngel wrote...

Taken from the BioWare Neverwinter Exporter Documentation

Materials Editor
Simply put, there are only two things that should be read from this area. The first
is the actual texture name and location.
The second is the diffuse colour. We can use this colour to tint the lighting of an
object, which is useful in many cases. It should be noted that if you use this
tinting as an actual colour changer (which we did), dynamic lights can still bring
it up to its full value… e.g., if you want to have a dark wood using a lighter wood
texture, this is fine, except that if a player walks by with a torch, he will make it
look like a light wood colour again. For the most part, this is not noticeable
though.

BioWare
does in fact use this to darken the cliff terrain of the raised tiles
in the Rural tileset (that is only one example, I'm sure there are
others).

I admit that Bioware uses it in more situations that can just be deemed oversights. It is a somewhat viable option when you want to retexture something using an existing texture, though it's only benefit is that you can then reduce the video-memory footprint. It could mean a lot back when NWN was released, but we don't have to worry about that at all today. If you want to recolour or darken something, it's far better to make a copy of the texture and apply more flexible and sophisticated ways of re-tinting (in Photoshop and similar) than just the flat overlay that the ambient/diffuse options give. And if it's not a matter of reusing a texture, then there's no reason to customizing these settings at all.

Michael DarkAngel wrote...
My opinion, FWIW

If you were to look at each model and see the following (or something relatively close based on rounding)

ambient 0.5859375 0.5859375 0.5859375
diffuse 0.5859375 0.5859375 0.5859375

then I would say you might have an argument for artist oversight.

The above would be the default settings that both gMax and 3DSMax use when creating a new material.  Anything other than that should be considered artist choice.  Even then, in some cases, those defaults may be left that way by artist's choice.

My measley two cents

"Oversight" may have also been a poor choice of word from my part earlier, as I think most of it is probably the result of unawareness of what the full implications are, i.e. what the settings really do and mean. I imagine a lot of people who have modelled have tried to increase the default settings a bit because it seems really dark, but didn't know what settings were then the ideal. I also imagine though that it's not a coincidence that the exporter plugin now change those settings for you by default, but as far as I'm aware, that's a more recent addition (relatively recent, anyway), meaning many models exist from before that. That OldMansBeard made it an option in CM3 to set the ambient/diffuse settings of all models to 1 isn't just a coincidence either. It's a very common issue.

Tarot Redhand wrote...

Seems like the title of this thread
is more apt than AD expected. I may be getting towards the age when
senility can set in but it seems to me that the current argument
ultimately boils down to taste. There is one thing that does bother me
about bulk setting of ambient and diffuse though. Have you considered
that the original author may have deliberately given their models the
values for these for a reason unbeknownst to either you or me?

TR

I have considered it, yes, and at times changing those settings may even cause improper results, which will then have to be identified - but it's my impression that this is exceptionally rare.

And beyond that, it does indeed - at least to some extend - come down to taste. That's why I've posted those earlier screenshots and why I'm hoping that a lot of people will check it out and give their feedback (3RavensMore, I hope you will do that as well and see how it affects your sitauation). If the quality is acceptable and the errors identified and fixed, we can assess if a majority actually considerers it an improvement, or if a majority would rather be without.

That's the beauty of giving the CEP back to the community.

Modifié par Zarathustra217, 19 février 2014 - 05:30 .

[Shadooow]

3RavensMore wrote...

Well, after reading the last few pages regarding ambient and diffuse values in the models, and the mass "fixes" being made, I'm growing more and more cautious about ever updated my CEP. As a builder, I've worked very hard to light my placeable heavy areas. How would these changes effect the tons of work already done?

I think you are the best candidate to try the Zaharustra's model corrections. If it doesnt turn out badly for your placeable-heavy areas, where would be?

Im dont understand modelling at all but from the examples that Zaharatrusta showed it seems to me as a great improvement whether or not its a bug shouldnt matter when the outcome is better.

[Pstemarie]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

3RavensMore wrote...

Well, after reading the last few pages regarding ambient and diffuse values in the models, and the mass "fixes" being made, I'm growing more and more cautious about ever updated my CEP. As a builder, I've worked very hard to light my placeable heavy areas. How would these changes effect the tons of work already done?

I think you are the best candidate to try the Zaharustra's model corrections. If it doesnt turn out badly for your placeable-heavy areas, where would be?

Im dont understand modelling at all but from the examples that Zaharatrusta showed it seems to me as a great improvement whether or not its a bug shouldnt matter when the outcome is better.

I'm kind of partial to the screenshots Zath posted, but I also understand where OTR is coming from. Personally, I prefer to use ambient/diffuse settings of 1/1 for the texture palette I use. However, I have also created several models where, despite the best efforts to tint the texture, I needed to use the diffuse setting to make it just right. What it boils down to is that you're going to have to look at why certain models might have alternate settings and then assess the impact of changing those settings. This being said, I'm pretty confident that what Zath has done will improve a good portion of the models in the CEP.

Modifié par Pstemarie, 19 février 2014 - 03:02 .

[Zarathustra217]

Yeah, the crucial thing to assess here is simply if the benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks (and not whether my "skills and tripidation are lacking" that is just diverting us from the real issue). I have tried to locate all the models where using custom lighting settings gave a better effect (the NWN2 sofa on the screenshot is actually one such), but it's hard to imagine that I won't miss other (especially on the first release). There aren't many, but there are some. That's why I'm asking for help with testing and for people to give feedback.

And I had admittedly not anticipated this would be so controversial either, so based on that, it may be better to categorize it as an "overhaul" rather than a flat out "fix". It complicates things a bit though, because running it through CM3 and the compiler entails a lot of other fixes (as well as the other manual stuff I do as I work through it). I'm not sure whether I'm prepared to do that over again, but given the controversy I wouldn't be comfortable adding it to the CEP unless there's a popular decision in favour of it either.

Modifié par Zarathustra217, 19 février 2014 - 03:17 .

[3RavensMore]

ShaDoOoW, I think I'm going to pass on being a beta tester for this. With my limited time at the moment, I'm trying to learn a few new skills while putting any new building and story writing on hold. Sifting through thousands of placeables isn't really something I'm keen on doing right now.

As for the use of what Zath is doing, I completely agree with Pstemarie on all points (especially the last line.)

Modifié par 3RavensMore, 19 février 2014 - 03:29 .

[Zarathustra217]

I completely understand if you do not feel you have the time. That said, what I'm suggesting people to do is simply to install the updated haks and then keep doing what you usually do, but report if you encounter any issues, strange behaviour or loss of visual quality.

[Shadooow]

3RavensMore wrote...

ShaDoOoW, I think I'm going to pass on being a beta tester for this. With my limited time at the moment, I'm trying to learn a few new skills while putting any new building and story writing on hold. Sifting through thousands of placeables isn't really something I'm keen on doing right now.

As for the use of what Zath is doing, I completely agree with Pstemarie on all points (especially the last line.)

uh

Zarathustra217 wrote...

I completely understand if you do
not feel you have the time. That said, what I'm suggesting people to do
is simply to install the updated haks and then keep doing what you
usually do, but report if you encounter any issues, strange behaviour or
loss of visual quality.

this

All you have to do 3RavensMore, is to download new haks that Zarathustra217 prepared and play with them for a while. Or if you dont play and just build then, revisit some of your older areas in toolset (is this change visible in toolset?) whether something changed. Or assign this job to one of your players/testers. Its client-side content so you will not screw up the module.

Plus and this is serious drawback you havent considered 3RavensMore, if this is going to be ever included in CEP, fact that you dont update doesnt matter. Anyone who does update will see things suddenly differently because newer CEP version will still allow them to play your module and because this is client-side content in the first place. A server doesnt even have this, what matter is what players have in their haks.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 19 février 2014 - 04:18 .

[Shadooow]

I was about to write it on the new CEP wiki, but its actually not bugged, just completely bad designed so I rather write here how others look at this issue before I suggest to do anything about it.

Heartbeat scripts in a CEP placeables. (zep_torchspawn, zep_doorspawn)

This is an issue from CEP1 that was inherited, and afaik almost every PW builders are removing this sooner or later as this is especially when builder uses these placeables a lot draining lot of resources.

Problem is that this looks to be intented and used in conjuction with the OnUse scripts.

Now to the details, one of those scripts is zep_doorspawn.

Ive checked this and this seems to be the only way to enforce the correct behavior of this placeable door concept itself. Wonder if someone actually found a usage for this but this can be hardly removed.

Second is the famous zep_torchspawn.

This is adding a light visual effect at day/night, not exactly clever from the code myself and ingame I have never noticed this. Maybe someone know more about this?

BTW, cannot be the lightning that the heartbeat script is adding added directly in the model itself somehow?

BTW2: if this will be eventually decided to be removed it won't change the functionality of the placeables placed inside older modules. Just fyi as this knowhow has big impact on the decision itself.



Indirect proposal: Remove the zep_use_chair script and replace it with the x2_plc_used_sit.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 19 février 2014 - 05:06 .

[Zarathustra217]

I must admit that I've always felt that the inclusion of most scripts into the CEP was a mistake. The main incentive for using the CEP is that the merging of content is already done for you, and that your end users will have most of the custom content you want to use already in place (assuming they've installed the CEP). Scripts, however, can just as easily be acquired on the vault based on the module builders preferences and needs, and then be included inside the module itself without it needing to go into any external hak.

It's just more things to manage and maintain for the CEP.

But no matter how I and others feel about this, I fear that the overarching concern here has to be backward compatibility. We can cease implementing it further, but If we remove those scripts from the CEP or change their behaviour, we would break all the modules that currently use it.

[The Amethyst Dragon]

Zarathustra217 wrote...

I must admit that I've always felt that the inclusion of most scripts into the CEP was a mistake. The main incentive for using the CEP is that the merging of content is already done for you, and that your end users will have most of the custom content you want to use already in place (assuming they've installed the CEP). Scripts, however, can just as easily be acquired on the vault based on the module builders preferences and needs, and then be included inside the module itself without it needing to go into any external hak.

It's just more things to manage and maintain for the CEP.

But no matter how I and others feel about this, I fear that the overarching concern here has to be backward compatibility. We can cease implementing it further, but If we remove those scripts from the CEP or change their behaviour, we would break all the modules that currently use it.

My plan for scripts is to leave cep2_add_sb_v1.hak as a legacy hak for those that use it already while copying any CEP scripts into several script/blueprint .erf files for those that want to be able to import them and modify them for their own uses.

[Michael DarkAngel]

Zarathustra217 wrote...

"Oversight" may have also been a poor choice of word from my part earlier, as I think most of it is probably the result of unawareness of what the full implications are, i.e. what the settings really do and mean. I imagine a lot of people who have modelled have tried to increase the default settings a bit because it seems really dark, but didn't know what settings were then the ideal. I also imagine though that it's not a coincidence that the exporter plugin now change those settings for you by default, but as far as I'm aware, that's a more recent addition (relatively recent, anyway), meaning many models exist from before that. That OldMansBeard made it an option in CM3 to set the ambient/diffuse settings of all models to 1 isn't just a coincidence either. It's a very common issue.

No, I think oversight is a good word.  Because, if the defaults, set by 3DSMax/gMax when creating a new material, are left as is, then your texture may not appear as you intended.  And you could be left scratching your head wondering why.  That is probably why the exporters (NWMax and NWMax Plus, not sure about MDL Suite or the BioWare exporter) give you the option to override those values.  But as I just said, that is an option.  Something the artist has to physically do in order to override the Material Editor settings.

Why the exporter's defaults are 1 / 1 / 1...  I can't say.  But that would lead me to believe that is the reason CM3 defaults to 1 / 1 / 1.  Not because it is the best, or the most aesthetically pleasing, but because it was the standard set forth by NWMax.


 MDA

[Zarathustra217]

Actually, after reflecting a bit on the 1 1 1 setting, I think the explanation is simply that it allows for both either exclusively diffuse lighting or exclusively ambient lighting to still be able to light a texture fully up. In that sense it is the most logical choice, since otherwise it would entail that even the brightest diffuse lighting (dynamic or area) wouldn't be able to make what's white on the texture appear white in game if the area had no additional ambient lighting (such as torch-lit only areas).

But... at a certain point, this otherwise very interesting topic should probably be moved to it's own thread if we want to continue delving into it further.

/Update

Last word from me on this topic, I swear! But did a small test and it turns out that area diffuse lighting and dynamic lighting actually stacks, allowing the combination to light up a (diffuse 0.5 0.5 0.5) model fully up (though only for a vertex in the exact same location as the light source). Mainly a curious detail though, the 1 1 1 setting is still preferable since otherwise dynamic lighting on it's own wouldn't be able to make white appear white (among other things)

Also, even an area diffuse setting of (255,255,255) alone only makes a white texture lit up to roughly 75%, where as ambient lighting with the same settings alone gives 95%. Again, just a curious detail. Perhaps they made it so to leave some more room for dynamic lighting to brighten things? (documentation here)

Modifié par Zarathustra217, 20 février 2014 - 11:23 .

[Michael DarkAngel]

And we are still talking about different things.

Perhaps as they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

If I were to create a simple placeable with a white texture, and then set the ambient and diffuse of the texture to the following:

ambient 1.0 0.0 0.0
diffuse 1.0 0.0 0.0

This is what I get:


You come along and apply your "fix":

ambient 1.0 1.0 1.0
diffuse 1.0 1.0 1.0

This is what happens:


As you can see from this very extreme case...

You have changed how I intended my placeable to look.

This should not be done unless the ambient and diffuse settings were not changed from the defaults 3DSMax/gMax sets when creating a new texture.

I hope these are my last words on this subject as well


 MDA

Modifié par Michael DarkAngel, 21 février 2014 - 03:51 .

[Zarathustra217]

Yeah, I've mainly been on the lookout for when it's used to set the hue of something. Even then, it's a poor way of doing that, but I'll elaborate on that in a separate topic, as I figure it's worth documenting all this in itself.

... back to the CEP, Amethyst Dragon, you mention you are planning some things - could I get you to bring it up on the wiki? Just so everyone is on the same page

Also, did you receive the last two emails I send?

Modifié par Zarathustra217, 21 février 2014 - 09:03 .

[The Amethyst Dragon]

Zarathustra217 wrote...

... back to the CEP, Amethyst Dragon, you mention you are planning some things - could I get you to bring it up on the wiki? Just so everyone is on the same page

Also, did you receive the last two emails I send?

Just checked, and yup.  A couple of emails.   Sorry, hadn't checked the CEP email in a while.

I'll update the wiki soon.

[NWN_baba yaga]

The thing about ambient and diffuse setting is realy a tough question. For me, i always used 1 1 1 settings for everything i have done. But i can understand situations were it might be usefull to change them. The castle interior is another one, they used the settings to change the look for the floor tiles...
So there it is not wise to touch them;)

[Shadooow]

But no matter how I and others feel about this, I fear that the overarching concern here has to be backward compatibility. We can cease implementing it further, but If we remove those scripts from the CEP or change their behaviour, we would break all the modules that currently use it.

Yes I understand. When I wrote remove the script, I meant from the template. It still must be in hak for this exact reason, thats correct.

 

 

 

One more thing, that always bothered me on CEP and this is what was already in CEP1 is messing my custom palette with blueprints. I can always remove them for myself, just thought Im not the only one in this. Since CEP2 added some new palette category couldnt be this moved there?

 

EDIT. Oh I should say Im talking about items. Creatures and placeables are fine, although the inclusion of the blueprints in hak itself is a bad idea its not that uncomfortable to make a copy.

[Zarathustra217]

There's now a poll on the CEP wikia as to whether the CEP should include the ambient/diffuse updates (along with the other fixes):

 

http://nwncep.wikia....ontent_Overhaul

[Pstemarie]

There's now a poll on the CEP wikia as to whether the CEP should include the ambient/diffuse updates (along with the other fixes):

 

http://nwncep.wikia....Content_Overhau

Your poll is bugged - a user can vote multiple times. I just did by mistake. So I put in a "No" vote to counter my extra "Yes" vote.

[Zarathustra217]

Actually it's TAD's poll, not sure what settings you can set for polls. :S

[The Amethyst Dragon]

I've added a couple new poll options for possible content additions.

 

Re: poll security: Not something I can really do much about.  It's just a basic function of the wikia service, and I'm not going to stress about it.

 

Also, since I'm trying to collect documentation into one place, I could use the help of someone (or more than one person) with some spare time and Excel.  If you've got both, can you download this Excel file, then transfer creature source information from this thread into the file?  Thanks!