Mitovo

Life is Feudal does not have that good terrains, they are kind of mediocre and the textures as well. The thing with Life is Feudal is, that the Terrain can be modified ingame as well as all the other stuff, therefore you cannot enhance it artistically by hand. If you use baked basetextures for the whole terrain and high res textures you can even achieve much better results than Life is Feudal. Look at BeamNG they have much nicer terrains, but it all depends on scene.

Let no opinion go unchallenged, eh Duion? lol I wasn't claiming they were the "best ever". I didn't say they were better or worse than anything else. I was just saying "I think the terrain materials in LiF look great, so I know that kind of result is possible", relative to the trouble I was having with it in 3.10.

As for the halo thing around texture layers.. yeah it's kinda unsightly. Hopefully that can be somehow addressed.

In the meantime, I think you can do quite a bit with 3 texture layers. Just have to be more "creative" with it.

So, reading through this thread, while I don't understand the technicalities of what was being discussed, I got the idea that something had been changed between previous versions of T3D, and version 10 that changed the way terrain textures are blended? That clicked with me, as I had been able to get terrain materials to look fine in previous versions, but then suddenly couldn't with 3.10 (and maybe 3.9? I don't recall).

I've always known that T3D can produce great looking terrains, and I've been playing Life is Feudal, which I'm sure uses a previous version of T3D, and that game's terrains look awesome.

So I went ahead and tried 3.8 to see if it would make a difference and, lo and behold, everything looks fine. I'm using the same textures/layers that I tried unsuccessfully to get to look acceptable in 3.10.

Here's a shot I took of my "tests" in 3.8 with a few texture layers, and a nifty decal road. The textures are nothing to scream about; was more concerned about getting them to look "right" more so than "good".

http://i.imgur.com/GQLECpZ.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/GQLECpZ.png

So yeah... seems fine there.

Something else did arise, though. I noticed that if I go over 3 terrain layers, that 4th layer will have a kind of "halo" around the texture, instead of blending smoothly into the layer(s) beneath it. Is this a known thing, or is there some good way of getting around that?

Anyway, I still don't think it would be a *bad* idea to introduce another option for terrain texturing and let people decide which they prefer to work with (similarly to how you allow them to choose Physics versions, etc), as per my previous posts... I think maybe reverting the "math" to how it was in 3.8 could be fine as well?

Thanks :)

What's also weird, is when it opens the file dialog to let me choose where to save it, what to name it etc.. it's an "Open" dialog, instead of a "Save" one.

yes, at first may be weird. Here just need to select the folder. The heightmap will have the name of the terrain "theTerrain_heightmap.png" and "theTerrain_layerMap_0_sand.png"

 

Also, the image you posted looks more like a lightmap than a heightmap.. or is that one of the images exported with it?

Yes

The true I almost no use terrain, so not sure the cons. I remember @Duion did some terrains with it.

Edit:

Okay... found a way to make it work. Basically, if I just type in the path I want to export it to, rather than using the File Open dialog, it works fine.

So.. .got that to work at least lol.

Thanks!

@Mitovo

What you mean "it's not doing anything"?

I did a quick export and is working. This is a exported terrain from "Empty Terrain" or the sand level.

http://i.imgur.com/Ehw99kI.jpg

I mean, it looks like it's processing something for a moment, but then no files are written.

What's also weird, is when it opens the file dialog to let me choose where to save it, what to name it etc.. it's an "Open" dialog, instead of a "Save" one.

Also, the image you posted looks more like a lightmap than a heightmap.. or is that one of the images exported with it?

Step 1) http://i.imgur.com/xGZAIkY.jpg

Step 2) http://i.imgur.com/snnJ8lY.jpg

Step 3) http://i.imgur.com/HvNXkmS.jpg

Nothing is saved to the destination folder after I click the Export button

Do you have evidence now or not?

So far you just made up claims and showed some random screenshots without providing the steps you took or settings and textures you used

I will certainly not download all engines and test out their material system just to probably find out that your claims were based in no evidence.

So I offer you once again, provide textures and show how you think they are suppsoed to look in another engine of your choice and then how they supposedly look in Torque3D, then give the textures to me and I will see if I can reproduce the result.

Ease down, Ripley. You're just grinding metal.

Seriously... Duion... Stop. You're fighting a pointless battle here and, frankly, making an ass of yourself.

The only thing you're proving is that you're an obstinate, close-minded individual, whom apparently either doesn't read what people write, or lacks the comprehension skills to understand it.

I said this already in my last post, but clearly you didn't bother to read it. So I'll sum it all up in a nice, tidy, numbered list.

I'll even type more slowly this time, just so you can keep up:

1) I never said you can't get good results with T3D currently.

2) I acknowledged you can get good results, as I've seen some examples, and am playing a game using T3D (Life is Feudal).

3) My issue is not with the possible results, but in its outdated, obtuse and unintuitive approach to doing so.

4) My point-of-view - not yours - has already been echoed and addressed by someone, whom has confirmed that the system is, in fact, outdated, that it is, in fact, not a good setup, and is, in fact, a left-over from ~10 year old technology.

5) It has been confirmed that a newer, updated and better material system is to be implemented in the future.

That's it. Period. End of discussion.

If you want to respond to challenge me further, I'm just going to tell you to go back and read that list again, repeatedly, until it sinks in. After this post, I will not waste another keystroke trying to get through your thick skull.

The debate is finished. My point has been made, acknowledged and confirmed. There's nothing more to argue, or prove.

It's time to put the stick down, and leave the dead horse alone.

Hello,

Just trying to export the heightmap for my map, as I've made changes to it since importing it originally. I'm using the File > 'Export Terrain Heightmap' option, but it's not doing anything. There's also no options for export format... Is this function broken or disabled currently?

@Mitovo

And how does every other engine do it? Do you have proofs for that? Do you know the algorithms? Can you show evidence that it looks better?

I mean you could do some research how others do it, find out the algorithm and make a pull request to change the blend algorithm and if you do not know coding, I'm sure someone will help you integrating it.

Besides that I offer you to prove your claims by providing a texture, set it up in another engine and Torque3D and make a comparison screenshot and then you give it to me and I see if I can replicated how you think it is supposed to look in the engine of your choice in Torque3D.

First: I have no idea how they're doing it "under the hood", nor should I have to. I'm talking about how it works for the end-user, for the artist setting up and creating the materials. They shouldn't need to know what math is going on in the background - and that such a thing should even have to come up, when we're talking about *art* and not *programming*, really underscores the problem.

All an artist should need to know is what they can achieve, and what texture to put where to do so.. and they can all achieve consistent results. You can easily download NeoAxis, Esenthel, Leadwerks, Unity3D, or any of a number of other engines and test them out for yourself. If you want to get into the more Node-based approach, you can check out Unreal Engine 4.

Second: I'm not contending that you can't get good results with T3D.. I've seen some myself, and I'm playing a game made with T3D (Life is Feudal). My argument is that T3D's system is needlessly obtuse, not intuitive and is outdated - quite literally, per JeffR themself - and could seriously do with an overhaul, to a more modern and user-friendly setup.

I needn't argue the point any further of how or why T3D's system is outdated because it's been pointed out definitively that it absolutely is, literally. As was pointed out, it's a carry-over from older technology that is no longer used. It's a remnant of ~10 year old tech. So, I was more on point than even I thought when I called T3D's tech outdated.

And my arguments don't preclude me from trying to come to grips with how it works in T3D. I'm merely pointing out "it doesn't need to be this obtuse and unintuitive, and there are numerous examples available, right now, of how it could be handled far better". Arguing for a newer, better system and trying to learn the existing one are not mutually exclusive.

The point is made, and the argument is done.. things are going to change going forward as they, in my opinion, absolutely should.

So, you can continue to stand there, arms folded, and argue with a dead horse. Have at it. You can continue to argue against more modern, intuitive and flexible material systems utilized by, most if not every other 3D game engine out there, and insist that T3D should stay the way it is "because it would be inconvenient for you to change how you do things", or you can be open to change, open-minded to how things can be vastly improved (and they absolutely can) and see where you can maybe help in that direction.

I really really really really hope that a plan to implement a more normal, sane and intuitive material system is in the plans for the next major version of T3D, because this current incarnation is just a train wreck. Look at any other engine out there, and they have a superior approach to this. It's pretty obvious why no other engine on the market, AAA, indie or otherwise uses such an obtuse or needlessly complicated approach as T3D's. It's utterly horrendous, and needn't be. It's so bad that no one is even able to confidently describe how the heck the system even works. How was this ever given the go-ahead in the first place? Seriously.

Sorry for the rant, but I've had an easier time figuring out complicated math problems than I have trying to understand what the heck is going on with T3D's material system.. and I flunked math.

 

Yes. I'm shooting to move away from the current TerrainMaterials and just utilize regular Materials. The current system is a holdover from ye olde days, where you were extremely texture sample limited and so you couldn't do a bunch of distinct materials that also had 2-3 additional supporting textures. Lukas has already been eyeballing making the rendering more efficient and streamlined by rendering as much as physically possible in a single frame, and from there I'm looking to shift to regular materials(at least pull the diffuse,normal and spec/composite for regular, consistent rendering behavior, anyways). Because I agree with you, the current detail texture is too squirrely and unreliable.

For the moment however, it may help if we can compare notes. If possible, uploading the textures somewhere so we can also fiddle with them could help understand where it's going pearshaped.

Hiya, Jeff...

That's heartening to know, and I believe you (or someone else?) might have indicated this elsewhere at some point as well - that the system is seeing an overhaul. In fact, I think I might have linked to a video demonstrating how it could be done (based on another engine).

So, I wasn't being hyperbolic in calling the system outdated and not with the times, then.. but was quite literally describing it based on its origins? Well that's a happy coincidence! I was thinking purely in terms of the process itself. I wasn't even aware that it was still a hold-over from the old TGE/TGEA way of doing things. I thought they'd decided to use a new system with T3D, and somehow thought "yeah, this would work great", in contradiction to every other modern game engine out there :p.

I hadn't seen any specific mention of overhauling or changing up how terrain textures are handled for the next major version, so I wasn't sure if that had been nixed or what not.

That's great to know. As I said in my response to Duion, even if the current system is kept in place as an option to be selected when a project is created (if that's do-able), so those who prefer it the way it is now can continue working as they had. I just feel like there's an opportunity (and potentially/possibly more users) being left on the table in strictly sticking to the way it is now.

As for which textures to use, etc.. Honestly, I've overwritten, adjusted and saved over the images I'm trying to use (just to get the process down with at least one material) so many times, I'm not even sure how far off the path I am at this point lol.

Maybe I just need to try looking at other materials made for other demos (not the ones that come with T3D since they're from TGE/TGEA as well, from what I can see) and try to figure out how those were set up, so I can do that "texture math" and get the correct results.

If I'm *still* having trouble with it... well, yeah.. then I'll post the images I'm trying to work with and go from there.

Thanks!

@Mitovo

Just because you do not understand instantly how the system works, you demand to change it so it fits your needs and then you demand that every person in history of Torque3D before you is forced to change all his textures and all his workflow according to the way you like.

.

"do not instantly understand"?

Get off your high-horse, Duion. You don't know me.

You also don't know, nor speak for "everyone else using T3D".

I could easily flip your argument around to say "You just don't want the system to change because you're used to it and don't want to have to change how you do things", and it would certainly be a more reasonable assertion, because it's based on your own actual comments.

I'm arguing for replacing - or at least adding an option other than one that is woefully outdated - with something that's more up-to-date, more intuitive, more in line with how every other engine out there handles diffuse, detail, normal maps, that allows more people to use a texture workflow they're familiar with (because it's similar to most every other engine available on the market), etc... and that might even help make T3D a more attractive option to people whom (and we don't know how many there are or aren't, because not everyone will post about frustrations, they'll just go away) might be otherwise put off by the material system, among other things.

I've been trying to wrangle this texture system to consistently produce the kind of results I want since before it was open source. It's been extremely hit or miss at best. I've asked a number of times, each time hoping maybe someone can give a practical, direct explanation of the processes they're using to get their results...No one has. It's just been "oh you just have to make sure the values hover around 128" - which I already know. That's heightmaps 101, and how it works with anything where color value determines how something is rendered (such as heightmaps, or the "emboss" tool in Photoshop, different blending modes, etc). I understand how material systems work for real-time 3D games/apps.

The issue is with how *T3D* uniquely handles that blending, which is completely at odds with probably literally every other engine out there. There's this standard approach to how things like this are handled... and then there's the "T3D way", and the two do not overlap, at all.

I'm able to get exactly the results I want in any other engine with minimal effort - it's practically plug-and-play in most cases. Select the appropriate texture for each slot, and it just *works* (because, despite what you might want to assume about me, I actually *do* understand how this stuff is supposed to work). T3D is the only one where they come out looking completely wrong, even after me sitting here fiddling ridiculously with decimal points, where .3 is way too weak, .4 is too strong, and .35 doesn't look good either. NO one else does it like this, and the reasons are self-evident.

How about this, Duion.. How about, instead of you getting up on your high horse and arrogantly talking down to me as though I'm beneath you because "You were able to figure it out instantly" (which I'm calling BS on)... Go check out Esenthel engine and see how straight forward and intuitive their Material system is.. watch how the results come out *great* no matter how you move the *sliders* - not typing decimal numbers in... *sliders* - with a live preview! Notice how you can get exactly the results you want, or even a variety of different options, with next to no effort.. just drag and drop textures to the appropriate slots, and move a few sliders.

Go check out Leadwerks. Go check out Neoaxis. Go check out literally any other game engine out there and play with their material system.

Notice how, though their interfaces are different, and have different amounts of control, they nonetheless can predictably yield very consistent results and with very little, if any, meddling.

If you come back still insisting that T3D's system isn't inferior and couldn't be vastly improved for everyone - yes, including people already using it - then you are either lying, a masochist, are dealing with a strange case of Stockholm syndrome, or don't like things intuitive or straight forward.

People might have to change the way they set up their textures? Probably. But based on my experience, it would actually be far easier, and require far less work, because they can create the diffuse texture as they want the final product to look, and then just make sure it tiles seamlessly. They wouldn't have to play "floating point texture math" with diffuse and detail images to get the results they want. I can't fathom how that would be a bad thing.

Change isn't always bad, and this would certainly be for the better. Many game engines don't even use detail textures anymore, because the diffuse texture is tiled, with all the resolution and detail baked right into a single image. From there it's just adding additional shaders/layers.

And at the end of the day, it doesn't have to be a dichotomy. It doesn't have to be "one or the other". They could choose to keep the current system in place as well, and let the creator decide which system they want to work with - the current system, or the new one, much like they do with letting you choose which physics system, which graphics API, etc. Options are a good thing, yes?

At time of writing, according to https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/blending-modes.html the equivalent is one of

 

Soft Light

Darkens or lightens the colors, depending on the blend color. The effect is similar to shining a diffused spotlight on the image. If the blend color (light source) is lighter than 50% gray, the image is lightened as if it were dodged. If the blend color is darker than 50% gray, the image is darkened as if it were burned in. Painting with pure black or white produces a distinctly darker or lighter area, but does not result in pure black or white.

Hard Light

Multiplies or screens the colors, depending on the blend color. The effect is similar to shining a harsh spotlight on the image. If the blend color (light source) is lighter than 50% gray, the image is lightened, as if it were screened. This is useful for adding highlights to an image. If the blend color is darker than 50% gray, the image is darkened, as if it were multiplied. This is useful for adding shadows to an image. Painting with pure black or white results in pure black or white.

Vivid Light

Burns or dodges the colors by increasing or decreasing the contrast, depending on the blend color. If the blend color (light source) is lighter than 50% gray, the image is lightened by decreasing the contrast. If the blend color is darker than 50% gray, the image is darkened by increasing the contrast.

Linear Light

Burns or dodges the colors by decreasing or increasing the brightness, depending on the blend color. If the blend color (light source) is lighter than 50% gray, the image is lightened by increasing the brightness. If the blend color is darker than 50% gray, the image is darkened by decreasing the brightness.

 

I want to say the last...

I don't know. I'm at a complete loss here. I have brought the values down to the point where the stupid thing is practically one color, and I'm still getting extremes of dark and light in the blended material, or it's just washed out and dull if I lower the values too much.

I really really really really hope that a plan to implement a more normal, sane and intuitive material system is in the plans for the next major version of T3D, because this current incarnation is just a train wreck. Look at any other engine out there, and they have a superior approach to this. It's pretty obvious why no other engine on the market, AAA, indie or otherwise uses such an obtuse or needlessly complicated approach as T3D's. It's utterly horrendous, and needn't be. It's so bad that no one is even able to confidently describe how the heck the system even works. How was this ever given the go-ahead in the first place? Seriously.

Sorry for the rant, but I've had an easier time figuring out complicated math problems than I have trying to understand what the heck is going on with T3D's material system.. and I flunked math.

I may have changed something in my version, as I'm messing with terrain-splatmap improvements. But in the shaders I have, it's:

$$baseColor + detailColor \cdot detailBlend$$

Which is additive I guess.

Well if it's a setup you've changed, then it's possible that yours is different from the default one. Would be hard to say :-/

You have to consider that each layer has a different size, the basetexture is usually like 500 times bigger than the diffuse and the macro texture like 100 times bigger, so did you scale them accordingly in photoshop? Probably not since that is almost not possible.

That's why I said test in Torque3D, since textures are not just blended upon each other, they all have different sizes and therefore the texture will look different everywhere in the game, you also have a texture layer intensity value in the material editor, which can also changes the results.

The magical formula is very simple, as long as your values are around 128, it should blend fine, but you can still adjust the intensity in the material editor later, usually done with macro textures, as they are usually very light.

The base texture is a blurred blend of earthy green/brown/gray, and all medium to medium-dark tones. There's nothing in the diffuse texture, nor the detail texture that should be making *any* part of the material *that* bright, or *that* dark.. not if it is fact a "multiply" blending process.

The difference is night and day. I wouldn't even recognize them as being the same source textures.

My detail map values are all around 128/mid-gray, with only moderate deviations in either direction.

I'm thinking there's more to it than just a straight "multiply" blend going on.

Well, I can conclusively say that T3D's blending/multiply mode is nothing like Photoshop's. Not even in the same ballpark.

I just did a test in PS to test roughly how it should look in T3D. Got it to where it looks good in Photoshop, brought it into T3D and it looks horrible. Terrible. Not even *remotely* the same. Even with running it through HighPass filter, all values hovering around 128... lighter shades are blown out and darks are pitch black. By the time I lower the value enough to make the values not so extreme

This is what it looks like in Photoshop, with a diffuse texture in the background, and a detail texture above it, set to Multiply at 100% opacity:

http://i.imgur.com/ya39KfO.png

This is how the same exact diffuse and detail textures show up in T3D, with Detail texture strength set to 1. Setting it any lower doesn't help at all.

http://i.imgur.com/ys2ea41.png

Not even remotely close.

I thought maybe T3D's blending mode is more like Hard Light, but even *that* looks hundreds of times better in Photoshop, almost usable.

What's frustrating, is I've seen others get beautiful results with T3D's system, but I've run into nothing but problems with it for as long as I've been using it. I have to wonder how much hassle they went through to figure out the "magical formula" to make it look right?

Anyway.. Is there any chance that, along with the numerous other changes coming to the next major version of T3D, that this awful material system is being replaced with something more sane and intuitive to work with? More like what every other engine out there has, without all these weird settings?

Textures are blended with multiply, but why don't you just test it ingame?

Well i intend to test it both ways. I find adjusting/tweaking it is easier in PS (adjusting a simple 0-100% slider instead of fiddling with decimal points)... then can test it in T3D to make sure it translates.

Thanks for confirming that :D

Hi all,

I'm doing some tests in Photoshop to try and come up with some good looking materials for T3D. I remember someone, at some point, describing the way detail textures are used in T3D as being like one of the blend modes in PS, but I can't remember which one it was, and I can't seem to find the post via searching..

Could someone refresh my memory quick of which it was? Is it Multiply? Or Overlay, maybe?

Thank ya much!

Thanks for all the replies.

@Mitovo which gpu are you using with that Ubuntu Mate distro?

Update: Some says that that the Oibaf's drivers should be working fine on older cards with Ubuntu 16.04 https://launchpad.net/~oibaf/+archive/ubuntu/graphics-drivers

UPDATE!!! I did the install of those Oibaf's drivers and they work very well.

I have a NVidia 970GTX.

You can also just draw terrains by hand in Torque3D, I do that for levels that are not that big, like smaller than 1 square kilometer, if the level is 1 square kilometer or bigger it really takes long time to paint the terrain in Torque3D and a terrain editor may be the better choice. Also the benefits of terrain editors like erosion only can come into effect if the terrain is very large, since you need big mountains in order to have erosion in your level.

For certain types of land forms and such, hand-sculpted in T3D is probably the better way to go, for me; small villages, etc. Or, maybe some combo of importing a "roughed out heightmap" that gets the basic landforms in place, and then I can tweak it manually.

For larger areas, I like having an editor that gives me a bit more control from a "higher level". That I can use L3DT on Linux is a godsend.

hey i am mainly using linux os, there are some nice terrain editors that can be used on linux, some are commercial ones which means you have to pay for them, you can find them on the steam, i cannot give their names here but i am pretty sure that you can find them. Also there are some free ones but maybe they are not just a terrain editor like UE4, it has a nice terrain editor, but given the size of UE4(i compiled on my machine and it is nearly 40gb) , i would not recommend you to have it on your system just for it hightmap editor feature. Well from my own experience, if you donn't mind using wine, some windows terrain editor can work fine with wine such as L3DT standard version(which is free with some small limitations).

wish this helpful for you. :D

Oh, does L3DT work on WINE? Nice! I own a license to the Pro version of that. Didn't think it would work. Figured it was kind of a "fringe" app...

And it works without hassle! Holy cow that's amazing.

Thanks!

Well, I've recently moved over to Linux, having FINALLY found a Distro that I didn't only find "passable", but actually love using - which is Ubuntu Mate.

Anyway, I got Torque3D downloaded, having happily found there are binaries available for it (I thought I would have to compile it all myself, etc). It runs quite smoothly, about as I'd expect it. Haven't gotten into any real work with it, yet, but intend to. Just posted a thread asking if anyone knows of a good heightmap editor for Linux, as a matter of fact.

I'll post with my experiences and such as time goes on. But so far, it seems to "just work" as I'd expect it to.

Hello everyone,

So, per the subject, I'm wondering if anyone using Linux here is aware of a good, fairly well-featured Heightmap Terrain editor for Linux? In particular, I'm Ubuntu Mate.

I know I've seen one before, when I was on Windows, and thought "I'm going to check that out at some point when I'm on Linux".

Now I'm on Linux, and can't find it.

Of course.

Anyway! Thought I'd ask here in case there are any Linux users working with T3D.

Thanks!

pk3 does not seem to be a special format, I remember renaming them to .zip and I could browse them like folders or other archive files and open and close items out of it. Other games have much more complicated archive formats.

Indeed. PK3 is one of those "just rename it to .zip" deals. But some are actually custom formats with some kind of archiving algorithm (or something similarly implemented by some smart person) where you can't simply rename it, etc.

I'm thinking more of the latter.

Hello, no it's not possible for you to change your own username, but admins are able to.

I fixed it for you! Tell me if I made any mistakes :)

Perfect! Thank you!

Yes.

By the way the Quake "pk3" format does not really make the game harder to "hack", you can tell your system those are zip files and suddenly you can browse them like normal folders.

Indeed. In fact, the pk3 format is one I was thinking of in particular, as well as what the Unreal engine uses, etc. In some cases, though, they are a custom format and aren't so easily opened. But that's beside the point of my question.

I was thinking more in terms of organization, where instead of having folders that are basically art/music/asset dumps, they're more organized.

There's another engine I've used that utilizes a kind of "virtual folder" system which I really like. Outside of the engine/editor, it looks like a single file with a custom extension. Inside the editor, though, it's an entire hierarchy of folders and files the engine uses. I suppose it's effectively like having an entire folder hierarchy archived into a single file, which is then opened by the engine/editor. Whatever the mechanics behind it, it's a cleaner, more organized presentation that I really like.

Hello,

Was just wondering. Many/most engines I see utilize a kind of custom file format which acts like a "package" or archive of the various assets used in a game. I'm guessing they're encrypted or compressed in a way that makes them tougher to unpack/hack open.

Does T3D support something like this? Or, has anyone ever done anything like that with this engine?

Thanks!

Hello,

Quick question.. Is there a way to change your profile name? I want to change mine. I want to keep it the same, just change it so it's just Mitovo. The alternating caps made sense in my head (it's the first two letters of my first, middle and last names). I've since changed the spelling elsewhere, but there doesn't seem to be a way for me to do it here.

Can a mod do this?

Thanks