Erm... in the renderings it has 1068(!) polygons. but i've reduced them to 318 now. are these already too many polygons? now it looks like the following:
I hereby license the following file(s) under the CC-by license:
I hereby license the following file(s) under the CC-by license:
>re these already too many polygons?
For small stuff like stones it seems like a lot of polygons - but better ask the other graphic designers around :)
Okay, i've dwindled (geschrumpft^^) it to 62 polys now. but this isn't too many, or?? By the way: in OC rendered pictures are used, or? Please correct me, if i'm wrong! And when OC uses rendered pictures, it's irrelevant how many polygons the model has, or?
PS: With 62 polygons the rock looks so:
I hereby license the following file(s) under the CC-by license:
PS: With 62 polygons the rock looks so:
I hereby license the following file(s) under the CC-by license:
Looks good. Even though since this rock probably was mined with explosives, it looks too waterwashed for my taste. The original rock in Clonk was only round because of historic reasons (rotate feature was not implemented from the start, 8bit color, small resolution)
Simple items like rocks etc are not planned to exist as ingame-renderings (yet). However, if they will exist as that, it is not a problem to reduce the polygon count in blender. Can you attach the .blend in any case please?
Simple items like rocks etc are not planned to exist as ingame-renderings (yet). However, if they will exist as that, it is not a problem to reduce the polygon count in blender. Can you attach the .blend in any case please?
Yes, you're right. I upload the .blend-files so you can do some changes on yourself. but... the .blend-file isn't clear built (naming of the objects etc. doesn't exist). I hope you can do something with it although
I hereby license the following file(s) under the CC-by license::
1068 polygons
318 polygons
62 polygons
I hereby license the following file(s) under the CC-by license::
1068 polygons
318 polygons
62 polygons
You can attach it to your post btw. No need to upload and download from sites where ads are slapping into your face.
>Looks good. Even though since this rock probably was mined with explosives, it looks too waterwashed for my taste. The original rock in Clonk was only round because of historic reasons (rotate feature was not implemented from the start, 8bit color, small resolution)
We could make some different models for rocks, so "earthrock" that are round and the opposite, mined rocks.
The rock looks quite good. But I remembered that was vote, that the rock have to be edgy.
well... yes you're right. but you can do this in the .blend-files i uploaded for yourself. just click "set solid" :)
I don't use Blender. But when you use "set solid", the rock looks like round. Look at Nachtfalter's stone, what I mean.
okay, if you don't use blender... well... do you mean that this rock looks like round?
License: CC-BY
License: CC-BY
Yes, it is round. I mean stuff like this here: http://www.achlhof.at/Steine6.jpg
What if there were both kinds of stones? Materials could have a coupla different forms and graphics, imo.
we can f.e. have more than one graphic for the stone so when it was in water a long time the stone will smoothen up
when blasting stones, you will get edgy stones.
when blasting stones, you will get edgy stones.
IF there's too many completely different graphics for the same thing, it might confuse players.
It looks really nice ;)
Did you do the rendering internally or via Yaf(a)ray, Indigo or something else?
Did you do the rendering internally or via Yaf(a)ray, Indigo or something else?
Hmm, the texture is fine for a inventory graphics, but perhaps to tiny for an ingame one, isn't it?
Yes, you're right. Does this look better?
License: CC-BY
Or should I use an completely other texture for the ingame graphics?
License: CC-BY
Or should I use an completely other texture for the ingame graphics?
Don't worry about details yet as it is not clear how (RTR, images or title image = ingame image) the image will be rendered in the game.
I think it would look better if the texture is not such noisy. May test how it looks without texture? It wouldn't look so bad i think.
ModernClonker wrote:
I think it would look better if the texture is not such noisy. May test how it looks without texture? It wouldn't look so bad i think.
I think it would look better if the texture is not such noisy. May test how it looks without texture? It wouldn't look so bad i think.
well... if it only would be golden or something... i meant just to use a color. Golden in this case...
The last time I checked, Ice wasn't blue but transparent.
Only because it is blue in the former clonks doesn't mean that it will have to be blue here. It is a weird colour for ice IMO.
Only because it is blue in the former clonks doesn't mean that it will have to be blue here. It is a weird colour for ice IMO.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill