Modeling vs. Texturing

[WillG_75]

I have spent a lot of time with this on my mind about whether it's mure fundamental to model all the details vs. incorporating them into the texture. I got to thinking about this when I was looking at houses in Google Maps of my city. I then noticed the huge amount of the American Four Square homes, and how many of them have various little designs and trims. So I got to thinking whether it would be worth the time to model 5-6 different trim designs vs. making a front wall texture with the designs and such.

I, personally think that texturing would be much easier that modeling all the trim, but that may be because I have used Photoshop for years, but I don't know if it would turn out as good of a product for SC4.

What's your take on this?

[XiahouDun]

A mix of both is best to me. It all depends on just what is being detailed. Like, the siding of a house can just be done in textures, while say the rails should be modeled (in my opinion). Now something can can also be done is for things like rails on a house, instead of modeling each individual pole, you can use alpha transparencies to get the same effect.

You mentioned the trim, mind showing some real world examples of the trim you are talking about?

[WillG_75]

Here's the original image that got me thinking

And yeah, I understand having to model gutters, railing, etc.

[XiahouDun]

That trim can easily be done either way. The textures version will look just a little flat, but in game it wont be a huge detail if you wanted to skip on modeling it. As for gutters, I personally skip doing those. You end up getting this white outline along the roof of the house that distracts from the rest of the detail. I think I did gutters for 2 of my houses, and took it off both for looking bad in game

[threestooges]

This issue really boils down to scale. The smaller something is, the easier it can be faked via a good texture. The larger something is, the more you should rely upon modeling to get it to look good in the game.

I think it really boils down to that. I tend to try to model as much as I can, but at a certain point, bits and pieces can blend together whereas a texture might actually be clearer. I'm not too good a photoshop, though I find myself with chances to imrpove as I continue my BAT work, so that may be a reason I prefer to model. The fact that it can provide little details such as tables and chairs really provides an opportunity to bring a building to life. Certainly though I would texture in wall siding rather than attempt to model each board. The modelling thing though is certainly taxing on my computer (256mb ram, but a decent enough processor) so I will drop a detail or two or texture it in, but if I can model it, I will usually try to do so.

Interesting discussion going here.

[callagrafx]

I think it very much depends on the type of building...a good example would be my up and coming hospital:



The glass texture is a bitmap, and the mullions are part of that with a bump map applied, to give it the illusion of physical dimension.  This method is good for large expanses like this, especially if there is any curvature.

However, where more detail is required on a lower scale, I tend to model.  Gutters, fire alarms and window mullions/windowsills.

[WillG_75]

My main concern with texturing is that even if you add a shadow effect to your texture, you still may get the effect of a shadow on a shadow. But I am thinking that with the example I provided above with the 3 houses, just texturing the trim may be reasonable, since a shadow from that would not be very noticable. But yeah, I'd still need to model the roof trim, gutters, pillars, etc.

Callagrafx, how do you make a bumpmap? I heard that it's a basic grayscale image that enhances different shapes and effects in the texture, but I am not sure exactly how to make it or use it.

As you might guess, I am trying to make a set of different houses to spice up the game some more. I have maybe 40-50 different styles, so I am also trying to get a good mix of time efficiency and a quality product. I wouldn't release a building if I wasn't 100% pleased with it ( which may be why I haven't released anything- am I too picky? ).

Edit: I got to thinking about something that I saw a while back about how the guys at Cities Unlimited Make their buildings, and how they could intrude and extrude parts of the wall to make window frames and windows, moldings, etc stand out more. Would this be possible in GMAX? I guess that it's not that I don't want to model all this stuff in particular, but when you model too much and make too many objects, the thing becomes a big mess, which could be eliminated or reduced with this method.

[WillG_75]

I did a little experimenting last night and this morning with using textures, bumpmaps, and objects, and I think modelling is the way to go. Like Xiahoudun said earlier, the texture way makes the whole think look flat and dull, even with the bumpmaps turned on.

I guess it's a little more work to model, but the results show for it

Hopefully I will be able to show how far I've gotten with my experiment later today. I finished up the shell of the Four Square Duplexes attached above, just need to add Doors, Windows, gutters, railing, etc and then really start texturing it (I scrapped the base textures). Might end up being my best work yet, maybe good enough to post

[Diggis]

I think that there is a problem with GMAX and bumb maps and that it doesn't work them.  Lee uses 3DS Max so has those available to him.

[SimFox]

First of all couple of notes:

GMAX and Bump are working fine together! The problem isn't in GMAX, but in BAT script that disables bump. Why was it put into the script (and subsequently removed from it when it was adopted to MAX) is open for debate, some guess will be given later... If it is so very desired it is possible to enable it again by removing one like of code from the script.

Now to the topic, And a very interesting if I may say so.

Textures or Modeling?
I guess it would be beside the point to say that both should be good. It is clearly the question of choice. The choice between two.
Thing is that in either case scale is very important. Oversized textures have been and still plaguing the BATing community just as bad as sloppy modeling. May be even worse. For some reason people think that "texturing" is easy. Of course it normally mean just slapping some random picture and that's it.
IMHO texturing when done properly is actually more difficult then modeling. And here are few reasons.
1. there aren't quite as many automation tools for texturing or UVW mapping  (that is integral and necessary part of propper "texturing" as for modeling.
2. If done correctly "texturing" will involve quite possible as many model manipulations as the modeling itself. Add on top of that search of the suitable bitmap, choice between various candidates, and almost necessary customization. If for nothing else then to remove obvious tiling. This is especially apparent in BAT because of the scale of things. There are no such thing like worth while bitmaps that are perfectly tillable! Such thing doesn't exist.
3. Scaling textures is more difficult in my mind than doing so for geometry. There aren't quite clear guidelines or references, and, again tools to do so. Plus, you'll inevitably be doing it in external program  hence need of constant switching between two. If nothing else the confusion with shortcuts is there!

[Diggis]

GMAX and Bump are working fine together! The problem isn't in GMAX, but in BAT script that disables bump. Why was it put into the script (and subsequently removed from it when it was adopted to MAX) is open for debate, some guess will be given later... If it is so very desired it is possible to enable it again by removing one like of code from the script.

Sure fine, but for the purposes of this discussion GMAX and BAT are the same thing, as it would be too confusing to soley refer to BAT.    But interested to read your comment, would you please explain which line this is, as it is the first I have heard of it.

[jestarr]

I'd be interested in knowing which line of code that is, also.

[callagrafx]

I've been through all the BAT scripts and cannot find a definitive part where textures are "dumbed down"...and as far as I'm aware any rendering is handled by render.dlx, which is a proprietary plugin which the script references, because as you know, Gmax has no render facility of it's own.  I don't think it was ever "removed" from the B4M script (c.p. could shed some light here), it's just that the B4M script uses Max's own render engines.

Your point about oversized textures is well taken, but there is a distinct need for emphasis...the game's graphics are fairly limited and with only 5 zooms (the 6th being a magnification of zoom 5), any fine detail is completely lost, so people exaggerate things like brick texture to give the illusion of stonework.  No matter how hard we try, the game display (and FSH conversion) will kill a lot of the detail we put in.  However, one thing I believe is certain, a great model is nothing without great textures.  A lot of BATers create excellent meshes, then really slip with textures...Ill Tonkso is a prime example of this.  If he took more time over his texturing then his BATs would be truly outstanding.

[XiahouDun]

However, one thing I believe is certain, a great model is nothing without great textures.  A lot of BATers create excellent meshes, then really slip with textures.

I couldn't agree more. On the houses I made, I usually spent as much or even more time working on the textures then the models themselves. When you look at a few of the best downloads out there, sometimes the models are actually very simple, but the complex textures set them apart for the rest.

[jmyers2043]

Hello Will

Marc gives good advise. I can't add anything. And Cal posted the perfect picture. Note how the down spouts and the window sills cast subtle shadows that play against the light. those shadows are something that no texture will be able to simulate. Adds a lot of realism to bats.

One thing to consider is how competent you are using a paint program. Not very good at paint shop yet? Then you'll probably have to spend more time in gmax compensating making details. Many here have the more expensive photoshop. I use Paint Shop Pro. I also believe the Jeroni and Peg use Paint Shop as well. I find that I spend two hours in Paint Shop tweeking textures for every hour spent in gmax. The more you work at batting, the more adept you will become making textures. I never take a texture from any photo or web site and use it as is. Brick? I will often add a gradient and if its old brick I'll also add random dark areas to simulate wear and tear or clouds casting shadows from above. A blue painted area? Don't flood an area with solid blue. It will look like plastic. Rather, make a blue jpg then lighten and darken areas by 5% or 10% to add interest. It will simulate natural variations due to dirt and reflections of light. Don't forget. The UV map tool in gmax is indispensable for beginners. 

Be subtle as well. I like to make gradients so that the casual gamer will know that there is something there but not so pronounced that it 'smacks one between the eyes'. Sometimes, less is more. . . .

Hope this helps.

[WillG_75]

Oh yeah, I take all the advice and help I can get. Jasoncw over at ST helped me a lot when it came to dirtying up my roof textures and adding water stains and stuff. I have been working in Photoshop for a long time too. Just recently tried the UVW Gizmo tool, so I can move around one texture for the entire roof rather than making 3-4 separate files for each side of the roof, which in the end saves a lot of time.

I have another question though that hopefully some people who have modeled some very large buildings can address. When I look at the wireframe of a house that is completed, it looks like a mess. Now I know that you can hide some of the actions like turning off the Extrusion and mapping editors to get the basic outline, but I was wondering if there was an easier, quicker way of doing it. That's probably the one thing that slows me down and keeps me from making larger, more complex buildings.

[XiahouDun]

Just for the record I use Paintshop Pro and Photoshop. What Jmyers says is great advice. Doing things subtle will look impressive than something overdone. I'm by no means the best modeler out there, so there are others that could probably do this better, but to use one of my models as an example:

If you look at the far right image, you will see the weathering I did on the wall. The texture though has subtle changes using the burn and dodge tools. In photoshop, the image looks like this: you can see that the small changes will really show up in your renders.

[jmyers2043]

GMAX and Bump are working fine together! The problem isn't in GMAX, but in BAT script that disables bump. Why was it put into the script (and subsequently removed from it when it was adopted to MAX) is open for debate, some guess will be given later... If it is so very desired it is possible to enable it again by removing one like of code from the script.

Hello SimFox. I've read this comment of yours at least a half dozen times to try to let it sink in. And please be aware that I apparently don't have the same grasp of the inner workings of things as you do. Are you saying that Maxis screwed up with their bat tool? And would your idea make for a good and useful 'update'? Or alternate version? Or could your idea be an add on to the bat tool??

i am very interested but don't have much programming savvy 

[SimFox]

My mistake...
I have written previous message based on my memory (vague) of tinkering with the export script. Mistake was in assuming bump being "Effect", (which it actually is) and assuming that it is turned off by one particular line in script. But I stand corrected now... I went back to script, and it's not what it appeared (to me then) to be...

Still there is a plenty of strange things around GMAX. Renderer.class.classes function does list Scanline as a renderer. So how much is GMAX truly with no renderer is a bit mystery. Another is AA - it is there in preview and not in actual export.

Anyway back on the subject. My main point was that both texturing and Modeling are important. But I find often it is easier to make some detailing with modeling then with texturing especially in terms of precision and control.