View Full Version : Need Help Serious Crits on these texture sheets.

12 December 2006, 11:30 PM
Please note, I am a programmer trying to get contract artists to get these weapons correct.

I've been trying to get these textures done correctly for the past 3 weeks, and I have finally gotten the artists to at least get the correct look and feel, just now need to get them to squezz as much detail out of the Texture Sheets as possible.

Here is our current quality that we have. Both the M1 Garand and Kar both consist of 2x 1024x1024 textures and then a seperate texture the Clip and Bullet.

As u can see what we have are some really high quality textures. 2 x 1024x1024 textures and of course a seperate texture for the clip/bullet.

So here are the new textures that I am trying to get into shape:

The M1



12 December 2006, 11:35 PM

Any advice and crits would be nice, be brutal. I feel the texture sheets are not being used as highly as they could be.

We really want to hit the mark with these and more info, and crits I can get the better.

Please note, I am a programmer trying to get contract artists to get these weapons correct.

Thanks for all the help.

12 December 2006, 03:44 AM
Im not sure what base texture you are using, but it is very blurry and low res. Try and use a crispier higher res base to start off with. ( This shows especially on the M1918A2 receiver.)

The overall lighting isnt too bad tbh, but some of your colours are a bit weird. (Mixes of purple and greens make them look a little too inconsistent.) Same with the difference of "damage/wear" between metal and wood.

Id suggest really defining edges and little details to get the most out of your texture maps.

hope it helps a bit, and keep at it :)

12 December 2006, 05:04 AM
as loom said the wear on the wood of the M1 needs a lot work. It looks brand new and is the meshed w/ a worn barrel. Overall there quite good, just need to think about there actual use, wear and whatever backstory they have. Its a shame though that you painted all the spec and highlight into the map rather than using spec maps and normal maps. Would have givent them that extra edge, whereas now they feel a part of a last gen Call of Duty game and are kidna faux real :). Keep progressing!

12 December 2006, 05:48 AM
Cheers, well there is no back story to them. They are all 1942 - 1944 issued weapons that saw no actual combat until when the game is to start. Their only use was during training which while extensive and exhuasting did not see the weapons take any form of abuse.

The weapons were well maintained, well prepared for war. This means that there was a coating placed on the weapons that reduced reflection.

The wood itself is a very strong wood and not prone to damage or wear. Yes they get minor scratches but these are very light and not ver pro-nounced. Most likely they would have seen bruising or medium dents. Nothing major.

That said around the tripods, or but stocks would have been wear which is directly related to usage.

People have this perception that WW2 weapons are meant to look as if they were dragged through a field by a tractor. Not the case the vast majority of weapons issued due WW2 (at least for Normandy) would have been well taken care of and most would have seen little or no action.

We are actually trying to get the impression of new-ish style weapons out there.

My main concern is relating to lighting, bluriness of the texture, bad usage of texture UV Space, Low definition of key places with high definition placed on minor locations etc.

Cheers for the comments will be sure to pass them on. The lighting is something that has to be reduced. We did tests with Spec Maps on the weapons and didn't see too much advantages from them. Given the tri count on the weapons, and the nature of the surfaces the end results did not warrant the extra texture usage.

But more work on the engine is needed, so perhaps in a bit. We need a little bit of lighting within the weapons to give it definition so you can really see the contrast between them. I guess keeping it to a minimal is the key. Remember these weapons were treated and finished in such a way to ensure minimal reflection and minimal scratching / damage.

(Oh and the Garand and Kar in game, certainly do not look like COD or COD2 quality, they are sharp crisp and clear and with a good lighting system will look even better)

12 December 2006, 05:54 AM
@ Gamedev & Loom

Please don't see me as being defensive, I have nothing to be defensive about neither myself or my team did the textures. I'm just trying to get it clear what we are after from them and filling out the backstory as Gamedev suggested. The artists are also under strict instructions from our Researchers, Historians and Vested Interests.

If you look at:

You will see how exact we are trying to get them, everything from the serial number and serial number match up with the buttstock, strap, sight type etc.

Wear and Tear is not what we are after.

I appreciate your comments, they have helped me focus my crits to the artists involved.

12 December 2006, 07:13 AM
They look good. The M1918A2 and the barrel of the M1 is too beat up IMHO, but other than that I think the main problem is that the wood is too saturated. *Gets out gun book* Yeah, I think it's a little too saturated and you could probally vary the tone a bit throughout the wood (little darker @ the bottom and top than the middle. Maybe a little noise overlaid on top as well? In anycase good work!


12 December 2006, 10:38 AM
Like others said before me
the top pictures look a bit washed out.
Also why are the uvs laid out in such a non efficient way?

12 December 2006, 06:49 PM
I'd say aside from the low-res look your maps have, as well as alot of wastage on your UV layout, your contrasting your "new" look with randomly placed scratches all over the metal. Tone down the scratches and make them less random, it looks like someone purposely went with a knive and knicked up the whole gun.

12 December 2006, 07:09 PM
The uvmaps are horrible. If you truely want to improve the look of the models, you'll need to have someone overhaul the uvmaps.

The M1 is the most glaring example of this. The wood part of the weapon ingame takes up over 80% of the visibility, yet it only takes up about a third of the uvmap.

Much of the M1918A2's uv's can be mirrored and optimized a great deal (eg, why have both sides of the trigger and its guard?). Its full of redundancy.

The same issues plague the rest of the models.

As far as the actual texture work goes, only the M1918A2 is up to the same quality as the links at the top of your post. The rest will need damn near complete overhauls to be brought up to that quality (overhauls which, fyi would've been needed anyway with the uvmap changes that should be done).

12 December 2006, 10:50 PM
You guys talk about uv layout and efficient layout... and so on
Are there any good tutorials on eficient uv layout techn?
I ask because Im new to this stuff and I would love to lurn

I would say this stuff is looking good but I am new texturing and uv layouts
thanx guys keep it up:thumbsup:

12 December 2006, 04:54 PM
Ok after searching for a while on google and checking out various tutorials I found this
Ino the name of the site sounds pornographic or something but it has great tutorials on UV and texture painting and various other stuff

hope this helps and keep it up:thumbsup:

12 December 2006, 06:14 PM
That's Ben "Poop" Mathis website. He made models and stuff for (among others) Bloodrayne. Can't remember if it was the first or second, though.
He's got really cool and good tutorials.

12 December 2006, 01:52 AM
reminds me of cod series good stuff, no crits sorry. I've modelled a few lowpoly guns but I never got around to texturing them lol

got to those ww2 guns

CGTalk Moderation
12 December 2006, 01:52 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.