Texturing a starship

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04 April 2002   #1
Texturing a starship

ok this is destined to be the first of many questions about texturing...

lets say I have this spaceship right? and its rather complex in its design. Lets say i want to put dents, rust, chipped paint, smoke discoloration, and dripping grease from all sorts of different parts and boxes. What would be the easiest way to create the least amount of textures and still have them be able to look good on many different areas? For instance, could i make a grease texture and apply it in different ways to a box, a sphere, and a pipe and make it look good?

That brings me to my second question. If i use a bunch of different textures, like grease, chipped paint, and faded logos on the hull, how do i control what can be seen and not seen, for instance, can i make a logo on the side (think star wars or something) and have grease over it, on another texture layer? how would i control whats on top and what can be seen?

Any help here would be great. There will be more posts to come.
__________________
Optional signature you may use to appear at bottom of your posts.
 
Old 04 April 2002   #2
ok even better, lets say that i make the base material a very matte black or matte dark grey...how could i add those details mentioned above, but still keep the matte grey or black?

Crap, forgot...
*****IM USING MAX 4*******
__________________
Optional signature you may use to appear at bottom of your posts.

Last edited by Antilles : 04 April 2002 at 01:40 PM.
 
Old 04 April 2002   #3
EEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWW Max :(

The problem I aslways had with Max's Material Editor was it's lack of layering. I'm not sure if Max 4 does maybe now support this, but the last version of Max that I used was 3.1, and you caould only have one image in each channel.

If this is still the case, then you only really have one option:

You are going to have to make one hell of a huge and detailed image for each property

That means doing some kind of UV unwrap and exporting it to Photoshop and working on it.
Very important note - if you want the textures to look really good close-up, you are going to have to make these texture images really big.

So once you have your UV maps in PShop, then just make an image for colour, bump, spec, reflection, etc, just ensuring that they all interact with each other properly (eg. where your colour map shows dripping grease, make sure that the spec and bump maps show the blobby shiny grease too.) I find the best way to do this is to do each different map on a seperate layer - usually what I actually do is make a base layer for each attribute - for instance, for the colour map, I'll make a very basic colour wash, and then if I was to add, say, grease, I'd make that grease on a new layer called Grease Streaks or whatever, so when it comes to making the bump map, you can just copy that Grease Streaks layer over your basic bump layer, so that the bump shape and position for it will already be there. Once you have all your different attibutes on their various layers, then just show/hide the layers each and Save A Copy or whatever to get each property out individually. I hope this makes sense...

Unfortunately, this method does of course create HUGE PShop file sizes, and so your virtual memory can get a bit bogged down. So make sure you have at least 500Mb free on your HD that PShop uses as a scratch disk.

Otherwise, just switch to a different software, like Lightwave, which supports an infinite number of layers in each surface channel, so you can just stick 17 different images with alpha channels to make your surfaces the way they are supposed to be

However, I do use Lightwave, and I still do make all my base textures in the process I described above. It's just that I still then have the freedom to add more and more detail with other images...

Hope this helps you. If it seems a bit garbled (I've just woken up :o ) then just say so.

Otherwise, good luck!!
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 04 April 2002   #4
no, that was admirably precise! Thanks for the answer. Although the lack of layering is...disturbig...i can work around it and just put all the weathering in the one texture. I will definitely try the UV unwrap. Thanks a lot!
__________________
Optional signature you may use to appear at bottom of your posts.
 
Old 04 April 2002   #5
You know, I thought the days when users of other software (ironically, it always used to be Lightwave) would claim that 3ds max "didn't have" a particular feature just because 3ds max didn't implement it in exactly the same way as their preferred program were behind us.

If you want to "layer" textures in max, you can choose from the Mix map, the Composite map, or the Mask map, depending on the type of effect you wish to achieve and the types of images that you're using. For more complex "layering", you could use a Blend material, a Composite material, a Shellac material, and, for certain effects, a Double-Sided material.

You can use the UVW Map modifier to create up to 99 separate UV co-ordinate spaces for optimal positioning of your textures, should you choose to do so.

To the best of my knowledge, all of these options were available in 3d Studio Max 3.

In future, it might be an idea to replace comments like "EEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWW Max :( " with "I'm sorry, I don't know how to use 3ds max :confused: ".
 
Old 04 April 2002   #6
Hey there Socrates - ummm, I actually used Max for about 18 hours a day for 2 years and I think I pretty much knew the software inside out, I actually switched to LW because Max could no longer do everything that I needed it to do.
Yeah I know about compostite and mix maps, but they are not quite the same. Have you used LW?
Because in LW's surface editor, you can just dump image upon image into it using blending options similar th the blending options in Photoshop - multiply, divide, subtract and so on. This is the kind of layering that I was referring to, and it is a shame that not all software supports it
I have nothing against Max, I just find it frustratingly limited.
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 04 April 2002   #7
Oh by the way, Antilles, glad my advice made some sense
Please, if you are actually making a starship, and this isn't merely a hypothetical posting, PLEASE POST IT WHEN YOU MAKE IT!!!
I'd love to see it
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 04 April 2002   #8
I don't want to labour the point, but, as I implied, different software uses different methodology and terminology. The particular names that Photoshop uses for compositing functions (Blending Modes, in Photoshop terminology) aren't authorative. I'm having trouble visualising how a "Divide" function might work, if Photoshop should have such a mode (which, like "Subtract", it doesn't).

Your original response makes no mention of specific compositing functions or Blending Modes, or the lack thereof. One can certainly "stick 17 different images with alpha channels to make your surfaces the way they are supposed to be" in 3ds max. Why anybody would wish to unneccesarily increase rendering time by using such a technique is not clear to me.

I have no trouble at all admitting that "I'm sorry, I don't know how to use Lightwave", so it's entirely possible that Lightwave does have functionality that would be useful for this job. I just see no indication in your posts of what such functionality might be.

I have no particular axe to grind. I'm just pointing out that your advice - that "you only really have one option" - is quite simply false.
 
Old 04 April 2002   #9
Socrates - hmmm, I also don't wish to labour the point, but I do think I need to clarify certain things...
Firstly, um, I got confused about the Subtract blending mode - it's PShop equivalent is exclusion. And divide - I think I was getting confused with After Effects - sorry it's been a really long day, and my brain is a bit sore
I'm certainly not suggesting that PShop's terminology is authoritive, I'm using this as an example because most peeps are familiar with this software, and would therefore know exactly what I mean
I really have nothing against Max, I think it is an excellent piece of software, EXCEPT for it's surface editor. And I believe, maybe a bit arrogantly, that I have a good opinion of what is good and what is not when it comes to texturing, because that is primarily what I do for a living. I do believe that Max's material editor is very limited.
I, personally, find it very useful to be able to add loads of layers into my surfaces, although I do have the luxury of a rather large render farm at my disposal, so i guess rendering time isn't always an issue for me.
I was by no means, suggesting that "you only really have one option" - I was just pointing out the advantages of other software. Yes, as you say, you don't know LW, and neither did I until I started using it.
I then saw the advantage of having such options available, as they do give you greater control over how your final surface is constructed.
Everybody knows that compositing is an extremely important function in compiling footage, so why not also on textures?
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 04 April 2002   #10
what a piece of junk!

People. people. my friend and I just got done talking abotu how everyone on here is nice and professional. There's no need for the silly back and forth arguements. Anyway, about the ship, i dont know how to get two images to show in this post, but here goes...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 04_19_02_ship4s.jpg (19.2 KB, 680 views)
__________________
Optional signature you may use to appear at bottom of your posts.
 
Old 04 April 2002   #11
and..

one more for good measure
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 04_18_02ship02s.jpg (35.3 KB, 668 views)
__________________
Optional signature you may use to appear at bottom of your posts.
 
Old 04 April 2002   #12
Antilles - heheheh, I'd hardly call that an argument. This is, after all, a texturing and surfacing forum, so naturally peeps come here to argue the best ways of texturing things

I was beginning to think it was a bit unfair to talk about something completely unrelated to your post though

Very cool model design! Oooooh, this one will be cool to texture
Come on lets see this baby get some sufaces!!

Btw, to post more than one image, you have to have them uploaded on a site, and then you use the image tag link to link to them
If you use the attach image option, you are limited to only one per post
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 04 April 2002   #13
understood on posting images, but I dont have anything online, so oh well.
__________________
Optional signature you may use to appear at bottom of your posts.
 
Old 04 April 2002   #14
Actually I've been reading the posts here and following what has been said and I thought that this was one of the more constructive disagreements I've read. I'm a 3DS MAX4 user and found this thread facinating as I feel that (as I'm just learned to texture) I'm running into a lot of "Good God in heaven, why couldn't they just have made it work like _____ ". I actually had no idea lightwave used layers similar to photoshops because I've always used max.
__________________
Jim Sim
jim.simstudios.net
 
Old 04 April 2002   #15
oh right right, the disagreement brought out many new options. Its just felt like the language was sarcastic. Cant texture until tonight, but ill post screens for critiquing.
__________________
Optional signature you may use to appear at bottom of your posts.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.