Boxsmith on 16/11/2010 at 02:37
No mandible imo.
nicked on 16/11/2010 at 08:58
I think leaving the jaw changes the "atmosphere" of the skull, for want of a better word. The original LGS skull has no hint of a grin, it's just a grim reminder of death, whereas Schwaa's skull is less scary, more Halloween-prop grinning-skull. No offence intended; it's just a different style. I stick my original stance of no lower jaw for the EP.
Briareos H on 16/11/2010 at 09:09
Agreed. Also, I really like the texture contrast of the original. As it is, the side by side comparison a few posts isn't really winning any favours to the updated model, on any point except the ribcage.
LarryG on 16/11/2010 at 14:12
The thing to remember about the original's "contrast" is that the black areas represented air, and the dark ground you should be able to see through the air. That has been cut away. The contrast, now, will be provided by the actual background and darkness of the room. In dim to bright light the originals just look stupid. These models, from my testing in game, look OK in a wider variety of lighting conditions. As to the brownish color of the bones, that was a critics' choice early in this thread. I would have gone lighter and more "bone colored" on my own. The color now is closer to the current EP texture color than the original. But that is because folk said that was preferable earlier on. IMO the originals were way too yellow. IMO these new ones are too brown. But that's what folk wanted. I may provide two different sets of textures, one this aged brown and one a less aged ivory, and let NV decide which he wants to distribute.
Now that we are on the subject of the textures, I personally don't think that the 1024x1024 textures will provide any real value. The source pictures for the textures weren't that big. I can provide 1024x1024, as I have been stretching up to that size, and then shrinking down to 256x256, but I don't think they give any greater fidelity to the objects as the higher fidelity was never there in the source. Personally, I think that it would take an artist to create better hi-res artwork for the 1024x1024 to be worth the extra storage, and an artist I am not. That said, is there any preference in the format used? I think ddfix will accept a few different ones (though not GIF or PCX, strangely enough).
And does ddfix really require the manual identification of each hi-res texture to the low-res it is replacing? I think I read that someplace. Why, why, why? Why not just use the same name to do the mapping, or allow the identification of a pre-created mapping file? Seems much more trouble than it is worth, at least based on the screen shots I've seen of the use of hi-res textures ...
Nameless Voice on 16/11/2010 at 15:08
Quote Posted by LarryG
Now that we are on the subject of the textures, I personally don't think that the 1024x1024 textures will provide any real value. The source pictures for the textures weren't that big.
There's no point using 1024x1024 textures just for the sake of it - only bother if there's a noticeable quality increase, e.g. the sources are around that size already.
Quote Posted by LarryG
That said, is there any preference in the format used? I think ddfix will accept a few different ones (though not GIF or PCX, strangely enough).
I use DDS, though it doesn't really matter.
Quote Posted by LarryG
And does ddfix really require the manual identification of each hi-res texture to the low-res it is replacing?
Not any more, but I'll admit that I haven't really tested the new method that doesn't need .override files yet. Even before that, there was a batch conversion tool.
jermi on 16/11/2010 at 19:08
Quote Posted by LarryG
I can provide 1024x1024, as I have been stretching up to that size, and then shrinking down to 256x256
Don't do multiple resize operations, as each one causes some reduction in quality. (If that's what you meant.) Resize just once to the final resolution.
Quote Posted by LarryG
is there any preference in the format used? I think ddfix will accept a few different ones (though not GIF or PCX, strangely enough).
GIF is not supported because it's limited to 8 bits. Not sure about PCX but it's probably not as easy to read as DDS, TGA and BMP.
The search order for replacement textures is DDS, TGA, BMP, AVI. DDS is preferred because it can be loaded without conversions, and because it can contain mipmaps. Mipmaps should be included in DDS files because the quality of mipmaps generated on-the-fly is quite poor.
Quote Posted by LarryG
Why not just use the same name to do the mapping
Right, that's how it works nowadays. See (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117616&p=2026606&viewfull=1#post2026606) this post.
LarryG on 17/11/2010 at 16:48
This is where I am with the skull modifications. I've cut away Schwaa's jaw (sorry, Schwaa2! :joke:), added surfaces to sew it up again, changed some of the original surfaces, and mucked about with the texture to soften up the eye sockets and nasal cavity some. The eye sockets and brow ridges are still too far forward on the sides, giving the skull a very flat face. I'll see what I can do about that without screwing up the whole thing later on today after work.
[ATTACH]739[/ATTACH]
Nameless Voice on 17/11/2010 at 16:51
Y'know, now that I look at it more closely, the texture on the original skull model does imply a jaw. Note the line of bone under the black line at the bottom.
LarryG on 17/11/2010 at 16:54
You may be right, but that may be academic at this point. I think the consensus has spoken and wants the skull not to have a mandible.
nickie on 17/11/2010 at 18:26
As a member of the 'audience' or 'end-user', I prefer it without. The one with the mandible makes me feel it wants to sit down, have a jar, and crack a joke or two. :)
Regardless - he (?) is definitely looking tasty.
