This way it would calculate the AO on all objects at once and render it separatly but with accurate result (right now if I have an object at the very top it's not getting a lot of AO as the other objects are on another group and the AO isn't calculated on everything). Not sure if i m clear but I could make a quick example.Įven better, tag objects (by giving then specific names, like a prefix) to identify groups and then import each groups in xnormal and let him split each group by itself. But an option to set up groups and compute the final map for me would be ace. I like to do groups of objects for baking, like for example, separate my high res / low res model in different groups that doesn't intersect with each others (often the highs have a lot of small instanced objects), to avoid baking part by part and avoid rays penetrating in other objects, and at the end I compute the final normal/AO/Diffuse in PS. Just let me put a suffix next to the checkboxes this way all my objects will have _N or _D at the end of the map.Īlso I'd like to see groups baking of some sort. Maybe there is a way to do it right now but I don't see any right now (I liked it in previous versions and kinda miss this). Some notes about what I'd like to see in future versions:Ĭheck boxes to bake Diffuse / normal / AO in one go, maybe even the possibility to add custom slots where you could add you own map to render by default. I use it daily, and the whole team I was with at Ubi have been converted into using it because we were 2 users of it and it was so fast and produced so clean results. Thanks a lot for making such a tool available for free. Is it xNormal-related, or a completely different project? I find it all very interesting regardless though. I would offer to help out, but I'm quite the newb programmer. Better to retain the program's focus and continue to improve the workflow, I think. The amount of time required to implement a toolset well-featured enough to make it a worthy alternative to other programs would just be too great. I think you're right in thinking that the GI rendering and sculpting probably wouldn't be a good idea.
#Xsi modtools switch to wireframe mac
The Mac version was cancelled because they are too expensive for my budget and Apple is ignoring all my dev support petitions What's sure is that will be ported to Ubuntu 8.04, Solaris and Windows. but perhaps that would be too complicated. I was thinking also about converting xn4 into a GI renderer with sculping features.
#Xsi modtools switch to wireframe Offline
i'm gonna use C++, wxWidgets for the look'n'feel UI, LUA/python scripting for offline rendering shaders and glFX/HLSL for the realtime shaders(which could be done in a 3rd party editor like FX Composer, Rendermonkey, ShaderFX, etc. like OpenGL 3 ( which has a considerable delay ). Then I could start the xn4's development by the end of this year. Well, I really need to finish a 3D engine before ( I calculate 3 months ). Maybe someone can provide some examples? ATM I take my XNormal-generated normalmap to Crazybump to create such starter maps, but If I could avoid such step that'd be awesome.
I don't use XSI myself but I saw its bake results for those maps and it looked like great starter maps for cavity painting, weathering aso. They might be mathematically correct (can't tell!) but I know that XSI provides these maps in a more useable state. except the wireframe, which requires me to go back to whatever 3d program!Īlso, it seems like the more exotic baking options you have (proximity, convexity etc) don't produce really convincing results from the artist's point of view. The reason why I am asking this is, when I bake all my maps in XN I find it annoying to have *almost* everything I need in order to start texturing. Maybe you could have color settings and antialias, but that's not necessary. I would love to have a very simple extra baking option : wireframe! This doesn't require to fetch any info from the highpoly just a simple wireframe render of the lowpoly. (Do I need to say that XN is getting better and better, still? )
0 kommentar(er)
