totally random texture thread

Quote from Rick_D

i think it'd look pretty good with a normal and spec map tbh

Like this?

[Blocked Image: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v220/deathquakis/conctilefloor_shot002.jpg]

Bingo

Putting together some textures (and models) for a small concept I have on mind. Large brick wall to go with the, slightly modified, floor (this one above is still intact) Majority of it is WIP, so I'll wait sometime before posting another shot.

[Blocked Image: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v220/deathquakis/conctilefloor_shot006.jpg]

Yeah looks really nice like that- I would still give it a spec map, just a little something to highlight the cracks and chips in the surface.

I would also make the bump map a bit stronger, but I always did like normal maps being over the top

nice start though ;0

Quote from Quakis

i think it'd look pretty good with a normal and spec map tbh

Like this?

[Blocked Image: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v220/deathquakis/conctilefloor_shot002.jpg]

given, the bumpmapping makes a difference. but even in this shot, i think it looks cartoony. it has that unrealistical realistic feeling to it

ah, that all too common unrealistic realistic feel.

[Blocked Image: http://www.skjalgmap.com/stuff/first_wall.jpg]

WIP!

Crits pls.

top row of stones doest end properly i can see some from higher up cut in a little bit

Quote from Warby

top row of stones doest end properly i can see some from higher up cut in a little bit

But Gilbert will tell you its alright!

gilbert wtf who is that ?

[Blocked Image: http://pics.computerbase.de/1/3/7/3/1/56.jpg]

haha it was a joke atleast buddy here got it ;D

Update on my texture pack. I went out and took some photo references today, instead of using CGTextures.com. So these are completely from scratch by me. Bottom 3 are variation of one texture (using multiple layers with different blending modes).

[Blocked Image: http://www.methodonline.com/temp/concrete2.jpg]

[Blocked Image: http://www.methodonline.com/temp/concrete3.jpg]

[Blocked Image: http://www.methodonline.com/temp/concrete3a.jpg]

[Blocked Image: http://www.methodonline.com/temp/concrete3b.jpg]

Ingame shot:

[Blocked Image: http://www.methodonline.com/temp/concrete_ingame.jpg]

-Method

Quote

I went out and took some photo references today, instead of using CGTextures.com.

I wish I could do that myself, there's some few good walls I'd love to use for texturing around here but I'd rather not bump into the people that love to cause trouble on the streets. =/ Nice textures though.

Heh, I know what you mean Quakis. There are a few shady areas I'd love to take photos of too (Warehouse district of LA), but I need atleast a 6 man group. I'm fairly fit, but at knife/gun point you pretty much gonna hand your camera over.

Believe it or not but the photo references I used were of regular sidewalk. So just go outside and take pictures of stuff around your house/neighborhood.

-Method

Nice stuff, does this mean we'll see an update on your hideout soon?

I haven't really worked much on areas. Just textures. Although gonna start a new cool area.

-Method

[Blocked Image: http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/439/wall01bu4.jpg]

Old texture, new normal map and spec. The spec map pretty much sucks, I guess I could polish up on both.

(it's a 512 if you wonder)

compared to that texture source on your portfolio site:

http://www.st0lve.net/portfolio/pictures/tex01.jpg

i really do think that result with normal and stuff looks absolutely horrible, i'm sorry.

it looks blurry and shiny and whatnot.. i don't know i'm no expert in this whole thing but i think the normal map is not that good in this case. i know i know it sounds so horribly harsh, but i just don't know what else to say about that test. it looks as if you didn't put too much time into that normal map creation, to be honest. really not intended to step on your toes, but i think you had much much better textures shown in the past

edit: just played around with crazybump. could it be possible that you used the "find low frequency detail" thing and didn't tweak the "very large detail thing" ? the result looks a lot like yours. i don't know if it has to be that way, but i like it much better without

Yeah I noticed that normal maps usualy look a lot better when you normal map only the basic shapes of the objects instead of making complicated bumps and noisy surfaces.