Re-encouraging track modeling

Interested from distance :)

Why from a distance. Because I worry about mixing work and pleasure since they are already blurred. I say that because I am a content provider. I create custom and public work for nascar, vs., irl and for example, you can see my truck models in the intro of "the setup" show on the speed channel. My dilemma is that I'm also a racing nut.

I have a large collection of tracks and vehicles I offer for sale. I know that a few of my cars have been used for add-on for RFactor. But I am sure that none of my track beyond ARCA have been used in an ISI engine game. Most of my assets are used in none game type projects like animations or commercials.

I would like to move over some of my tracks to RFactor, but I do have some worry about people pulling out my tracks to use for their own projects. But the flip side of that I doubt they would have purchased it in the first place. So why not start putting my tracks into RFactor. If anything it would be some cool advertising.


Your feedback would be greatly welcome. Thanks!
 
Mic_, big fan of your work. Been following it for a little bit at T3DS. To protect your work from others prying it away and spreading it like wildfire I suggest getting the .MAS file encrypted by ISI. If I am not mistaken they still do this and it has helped out many modders in keeping their work mostly unedited and released by others.

EDIT: Also must say your car models are a thing of beauty. Haven't looked much at your tracks but once you get the back catalog up I'll be increasingly interested!
 
Last edited:
How long would someone spend working on a track model? I know the answer is 'how long is a piece of string' but out of curiosity, how much time and effort is acceptable? I find myself spending hours and hours working in just small areas trying to get things perfectly right. I know in a commercial situation, speed is the key to success, but this is a hobby so I guess that wouldn't count. But at the same time I feel that I'm spending way too much time on small things that probably won't even get noticed anyway.

How perfect do things have to be?
For an example, what I am working on ATM is trees, should I watch videos and look at pics of the track IRL and put every tree in exactly the same spot? or would randomly placed trees in those areas be acceptable?

Should I put every bump and lump in the terrain surrounding the track? I noticed that from doing things like this, when you go off the track it's hard to get back on, so I'm wondering if the track side should be smooth so cars can drive on it.

Also, If you still check this thread out Scott, you mentioned passes on the track building process and I am curious about what it means? (or maybe Scott is too busy and someone else knows the answer)
When I build cars, I do a quick rough (but as precise as possible) shell at first, then I come back and tweak parts and add details, then I come back and map and texture it. Is this much like what you mean?

Cheers!
 
Doing a track in passes would be like doing a piece of the terrain, and then move on to the next piece, without adding details and props that can easily be added later on. 'Easily' is the keyword here. Placing props would then be considered an extra pass of the same section. This way you gradually build the track as a whole, as you complete a pass, instead of going crazy on one specific piece to get it perfect, only to find out there's no time left to complete the rest of the track. Working in passes means you get a better overview of how much work you've done (and how much there's left to do :) ), early on in the entire track creation process. And some people find it a more efficient way of getting the job done.

But it's not that you can simply create a piece of planar terrain, move on to the next bit and come back later to add a mountain, for instance. That would be an iteration of the same work, adding more geometry to a piece to make it smoother. There will always be moments when you want to go back to a section and tweak it a little, but as you get more experience, you'll hopefully develop a feel for what you're trying to do, so you won't have to go back.

I remember that when I first tried track modeling, I kept redoing the same piece over and over until I was happy and until I knew what I was trying to do :) .
 
I have run into a bit of an issue that I can't find a simple solution to.

I have got some feedback from people testing the track and they say it's too wide. The problem is, I am past the stage of simply changing the width, I have made the track surface and moulded the whole thing with 2-3m section lengths, cut the poly's for the road line on the outside of the track, added the edge blend and in some places collapsed verts to optimise the mesh. There is no easy way for me to fix this, I cant just loop/ring select and resize so to speak. To make it more difficult, this track is not just a simple circuit, it has many variations and different roads going everywhere.

To fix it, I feel I have 3 choices,
1, redo the whole track again from a spline created from selecting the middle edge, with an extra row on the outside for the grass and use boolean to blend it back into the existing grass. But any re-doing of the track could undo a lot of tweaking I have done through communication with others who know the track well, (bumps, humps, cambers, things like that)
2, move every vert bit by bit.
3, draw a spline around the whole track inside and out, extrude then use boolean to slice the existing track, but that would also require manually moving verts 1 by 1, or there might be a way to lock the edges made from the boolean cut, cause it usually leaves the new edges selected, then expand the selection and weld it to the new cut, but I haven't found a way to do things like lock verts in place. Also the edge blend would get in the way of any moving of verts which would go back to a lot of manual bit by bit vert moving. Then again I could just delete the edge blend, weld all the verts on the edge of the track including the road line and then redo the edges and lines etc.

I have already tried all 3 of these options, but it starts to drag out and get messy so I stop, then it makes me wonder if it might even be better to re-do the whole track and terrain again from scratch.

So yeah, any suggestions as to how I could approach this?

Cheers!
 
The cleanest way would be to redo it, and it would probably take less time than tweaking every vertex.
This is where backups and different file versions usually come in handy. I always make a copy of an important object before collapsing the stack.
 
Thanks again Luc.

A lesson learned the hard way there :D. I have done that exact method of backing up before and I back up the project file before I do major changes, but I'm up to project file 110 now and it would probably take me longer to search through them all to find the original track. Also I find when I start copying things to back them up that the project file starts to get really heavy, the current project file now is about 125mb and that's without any duplicates, it takes a really long time to autosave (which always kicks in when I'm in the middle of dragging something somewhere :D ), so I usually delete unused objects often. I tried using containers to reduce the file size but when I load them back it messes up the materials.

I also just tried using FFD's to fix the track up, but for some reason I just can't get them to work properly. Sometimes it moves what I want, other times it will move something else, it's like it has it's own mind.

So back to the drawing board it is :D

Thanks again,

Cheers!
 
I have made my previous tracks using old-style ISI method (cross-section=>array=>elevations & cambers=>bend).

Last couple of days I've ben playing around with Scott Juliano's spline=>extrude=>push method. I really can see many advantages over old-style cross-section method.

However, there is one thing which I can't figure out.

After laying out racing surface, how you can add elevations and cambers accurately?

FDD Box modifier won't work, because layout is already there and you can't control cambers and elevations perpendicular to layout (between "path" and "cross section").

Is there modifier which will do the work towards path, not on whole mesh?

Cheers!

Jka
 
Ok, Alex :)

My problems with lofting is finding appropriate settings to loft itself. Surface will end up like a wall, not like a horizontal track surface (for example). I've tried to rotate path and/or shape and many other tweaks, but still no-go. I haven't found any newer tutorials for lofting than that really old one, which was done for F1 99-01(?). At least some of that information is outdated. I haven't found any useful information from 3dsmax (2011) own tutorials/help either.

Is there any newer lofting tutorial floating somewhere? Lofting would be most fastest way to do it, but I've run out of skill. :D

Old Cross section => array => FDD Box => Bend methods strongest advantages is elevation and cambers. You can make dead-accurate cambers and elevations easily, but it requires lots of preparation work.

One interesting modifier is "Sweep". You can make racing surface from spline in seconds, but still camber/elevation problem exist... :/

Cheers!

Jka
 
quick loft tut

draw horizontal line in front view. ensure pivot point is appropriate and that you manually move verts rather than scaling the object

draw track path in top view. use biezer curves to get smooth transitions. normalized spline to 1.5m or so. divide segs again at real tight spots. I then add elevation using a spline smoother script I wrote and setting the values at key points then a bunch of tweaking.

select track path then create loft, select shape to cross section then use path shapes for camber etc.
 
Alex, I have a couple of questions.

You mention these scripts you made, are they publicly available anywhere?

Is it important at what view you draw the cross section (front) and the track (top)?
Also, I found that if you do resize or move the object instead of manually moving verts, you can 'zero it in' by using reset xform > convert to editable spline/collapse to.
On that note, I notice at times when I create an object the xyz is not correct, sometimes y is up/down, reset xform fixes that, but it comes back to my question about how important it is to create an object in a certain view? and how do you decide what view you choose to create the object?

Is there a way to simply add cross sections to the loft? ie, ctrl + left click on the loft to insert a cross section instead of manually moving the thingy to the point which you want to add (get shape) the new cross section.

Last question :D
I feel that I want to build the whole track with the one loft, terrain and all (so things can be easily manipulated at a later date if need be) I have figured out how to use instances or copies of the cross section and I can manually edit the verts within the loft and add different shaped cross sections. But they are all limited to the same amount of verts.
Where I find I need to do this is with the edge blend. I found I can make the cross section including the edge blend, but when I come to things like curbs and ripple strips, or walls directly on the track like at the pit's, or road intersections, I always have that edge blend in the way, I can't just add a new cross section without the edge blend. I know I am probably going off track a bit, but curiosity has me. I could use individual splines, or make new splines for the edge blend, then I could use snap and snap the verts for the extra spline to the track if I move the track, but it would be a perfect world If I could have the whole lot on one loft. :D

Cheers!
 
Firstly that post was a little brief as I posted from my phone and typing is a pain there.

Erm, JKA complained it didn't work for him so I just explained clearly how I do it and it works. Haven't really tried doing it in other ones, but I'd assume the cross section follows along axis in a certain way.

Yeah I guess you should be able to reset the xform of objects if rescaling etc too. I was more talking about trying to draw a straight line for the road cross section can be rather hard, and I always need to adjust the xyz manually to get flat, and the exact width I'm after.

I always just up the path step value till the little yellow marker gets to where I want to add the new shape.

I would certainly not build the whole track in one loft! It's tempting I must admit, and that's what I tried at first. I don't even do the terrain and curbs with a loft most of the time though. I loft one bit, then take edge splines, then either create shapes from those edge splines, or loft onto them as required etc.
 
heh, I spose I'm off to a good start then if I am following the same thought process :D

Thanks again for the advice Alex.

Cheers!


On another note, Scott posted earlier,,,
Scott Juliano said:
And there's the problem. As soon as people realize just how hard it is they get discouraged. What needs to happen really is that the experienced modders have to start taking these new folks under their wing, as it were. Find the ones that are really serious and perhaps start working on a track with them. They'll get valuable experience, and you'll actually have help getting stuff done. This is what makes some of the larger mod groups so strong really....

But really, this is why there never seem to be a lot of track builders--it's just a LOT of work and out of 100 people who think they can do it you may only find a handful that have the skill to do it, or the patience and commitment to LEARN the skill to do it....
Click to expand...
I'd like to call Scott out on this and ask any of you guys who have shown interest in this thread, Alex, Elwood, Markus, maybe even Luc or Scott, to have a look at what I have done and give me some feedback in areas I can improve on? I am kind of getting to the stage now where I'm not sure if it's finished, or if I have a lot more to do :D.

Cheers!
 
oh, ill see about posting up those scripts on my site too. feel free to pm me a link if you want me to take a look. I think you mailed me whilst I was away right? well I'm back now!
 
Thanks Alex, I sent you the details. Feel free to talk about it here publicly, that way others can learn from it too. Please don't hold back, I love criticism and I want to do the best I can. I'd prefer being told it is complete crap and to go back to the drawing board rather than someone being nice just so they don't hurt my feelings :D.

Cheers!
 
Things that I noticed, generally it looks alright, a lot of interesting ideas implemented, but doesn't quite all come together.

Inside of tyres is modelled, which wastes a lot of polygons
Tyres appear to have shadow casters which looks rather crewd. Just create a static shadow instead using vertex colouring and alpha values
Fences should alpha transparency
Detail texture on the road is very weak and the road lacks variation and detail.
Road is very low poly in places, with clearly visible polygons on many corners
Buildings generally look rather low poly and simple, work on getting bump and spec maps in there, and ambient occlusion if possible, and ensure you've correctly detatched all objects smoothing groups to separate elements
Foilage needs alpha blending. See this http://manoloztt.blogspot.com/2010/03/transparent-trees-are-beautiful-trees.html

There's a bunch of other interesting things that might help you out on Mano's blog too. http://manoloztt.blogspot.com/
 
Thanks Alex, I'll get into fixing up those things and thanks for sharing your scripts. I think I might be able to go fix up the track width problem now by using your verts to mesh or verts to spline script. I found a nice script the other day on scriptspot "Vertex Cleaner", with it I can use boolean with an extruded spline drawn from both inside and outside edges of the track, then use vertex cleaner to quickly remove the single verts left over and use your script to bring the terrain to the track :)
I'm thinking this vert cleaner script could also be used for an on/off line thing, by taking the co-ords of the fastline from the aiw, re-create the groove in max, then raise it slightly and extrude the edges down, use boolean to cut the groove into the track, clean the verts and your done.

I am confused about the transparencies though,

The trees, grass, fences and any other transp texture in the track are setup with 2 faces and 2 materials. But one is alpha + chroma. the other is just chroma. I see in Mano's tutorial that he doesn't mention chroma in the first material (alpha) and that he calls that one simple.

I'm confused with simple and multiple. I used simed before max, afaik in simed, simple is just chroma, multiple is both chroma and alpha (unless I got that completely wrong).

I think where I mainly get confused is, where do I use alpha + chroma in the one mat and where do I use just alpha?

With the fences, should they just be alpha alone and have no double faces?

Cheers!
 
Alpha = Multiple in 3d simed
Chroma = Simple in 3d simed

You don't have both in the same material.

Fences should just be alpha, have reverse sides though so you can have the correct shading.
 
Thanks for explaining that, it's always the illogical things that hold me back, I mean, multiple means 2 :D

I have been thinking about the track texture and how it lacks variation and detail, is that for extra things like cracks and bumps, or the all round road tex itself is too flat?
This is what I used to make the road texture, as you can see, it is pretty flat to start with http://www.cgtextures.com/texview.php?id=45746&PHPSESSID=ovrudel6dv6m2vn66peuj8nql6 . I was hoping to use the shaders to get the most out of it.
Here are a couple examples of some shader experiments I did with the track surface.
This is using bump mapping


But I couldn't use multa without making a new shader, In the end this is what I went for, just specular map t1 mul t2.


But, the specular map only looks good at some angles, not all over and by adding grain to the diffuse texture will clash with the specular map. I'd have to remap the spec channel to get it to match up with the diffuse channel which would then mean it will be repetitive. The reason why I box unwrapped it was to give it variation. So I'm not too sure what I need to do :D
I am thinking, maybe I need another multa layer with some fine details.


Reverse sides for the fence, does that mean duplicated poly with flipped normals instead of just double sided in the shader settings?

Sorry to keep asking you questions and I really appreciate you taking time to answer them, if there is anything I can ever do for you in return, please don't hesitate to ask.

Cheers!
 
Reverse sides for the fence, does that mean duplicated poly with flipped normals instead of just double sided in the shader settings?
Click to expand...

Yes

As for road materials, I'll start with the basics and work up.

First thing to look at is your diffuse texture. Now you want this in the ratio 4:1 (2048x512) ideally, with 4 the length way down the track. Then your mapping should at the very least match this ratio. So if the track is 10m wide, you want the mapping to be at least 40m long for each repetition. In reality you can stretch this out even further to 5:1 before anyone starts noticing.

Why do you want to do this? Because it means you can add more detail into the road and the tiling becomes less obvious. I would recommend adding a faint layer of tyre marks ontop of the diffuse texture too. This will give a better effect.

Now for the specular map, I recommend that you get it to use the diffuse channel mapping. This will allow you to add similarly detailed changes and variation to your specular map. Also make it quite light and a very low specular power (3 or 4). This will mean that you get a wider specular effect rather than a narrow one. Drive around a couple of hours before dusk or after sunrise whilst the sun is low in the sky and you'll see this quite clear that the entire width of the road has general specular reflection about itself.

Now as for the detail map v bump map. Ideally you want both. But that's not possible with rf by default, although you could probably figure out how to add it yourself quite easily if you tried. At jerez I went for detail map and ditched the bump map. This was because as I now had a spec map that went across the entire road I lost the finer detail in the road. Additionally there is a shader named 'Specular Map T1 mul T2 mul T3' which is what I used, and used the other mul slot to layer on the racing line build up!
 
Would any of you track builders know how to make a shader T1 lerp T2 vertex alpha Multi T3? I would like to have it for some dirt oval tracks that we make. This way I can fade into a different corner texture from the straights and I can still use my multi map as well. I have read some on shaders and I think it is just above my knowledge.

Alex, thanks for your scripts as well. They work nicely and can save lots of time for sure...
 
I took up the opportunity to see if I could figure this out. I took the shader [L2DiffuseT0LerpT1xT2T3VertexAlpha] and removed the T3 refrence. I copied VS20_BLINNDIFFUSE.VSH and PS20_BLINNDIFFUSE.PSH into the shared folder, and made a new gfx file (contents below)

Code: 
ShaderName=L2DiffuseT0LerpT1xT2VertexAlpha
{
  ShaderDesc="T1 lerp T2 mul T3 Vertex Alpha"
  ShaderLongDesc="Diffuse lighting, tex1 lerp tex2 x tex3, lerp using vertex alpha, DX9."
  ShaderDowngrade=L1DiffuseT0T1xT2
  ShaderLevel=(2) // DX9
  {
    Pass=(0) // normal
    {
      VertexShader=vs20_blinnDiffuseT0T1T2
      {
        File=vs20_blinnDiffuse.vsh 
        Language=HLSL
        Define=(NUMTEX, 3)
        VertexDecl=PShadeDecl
        ShaderConstants=(Default)
      }
      PixelShader=ps20_blinnDiffuseT0LerpT1xT2VertexAlpha
      {
        File=ps20_blinnDiffuse.psh
        Language=HLSL
        Define=(NUMTEX, 3)
        Define=(LERPALPHA, 1)
        Define=(MULTEX, 1)
        ShaderConstants=Lighting
        StageState=(0, DiffuseMap, Modulate)
        StageState=(1, DiffuseMap, Add)
        StageState=(2, DiffuseMap, Modulate)
        SamplerState=(0, Wrap, Wrap, Wrap)
        SamplerState=(1, Wrap, Wrap, Wrap)
        SamplerState=(2, Wrap, Wrap, Wrap)
      }
    }
  }
 }
What I edited was, in vertex shader, numtex from 4 to 3 and set VertexShader=vs20_blinnDiffuseT0T1T2
In Pixel shader I set numtex to 3, lerpalpha to 1 and multex to 1. Removed the 4th StageState and SamplerState and set PixelShader=ps20_blinnDiffuseT0LerpT1xT2VertexAlpha

It all comes up ok in 3dmax, but I get an error compiling shader when I go to fire it up in the scene viewer.

Is there some sort of compiler needed? or a simple text edit is all it needs and I have missed something out?

or have I completely gone down the wrong path altogether? :D

Cheers!
 
After reading Alex's post I did a little experiment of my own. I used a plain asphalt texture as a spec map, mapped the same at the diffuse map but with the image being just half the size. That might make the highlighting a bit softer, but it might just be my imagination. The next thing I did was to increase the mip bias of the bump map to make it blur more quickly. This sort of thing looks good for closeup screenshots but I don't like the sparkly effect some tracks have when viewed from just a little further away.
 
mianiak said:
I took up the opportunity to see if I could figure this out. I took the shader [L2DiffuseT0LerpT1xT2T3VertexAlpha] and removed the T3 refrence. I copied VS20_BLINNDIFFUSE.VSH and PS20_BLINNDIFFUSE.PSH into the shared folder, and made a new gfx file (contents below)

Code: 
ShaderName=L2DiffuseT0LerpT1xT2VertexAlpha
{
  ShaderDesc="T1 lerp T2 mul T3 Vertex Alpha"
  ShaderLongDesc="Diffuse lighting, tex1 lerp tex2 x tex3, lerp using vertex alpha, DX9."
  ShaderDowngrade=L1DiffuseT0T1xT2
  ShaderLevel=(2) // DX9
  {
    Pass=(0) // normal
    {
      VertexShader=vs20_blinnDiffuseT0T1T2
      {
        File=vs20_blinnDiffuse.vsh 
        Language=HLSL
        Define=(NUMTEX, 3)
        VertexDecl=PShadeDecl
        ShaderConstants=(Default)
      }
      PixelShader=ps20_blinnDiffuseT0LerpT1xT2VertexAlpha
      {
        File=ps20_blinnDiffuse.psh
        Language=HLSL
        Define=(NUMTEX, 3)
        Define=(LERPALPHA, 1)
        Define=(MULTEX, 1)
        ShaderConstants=Lighting
        StageState=(0, DiffuseMap, Modulate)
        StageState=(1, DiffuseMap, Add)
        StageState=(2, DiffuseMap, Modulate)
        SamplerState=(0, Wrap, Wrap, Wrap)
        SamplerState=(1, Wrap, Wrap, Wrap)
        SamplerState=(2, Wrap, Wrap, Wrap)
      }
    }
  }
 }
What I edited was, in vertex shader, numtex from 4 to 3 and set VertexShader=vs20_blinnDiffuseT0T1T2
In Pixel shader I set numtex to 3, lerpalpha to 1 and multex to 1. Removed the 4th StageState and SamplerState and set PixelShader=ps20_blinnDiffuseT0LerpT1xT2VertexAlpha

It all comes up ok in 3dmax, but I get an error compiling shader when I go to fire it up in the scene viewer.

Is there some sort of compiler needed? or a simple text edit is all it needs and I have missed something out?

or have I completely gone down the wrong path altogether? :D

Cheers!
Click to expand...


No it means there's an error in your syntax somewhere. 3ds Max doesn't compile the shaders it just uses the header.

You can download the DX9 SDK and try to compile the shaders that way though. That'll tell you what the error message was.
 
I looked into this some, have not had much time yet. But what about the shader T1 Lerp T2 Multi T3 add T4 vertex alpha. Would that one be easier to modify? Also if I wanted to add a bump map to it, would that make it even tougher to do?

If there were only 48 hours per day you could learn a lot more!
 
Ok, I got as far as figuring out that I need to use fxc.exe and I ran it with these options [fxc /LD /Od /Zi /T fx_2_0 /Fo E:\rFdev\GameData\Shared\test1.gfx E:\rFdev\GameData\Shared\test.gfx]
Then I got an error [E:\rFdev\GameData\Shared\test.gfx(6): error X3000: syntax error: unexpected token '=']

Line 6 is [ShaderName=L2DiffuseT0LerpT1xT2VertexAlpha] That's no different to the other shaders.

That's where I got lost.

---

Bill, That's the shader I am trying to modify. [DiffuseT0LerpT1xT2T3VertexAlpha], DiffuseT0 = the diffuse texture, LerpT1 = the blend texture, xT2 = x for multiply, T3 no symbol between t2 and t3 means to add (I think(still figuring it out myself, so in a way I'm thinking out loud here)). This is where I got confused in the beginning, 0 is counted as a unit, in laymans terms it is t1 but t1 in shader terms is t0 (I think :D)

Also, I had a thought to get around this taking the easy way out. In an add map, anything that is black does not show up. You could make a 4x4px black texture and put it in the add slot for 'T1 Lerp T2 Multi T3 add T4 vertex alpha', if its completely black, nothing will show up and you will have a pseudo T1 Lerp T2 Multi T3 vertex alpha shader.
The way I look at it this is probably the most logical way to go about it. I believe it is best to aim to use only the default shaders first, then if there is no way at all that can achieve your goal, then look into a custom shader. Personally, I like to aim to keep everything as simple as possible, it reduces the chances of errors and makes things go smoother :D.

As for bump mapping, I'm not ready to go there yet lol, I have a splitting headache just from this diffuse shader, I'll leave it up to someone else, but have a quick read here, I asked a similar question a while ago.
https://community.racesimcentral.net/showthread.php/552-Custom-shaders?p=6454&viewfull=1#post6454
 
You need to be compiling the pixel shader or the vertex shader file, not the gfx file.
 
ahh ok, now I think I see where I got it wrong. I was only focusing on the gfx file thinking that it just used the available vertex and pixel shaders. I think that now I have to make new vsh and psh files to go with it.
 
You can probably reuse an existing vertex shader, unless you need extra mapping co-ordinates. It's the pixel shader where you probably want to change things mostly.
 
Hey guys, do you have some clues on how to get a "rubbery" tarmac like this?

race_pro_tarmac.jpg


Most of rFactor's tracks have a very "dried" (sorry for illiteracy) race surface. I mean, race tracks have much more oil and rubber on it than we can usually see. It implies some opaque reflexions as we can see above, instead off the shining tarmac brittles.

I have seen this effect very often in recent games (NFSU2, Forza, GT5, etc) and I can say that's much more realistic in comparison to Rfactor traditional tracks. I don't think a additional alpha layer over the track would sort this out.

Surely this must me managed by the shader itself.
 
Using the default shader T1 Lerp T2 Multi T3 add T4 I get what I was wanting. I would like to have a bump map and even specular but can't have everything you want I guess. Here is how the textures blended for me using this shader. I used your advice and used a small black texture for the add map.

View attachment 238
 
Alex Sawczuk said:
You can probably reuse an existing vertex shader, unless you need extra mapping co-ordinates. It's the pixel shader where you probably want to change things mostly.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's what I was thinking, but I am going to leave it for now, I need to let it all sink in before I move on :D

@Satangoss, I reckon you could get that by using 'Bump Cube Specular map add alpha reflect t1'. On the diffuse texture, make the alpha channel match the bump map with the high parts(the rubber) a light shade of grey and the low non rubber parts black.
I did a quick rough experiment to see for myself if it works and it does, with some work on the textures it would look nice.
 
Hiiii

Have a question :rolleyes: ... Which is the best way to make kerbs ??

Like those :

203490652.jpg


Thanx :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top