How much detail would you like to see?

[Kaphias]

So here's where I'm at. I would really like to start putting a little more effort into my on again, off again scenery project. For the benefit of me and other scenery devs, I'd like to try and get some idea of where the X-Plane community is at as far as what you like to see as detail. I did this hangar in just under an hour to try and give some visual reference.

The biggest question for me is whether to rely on textures for detail or the 3D model. Ideally you'd have both of course, but I'd rather see if your opinion sways to one direction or the other.

As you can see in the above hangar, I've modeled the man doors with a fair bit of detail; the only areas lacking I can think of are the sill plate, hinges, and a more round doorknob. I see this as relying on the 3D model. Would you consider this too much detail for a man door?

On the other side of the spectrum is the bi-fold door. Metal hangers are made of a corrugated metal, but I left that detail out. I also didn't add any sort of gap or seal around the door. This would be a case where I would rely on textures to give the corrugated appearance.

(For reference, here is some corrugated metal:)

My final question: What kind of textures (photoreal or not) should be used? Personally I'm a huge fan of photoreal textures if the resolution is high enough. Do share my opinion or are you totally against photoreal textures being used in scenery?

Thanks everyone.

[Redfisher]

That looks great. I think most will agree that phototextures look the best and most realistic. In terms of polygons/detail, adding doors, windows and trim is awesome if you can get away with it. Weighing how important an object is to a scene is key. I model doors and windows if the object in an intergal part of the scene. You can do some awesome stuff with normal maps. The corrugated metal and building trim would be great candidates for that.

Also, are you doing this for XP9 or 10? That will make a difference in which way you go and anyone for that matter.

[Kaphias]

That looks great. I think most will agree that phototextures look the best and most realistic. In terms of polygons/detail, adding doors, windows and trim is awesome if you can get away with it. Weighing how important an object is to a scene is key. I model doors and windows if the object in an intergal part of the scene. You can do some awesome stuff with normal maps. The corrugated metal and building trim would be great candidates for that.

Normal maps aren't something I have looked at at all, thanks for the idea. Seems like they would work great for the corrugated stuff.

Also, are you doing this for XP9 or 10? That will make a difference in which way you go and anyone for that matter.

Well at this point it would be for V9. Ideally I'd provide a version for V10 as well as V9, but that all depends on how many people move to V10 and how much of a difference the new features will make to the scenery.

[UH-60 Blackhawk]

You are such a liar, Kaphias. NO WAY you could do that in an hour. It looks great, personally though, I'd go for textures for detail over modeling.

[Tonka]

I love to see high detail in scenery, such as your examples above, as long as it is implemented well.

The use of LOD groups is perfect for this sort of thing, and the additive LOD coming in v10 will make things even easier for high res scenery object authors.

[Kaphias]

You are such a liar, Kaphias. NO WAY you could do that in an hour. It looks great, personally though, I'd go for textures for detail over modeling.

No lies. SketchUp is so unbelievably easy to learn, not to mention very quick at doing basic squares (which is all the hangar is, except for the door knob). Thanks for your input.

I love to see high detail in scenery, such as your examples above, as long as it is implemented well.

The use of LOD groups is perfect for this sort of thing, and the additive LOD coming in v10 will make things even easier for high res scenery object authors.

Ah yes I remember reading about LOD groups a while ago. Once V10 comes out and I understand it more I'd certainly be willing to give it a go.

[OlaHaldor]

It's no problem making that within an hour. Depending on what tools you have available and how well you know them, it's fairly simple. I remade that one in 5 minutes. Adding more details like lamps, windows, roof etc takes some more time, but it's still gonna be less than an hour.

You are such a liar, Kaphias. NO WAY you could do that in an hour. It looks great, personally though, I'd go for textures for detail over modeling.

[nimi09]

you raised a good question.

i think there are 2 possibilities of UV unwraping your mesch and texturing it.

type 1

you smart project your UV, or place them by hand, much smarter. but each face takes its own space - possibility for baked ambient occlusion and more variety of the texture

type 2

you take a big major texture (eg. a wall) in your texture file and map each face on this major texture - not compatible with baked ambient occlusion and less variety of dirt ect, but higher texture resolution of that wall

concerning your question this would include more vertecies in your wall for doors and windows because you have to model them

till today i used version 2). But i hade a breakthrough today with baking type 2 textureUV to new UV layout (type 1) and adding baked AmbientOcclusion. (but that would be a type 1 texture)

since xp10 will include global illumination, the type 2 texture possibility could be a good idear for future developement.

this is a type 1 Hangar (started as a type 1 model // never was a type 2), textured and baked with AmbientOcclusion, rendered in blender 2.5 / texture resolution 1024x1024

[nimi09]

a better example of these two types

first type 1 texture with AO

and a type 2 texture with higher detail

[Kaphias]

It's no problem making that within an hour. Depending on what tools you have available and how well you know them, it's fairly simple. I remade that one in 5 minutes. Adding more details like lamps, windows, roof etc takes some more time, but it's still gonna be less than an hour.

...using a $1,000 program which you have hundreds, if not thousands of hours of experience in.

I'm jealous.

a better example of these two types

first type 1 texture with AO

and a type 2 texture with higher detail

Thanks for your insight nimi. From your examples I'm a fan of type 2; the higher resolution textures really make it for me.

[OlaHaldor]

Kaphias - save up. Buy it. It's really worth it if you wanna do scenery fast and precise. But you're not limited to that. I've earned a little by doing stills and animation on it too.

But yeah, hours of experience counts a bit, but I feel nowhere near the goal of mastering everything I'd like to master. Such as textures..

[Redfisher]

I concur on option 2. If you carefully tile your UV's you can include some grime, AO, etc. without too much hassle.

[nimi09]

imagine the blue green wooden wall texture on a 1024x1024 or even on a 2048x2048 texture reaching from top to center and from far left to far right.

so each wall face UV is realy big, and if you have a long wall the UV exit the real texture eg on the right side, and will be shown from the left side again. how would you achive ao like so?

[Redfisher]

imagine the blue green wooden wall texture on a 1024x1024 or even on a 2048x2048 texture reaching from top to center and from far left to far right.

so each wall face UV is realy big, and if you have a long wall the UV exit the real texture eg on the right side, and will be shown from the left side again. how would you achive ao like so?

Cut the wall up and re-use texture space. It ain't easy But it does work in most situations.