Bump maps?

[Caithloki]

Does ksp require bump/normal maps?Just jumping back into modding after a long time not doing it, and I was wondering if I need bump maps on a part that doesn't really need one?

[akron]

2 hours ago, Caithloki said:

Does ksp require bump/normal maps?Just jumping back into modding after a long time not doing it, and I was wondering if I need bump maps on a part that doesn't really need one?

Bump or specular maps are not needed. Only optional and use a different KSP material

[Caithloki]

Ah okay, just wanted to confirm before I looked into them, I did use them in the past but they always looked a bit off on my models. Thanks for the reply Akron.

[Enceos]

On 11.01.2017 at 3:44 AM, Caithloki said:

Ah okay, just wanted to confirm before I looked into them, I did use them in the past but they always looked a bit off on my models. Thanks for the reply Akron.

I must say that windows will look flat if you don't use the specular color. Specular maps are a technique for advanced designers, for most parts you can just separate the shiny mesh and apply a specular material to it.

[Caithloki]

4 hours ago, Enceos said:

I must say that windows will look flat if you don't use the specular color. Specular maps are a technique for advanced designers, for most parts you can just separate the shiny mesh and apply a specular material to it.

I get the idea behind spec maps, I had to deal with them in my final for my first year of college. My main concern with this post is about bump maps. With my current mod pack I am working on the model has a constant metal across the whole thing so a spec map is not really required at this time. Once I start adding more detail spec maps will become a requirement for the parts to create the full look for them.

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

13 hours ago, Caithloki said:

I get the idea behind spec maps, I had to deal with them in my final for my first year of college. My main concern with this post is about bump maps. With my current mod pack I am working on the model has a constant metal across the whole thing so a spec map is not really required at this time. Once I start adding more detail spec maps will become a requirement for the parts to create the full look for them.

Hi forgive me if I'm wrong here but you seem to be a little confused regarding the terms here, a specular material in unity has a shine whereas a diffuse material is flat, (and has very little to do with specular maps which are a different thing altogether )  think the difference between satin and mat finish, IMO using a simple diffuse shader on large part renders them lifeless with no high or low lights, diffuse is ok for small parts and brackets but anything larger really needs specular .  The shader setting in unity can be adjusted numerous ways and that specular can be set anywhere from high shine to a flat satin finish and allows for proper light reflection which diffuse does not provide

[Caithloki]

Thank you for your reply, but I think the confusion is that I am referring to the texture work in Maya, well you guys are mainly referring to the material work in Unity.

I was mainly just curious about the requirements for these added effects in general, such as requiring a normal or bump map for it to properly pull into KSP, but it isn't bad to know that I do not necessarily need spec maps either. On the topic of Materials I will be switching to the specular material after more work has been done for the models.

But my question was answered by akron, I was just curious if I would have problems not using them in my model.

[martinezfg11]

You don't need a normal map. There's a material in the PartTools that doesn't have the bump slot in it. However if you have panel lines or windows or bolts/rivets they will always look better with normal maps. Just make sure you assign a non-bump material.

 

Edit: Just realized you said your question was already answered .. oops.

Edited January 17, 2017 by martinezfg11

[akron]

On 1/16/2017 at 0:46 PM, Caithloki said:

Thank you for your reply, but I think the confusion is that I am referring to the texture work in Maya, well you guys are mainly referring to the material work in Unity.

I was mainly just curious about the requirements for these added effects in general, such as requiring a normal or bump map for it to properly pull into KSP, but it isn't bad to know that I do not necessarily need spec maps either. On the topic of Materials I will be switching to the specular material after more work has been done for the models.

But my question was answered by akron, I was just curious if I would have problems not using them in my model.

I'll chime back in with some suggestions from my workflow. You can use only diffuse maps as mentioned, but what others have said is indeed true. Specular maps are not difficult to do and boost the quality of the part by a good amount. What I do is use a diffuse material through all my testing while the part is a work-in-progress. Then before a full release, or when I feel the part is done, I go ahead and give it a spec map in the alpha channel and change the material in Unity accordingly. In summary, you don't need it but it will be very nice to do. I suggest you definitely save a little time before you call it done to give it that extra touch. I can show you how to do a cheaty super quick specular map that's better than nothing.

It does sound like you want to, so I encourage it.

Good luck!

Edited January 18, 2017 by akron

[Caithloki]

I did plan to add them later since I am still creating alot of the parts, but you peaked my interest on the cheaty super quick spec map, how do you do it? I have had alot of issues in the past getting it right with spec maps and since my parts are smaller then the 1.25m fuel tanks so a lower quality spec map shouldn't be an issue.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Caithloki

[martinezfg11]

You can turn your diffuse into a grayscale and mess with the levels until you get something you want. White = shiny, Black = not shiny with everything in between.

Then add it to your texture alpha channel.

That's about as quick and dirty a method I can think of.

 

Also, since you are adding alot of parts, maybe a shared texture would help with efficiency.

Edited January 18, 2017 by martinezfg11

[akron]

1 hour ago, martinezfg11 said:

You can turn your diffuse into a grayscale and mess with the levels until you get something you want. White = shiny, Black = not shiny with everything in between.

Then add it to your texture alpha channel.

That's about as quick and dirty a method I can think of.

 

Also, since you are adding alot of parts, maybe a shared texture would help with efficiency.

Ditto on all accounts. Darker items generally have less specularity than brighter ones. This does not always apply (Glossy black paint), but you can get started this way and it will be "good enough" on most cases. In photoshop, I create a greyscale layer and mess around with the levels. I like medium-high contrast between my extremes and often eliminate absolute white and black, but this is a personal preference. It can be a little more involved if you want to.

[CobaltWolf]

I create my specular and bump/normal maps by just duplicating layers from my diffuse texture onto a new document. I then just go through and do adjustment layers one by one to get the desired effect. Takes 20-30 minutes tops to create specular and normal maps for a texture sheet, and mine are pretty complex. The boost to the quality is well worth the time invested IMO.

[InsaneDruid]

I do the same, but keeping all the layers as layer groups (diffuse, specular map and heightmap) and or smart objects - so that I just need to adjust some blending options or smart filters to turn a diffuse into a height/spec element) in a single .psd. The heightmap gets than exported into shadermap 2 to be turned (and tuned) into a normal map. Though the 30 mins estimate stated above is rather low in my opinion. The first run will probably be slower until you get a feel for the height and specularity - ie how deep/high for example a groove shall be to not alias, not be overdone and look ok etc.