The Open Part Mod - Week 3 Submission Thread! Winner Announced!!

[Justin Kerbice]

Could you explain this a bit more?

The surface of red area (unused space) is quite large, isn't it ?

(colour are messed-up for some reason tex with alpha are bad on raw import in Gimp , it's also happen with stock tex, but that's not my point anyway)

Circles could have been brake into 2 or 4 parts for a better packing leading to a better resolution of some areas.

I don't know how blender works and how its export format works but UV seams are not directly related to smoothing/edge split (except in the worth 3D format of all: obsolete 3DS format which messed up a lot model by matching those 2 unrelated things)

But this is not really a big deal after all.

[CaptainKipard]

The surface of red area (unused space) is quite large, isn't it ?

Circles could have been brake into 2 or 4 parts for a better packing leading to a better resolution of some areas.

It's true. In the end I decided to go for a continuous texture on the rings, rather than efficient coverage. I'll try the other way next time. In case anyone is curious, Texture Paint in blender is a great way of fixing visible texture seams.

(colour are messed-up for some reason tex with alpha are bad on raw import in Gimp , it's also happen with stock tex, but that's not my point anyway)

Well that texture has an alpha channel for the specular shader if that's what you're referring to. It's meant to be partially transparent like that. Fully transparent textures don't reflect specular highlights, fully opaque parts reflect 100% of specularity, and then there's everything in between.

I don't know how blender works and how its export format works but UV seams are not directly related to smoothing/edge split (except in the worth 3D format of all: obsolete 3DS format which messed up a lot model by matching those 2 unrelated things)

This is entirely intentional. Actually if any modelling program forced you to have sharp edges and UV seams correspond, that would be a ridiculous limitation.

[Justin Kerbice]

@Cpt. Kipard: I'm wrong or you're in defensive mode ? (think a bit about it), it's nothing personal you know, just some constructive comments on what you've done or not done, that's it. I'm not the -> teacher who gives you back your homework with a big circled Z on it (or a capital C, which stands for Crap, as Z is for Zorro ).

And I don't ask why you use an alpha channel (which by the way I don't mind), it's just importing pic with alpha chanel in Gimp without special care completely messed-up what you've got (it's happen consistently with all PNG with alpha too like some stock tex), didn't dig that's much on this issue.

And before I forgot, I saw you're kind of "tight" with convex colliders, any particular reason for that ?

I believe using non convex colliders with at least unity 4.3.3 in KSP (0.23, not tested on 0.23.5), can lead to very bad crash (and as it's not stock, it's kind of "it's not a KSP bug", despite error log cleary show something's bad somewhere in the game). But here too, I have to dig more. I'll really need a very good shovel ! Or even a mole .

[CaptainKipard]

Given that I'm the one who actually pushed for constructive criticism in this project, it would be weird for me to be hurt about it. Criticism makes me better. It's amazing that I even have to explain this.

About the alpha, I'm still not sure what you mean by messed up. I opened the colour texture in GIMP without an special care and the alpha was exactly the way it was meant to be. Must be something on your end.

About the collider, all I really know is that every basic KSP/Unity tutorial I read said to check "convex", so I'm repeating that meme.

[Robotengineer]

How do you add a worn look to your texture? do you use an air brush with low opacity around the edges? Also how do you get straight lines like that in gimp? is there a draw along line tool that I have missed? Sorry if this should be in modeling and texturing discussion, but just want to know how to do it by next week so I can put more effort into the texture.

[CaptainKipard]

Robot, I check the texturing sub-forum every day, so just so you know, you're bound to get at least some answers from me.

Air brushes are bad for this. If you have the latest GIMP that already comes with a few dirt brushes that are great for this. They're best used by dabbing rather than stroking.

Straight lines are made by clicking once at the start of your line, holding shift, and clicking again.

I encourage you to google the difference between the paintbrush and pencil tools.

Also learn how to use layers. They're crucial for good textures, and good workflow.

You could for example create a new layer with the paint on it, and use the eraser with a dirt brush to dab away some of the paint.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Snjo]

Given that I'm the one who actually pushed for constructive criticism in this project, it would be weird for me to be hurt about it. Criticism makes me better. It's amazing that I even have to explain this.

About the alpha, I'm still not sure what you mean by messed up. I opened the colour texture in GIMP without an special care and the alpha was exactly the way it was meant to be. Must be something on your end.

About the collider, all I really know is that every basic KSP/Unity tutorial I read said to check "convex", so I'm repeating that meme.

Here's the thing with colliders, from my experience and research InfiniteDice and I have done. A single convex collider is what KSP expects, and it's what will work all the time. A non convex collider isn't picked up properly in certain cases. It will detect mouse over in the hangar, but it won't collide with the landscape properly. If you have more than one collider (convex or otherwise), only the first collider in the model will be used for destruction checks. This means that if you have a cockpit for instance, if you created the collider for the canopy first, and then another collider for the fuselage, the part will never be destroyed from ground impact except when the canopy hits the ground at speed.

To be clear, this collider order is not alphabetically or hierarchically sorted, but by order of creation (and therefore the order read out from the model file).

There are of course further issues, like some odd business with airlocks/hatches not working in certain mesh/collider shapes, and other fun stuff, but just trust that there IS a reason for the often touted "memes"

They are based on people tearing their hair out for hours and days until they stumbled on the right bug or hack. We try to help each other out, and this challenge is great for that, but of course some details and reasoning get lost over the years.

[Robotengineer]

During the off week I decided to work on something of my own, a Star Trek style shuttle.

I think I got the seams marked off correctly. Any comments would be appreciated, I also may start a thread of my own WIP and post there so that I don't clog up threads with my posts. also thanks for the info about convex collision meshes Snjo, I believe that was one of the issues with my part, it wasn't colliding wit the terrain properly.

[CaptainKipard]

Yea it's best to start a new thread. Just remember to keep the attitude that it's not there to show off, but to get feedback. If you're a complete beginner, maybe it's best for your ego if you practice for a few weeks or months and then start a thread when you're confident you wont get a lot of criticism, but still expect it.

[Snjo]

No, throw your feelings on the bonfire of public opinion! Maybe you are a dragon!

[Justin Kerbice]

Here's the thing with colliders, from my experience and research InfiniteDice and I have done. A single convex collider is what KSP expects, and it's what will work all the time. A non convex collider isn't picked up properly in certain cases. It will detect mouse over in the hangar, but it won't collide with the landscape properly. If you have more than one collider (convex or otherwise), only the first collider in the model will be used for destruction checks. This means that if you have a cockpit for instance, if you created the collider for the canopy first, and then another collider for the fuselage, the part will never be destroyed from ground impact except when the canopy hits the ground at speed.

To be clear, this collider order is not alphabetically or hierarchically sorted, but by order of creation (and therefore the order read out from the model file).

There are of course further issues, like some odd business with airlocks/hatches not working in certain mesh/collider shapes, and other fun stuff, but just trust that there IS a reason for the often touted "memes"

They are based on people tearing their hair out for hours and days until they stumbled on the right bug or hack. We try to help each other out, and this challenge is great for that, but of course some details and reasoning get lost over the years.

Please, can someone tell me in which year we are right now ?

Such ridiculous boundaries were even not there many years ago (~30 years ago !!) when the first 3D games appears (only wireframe, then solid faces colour without textures, then poor quality pictures on faces, ...). Great !

The next unity release might be 8 bit support only, 10 polygon max per meshes, 256 colours tex max.

[CaptainKipard]

It looks like I'll win this week, so I've been thinking about what to do next.

Up until this point the challenges have been simple whole parts, and that's fine. It gives people an opportunity to quickly get the basics down. What I'd like to do is give people a chance to concentrate on one thing for a change, so they can go a little deeper and perhaps do something more advanced.

I thought about starting a challenge to create a more advanced part but I feel it might be too overwhelming for beginners.

What I'm proposing is that for the next few challenges we concentrate on one single intermediate level thing per challenge, e.g. Texturing, Animation, Modelling, Configuration, etc.

I'd like to start with texturing, because I think this is lacking the most, and often a good texture job can make a poor model look great.

I would create a model, and unwrap it, provide the source files for download and have people create textures for it.

What does everyone think?

Edited May 22, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Snjo]

Good idea! Just make sure you provide the file in a format that works for people using Blender, 3D studio and sketchup.

And don't create rules against people re-unwrapping it, because applying writing or detail etc might require a specific setup

[CaptainKipard]

Good idea! Just make sure you provide the file in a format that works for people using Blender, 3D studio and sketchup.

And don't create rules against people re-unwrapping it, because applying writing or detail etc might require a specific setup

All good points. Thanks.

[Robotengineer]

I agree, if it goes over well with everyone else. I'm not sure about the bit about you making something and then people texturing it though. It seems sort of like it goes against the idea of the open part mod.

Also have you thought about a part for next week? I was thinking maybe a 3.75 meter docking port, or something more simple. Just a thought.

[CaptainKipard]

I'm not sure about the bit about you making something and then people texturing it though. It seems sort of like it goes against the idea of the open part mod.

Me making something first is against open parts, because...

[Robotengineer]

Me making something first is against open parts, because...

I don't know really, it sort of diminishes creativity a bit asides from textures? i.e we wouldn't have entries like Snjo's because it was a preset model. I'm not against your idea, but it does go against some of the more creative aspects of the competition. I think it's a good idea, so if the other participants agree I won't protest.

[Snjo]

The discussion in previous weeks have focused a lot on models and their polycounts, smoothing etc etc. There has been discussions about texturing too of course, but not in depth as much. But the voting has relied heavily on the texture quality.

I think having a week where we just focus on helping each other out with the materials would benefit later weeks' products. Concepts like AO baking, normal maps, (and possibly high res to low res baking) can be very difficult to pick up. And of course the art of making a good diffuse.

There are also Unity specific things here that one would not pick up from reading a general guide, like inverted channels in the normal map.

[CaptainKipard]

I don't know really, it sort of diminishes creativity a bit asides from textures?

It's not forever. And don't think of it as curbing creativity, but more as directing it. I plan on keeping you just as busy as before.

Snjo is right, there's a lot to think about.

[darkside]

Fine by me, might actually be very interesting.

[Robotengineer]

Ok, I would like to have something to work on while the forums are down, so maybe something this weekend? Maybe go ahead and start a thread?

[CaptainKipard]

Ven, is that bar chart created by that survey website or did you do it yourself?

[Ven]

Ven, is that bar chart created by that survey website or did you do it yourself?

A bit of both, The site wouldn't let me take the picture directly (Pay to download a photo...), so I took a screenshot and posted it.

[darkside]

Now it is official, congrats on the win, Cpt. Kipard, well deserved.