Talk:Intermediate Lighting: Difference between revisions
m (→Lightmaps: Typo.) |
Angry Beaver (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
== Lightmaps == | == Lightmaps == | ||
I'm wondering if a lower lightmap value actually means "better quality", or just sharper lighting. I mean if you have an area with mostly indirect, diffuse lighting, you don't want to put low lightmap values in those areas, because that would look worse, am I right? --[[User:Andreasen|Andreasen]] 14:19, 13 Sep 2006 (PDT) | I'm wondering if a lower lightmap value actually means "better quality", or just sharper lighting. I mean if you have an area with mostly indirect, diffuse lighting, you don't want to put low lightmap values in those areas, because that would look worse, am I right? --[[User:Andreasen|Andreasen]] 14:19, 13 Sep 2006 (PDT) | ||
:Higher resolution / better quality representation of the lighting reaching the face. Same difference, a lower lightmap value wont improve the light reaching it but it will improve how its shown. | |||
== Psychology == | |||
Hope you dont mind I ran an overhaul on that, there more supposed to be mini tutorials and what you were getting into need explaining deeper and better. I do belive its needed but I think the better place for it is the color theory article it now links to. And anyway the POV and organization were a bit shaky there. If i hadn't felt inclined to rewrite it i would of slapped on a cleanup and POV tag. --[[User:Angry Beaver|Angry Beaver]] 20:15, 13 Sep 2006 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 20:15, 13 September 2006
Added a little about the lightmaps. --RabidMonkey 11:06, 30 Jun 2005 (PDT)
Suggestion: Should this page be renamed to Intermediate lighting? I think it should, because:
- The title "Advanced" makes it sound like these things should be used only attempted by "advanced" mappers. But in my opinion, almost as soon as a mapper can manage to use normal light entities, they should be graduating to light_spots and light_environments, because the results are much better but they aren't really that much more complex.
- There is plenty that could be written about lighting that is at a genuinely an "advanced" level. For example, lighting for dramatic expression and mood setting purposes, techniques for correctly lighting characters, etc.
--Giles 00:37, 17 May 2006 (PDT)
Smoothing groups
I'll add some screenshots from Metastasis 2 when I reboot into Windows later - I managed to get some lovely lighting on some vaulted ceilings through using multiple, separate smoothing groups that way... —Cargo Cult (info, talk) 04:12, 13 Sep 2006 (PDT)
- Excellent TY, I was tihnking about getting some images to demonstrate it. Any tiny possibility there could also be one that shows it without the groups to proove the point? NM I jsut spotted the article shange thats perfect. --Angry Beaver 13:59, 13 Sep 2006 (PDT)
Lightmaps
I'm wondering if a lower lightmap value actually means "better quality", or just sharper lighting. I mean if you have an area with mostly indirect, diffuse lighting, you don't want to put low lightmap values in those areas, because that would look worse, am I right? --Andreasen 14:19, 13 Sep 2006 (PDT)
- Higher resolution / better quality representation of the lighting reaching the face. Same difference, a lower lightmap value wont improve the light reaching it but it will improve how its shown.
Psychology
Hope you dont mind I ran an overhaul on that, there more supposed to be mini tutorials and what you were getting into need explaining deeper and better. I do belive its needed but I think the better place for it is the color theory article it now links to. And anyway the POV and organization were a bit shaky there. If i hadn't felt inclined to rewrite it i would of slapped on a cleanup and POV tag. --Angry Beaver 20:15, 13 Sep 2006 (PDT)