Talk:$ssbump

From Valve Developer Community
Revision as of 04:33, 13 February 2009 by TheBestFlash (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

I believe this is the only "tutorial" out so far on how to make SSBump textures: http://forums.facepunchstudios.com/showthread.php?t=529746 --Wunderboy 13:31, 17 Sep 2008 (PDT)

Tony Sergi said the tools for making ssbumps aren't fully added into the sdk yet. (On HLCoders list) asked about it a while ago. They did add the blend modulate texture article though ^.^ --JakeB 14:21, 17 Sep 2008 (PDT)
There is another tutorial here I wrote the tutorial and it discusses using 3D rendering packages (such as TrueSpace) to create ssbump textures from normal maps or 3D objects. It also explains how to use a program that I wrote that converts normal maps into SSBump maps and contains a link to the program. You can add a link to the tutorial from the $ssbump page or use information from it if you would like. --TheBestFlash 15:38, 18 Jan 2009 (MST)
Looked at your tut, it's fairly good, but a bit complex. I've been working on a tutorial myself, getting it easier and easier. Plus you're method doesn't properly calculate Occlusion either. Currently using Xnormal is far efficient, and only requires the use of that program, and another to generate a Heightmap. Otherwise you can use VTF edit for all the importing and such.--Gear 05:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I look forward to seeing your tutorial on Xnormal. The only time I have used Xnormal was when I followed the instructions in the currently posted tutorial, and I felt that method was too time consuming. I wrote my program to quickly batch generate simple SSBump maps from Normal maps, and I never used code to calculate Occlusion. The code I wrote just creates a simple estimation. Your more efficient Xnormal method would probably be better than my program for detailed SSbump maps. --TheBestFlash 11:54, 20 Jan 2009 (MST)
The exe you made doesn't work strong enough tho. It produces weak ssbumps, I tested it on Valve's textures using ssbumps and compared, your tool makes weaker ones. You should add an option to make it stronger. --Craziestdan 05:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what do you mean by not strong enough? Do the surfaces seem flat? It could be the normal maps used by VALVe. I've had decent results using bump maps generated by a program called Insane Bump. This program turns pictures into normal maps that seem 'bumpier' than some other tools that I have seen. I'll see if there is a way that I could enhance the input normal maps before creating the ssbumps. --TheBestFlash 11:54, 20 Jan 2009 (MST)
There's nothing wrong with my/Valve's normals, by strong I mean if you grab a texture from Valve, that uses an ssbump, turn it's diffuse into a bump map then conver that to an ssbump them compare your one to Valve's one for the same texture, Valve's has more colour in it, and looks stronger. I' probably not using the right words, but test yourself and you'll see. --Craziestdan 19:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean to say that there was something wrong with VALVe's or your normal maps. I was just saying that VALVe's normal maps tend to be less 'bumpy' than some that I generated with the program above. I think that this is due to the fact that if you use a really 'bumpy' normal map in a game (such as Counter Strike) you will end up with the really 'low' parts of the normal map (the parts below 125 color value. I can't remember which channel though) being represented as constantly black. However, when generating ssbump maps 'bumpier' normal maps can be used. This may also be due to the fact that VALVe may have used a 3D object to generate their normal maps as opposed to a normal map. Or my program may not work correctly, however I did test my program using the normal map in this paper, and my results matched VALVe's exactly without occlusion. I'll look into it after lunch. Thanks. Here are some of the results that I got with my program. --TheBestFlash 12:47, 20 Jan 2009 (MST)
Your probably right. I guess it just depends on the normal map before conversion :) --Craziestdan 20:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried what you were doing (Sorry, I thought you were converting VALVe normal maps into SSBump maps. I have it right now.) and I think I know what you are talking about. You can find a comparison of a SSbump map generated by my program and a VALVe SSbump map here. My SSbump map is on the left, and as you can see it looks different than VALVe's, however this is a comparison of the SSbump maps in a game. I think that my SSbump map looks smoother than VALVe's and is therefor slightly better looking. The SSBump that I used in game can be found here. The Height Map that I generated it from is here. I used GIMP and Insane Bump with a depth setting of '40.0', large detail setting of '3', and a small detail setting of '6' to generate a normal map from the height map. I then used my program to convert the normal map into a SSbump map using the original height map (not the one generated by Insane Bump) to estimate occlusion. Is that similar to your results? --TheBestFlash 21:26, 20 Jan 2009 (MST)
I'm trying what you did, but Insane Bump, eh, how do I work it? Instructions weren't clear to me... Where can I load it? --Craziestdan 23:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll work on getting that tut out today maybe, hopefully I won't get so busy.--Gear 06:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

When could we use this?

Can we use this on the first Source engine or only on Source 2007?

Orange Box only, will add that. --TomEdwards 12:38, 21 Sep 2008 (PDT)
Perfect, thanks. --Erwaitin 27 Sep 2008

Speach marks for paths

they don't have to...I don't know why we're using them in QCs. (Edit msg from TomEdwards)

Ahh, your right actually. I was basing this of VTFEdit, whenever I don't have the speach marks it'll give an error, so I assumed it was right. :P --Craziestdan 10:51, 10 Jan 2009 (PST)