deviant art

Deviant Login Shop
 Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
[x]
more ▶

Featured in Groups:

Details

January 27, 2011
Link
Thumb

Statistics

Comments: 11
Favourites: 0
Views: 280 (0 today)
[x]
I've intimated this in quiet ways over the last while, but I might as well go on record as saying that I think the current trend of painting uv-mapped wear and tear onto everything is an enormous waste of time. I've tried various methods of making the process more automatic, but it's all pretty crude.

On a whim, I decided to visit the site for Modo, and lo and behold, these folks now have what they call an occlusion layer. [link]

Yes, yes, I know that we've all had ambient occlusion for ages, and I also know that it's possible for different programs to bake an AO solution to a texture. What's cool about the Modo solution is that a few clicks can customize their occlusion solver for various looks (like weathering on pits and/ or bumps, top-down weathering, etc.) You can randomize things, bake the solution to a texture, use that texture as a mask for painting rust and dirt, and all that good stuff.

Of course, with this development, the CG and games industry will now decide that "dirt = real was SO first decade" and make everything look pristine...

Anyway.

If I'm not officially on record as having said it, here it is:

Dirt and damage on 3d models ought to be a procedural thing.

However - please note that all of you UV-map painting wizards who can do this by hand and make it look good still impress me.

A lot.

Now...I wonder how I can replicate some of this functionality in Blender...
  • Mood: Eye Candy
  • Listening to: The furnace, the vacuum, the washer...
  • Reading: Not much of anything.
  • Watching: Not much of anything.
  • Playing: Just finished "The Witcher."
  • Eating: Home cookin'.
  • Drinking: Water, cranberry juice, and Tang.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconulysses-31:
I think these dirt-map type solutions just don't have the level of sophistication required for ultimate realism. There's a lot of wear and tear that doesn't follow any particular rules and so can't be made into an algorithm. So far i've only ever painted that kind of stuff into a map, which is actually pretty straightforward using brush dynamics. Modo is pretty advanced but I can never seem to find the time to learn it.
Reply
:icondmaland:
~dmaland Mar 14, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I can agree with your point, especially when you need to have a big scrape across something. Those kinds of things don't follow any natural rules.

What I dig about this is that it automates the tedious stuff that does follow "natural rules." A texture artist that can marry the two techniques should be able to do some pretty "bang up" work with less time sunk into the boring parts. :)
Reply
:iconulysses-31:
I'm slowly learning maxscript, so i'm hoping that eventually i'll be able to automate a lot of the tedious tasks like this. There are so many tasks in 3D that could be sped up that it makes you wonder if the programmers remembered that the point of computers is to plough through boring, repetitive tasks :B
Reply
:icondmaland:
~dmaland Mar 22, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Agreed!
Reply
:iconaaronbooth:
~aaronbooth Feb 27, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Those of us that have used Lightwave for a long time will remember this same argument resulting in plugin that did just what you want .. called .. wait for it .. DIRT!

Shame others did not take notice
Reply
:icondmaland:
~dmaland Feb 28, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
It's pretty intriguing to hear about how "prior art" either did or not catch on. I wonder why it wouldn't have.

Maybe the world just wasn't ready for "real is dirty" back then. :D
Reply
:icondigger2000:
~Digger2000 Jan 29, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I just use a dirt photoshop brush over the texture map
Reply
:icondmaland:
~dmaland Jan 31, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I've done that many times as well. I think it's a totally workable technique - it's just that the Modo occlusion system is such an order of magnitude beyond what I'm used to.
Reply
:iconkaranua:
~karanua Jan 27, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
If you'r going to make a damaged looking 3d model why not actually model said damage in to begin with?
Reply
:icondmaland:
~dmaland Jan 31, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I guess that I'm thinking of paint and "top surface damage." In the case of real structural damage I would agree with you. (There would be a sort of fine line where you could go either way. Sculpted micro-meteoroid hits would probably be great if you were actually going to get the camera in close a lot of the time...but not so useful otherwise.)
Reply
Add a Comment: