MX Simulator

TeamHavocRacing wrote:Windows control panel and device or keyboard settings or some shit. That should help.

Thank you for this. Always wondered how people got the buttery smooth slow mo shots.

Yo, nice to see this game is still going on!
I kinda miss brabing around MXS so i came to check on some updates and seems like theres a lot of them, probably more models and tracks that iv missed that i can imagine.

Keep it going people, you guys rock! (Especialy JLV)

(Ps. i saw DDMX have MXS 1% in his tag, can i be MXS SQUID 2% ? )

Could a "simple" fix for shading be just make the existing shading factors darker? Or would it create more issues than fixes?

You can already do that by turning down the ambient. If you turn it down too much it looks like you're on the moon.

jlv wrote:You can already do that by turning down the ambient. If you turn it down too much it looks like you're on the moon.

I guess I mean outside of that. Like whenever you start introducing norms to the dirt decals, it seems to hide the shading that is being created by the game.

aeffertz wrote:I guess I mean outside of that. Like whenever you start introducing norms to the dirt decals, it seems to hide the shading that is being created by the game.

I think the opposite is true. Normals make small depressions easier to see. Here's an example. There's a very subtle 6 inch deep, 4 foot radius depression going up both the left and right sides. The right side stands out more to my eyes. The left side with the decals deleted is almost invisible.

jlv wrote:I think the opposite is true. Normals make small depressions easier to see. Here's an example. There's a very subtle 6 inch deep, 4 foot radius depression going up both the left and right sides. The right side stands out more to my eyes. The left side with the decals deleted is almost invisible.

I am going to have to disagree jlv.

In the picture above, the depression on the right is contrasted by the skybox, a soft and blue and white pallet that enables you to easily spot the depression.

Where as the depression on the left is contrasted by trees, and flagger, and finish stand and grass which increases the contrast between the dirt and the environment above.

I think this representation of normal mapping is a poor and unjust example.

In my many hours of testing and figuring out what works best for online erode, normal maps seem to hurt visibility of the erode created, small lines, and chatter bumps are the most affected by normal mapping.

The lighting from the normal map tends to disguise or camouflage the actually terrain underneath.

I think in order to see erode in the multiplayer aspect it is going to need some more love than just adjusting the ambient lighting values.

I disagree with your disagreement. If you crop the top off of that image the normal map side still shows the depression better. It could be the normal map you were using had too much high amplitude noise in it. If the normal map has huge angles in it will overwhelm the base shading, but that's a problem with the normal map. The shader is just doing what you asked it to do. A realistic map won't do that.

jlv wrote:I disagree with your disagreement. If you crop the top off of that image the normal map side still shows the depression better. It could be the normal map you were using had too much high amplitude noise in it. If the normal map has huge angles in it will overwhelm the base shading, but that's a problem with the normal map. The shader is just doing what you asked it to do. A realistic map won't do that.

I've seen with anything (normal map or just decal in general or even shadows or shading) that has contrast it makes bumps/ruts/erode harder to see. The more contrast the worse off it is.

You may be correct, and if so, can you educate us how to achieve this properly?

If you want to make slight shading variations more visible you definitely don't want to camouflage it with large variations in brightness coming from either the texture or the normal map. I'd guess that the maximum visibility would be with a fairly low contrast texture and a normal map that's mostly smooth with some fine texture in it. A bit of bumpiness in the normal map will make it pick up some shading in situations where the angles would make it look flat otherwise. If I can find some time I'll try to make some test cases for it.

jlv wrote:If you want to make slight shading variations more visible you definitely don't want to camouflage it with large variations in brightness coming from either the texture or the normal map. I'd guess that the maximum visibility would be with a fairly low contrast texture and a normal map that's mostly smooth with some fine texture in it. A bit of bumpiness in the normal map will make it pick up some shading in situations where the angles would make it look flat otherwise. If I can find some time I'll try to make some test cases for it.

It would be sweet if you could help show Race and the guys what you've found that works for sure.