Ask something - We can help.

[Theme]

I'm currently using Unity making a 3D test game for experimenting and learning. I have a question that I'm not sure what is appropriate. If you were to have a bunch of game objects, would it better to have each object with their own texture, or should I group textures with similar objects.

For instance if I made a desk and bookshelf that might show up in other rooms together, or sometimes separate, would I be better off grouping those two textures together, or having each separate?

It depends on the texture resolution quality you want. the bigger the texture, more ram it gets. But if the quality of the texture is ok for for both objects texture in one image them I guess it's better than have two textures loaded up in memory. But yah, grouping is ok.

[Monsieur OUXX]

Where's that recent thread about drawing and animation tools?

Hi all,

Very recently (one month ago at most?) there was a discussion that digressed into all the cool tools to draw in low-res and to animate.
The big advantage is that it was pointing to very modern and recent tools (unlike the sticky thread in the Critics Lounge subforum, that is very very old).

The thing is, I can't find that thread. Was it in Critics Lounge? Somewhere else? I promised myself I wouldn't lose it, but I did.

[Khris]

This one?
http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=47860.0

[Monsieur OUXX]

http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=47860.0

Yes! Thanks!

[Monsieur OUXX]

Photoshop: how to have only 100% opaque and 100% transparent pixels?

I'm looking for a process to do that as quickly as possible on as many layers as possible :
- I created an animation in Photoshop
- each frame is made of several layers
- each layer contains mostly 100% opaque pixels, surrounded by 100% transparent pixels BUT at the border there are some pixels that aren't 100% opaque. I want to make them 100% opaque or 100% transparent (and, only if possible , based on a threshold: less than 50% opaque becomes 0% opaque, more than 50% opaque becomes 100% opaque)

I don't know what's the best way to do that.
What would be amazing: if it were possible to do it at once for all visible layers (using the "merged" color of a pixel rather than the individual color of that pixel in each layer). But that would be asking too much...

[Anian]

Monsieur, are you talking about Anti-alias settings?

Instead of Brush tool, use Pencil tool with 100% Hardness - if you're drawing Pencil tool is under the Brush tool icon (a sub-menu thing), but if you're using the Eraser then choose the Eraser tool and then in the horizontal menu where you set it up, there should be a drop-down menu and there choose Pencil, again 100% Hardness). Why they have different methods of setting this up? I don't know.
If you're painting using Marque Tool - put 0 px Feather and if it's a round Marque Tool put 0px Feather and un-check the Anti-alias box (it's right next to it).

Bad news is, I tried something now to make sure, Photoshop will keep that anti-alias edges even if you pull some tricks with selection and erasing. You can for example make a slightly bigger Circle Marque selection (with those 0px Feather and un-check anti-alias) around an already drawn circle and then fill it in, but I doubt were talking one circle here. So there is no way to fix except with redrawing.
Photoshop is mostly made for photograph editing, so pixel precise thing is not that developed (although you could do it with the settings I just gave you above).

[Khris]

There should be a way to edit the alpha channel and then basically just up the contrast, turning 0-49% transparency to 0% and the rest to 100%.

[Anian]

There should be a way to edit the alpha channel and then basically just up the contrast, turning 0-49% transparency to 0% and the rest to 100%.

Thing is that anti-alias is sort of built-in into an image (Photoshop does it independently of what you're doing to the colors and such), so it's a real hassle to really remove it.

If you use Image>Adjustment>Threshold you need to carefully adjust the settings and you'll probably get a black and white image and even then, threshold sometimes eats up pixel where it's not supposed to.
You can make a mask from thresholded selection:
1 what you can do I think is Ctrl and click on a layer (make it selected),
2 now go to Channel tab and make a new Channel (so it's black and white),
3 use Threshold on that layer in the Channel tab
4 now select everything in that channel (Ctrl+A) and Ctrl+C (copy) and then go to Layers tab again,
5 click on that layer in Layers tab which we wanted to remove the anti-alias from and at the bottom there is an Add Layer Mask button
6 now Alt+click on that new icon we got in the layer we want to mask/remove anti-alias from (screen should go all white or black now, that's ok) and Ctrl+V the selection from before
7 you can now right click on the mask (in the Layer tab) and select to Apply mask

But again this method would probably not produce exact shapes, which might be a problem in pixel art.

[Monsieur OUXX]

Monsieur, are you talking about Anti-alias settings?

No. Your post actually answers questions I asked a few weeks ago (just a little bit earlier in that very same thread).


I'll try to test with the alpha channel and the threshold setting, to see if it's possible.
In Google I've found a handful of people talking about the magic wand having a setting allowing to choose between "similar colors", "similar luminosity", and why not "similar transparency" but I can't find that setting, so I don't know if it exists in my Photoshop (CS3) or even if it's a fantasy.

[Snarky]

What I'd do is make a copy of the layer where you want to un-antialias the edges, then darken it repeatedly (using brightness/contrast and levels) until it's completely black, without affecting the alpha. Then put it on top of a white layer and merge them together. Then threshold at 50%. Then invert. This is your mask that you can use to make all <50% opaque pixels completely transparent.

There's no real good way to make partially transparent pixels 100% opaque (though this thread talks about a "Filter Factory" plug-in that can do it); the best way is to duplicate the layer and merge the two copies. This cuts transparency in half (Edit: actually, it reduces it by the square: from 50% to 50%*50% = 25%, but from 25% to 25%*25%=6.25%, to 0.39%, to essentially 0), and if you do that 10 4 times it should round it down to 0 on anything more than 50% opaque to begin with. You could program it as an action if you need to do it on several layers.

Then you apply your mask to the multi-merged layer, and you should be set!

[Monsieur OUXX]

What I'd do is ...

Thanks a lot Snarky!!!

[m0ds]

A game/book whatever you wish is sold by companies A, B, C and D. At the end of the month, all companies send a sales report. Companies A, B and C then send the payment.

However, company D asks for me to invoice them before they can send payment.

Why is this?

Not a trick question or anything, I'm genuinely confused why it applies to one company but none of the others. I suppose it may just be country related or I may just be stoopid... If you may know why this is necessary with some but not others please help! Thank you

[AGA]

I think it just depends how their accounting team keep records, or possibly the country's tax office's requirements.  My employer will certainly ask for an invoice before paying.

[m0ds]

Ok sounds right. How do you do that please Berian? How do you invoice them? An email? A paypal invoice request? etc?

[RickJ]

Mark, Probably the best thing to do is to contact their accounts payable, preferably the person who will be processing your invoice, ask them exactly what they want, in what form, and who's ATTN: it should be directed. 

[AGA]

I'll send you a PM with the AdventureX invoice I paid last year.  Quite a good (and appropriate!) example.

But yeah, what Rick says would probably be most useful.

[m0ds]

Thanks! But thats YOU paying THEM, not THEM paying YOU isn't it? ohh confuuused... hehe

edit: Tho your example gives me something to go from, cheers

[Eric]

I've been learning to use Sketchup to design a boat for a project for which I need a consistent model, and am having some issues. First off, here's the boat. In that last view of it, from the back, you might be able to discern some weird coloration.

This is what the back looks like from the inside of the hull. I've been saving drafts, but unfortunately didn't notice this until I was four or five iterations down the road. I've tried using the pencil tool to make planes out of these areas, but it doesn't seem to work. Anyone have any advice on what is going on / whether it's fixable?

[Anian]

I've been learning to use Sketchup to design a boat for a project for which I need a consistent model, and am having some issues. First off, here's the boat. In that last view of it, from the back, you might be able to discern some weird coloration.

This is what the back looks like from the inside of the hull. I've been saving drafts, but unfortunately didn't notice this until I was four or five iterations down the road. I've tried using the pencil tool to make planes out of these areas, but it doesn't seem to work. Anyone have any advice on what is going on / whether it's fixable?

Well that second picture I kind of have an idea what angle I'm looking at but not very. If you want, PM me and send me the SketchUp file and I'll look it over a bit.

Practical advice - when something is far away or will be visible from an angle, you can make whatever you want, BUT when doing something like this, which I'm guessing will be looked at closely, or practising modelling, then you have to be careful. From what I can see, there's at least one part of the back where you have multiple surfaces clashing (often a SketchUp thing) - all that purple stuff is SketchUp being unable to figure out which of the surfaces that are intersecting do you want see in the camera. I suggest clicking on the surface of the back of the boat and delete the surface, then resurface that area carefully manually.

3d and SketchUp especially have trouble with the number of corners/sides of any surface, yes you can model it, but smoothing and renderers will have trouble with it. Ideally it's a four (you still have to be careful with four, but it's kind of a standard) or triangles (often used in 3d games) surface, it's a good habit to look at surfaces in that way and decide how to split them up so everything is clear.
SketchUp can make curved lines, but unless it's a simple extruded shape, you'll run into trouble. Control the numbers, start from something minimal you need for a shape (ie instead of a circle, make it an octogon), then add detail. I've quickly drawn what I mean http://i.imgur.com/7g7ECBI.jpg

Second thing would be making stuff like that hull - with actual thickness. Usually 3d software can mark surfaces as "double sided", but rendering it is trouble. Renderes calculate light photons bouncing of stuff, in theory, but unless it's a closed surface / object, like a cube (which is 6 connected surfaces facing each other), the renderer will not know if he's looking at the outside or the inside.
SketchUp definitely has that "outside" (white side) and "inside" (gray, or maybe purple, side) part of the surfaces. In SketchUp you don't create 3d models, you create something similar to a husk/balloon, stuff inside doesn't actually have anything, it's hollow. On the white sides you put things that will be seen (like textures), but DO NOT expose the gray sides to the camera (or do and see what actually happens).
Plus when you have a thickness, some stuff won't be instantly visible on the other side if you incorrectly place objects.

[Eric]

I suggest clicking on the surface of the back of the boat and delete the surface, then resurface that area carefully manually.

Thank you, Anian! I'm going to try this this afternoon with the plan you've provided. Ironically, if I'd approached this more like building an actual boat instead of a 3D model, that's what it should have looked like anyway (using the shape of boards).