Decal Creation - How?

[bigvern]

Hiya,

Some food for thought:

• A RailWorks MixMap Tile is 97Kb
  • The Cajon Pass route has 724 mixmap tiles that take up just 68Mb
• A Satellite Image Decal comes in the region of 1~4Mbs from the ones Ive been creating, and they arent a minimum of 1024m x 1024m in size
  • Mapping the town of Woking with 12 decals came to 48Mb

Regards

Ouch! Back to the terrain brush then!

[pauls]

Hi Vern,

RWDecal just produces decals from Goggle Earth at present. However I keep trying to persuade Nobkins to make it work on the decals themselves so that we can doctor them as required. For example building an old UK route I really need to overlay OS Maps and RAF 1945 - 1955 aerial reconaissance photo's over the GE images. However Nobkins tells me that I should for now do the overlay using GE itself and then run RWDecal.

Its not the intention that lots of decals could be used for scenery - altho' they look nice, they take up far too many computer resources. Also I don't think decals work all that well on steeply sloping ground ?
Have you considered building the steeply sloping ground that you require and placing it as an asset ? - Perhaps the objects required are just too big ?? eg Mount Everest ??

Cheers
Paul

A couple of further thoughts...

There seems to be some thought that using decals in lieu of terrain textures could adveresly affect performance. However for areas where there's not much in the way of other 3D objects (e.g. the desert) I can't see this as a major issue.

I presume terrain decals cling to the terrain as opposed to water decals which lay flat - will the two interface satisfactorily?

Is there still an issue with "Z fighting" or decals being slightly raised above the surface or has this been fixed?

I'm going to buy the fully licensed version of RW Decal later today, in the meantime I wonder if the author could be persuaded to expand the scope of the tool to work on any tga or bitmap, e.g. a suitably doctored Mayang texture and not just GE.

[theokus]

Hiya,

Some food for thought:

• A RailWorks MixMap Tile is 97Kb
  • The Cajon Pass route has 724 mixmap tiles that take up just 68Mb
• A Satellite Image Decal comes in the region of 1~4Mbs from the ones Ive been creating, and they arent a minimum of 1024m x 1024m in size
  • Mapping the town of Woking with 12 decals came to 48Mb

Regards

Ouch! Back to the terrain brush then!

So, the end is like the start was: we need more terrain textures

One thing more: How many roads we have at our disposal were cars are driving on the right side....

[jaapsloot]

All roads ending with DE

Jaap

[theokus]

All roads ending with DE

Jaap

Dank u Jaap

(Thank you)

[bigvern]

So, the end is like the start was: we need more terrain textures

Very sage and true observation, Theo!

[RSderek]

list /post pics up of textures you would like seen added to core.

(I will create the wangs and add them for all to use)

regards

Derek

[crowman]

Hi Derek,

here are a couple of photo's if these are possible please?

Grass Harvest:



Green Fields:



Thanks

Paul

[theokus]

Hi Derek,

here are a couple of photo's if these are possible please?

Grass Harvest:

Thanks

Paul

I "did" some Google

* a lot of greenish, brownish etc. etc.
* enough choise to pick.







You could change the colors of existing textures... the plow fields f.i.

[RailX]

hi

it would be good to have decal textures with higher bit dept(32/24 bit) in the future. actually we only can use 8 bit? is this right?

with 8 bit textures decals it's not really satisfying to replace ground textures, because when you zoom in, it looks terrible.

greetz

Rail-X

[theokus]

hi

it would be good to have decal textures with higher bit dept(32/24 bit) in the future. actually we only can use 8 bit? is this right?

with 8 bit textures decals it's not really satisfying to replace ground textures, because when you zoom in, it looks terrible.

greetz

Rail-X

Make them perhaps also in 3D..?

[3DTrains]

Personally, a 12 patch Wang would be fabulous in my book, but realistically, I would like to see the texture patch footprint reduced by half (not the grid size), so that using a 256 x 256 texture has better resolution. If reduced to 25%, then textures as small as 128 x 128 would be possible. Currently, the texture itself cannot be changed from the native 256 x 256. If possible, allowing a larger texture up to 512 x 512 might work, if the number of textures used in a route is kept to a reasonable level.

[Otterbear2]

Hi everyone,

I'm rather new at this, and I am looking at creating some(more) ground textures, and this thread has been a great help.

I'm not sure Marc, if what you are talking about relates directly to my current issue, but the "brush-size" when applying ground textures does seem a bit large(at its lowest setting 5.00)...Like trying to paint a portrait with a cantaloupe.

Like I say, I am rather new at this, so I may not have all the info I need...yet.

It looks to me like some kind of asset needs to be created that will prevent terrain textures "bleeding" into areas where they are not wanted...and some basic adjustment could be made to the overall shape of the applied texture...For instance; I'm laying trackbed and I get what looks like a zipper effect...Regardless of where I place the brush(withing a small area, of say 20 feet),...the texture will fill starting at a pre-determined spot and fill what looks like a rectangular area. The "shape" of the brush seems to make little difference. Again, I am rather new at this so I may have missed something.

Also, I have(THANK GOD), found the legacy documentation and looked at the Texture generation process...IE:Wang and Non-Wang. The one thing I would have like to see, was an example of what any configuration of the supplied example Wang files could look like IN Game.(I know each iteration would be different). I guess I could use the try-it-and-find-out approach.

I have stumbled across several "field" graphics files within the sub-folder structure of RW and RWUS, NONE of which appear in the editor even though I have selected Kuju,RSDL,and Castlerock, as well as my own development folder under "used" assets in the editor. This has me quite stopped for the moment as the textures I was wanting to create were in fact...Fields.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Dave

[hertsbob]

Hi

Here's my very amateur view on the subject...

the "brush-size" when applying ground textures does seem a bit large(at its lowest setting 5.00)...Like trying to paint a portrait with a cantaloupe.

Yes it is, but I think you'll find that there's little point in trying to do anything with a brush of that size. I don't ever go smaller than 15 which I find to be perfectly adequate. You wouldn't try to paint an inch perfect picture of the Mona Lisa with a can of car spray paint, but you could happily spray one that looks great from 15 feet away.

It looks to me like some kind of asset needs to be created that will prevent terrain textures "bleeding"

I reckon the 'bleeding' is by design, as it does actually help to merge (can't think of a better word) different textures together. Oddly enough, the larger the brush size the more effective this is - the second texture 'draws' the first towards it as you go, providing a good transition.

As far as your zipper effect is concerned, I know exactly what you mean, and I find that using a much larger brush than feels 'right' actually improves the situation, especially when coupled with multiple passes with different textures - 1st pass with gravel trackbed, second pass along each side with gravel track grass and the third with either bare or dark grass works well for me. When painting straight lines (trackbed/field borders etc.) I also find it easier and just as accurate to move the world under the paintbrush rather than moving the brush across the world, if you see what I mean.

I also think this 'bleeding' is why you've noticed the multiple texture files. I've not seen the names of the files you're referring to, but I suspect that each of the main textures contains multiple sub-files which are referred to depending on the different thickness/weight of coverage. Of course this could be totally wrong, but it's my gut feeling.

Hope this helps in some way.

Cheers

Bob

[Otterbear2]

Hey thanks bunches Bob!
That will really help I'm sure.
Not sure I follow the "move the ground, instead of the brush". Are you saying to paint a small area, and then reposition the view and proceed?

The multiple files do indeed relate to the merging of several "wang" files to make up the a particular texture. (lettered A-H).
So that explains why I have so many files but only 3 actual textures under "concrete" for instance.
However, I cant figure why I cannot see any of the associated texture files for "fields". They are there in the Railworks/enviornment folder but not showing in the editor.

This thread I started has screen shots to show exactly what I'm talking about and should make it clearer. (hope this works )
http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... 4&t=102158