Starcraft 2 Modeling, why is it failing?

[Statharas]

I should point out that CrazyBump is barely useful. It made no differences when i used it.

 

[BlinkBoy]

I should point out that CrazyBump is barely useful. It made no differences when i used it.

You must be using it wrong because for me, it made me the day. Try not using it all at once, do multiple versions of the normal map focusing on specific areas of your texture then join them together and it will be epic.

 

[Walle]

I should point out that CrazyBump is barely useful. It made no differences when i used it.

Crazybump is one of the most used tools by CG artists now a days. It works wonders for me. You may be using it wrong take a look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCncIMY4mhA

 

[Statharas]

Say, do the Sc2 scripts work with GMAX?

 

[Mr. Bob]

Consider the dynamic on the intent side of things.

For WC3 you had a dynamic that was very appealing to people trying to get into modeling. On the one hand, you had fairly low engine support for anything ambitious or complex. You couldn't mod wc3 to do just about anything you wanted. On the other hand, it was very easy to get your art content into the game. It's a tradeoff that is very appealing to beginning modelers. This is why a good deal of modelers from wc3 go through the same cycle of either realizing they have talent and moving on to better things, or finding out that they are terrible at it and either stop or stick with wc3.

With sc2 you have a bad combination. You have a fairly limited engine (you can argue about this all day but in the end it's really nothing special) but it's also difficult to get your shit in game. It's now difficult because of a lack of support from Blizzard AND a just generally more complex process.

If you want a level of complexity in your art content on par with the art content being created for bigger and better engines like cryengine and unreal, then you have to match that level of complexity and flexibility in your modding tools. It's rather difficult to do this for an rts game, and they are just bad at it. So yes, ofc you are going to have problems. A subpar engine with modern art assets is not appealing to modders and enthusiasts.

Observe the communities making content for engines like Unreal. They've hit the mark perfectly. They have an engine that is arguably the best, and a level of flexibility in their art content to the point where you don't even have to worry about specific formats. (In most cases.)

Now, again, look at wc3. It's a terrible engine with no flexibility, but it's not taxing on the artist as it doesn't require a level of detail that exceeds that of the engine.

It's really a bad situation all around.

---

Now look at the ordeal from a birdseye view. For people not familiar with the capabilities engine side, things like this are not helping.

That model is embarrassingly terrible. Awful, really. If you look at that and then find that the engine requires a much more complex process to even get it ingame, it's a huge turnoff. You are having to put more work in for minimal reward. It's really a losing combination.

You can throw the "well some fans will do anything" argument out there, but it's not a sustainable idea. People don't work like that by and large.

 

[Dr Super Good]

StarCraft II supports what it does efficiently. I would like to see cryengine or unreal have 200 battle cruisers on screen and moving at the same time and look any better than StarCraft II (on comparable hardware).

The ghost model does not look impressive when zoomed close but the model is not meant to be zoomed close. The ghost is meant to be one of may ghosts on the battle field at the same time with dozens of marines firing and an opposing army attacking.

The same goes for Diablo III models. If you look at them full screen they look poor but you are never meant to look at them that close in game. Adding in details like dents, sharp edges and smooth curves might make it look good close up but are virtually unnoticeable from the standard StarCraft II view and dramatically increase model complexity.

You may argue that tessellation allows good models from a distance and close while keeping resource usage down since it can dynamically change the detail of geometry based on distance from view point. Standard tessellation support was only added recently and definatly long after the engines of both StarCraft II and Diablo III were made.

 

[Mr. Bob]

StarCraft II supports what it does efficiently. I would like to see cryengine or unreal have 200 battle cruisers on screen and moving at the same time and look any better than StarCraft II (on comparable hardware).

The problem is, what is does is a fairly limited spectrum here. The engine tools/editors are specific to certain functions that really only compliment the bird's eye view. Which, is understandable, but when you put that beside the pain it is to get art ingame, it doesn't work correctly. Meanwhile, you have tools like UDK where you don't have to give a flying fuck about all of things you'd have to worry about getting models into SC2, and you end up with a more flexible engine anyway.

The ghost model does not look impressive when zoomed close but the model is not meant to be zoomed close. The ghost is meant to be one of may ghosts on the battle field at the same time with dozens of marines firing and an opposing army attacking.

I would make an argument about how UVWrapping is not scale dependent and Blizzard artists are lazy, but I'll skip that and go to the next broader one.

Right, and you are having to go through more hoops just to get that model ingame when it is limited to that sort of spectrum of usage. Meanwhile, people are importing fully animated and models with tens of thousands of polies with full collision and ragdoll constraints into UDK/Cryengine in 5 minutes with no data loss.

You may argue that tessellation allows good models from a distance and close while keeping resource usage down since it can dynamically change the detail of geometry based on distance from view point. Standard tessellation support was only added recently and definatly long after the engines of both StarCraft II and Diablo III were made.

Right, I understand that, but regardless, it is here /now/. If you give an artist the choice of going to a freely usable engine that is far superior and up to date and also has an incredibly accessible import/export process between programs, and then show them sc2, guess where they'll go.

And, keep in mind, as much as I'm no fan of SC2, I'm not trying to make a statement about the game or anything. I'm just making a comment on the reason behind people going to other engines. It's no longer functioning as the "beginner engine" that wc3 was. It's functioning as a limited engine (like wc3's) but with higher standards of importation and creation.

 

[Statharas]

Well, Sc2 has it's own plusses. It's rather vague to say that the UDK engine is better than the Sc2 engine, since the UDK engine is made for games and the Sc2 engine is made for maps. Maps which are generally simpler to make.

 

[Mr. Bob]

Think in terms of engine power and then tools. It's not helpful to lump them together from the getgo.

Udk isn't an engine it's a tool. Unreal Engine 3 is the engine.

Then apply that from the perspective of the artist getting in to either. Be careful not to turn this into an engine war.

Whether it's mods for games, maps for games, or games, it doesn't really matter. There is community support in the same way for each. Artists tend to go with what is most flexible, unless they are trying to get started, in which case they will tend to go to less flexible platforms that are more accessible. In simpler terms, to condense the whole argument, Sc2 is neither flexible nor accessible, in the context of other engines and tools for sed engines. It's not appealing.

So, ofc you are going to have issues with getting people to model for it. Until your importation/exportation and general tools functions are vastly easier to use than the higher budget ones from streamlined power house engines, you are stuck. The fact that the engine tools can't convert simple texture maps themselves and rely on the artists themselves to do it is a very very bad sign.

I presume Blizzard was under the impression that the sheer blissful nature of the fanbase itself would be enough to sustain a steady stream of 3rd party art content. It really isn't though.

 

[FockeWulf]

Mr. Bob has a very good point to make.

SC2 modeling is not supported at all.

There are art tools and documenation and the art tools are integrated so when you menipulate something in 3dmax it does the same in the editor. This is because what it looks like in the editor and what it looks like in 3dmax are usually vastly different.

RTS's are designed for bird's eye view. You don't want high-poly models. On the other hand, although its not as time consuming to model, the whole part about getting it into the game is very time consuming.

There IS a set of tools out there. The trouble is you can be importing and reimporting simple models over 50 times just to get it to look good (and also hope you don't run into bugs) when you do the settings.

Granted I'm a good self learner which helps but it doesn't change the fact that you have to be really stubborn.

It wouldn't be so bad even with buggy tools but this issue happens to be tied into the other issue. Reward: The popularity system has made it so even if you make custom model content for SC2 (like I and my team has) you will gain little to no reward from it. And Blizzard's obvious lack of motivation to fix it has driven away a lot of potentials.

Here are some examples of what we've made:

But so far the work and outright hassel put into these models has generated no noticable reward. Popularity doesn't increase and there are no incentives.

 

[Walle]

But so far the work and outright hassel put into these models has generated no noticable reward. Popularity doesn't increase and there are no incentives.

as far as I can tell on the pictures you're not using any normal/specular maps or smooth on those models. Try and get a nice smooth, normal and specular map on those tanks and they can look awesome.

This is because what it looks like in the editor and what it looks like in 3dmax are usually vastly different.

Here's a tip, install the xoliul shader plugin in 3ds max.
http://xoliulshader.com/
it renders only diffuse, specular and normal maps but it renders it how it would really look in a game in the viewport. all the models in the viewport will while you're modelling in max look like how they look in SC2.
This shaderplugin for 3ds max is used by many game artists for when they are making game models, I really recommend it.

 

[FockeWulf]

The shader will come in real handy but the other stuff is waiting for the art tools.

IF they get released. I remind you all this is "Activision-Blizzard" not "Blizzard" they may not release them at all.

 

[NhazUl]

Why, I use MdlVis to make model that corresponds roughly to WoW in terms of quality, use WC3 textures, and then convert it to .m3 via 3DS Max. I also use Crazybump on the WC3 textures. However, quality issues such as physics helpers and additional animations still remain. But overall it seems a fairly good solution for now, and it does not take that much time.

However, due to some retarded problem of my computer as of late, I cannot install 3DS Max right now, so I'm stuck. There is a Blender add-on/plugin for importing WC3 models, but it's not working. (I would be thankful if someone of you guys would offer assistanc on that.)

 

[Rui]

Hey guys, perhaps you guys could compile a list of plugins and programs for StarCraft 2 modeling, texturing and all that stuff?

 

[Walle]

Hey guys, perhaps you guys could compile a list of plugins and programs for StarCraft 2 modeling, texturing and all that stuff?

Good idea, crazybump and xoliul shader and definitely two must have tools for SC2 modding.

 

[JesusHipster]

Also mind people about max starcraft multiplayer map filesize. It's quet important for modelers.

 

[Statharas]

With Crazybump, I made normals, Speculars and Emissive for a WoW Export, but i can't export it's animations, and i have a problem with specularity.Other than that it's an incredible model.

:D

And just for the epicness, ONLY 290KB COMPRESSED!

 

[JesusHipster]

Niceeeee

 

[BlinkBoy]

With Crazybump, I made normals, Speculars and Emissive for a WoW Export, but i can't export it's animations, and i have a problem with specularity.Other than that it's an incredible model.

:D

And just for the epicness, ONLY 290KB COMPRESSED!

Don't use Crazy bump for specularity, use photoshop: reduce saturation and brightness a bit and add contrast. That should do it.

290kb is a bit high, wc3 models could be compressed to 70kb if done well (using paletted blps for example). Plus Sc2 maps tend be a lot bigger and the size restrictions are just a bit higher than wc3's.

 

[FockeWulf]

Also mind people about max starcraft multiplayer map filesize. It's quet important for modelers.

Its actually not hat bad.

In fact we have over 100mb if you really wanted to.

SC2 max upload size is 20 MB but the maps work on "dependencies" now which are .sc2mod files. You can do anything from data work to model storage and share them between multiple maps.

So instead of it being just 20mb its 10mb + 60 or so MB in model dependencies. The dependencies only download once (unless updated) and can be used on a while series of maps)

 

[Dangime]

I have to agree with a lot of the sentiment on here. While I come at this from the map making perspective a lot of the issues you guys are listing off about modeling is true of map making in general because of how the editor was deisnged. It can do many more things, but even accomplishing some of the basic stuff takes 10 clicks when it used to take 2.

I for one was all fired up as a map maker, but I knew I would be held back by inavailabilty of custom models for awhile. I just had no idea how long "awhile" would be. To give you an idea I made "Civ Wars" for WC3, so I need models that span a large number of time periods. Plus, while I know the editor a little, it's been months since I've touched it, so I'll have to relearn all the stuff I've forgotten while waiting, and there's not mass of tutorials and guides I used to get my start in WC3 (like how do you even import a model if you manage to get it?)

Anyway, I'd be glad to start up on a project like a new civ wars for sc2....if there's a green light from somewhere that makes it appear like the end goal is even possible.

 

[_lycan]

wow sc2 has map limits? , god..

so we won't even see sc2 campaigns in a long time.

 

[Statharas]

That's completely stupid. Sorry, but it is and I just won't bother to explain.

 

[Graber]

After i finnish my exams i ill buy starcraft 2 mostly for his editor to mess around but i have some questions pls answer me.


1. Starcraft 2 editor has all triggers that warcraft 3 has + alot more.
2. Can add new animations to a model, can u added just a file or u need to add a new model, with just a file the map size will grow less.
3. The multiplayer map size is 20 mb i heard?
4, Can play attachment units animations, if i add a weapon on a unit i can set
its animations.
5. Can add attachment just like wacraft 3?
6. In Warcraft 3 Event from Player keyboard: player press up,down, left, right , escape key in war3 are only in startcraft 2 i can get even something like this: Player press q from keyboard, where q in not a hotkey for an ability is just q.
7. WIll attachment units if u can add new armour for a unit will join them good on the model like in skyrim? For example in warcraft if u add a arm armour and a gauntlet will be a gap on the whrist where the attachaments joins toughder in some animations.

 

[Statharas]

You can add attachments.
And 7, Kindof.

 

[xXm0RpH3usXx]

Don't use Crazy bump for specularity, use photoshop: reduce saturation and brightness a bit and add contrast. That should do it.

please do neither^^

you can make way better normal maps with nDo2 (or nDo, its slower, but the first version, which is free) check it out at quixel.se

if you use nDo2, it will convert your normal map into a spec map for you, otherwise i would recommend deriving your spec from the normal map.
copy the red and green channels into a new image. duplicate those alyers and invert those. set all of them to "lighten" (sometimes something other works better) and put a 128grey beneath all of it.

 

[Statharas]

nDo2?

You mean "Ican'tturnthisnormaltheotherwaytwo"?
Seriously, the normal generation is good, but it lacks a core feature.

 

[xXm0RpH3usXx]

uhm... yeah, its the programs fault, right...
i mean, sure, crazybump is way more sophisticated >.< [/irony]

turn what where if i may ask?
last time i checked, you where able to rotate and flip whatever you wanted wherever you wanted as a sculpt layer.
(but thats not the point of this thread)

 

[Statharas]

I should also point out that it does barely more than CrazyBump. And is extremely too pricy.

 

[xXm0RpH3usXx]

whoever considers him or herself halway professional will have left over 70 bucks...

and in fact, it does a lot more stuff than crazybump
did u ever use both versions? did u compare them?
you will see in an instant, that you can produce much more acurate results with nDo.

 

[Statharas]

nDo is nowhere to be found.

 

[Revilo]

http://www.quixel.se/

 

[Statharas]

That's nDo2

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

What I've seen so far regarding specularity, there is no single formula unlike normal and emissive. Normal - you make all textures orange normal in the same way, emissive - you just do brighten up the lights and the rest is black pretty much the same formula.

For specular it really depends on what you will use it for - some metal things may require lighter colors but not white-silver as then the whole model would rather be white than metallic/silver, at the same time not too dark. Others require darker specular maps and they won't shine too much.

But so far I haven't found a single formula to do all metal and organic units with the same level of specularity. It's like this texture has to be decided based on what you will use it for. I use gimp and idk any 'perfect' way to do specular maps other than chaning the colors differently for each unit you want to use.

 

[Walle]

What I've seen so far regarding specularity, there is no single formula unlike normal and emissive. Normal - you make all textures orange normal in the same way, emissive - you just do brighten up the lights and the rest is black pretty much the same formula.

For specular it really depends on what you will use it for - some metal things may require lighter colors but not white-silver as then the whole model would rather be white than metallic/silver, at the same time not too dark. Others require darker specular maps and they won't shine too much.

But so far I haven't found a single formula to do all metal and organic units with the same level of specularity. It's like this texture has to be decided based on what you will use it for. I use gimp and idk any 'perfect' way to do specular maps other than chaning the colors differently for each unit you want to use.

When doing a specular map, I usually just change it and tweak the map in photoshop until I get the result I wanted.

 

[xXm0RpH3usXx]

That's nDo2

omg, dont be so stubborn, if you had bought your crazybump licence legally, you would know its twice as much as nDo2.
and honestly, i have read so much about it, from vraious people, people that actually are in the industry and have a lot of experience with crazybump, that nDo in fact is more precise. (plus, i used both myself, too)
i'm nopt going to argue with you, think what you want, i just wanted to state another pov for people who read this...



About the specmaps:
yes, specmaps dont need to be greyscale, infact, dielectric materials are most commonly made with a red/green colored specmap.

 

[SuPa-]

Hey guys, just thought I'd drop in. Ignoring all the issues with getting models to work within SC2, there's the issue of making the model itself. I know that you guys have mentioned nDo2 and CrazyBump, but those are primarily used for inorganic models and tileable textures. They come in handy, but aren't great for everything. There is a huge skillset required for SC2 modeling and "next-gen" modeling in general that the community here isn't very familiar with.

For example, you guys are talking about specular maps and are having trouble understanding how they work. Specular maps are used to help define material definition via shininess and highlight color. They're what make highlights pop. The more shiny something is, the brighter the color on the specular map. Things like skin will be darker, while metals and other shiny/glossy materials will be lighter. As well, color plays a big part in specular maps, though they can be black and white. Since specular maps are additive, it is a good idea to sometimes (like in the case of skin) use a negative color. Because of this, if you look at specular maps of skin, many of them have a blue hue.

If you guys want, I could create a pretty simple tutorial on the process of making a "next-gen" model. But if you find yourselves confused, just use the google machine! There's a lot of information and tutorials on the web. Or ask me. I don't know much about SC2 modding, but I know plenty about making game assets.

 

[SexyZwonne]

If you guys want, I could create a pretty simple tutorial on the process of making a "next-gen" model. But if you find yourselves confused, just use the google machine! There's a lot of information and tutorials on the web. Or ask me. I don't know much about SC2 modding, but I know plenty about making game assets.

Well, it cant hurt, now can it?

 

[SuPa-]

K, I'll make one then! Just note that it won't involve SC2, just modeling in general. And it'll be fairly basic, but I may make a more advanced one later.

Just a heads up, it'll involve the following programs:
3ds Max
ZBrush
Photoshop
CrazyBump

#Edit
Keep in mind that I won't be able to go too in to depth with the individual programs, as that'd get rather complex and tedious, but there are plenty of tutorials for the respective programs on the web!

 

[BlinkBoy]

For sculping I prefer mudbox rather than zBrush. The problem is not that, but the idea is to do things FAST, for me sculping a model takes more than making the mesh itself. I think the best option is to do a hybrid 3ds-max bumping, photoshop and crazybump (need to look at that nDo2, looks promising).

 

[xXm0RpH3usXx]

well, why not use sculptris for that? i mean, its free, as that seems to be a discussion point here, too.

and honestly, supa, i know you are able to make that tutorial, but there is enough info already out there...

 

[Statharas]

omg, dont be so stubborn, if you had bought your crazybump licence legally, you would know its twice as much as nDo2.
and honestly, i have read so much about it, from vraious people, people that actually are in the industry and have a lot of experience with crazybump, that nDo in fact is more precise. (plus, i used both myself, too)
i'm nopt going to argue with you, think what you want, i just wanted to state another pov for people who read this...



About the specmaps:
yes, specmaps dont need to be greyscale, infact, dielectric materials are most commonly made with a red/green colored specmap.

50 USD. Nuff said.

K, I'll make one then! Just note that it won't involve SC2, just modeling in general. And it'll be fairly basic, but I may make a more advanced one later.

Just a heads up, it'll involve the following programs:
3ds Max
ZBrush
Photoshop
CrazyBump

#Edit
Keep in mind that I won't be able to go too in to depth with the individual programs, as that'd get rather complex and tedious, but there are plenty of tutorials for the respective programs on the web!

Don't forget that animations are well detailed. An attack animation could be 4K frames for that matter.
Oh, and that you need 3DS max 2010 or 2011. And to make emissives you just paint black all areas you don't want to emit light, and then grayscale and darken as much as you can without losing too much detail on the parts you want.


Bah, just PM me if you need any help.

 

[Jack Of Hearts]

I say give it time...

 

[Graber]

SO man if imake a S2 model can i just make a mesh in the 3ds max then export it with that importer\exporter for m3 plugin who will use in game textures and only the basic map the difusee? For a building and some animations?

 

[Statharas]

Yes, you can use diffuse only.

As for the animations, you need to consider a time-per-frame. Usually, we use 1000 frames per second or so. You should use less because it's a building.

 

[FockeWulf]

I am going to be uploading a video on how to port over WarCraft 3 models to StarCraft 2.

http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/...ft-3-models-starcraft-2-a-218740/#post2177484

I will have the videos fully uploaded in the next few hours

 

[Graber]

Dudes the multiplayer map size for Starcraft 2 was 20 mb, but did they incresed it latly couse is still not enought?

Starcraft 2 has a good editor but the limitation is very bad.

 

[CRAZYRUSSIAN]

It seems the people who made warcraft moved on to do something else, and they had different people make starcraft, who did not know what they where doing.

Even though I played, like 5+ years of warcraft, I have never played any starcraft yet!
One look at it explained it all.

They used the warcraft cartoony style for sarcraft game, everything is round and cartoony. So I knew it was going to be a weak game before even playing it.

So sad indeed.

 

[Anvil]

nDo is nowhere to be found.

I have the nDo plugin for photoshop.

 

[_lycan]

it is failing because not enough