Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
It'd be nice if texture packs adopted standards. Each texture could represent 1 square meter of material. This lets you realistically place it in a world, understand how it should be there. Otherwise, a great looking texture could throw off a scene because it's out of scale. 4/?
And of course, some textures would need to be larger than representing 1 meter, but it should indicate so. I'm thinking of big cliff faces or castle walls. Big level design static geometry, viewed at a distance. 5/?
As an interesting aside, the only project I know of that adopted strict rules about textures and scale was EQ:N. Being voxel driven, textures were pretty much all triplanar mapped, and bricks needed to neatly line up with voxel boundaries to look good. 6/?
At texturehaven, some textures are marked with an indicator of world-scale (ex: https://texturehaven.com/tex/?t=rocks_ground_08 …) But not all are marked, and most are not the same (clicking randomly, I found 4m, 3m, and 1.2m) 7/?
http://FreePBR.com , my other go-to for PBR texture sets, doesn't seem to have any indication of scale at all. 8/?
I'm mostly thinking about triplanar mapped surfaces. Once you introduce UV maps, I can only imagine evenly distributing texel density and maintaining proper texel scale is a nightmare. 9/?
I don't have enough experience in managing this type of stuff, outside my own small experiments and complaining to artists (was never in a lead position to have any authority on it). Does this problem come up for others? How does it get managed on other teams? 10/10 - fin
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
