Doom with PBR materials

[Stealth Frag]

So here's Marble2:

 

I can't decide whether to use some more reflective surface, like this:

 

or maybe some extremely glossy like that one:

[xanrer]

I'd say reflective, glossy is a bit too.. well glossy. Its really hard to choose because i seen marbles that looks like both of these, so im saying reflective just from artistic point of view.

[KVELLER]

I agree with xanrer, I think glossy is a bit too much.

[Stealth Frag]

So I'm in the middle of making some simple test map showing how that materials work with dynamic lights in engine. Surprisingly I use first marble2 version (the one with lowest gloss) and it's looking glossy enough I think.

[Stealth Frag]

GSTONE textures:

[Stealth Frag]

More ingame shots:

[Mynameislol]

Looks very moody, it looks like you've been able to incorporate these hi-res textures without it looking out of place. Well done!

[Stealth Frag]

Thanks!

Here's gstlion, gstgarg, gstsatyr:

[Tea Monster]

That is ASTOUNDING.

 

Can you use POM on those face wall textures? 

 

[Stealth Frag]

Yes, but using POM on vertical surfaces is not a good idea in my opinion. Parallax effect involved some evident visual glitches, so it's more suitable for horizontal surfaces where this effects are not that obvious.

 

And here's POM on ceiling for example:

[Stealth Frag]

So here's new version of gstone:

[GooberMan]

4 hours ago, Reinchard said:

Yes, but using POM on vertical surfaces is not a good idea in my opinion.

It's not vertical surfaces that are the problem per-se. If you look at any POM surface from a perpendicular point (ie view direction directly opposite its normal) then there's no perspective for it to calculate offsets from. Looking straight down at a horizontal surface will give you the same error so to speak.

 

Anything with the vertical range you're applying there will show up as problematic with POM. It really works best with a narrower range.

[Stealth Frag]

16 minutes ago, GooberMan said:

It's not vertical surfaces that are the problem per-se. If you look at any POM surface from a perpendicular point (ie view direction directly opposite its normal) then there's no perspective for it to calculate offsets from. Looking straight down at a horizontal surface will give you the same error so to speak.

 

Anything with the vertical range you're applying there will show up as problematic with POM. It really works best with a narrower range.

That's what I mean in short. I didn't tell anywhere that POM behave different on horizontal surfaces. All I wanted to say is that POM offset is less obvious on ceilings/floors, but ofc is still visible.

[Gez]

The main problem IMO is when they're applied on a texture that then slides up in the ceiling or down into the floor, like a typical door or lift, and it doesn't make sense that the mechanism doesn't get stuck on the protruding parts.

[Bauul]

30 minutes ago, Gez said:

The main problem IMO is when they're applied on a texture that then slides up in the ceiling or down into the floor, like a typical door or lift, and it doesn't make sense that the mechanism doesn't get stuck on the protruding parts.

 

In GZDoom's implementation of Parallax Mapping nothing protrudes exactly, instead the effect makes some areas 'sink into' the texture. Nothing clips through floors or ceilings on a moving sector with it applied because nothing sticks further out than the original texture did. 

[Empyre]

You know about that optical illusion where a face is inside out and it looks like it is following you as you walk by? I wonder if that can be done in-game with parallax mapping. Would that be a bad idea even if it could be done?

[KuriKai]

@Reinchard

Very cool work!

How many textures have you done?

Will you be releasing them?

[Stealth Frag]

Thanks @KuriKai. I didn't count them, but most of them are in this topic. Like I said, I have plans to release this stuff soon (both materials and example map), but I need some time to polish few things.

[Stealth Frag]

Here's bloodfalls (total 32 frames based on original art):

 

No brightmaps enable:

[Stealth Frag]

WIth parallax occlusion:

[Mynameislol]

While it's looks really faithfull to doom, it doesn't exactly look like... well blood. more like dark red jelly or something

[DooM_RO]

I really wish there was a way to make POM work. I really like it. I don't see what the flaws are.

[Stealth Frag]

1 hour ago, Mynameislol said:

While it's looks really faithfull to doom, it doesn't exactly look like... well blood. more like dark red jelly or something

You must choose between realistic blood and classic texture. You can't have both of them at the same time ;)

 

[Tea Monster]

That has always been the huge problem with this sort of thing. What works on a flat 8 bit texture at 16 pixels wide won't fly when it's 'full size' high res, full colour with realistic lighting. 

 

Once you then update stuff so it dosen't look so chronically weird, then everyone suddenly starts screaming as it doesn't look 'just like the sprite'.

[Tea Monster]

Does GZDoom support PBR materials on models? I'm thinking that GZDooms MD3 format might chew up our animated monsters, but some static props would probably be OK. I might try to export the candelabra just to see what it looks like with your textures. I don't know anything about GZDooms definition system for models. 

 

[Barry Burton]

1 hour ago, Tea Monster said:

Does GZDoom support PBR materials on models? I'm thinking that GZDooms MD3 format might chew up our animated monsters, but some static props would probably be OK. I might try to export the candelabra just to see what it looks like with your textures. I don't know anything about GZDooms definition system for models. 

 

 

Check this post out: https://forum.zdoom.org/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=59473

 

"You can also apply material definitions to 3D model textures, but you'll need to have the model reference the textures. GZDoom and QZDoom use shader names in MD3s as texture names. If you use shader names in your MD3 model, be sure they match the names of the textures specified in the material definitions."

[hardcore_gamer]

How are you able to get light textures like the one used close to doors to emit a glow like that? When I used a brightmap for one of my models it merely lit up during dark areas but did not emit any glow at all.

[Stealth Frag]

1 hour ago, hardcore_gamer said:

How are you able to get light textures like the one used close to doors to emit a glow like that? When I used a brightmap for one of my models it merely lit up during dark areas but did not emit any glow at all.

 

It has brightmaps, but light is cast from few dynamic lights placed close to the door.

[hardcore_gamer]

18 hours ago, Reinchard said:

 

It has brightmaps, but light is cast from few dynamic lights placed close to the door.

 

Oh that makes sense!

 

I wonder if it might be a good idea to create light models and then assign them dynamic lights and then just place those into the level rather than the traditional method of using light textures. I mean if you have to place dynamic lights manually anyway, it sounds like this would be faster as well as proving better result since the light would look like it's coming from the model itself rather than looking like it's hovering next to it.

Edited February 14, 2019 by hardcore_gamer

[Stealth Frag]

9 hours ago, hardcore_gamer said:

I wonder if it might be a good idea to create light models and then assign them dynamic lights and then just place those into the level rather than the traditional method of using light textures. I mean if you have to play dynamic lights manually anyway, it sounds like this would be faster as well as proving better result since the light would look like it's coming from the model itself rather than looking like it's hovering next to it.

Yeah, it's sound logic and, hey, we have XXI century now, so that kind of method I used is so last-gen. I suppose that GZDoom offers some more advenced method, maybe even combining meshes with light actors, but I don't have time to learn all that stuff now.