Jump to content
Picchio

In progress - Folgore's cockpit

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

This time, I will also share my thoughts.
I am not a professional artist of any kind: through my first trials-and-errors, I've soon understood that this kind of work can be approached in at least two different ways.

 

1) To do everything from scratch.
2) To work directly on the material that is available.

 

1) Has the advantage that I will not have to worry about preserving the image, but I will need to be careful in matching the 3D geometry as best as I can.

Without a wireframe layer this is highly difficult, so the original texture map will have to be constantly used as a reference in order to understand how it matches the 3D geometry.

The main disadvantage is the loss of what I will call the "pre-baked" shading.

 

2) Could be seen an attempt that shares some analogies with restoration: the default texture will be used as a base and the principle of this approach must be simple.

How will I decide what is a defect that requires corrections and what is not?

Color noise will be considered a defect; weathering effects will also be considered a defect, with some exceptions (I will elaborate on them as the work proceeds).

 

I will also express my thoughts regarding the work I have in front of me, both the original and the modified, and how it "performs".


In the first part of the intervention, I will focus on restoring some weathered elements.

The strategy here goes like this: to keep the weathering when possible and when it makes sense; to remove and redraw rivets/connections, using what I produced for some of my earlier tests.

The original representation of the structure lacks more than a few details, and those that are present seem incorrect (structural nodes, number and position of various connectors...).

 

More observations: it is useless to paint the bottom of the first (at the top) horizontal element, as it is not visible from any angle.

The main issue with this precise part is that, while it is a very large 3D element, the texture space available for it is very reduced.

It makes little sense to paint small details in it (small specks of dirt, weathered paint), as they will be too enlarged and will not look good.

 

What you see here is a first passage: weathering effects have been cleaned on the horizontal element, but they have been kept on the two vertical ones.

Details for the structure have removed and repainted (rivets), and added from scratch (separation of different parts, details of the connections).

More to come!

 

1671821175_Il-22019-08-1514-56-30.png.c509255790b4de5e2c79082abc6455ee.png

 

648288577_Il-22019-08-1514-57-59.png.32ecddac8a4682ab652210f4dd53dfae.png

 

 

Edited by Picchio
  • Like 7
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A few more adjustments.

I reworked the cockpit wall and more elements for the canopy and windshield frame. These were made from scratch, with a new diffuse map using a very light texture. I corrected the rivets' size and added a few more.

Weathering effects will come at a later moment, now that I finally found a couple of photographs that gave me an idea of how these surfaces can appear.

The best part is that I finally found an efficient method for copying and reusing the shaded areas (the "pre-baked" AO I mentioned in the first post).

Since there is only one texture used for both sides, I chose to correct the shading so that the bottom part of the left side won't look black (on the right side, it's shaded by those I think are circuit breakers boxes, but the shading itself isn't noticeable at all).

I'm also struggling to find the right balance for the black level for elements like the instrument panel and the canopy frame.

These are of course very dark but it's critical to give a good idea of how much light each material can reflect. These are still too dark.

Originally, it looked like it just absorbed light completely. Ugh.

Those three smaller horizontal elements on the cockpit wall also appear way too dark and are not really shaded by anything to look that way.

I will have to lighten them up a bit.

 

1907063845_Il-22019-08-1616-52-08.png.1510556c9c8b3aed02356268479af571.png

 

1231848868_Il-22019-08-1616-56-09.png.8c144982864667c1aba9643e08447910.png

Edited by Picchio
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Testing the possibilities of simple (sort of) Alpha channel tweaks.

 

989754786_Il-22019-08-1915-30-25.thumb.png.108ed6cc20003865b72442fd25313ce6.png

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks amazing! :o:

 

Great work!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2019 at 3:38 PM, Picchio said:

Testing the possibilities of simple (sort of) Alpha channel tweaks.

 

989754786_Il-22019-08-1915-30-25.thumb.png.108ed6cc20003865b72442fd25313ce6.png

What does this change exactly? Reflections?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, So_ein_Feuerball said:

What does this change exactly? Reflections?

 

The change is in the specular/gloss map, or the Alpha channel which is embedded in the diffuse map.

A well detailed specular map is just as important as the diffuse map: even with a limited resolution, it really allows to give more substance to the representation of different materials, if used wisely. You will see it reacting to sunlight and other light sources (I find it to be particularly satisfying when cockpit lights are on), but it won't react well (if not at all, sigh!) to ambient light.

Areas covered by shadows will just show the diffuse map, without the possibility for more detail (in short, that's why many cockpits look so flat).

In this case, I think a good diffuse map would be essential; by this, I mean that in a non-PBR engine, all textures in a diffuse map would need to be "painted" with special attention to indirect lighting, ambient lighting and occlusion (SSAO is a lot more useful when highlights are already in the diffuse map). And that's what I'd like to achieve :biggrin: for the moment, I'm aiming for a basic/correct representation of materials, color and structure.

 

Examples:

 

Spoiler

Spitfire_11.thumb.jpg.26de4355f88a4f2c03c6a6f47b1f37cf.jpg

 

 

Spoiler

Spitfire_1.thumb.jpg.4327e9cfc72dea4700d1a49d98bf3d30.jpg

 

 

By the way, I will be deeply grateful to anyone who finds the location of this part in the original texture:

 

989754786_Il-22019-08-1915-30-25.thumb.png.108ed6cc20003865b72442fd25313ce6.png.46d2ea8b67d0ed1e57dc23874b5b7178.png

 

 

Edited by Picchio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So basically, apart from the low poly cockpit textures, IL2´s rendering itself is less realistic too?

Too bad, I hope the devs can take a look at that also.

 

BTW, concerning SSAO, would you happen to know whether the game gives reshade access to the depth buffer?

If so, both SSR and SSAO could be used to make the cockpits look better.

Edited by So_ein_Feuerball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, So_ein_Feuerball said:

 

 

Simply put, different materials, in reality, react differently to light according to their physical properties. Imagine having different materials of the same color (the diffuse map): you'd be able to tell each material from another just by looking at the way it is lit or shaded. Currently, the graphics engine will only allow you to approximate glossyness.

For diffuse maps used for external textures (aircraft skins) it's ok because these work in conjunction with normal maps and other information (you can see the bumpiness on the metal surface of a wing reacting to direct and indirect light).

The good news is that newer aircraft do have normal maps for some cockpit parts (the leather cushion on the gunsight of the 190 Dora): for older models, similar effects can be approximated through the Alpha channel map.

Anyway, original cockpit textures do have a rather low resolution, yes; but the polygon count for the 3D shapes themselves is fine.

 

Reshade can access the game's depth buffer at the expense of any anti-aliasing (not really sure about "any" but I gave up on testing it).

There are other issues with how the depth buffer works in this game. I suggest you take a look and ask your questions here: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/17096-reshade-for-sweetfx

I hope my answer was helpful, even if very simplified.

I'd appreciate it if we can keep the thread on-topic.

Edited by Picchio
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2019 at 7:24 AM, Picchio said:

 

Simply put, different materials, in reality, react differently to light according to their physical properties. Imagine having different materials of the same color (the diffuse map): you'd be able to tell each material from another just by looking at the way it is lit or shaded. Currently, the graphics engine will only allow you to approximate glossyness.

For diffuse maps used for external textures (aircraft skins) it's ok because these work in conjunction with normal maps and other information (you can see the bumpiness on the metal surface of a wing reacting to direct and indirect light).

The good news is that newer aircraft do have normal maps for some cockpit parts (the leather cushion on the gunsight of the 190 Dora): for older models, similar effects can be approximated through the Alpha channel map.

Anyway, original cockpit textures do have a rather low resolution, yes; but the polygon count for the 3D shapes themselves is fine.

 

Reshade can access the game's depth buffer at the expense of any anti-aliasing (not really sure about "any" but I gave up on testing it).

There are other issues with how the depth buffer works in this game. I suggest you take a look and ask your questions here: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/17096-reshade-for-sweetfx

I hope my answer was helpful, even if very simplified.

I'd appreciate it if we can keep the thread on-topic.

 

There are actually different shaders being used for parts that have normal maps vs those that don't. Its really unfortunate as those surfaces that have normals can do screen space reflections and some other things that just the straight specular materials cant.

 

It'd also be great if the exponent value of the specular was tied to a texture instead of being a single value defined in the 3d model. That change alone would greatly improve things.

 

Regarding the issues of the framing appearing too black - just turn off HDR. It messes a lot of things up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you post vanilla images net/under your improved cockpits so the uninitiated of us can see the differences? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, LizLemon said:

 

There are actually different shaders being used for parts that have normal maps vs those that don't. Its really unfortunate as those surfaces that have normals can do screen space reflections and some other things that just the straight specular materials cant.

 

It'd also be great if the exponent value of the specular was tied to a texture instead of being a single value defined in the 3d model. That change alone would greatly improve things.

 

Regarding the issues of the framing appearing too black - just turn off HDR. It messes a lot of things up.

 

 

Well, other than a few recent exceptions, cockpits don't use normals at all, but I don't think SSR could provide serious benefits for interiors. As far as I can observe and understand, even if normals were introduced for all older planes and for all cockpits' textures, other changes would be required in order to make them look right. I don't know how big or how small these changes would need to be: as you mentioned, different shaders are used for these parts.

Besides, HDR is obviously turned off :)

 

7 minutes ago, OrLoK said:

Can you post vanilla images net/under your improved cockpits so the uninitiated of us can see the differences? :)

 

Sure! I will with the next updates.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 8/27/2019 at 12:31 PM, Picchio said:

 

Well, other than a few recent exceptions, cockpits don't use normals at all, but I don't think SSR could provide serious benefits for interiors. 

Concerning SSR, I disagree. Especially glass would benefit a lot from SSR, as it currently looks like there is nothing in front of the instruments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, So_ein_Feuerball said:

 

Concerning SSR, I disagree. Especially glass would benefit a lot from SSR, as it currently looks like there is nothing in front of the instruments.

 

Screen-space reflections wouldn't really work that way, bro. SSR works when your POV is within a narrowish angle to the reflective surface, and the objects to be reflected would need to be within the rendered view.

In my mod I tested some alternatives to simulate the glass surface. They kinda work but I need to figure out a solution for the surface of the gyro horizon. I'll show the result with a small update, later today.

Edited by Picchio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Picchio said:

 

Screen-space reflections wouldn't really work that way, bro. SSR works when your POV is within a narrowish angle to the reflective surface, and the objects to be reflected would need to be within the rendered view.

In my mod I tested some alternatives to simulate the glass surface. They kinda work but I need to figure out a solution for the surface of the gyro horizon. I'll show the result with a small update, later today.

awesome! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So, here's the new instrument panel: I'm doing my best to replicate the appearance of the real panel. I'd be curious to know exactly how its roughness was achieved and what was its purpose, but I haven't found any useful information for now.

There's also a first attempt at a glass texture covering the instruments. We'll see how this goes.

I've also included improvements to the lettering on the flight stick, and a few touches to the Alpha layer.

 

1294062062_Il-22019-08-3120-06-31.thumb.jpg.cb5226f416869f987d14fb9e33e5a9bb.jpg

 

 

Here are a few comparison images, taking a closer look. Shot at the same conditions, matching the sun position in relation to the cockpit as close as possible. Many details are WIP.

Default:

945786812_Il-22019-08-3120-25-24.thumb.jpg.9b150a1b12ee77c2e5ea06709755703e.jpg

 

Mod:

534517392_Il-22019-08-3120-29-16.thumb.jpg.7db5a267cb34974742baf12bad612112.jpg

 

 

 

And here's an overall look.

 

Default:

1152779738_Il-22019-08-3120-20-39.thumb.jpg.bb85c0ce7a97c879a8b3590e7803ad09.jpg

 

Mod:

1450607567_Il-22019-08-3120-16-59.thumb.jpg.bcde1fe1bdf34ce22e76159929878364.jpg

 

Edited by Picchio
  • Like 4
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Whilst I very much do like the increased detail in the texturing, it IMO looks worse lighting wise. 

I don´t know if the games shaders cannot handle the increased detail of your textures or whether you´ve changed something different it can´t handle, 

the original picture shows IMO better reflections of metal surfaces. 

 

I don´t know how this all plays together, but IMO the Macchi has some of the better lighting in the game when compared to something like the Spitfire Mk IX or the various 109s.

Maybe it´s just that you´ve gotten rid of much of the weathering, but in the original the reflection of the metal right beneath the left windscreen just looks better IMO. 

The black looks blacker, the light more like it reflects of metal.

 

IMO this lack of realistic looking reflections inside the cockpits, both on glass and metal, is one of greatest faults of IL 2, especially when compared to DCS´s WW2 birds. 

It´s rather immersion breaking for me when I look on something which is supposed to be metal and see something which looks like plastic.

IMO the best comparison is the difference when you look at the framing of the armored glass windscreen of the Spitfire Mk IX in IL2 and DCS.

Doesn´t matter which one is supposed to be more accurate, for me it matter which looks more realistic. And in this regard, DCS is miles ahead.

 

Edited by So_ein_Feuerball
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thank you for your feedback but (again) let's keep the thread focused. For the glossiness of the black paint, I can adjust it easily but from what I observed in the real cockpit (just yesterday), it looked quite matt. Also, I don't like pure blacks.

Here's a few more comparison images.

 

Default:

946308419_Il-22019-08-3121-21-58.thumb.jpg.1ba554f3813cc1ed270b7d387971e10d.jpg

 

Mod:

729655463_Il-22019-08-3121-16-01.thumb.jpg.e4657c92fc5d7686c5f2520e832af91f.jpg

 

 

Edited by Picchio
  • Like 5
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn´t know about the original, so I´m going to take your word for it^^

Anyway, as I said, the textures look way better than the original, I just assumed the glossiness was how it looked.

Concerning the weathering, would it be possible to maybe add some scratches instead of just the white colour?

Or would that be too detailed?

 

Furthermore, have you tried your hand at maybe increasing the glossiness of the glass panels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, So_ein_Feuerball said:

I didn´t know about the original, so I´m going to take your word for it^^

Anyway, as I said, the textures look way better than the original, I just assumed the glossiness was how it looked.

Concerning the weathering, would it be possible to maybe add some scratches instead of just the white colour?

Or would that be too detailed?

 

Furthermore, have you tried your hand at maybe increasing the glossiness of the glass panels?

 

I'm simply trying to achieve a convicing result (as close to its real appearance) given the limits imposed by the graphics engine. I'm not touching shaders, just texture maps.

The issue with glossiness is that the Alpha layer also controls transparency, ranging from 0 (black) to 255 (white). Black means transparent and matt; white means opaque and glossy.

You can see how I can't make that glass both glossy and transparent at the same time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Picchio said:

 

I'm simply trying to achieve a convicing result (as close to its real appearance) given the limits imposed by the graphics engine. I'm not touching shaders, just texture maps.

The issue with glossiness is that the Alpha layer also controls transparency, ranging from 0 (black) to 255 (white). Black means transparent and matt; white means opaque and glossy.

You can see how I can't make that glass both glossy and transparent at the same time.

Thx for clarifying. Seems to me that this can only be done by the devs. 

Would models with normal maps, like @LizLemon told us earlier, be able to have glossy glass, which is transparent at the same time?

 

If is not too much of a hassle, could you maybe do a comparison on how black, grey and white glass textures in the alpha layer differ from each other.

 

Additional question, if you excuse my incessant derailing of the thread:

Would it be possible to crank up the low poly parts of these textures by upscaling the textures themselves, to let´s say 8K, but only changing these low poly parts?

So in the end, the GPU load would increase, but it would also enable modders like you to get rid of ugly low poly parts.

Edited by So_ein_Feuerball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, So_ein_Feuerball said:

Thx for clarifying. Seems to me that this can only be done by the devs. 

Would models with normal maps, like @LizLemon told us earlier, be able to have glossy glass, which is transparent at the same time?

 

If is not too much of a hassle, could you maybe do a comparison on how black, grey and white glass textures in the alpha layer differ from each other.

 

Additional question, if you excuse my incessant derailing of the thread:

Would it be possible to crank up the low poly parts of these textures by upscaling the textures themselves, to let´s say 8K, but only changing these low poly parts?

So in the end, the GPU load would increase, but it would also enable modders like you to get rid of ugly low poly parts.

 

There are several shaders used by the game for stuff like cockpits. Bumpchrome, which has a normal map and reflections, and specular which is just a spec map and no environmental reflection/shine.

 

An aircraft that has both is the 190D9 - you can see the difference in the padding and hood around the gunsight. Which shaders are used is specified in the 3d model itself. While it is possibly to change these shaders the game will spit out an error message every time you start a mission.

 

No it is not possible to upres only a few select objects in the cockpit. The only way to do that would be to change the uv mapping which requires exporting/importing 3d models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LizLemon said:

 

There are several shaders used by the game for stuff like cockpits. Bumpchrome, which has a normal map and reflections, and specular which is just a spec map and no environmental reflection/shine.

 

An aircraft that has both is the 190D9 - you can see the difference in the padding and hood around the gunsight. Which shaders are used is specified in the 3d model itself. While it is possibly to change these shaders the game will spit out an error message every time you start a mission.

Thx for clarifying, I assume the Spit Mk IX doesn´t have these? Or the G14/K4?

 

1 hour ago, LizLemon said:

No it is not possible to upres only a few select objects in the cockpit. The only way to do that would be to change the uv mapping which requires exporting/importing 3d models.

 

I meant simply upscaling the texture to double the size as possible in GIMP (and PS I assume) and using the thusly created headroom in pixel density to only edit the low poly parts. Why would it not be possible?

Edited by So_ein_Feuerball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, So_ein_Feuerball said:

Thx for clarifying, I assume the Spit Mk IX doesn´t have these? Or the G14/K4?

 

 

I meant simply upscaling the texture to double the size as possible in GIMP (and PS I assume) and using the thusly created headroom in pixel density to only edit the low poly parts. Why would it not be possible?

 

Polygons define the resolution of a 3D object. Pixels define the resolution of a 2D image. I'm only working on the diffuse and alpha texture map, which is a 2D image.

There is no point increasing the resolution beyond what the engine supports (4096x4096). You don't just upsample things and that's it. A weathered surface is extremely complex to represent correctly and realistically. A good case-study is the MiG-21 done by the Leatherneck team. Also, it uses 10+ texture maps for the cockpit alone. For the Folgore, I can only work on 3 maps. 

Other than this, it's pretty obvious that I am working on a larger texture than the original. Look at the weathering detail and at the reflection on the compass a few posts back. For more questions regarding technical aspects I strongly invite you to continue the conversation via PM.

Edited by Picchio
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...