DynDOLOD 3.00 Alpha 180

[DoubleYou]

37 minutes ago, sheson said:

We will want to see what really happens with that change alone to the full model - to see if it only affects thickness or anyhting else as well. It will also help to see if changing the order of things for the LOD texture generation matches it better:

https://mega.nz/file/YUJ1DJYZ#T15015iz9xJjcNN6fR3SHq0IHuI9S9dVj5MrhlYTmIs

128.dds = generate mipmaps from 4k texture.
224_old.dds = adjust alpha of 4k texture, generate mipmaps from that.
224_new.dds = generate mipmaps from 4k texture, adjust alpha for each mipmap.

Compare the alpha of the 512 or 256 mipmap resolution. new looks quite thinner, so that seems what we want.

I think I understand now. Let me look into this.

[DoubleYou]

It appears that PostImages.org is down right now, so I will directly attach.

So hopefully this is what you were wanting to see:

Original texture from mod --> 244_new.dds --> 244_old.dds --> 128.dds

 

BTW, I used TLL console command to ensure everything is full trees. This is very close, but slightly less alpha. If I were to guess, you numbers are varying NiAlphaProperty thresholds, so this should be able to be adjusted via this method.

[sheson]

1 hour ago, DoubleYou said:

It appears that PostImages.org is down right now, so I will directly attach.

So hopefully this is what you were wanting to see:

Original texture from mod --> 244_new.dds --> 244_old.dds --> 128.dds

 

BTW, I used TLL console command to ensure everything is full trees. This is very close, but slightly less alpha. If I were to guess, you numbers are varying NiAlphaProperty thresholds, so this should be able to be adjusted via this method.

What is the difference between the upper 4 screenshots and the lower 4 screenshots?

The alpha value of all mipmaps is multiplied by the same 128/threshold factor = 0.5714 in this case.

[DoubleYou]

The upper screenshots are farther away. The lower screenshots are closer. 

[sheson]

54 minutes ago, DoubleYou said:

The upper screenshots are farther away. The lower screenshots are closer. 

So the last two of each row. The 224_old.dds is with a 128 threshold NiAlphaProperty and the 128.dds is with a 244 threshold NiAlphaProperty?

[DoubleYou]

40 minutes ago, sheson said:

So the last two of each row. The 224_old.dds is with a 128 threshold NiAlphaProperty and the 128.dds is with a 244 threshold NiAlphaProperty?

I left NiAlphaProperty at 128 for all tests. I simply changed out the full texture with the provided texture in each case. Let me audit my screenshots to ensure that I have this in the right order. I think I mixed up the first two somehow...

Edit:

Okay, so I evidently mixed up 1 and 2 in each set.

Original texture from mod --> 244_new.dds --> 244_old.dds --> 128.dds

[sheson]

36 minutes ago, DoubleYou said:

I left NiAlphaProperty at 128 for all tests. I simply changed out the full texture with the provided texture in each case. Let me audit my screenshots to ensure that I have this in the right order. I think I mixed up the first two somehow.

The models that use the orginal/not adjusted texture 128.dds should have an alpha threshold of 224, while the models that use adjusted 224_* textures should have an alpha property of 128 - the one LOD is hardcoded to use.

[DoubleYou]

34 minutes ago, sheson said:

The models that use the orginal/not adjusted texture 128.dds should have an alpha threshold of 224, while the models that use adjusted 224_* textures should have an alpha property of 128 - the one LOD is hardcoded to use.

Okay. Let me get this for you. Please see my edit though, as I mixed up 1 and 2 in my previous post accidentally.

[DoubleYou]

1. Original texture from mod with 128 NiAlphaProperty
2. 128.dds with 224 NiAlphaProperty
3. 244_new.dds with 128 NiAlphaProperty
4. 244_old.dds with 128 NiAlphaProperty
5. 128.dds with 128 NiAlphaProperty

1. Original texture from mod with 128 NiAlphaProperty
2. 128.dds with 224 NiAlphaProperty
3. 244_new.dds with 128 NiAlphaProperty
4. 244_old.dds with 128 NiAlphaProperty
5. 128.dds with 128 NiAlphaProperty

[Mephitic]

I humbly apologize for interjecting here (this is a fascinating and valuable discussion) with an update on my end.

I reverted TexGen settings to those listed in the 2.0 version of the guide.

And DynDOLOD to settings in the default DynDOLOD_SSE.ini and and also the generation settings in version 2.0 of the guide.

; grass LOD brightness multipliers
GrassBrightnessTopR=0.400
GrassBrightnessTopG=0.445
GrassBrightnessTopB=0.450
; make bottom darker to fake shadowing
GrassBrightnessBottomR=0.200
GrassBrightnessBottomG=0.223
GrassBrightnessBottomB=0.225

And this is the result. (back to where I started, it appears)

Without enhancing my understanding of exactly what happens when any of these settings are changed, I'm satisfied with the look for now.

[edit] I neglected to mention (though it may be clear from the fact I'm using cached grass) I'm using game engine version 1.5.97

Edited August 27, 2022 by Mephitic
Added game version info

[sheson]

3 hours ago, DoubleYou said:

1. Original texture from mod with 128 NiAlphaProperty
2. 128.dds with 224 NiAlphaProperty
3. 244_new.dds with 128 NiAlphaProperty
4. 244_old.dds with 128 NiAlphaProperty
5. 128.dds with 128 NiAlphaProperty

1. Original texture from mod with 128 NiAlphaProperty
2. 128.dds with 224 NiAlphaProperty
3. 244_new.dds with 128 NiAlphaProperty
4. 244_old.dds with 128 NiAlphaProperty
5. 128.dds with 128 NiAlphaProperty

Thanks. I will need to look at this some more in the coming days. I still would expect it to match better. The 244_new.dds seems to be dull compared to the 128.dds with 224 NiAlphaProperty for some reason and that doesn't seem right with me why that would even be the case.

[DoubleYou]

35 minutes ago, sheson said:

Thanks. I will need to look at this some more in the coming days. I still would expect it to match better.

Your textures say "244" while we've talked a lot and used "224" a lot. Perhaps you meant 244 and that's why it doesn't match better?

[sheson]

52 minutes ago, DoubleYou said:

Your textures say "244" while we've talked a lot and used "224" a lot. Perhaps you meant 244 and that's why it doesn't match better?

It's just the filename. The threshold it was created with was 224.

[z929669]

4 hours ago, DoubleYou said:

1. Original texture from mod with 128 NiAlphaProperty
2. 128.dds with 224 NiAlphaProperty
3. 244_new.dds with 128 NiAlphaProperty
4. 244_old.dds with 128 NiAlphaProperty
5. 128.dds with 128 NiAlphaProperty

1. Original texture from mod with 128 NiAlphaProperty
2. 128.dds with 224 NiAlphaProperty
3. 244_new.dds with 128 NiAlphaProperty
4. 244_old.dds with 128 NiAlphaProperty
5. 128.dds with 128 NiAlphaProperty

For top row, 3-5 looks like changes also to the full models in the foreground. Nothing was changed about the full models or the textures they are using?

I think #2 is the best match with full.

The goal should be getting the best match without having to use a custom texture, obviously ... but also without having to make changes to the LOD model NiAlphaProperty.

Apologies for dropping off of testing. I spend daytime on weekends working on my house.

[mooit]

15 hours ago, sheson said:

Use whatever tool that allows editing of NIF models. NifSkope seems like the obvious choice.

If you read https://dyndolod.info/Help/3D-Tree-LOD-Model you would see screenshots from NifSkope that show the NiAlphaProperty blocks as children of the BSTriShape blocks.

https://www.google.com/search?q=NIF+model+NiAlphaProperty
->
http://wiki.beyondskyrim.org/wiki/Arcane_University:NIF_Data_Format#Transparency

Ok thanks...