PRieST Posted March 26 Posted March 26 (edited) Hey, I don't know if this is an error done by DynDOLOD or a usererror of myself. I installed Unique Wooden Bridges - Base Object Swapper recently. Because I wanted to reduce the plugin count on my side I merged everything into my own .esp plugin together with the corresponding swap file. The mod is also shipping a LOD model for the bridge. During the new generation of DynDOLOD I saw this message - which is also mentioned in the summary: Warning: Textures do not match for "Bridge01:1": textures\architecture\farmhouse\stonewall01.dds in woodenbridge01.nif -> textures\architecture\farmhouse\woodwalkway01.dds in woodenbridge01_lod.nif for LittlePatchFixes.esp EastMarchBridge01 [STAT:68005DE7] Full Model: https://postimg.cc/BjDN32vM (textures\architecture\farmhouse\WoodWalkway01.dds / textures\architecture\farmhouse\WoodWalkway01_n.dds) LOD Model: https://postimg.cc/94hbQzRV (textures\architecture\farmhouse\WoodWalkway01.dds / textures\architecture\farmhouse\WoodWalkway01_n.dds) In a corresponding .bto file: https://postimg.cc/sB4cQy7W (textures\architecture\farmhouse\stonewall01.dds / textures\architecture\farmhouse\stonewall01_n.dds) This is the corresponding record in xEdit: https://postimg.cc/D4ryFCt7 Also not inside the DynDOLOD_SWAP.ini. The only thing I can assume from this is, that the texture for the LOD model gets not applied correctly. Or do I have to set up a specific mesh mask rule for the wooden bridge? Here are the logs: Logs on MediaFire Edited March 26 by PRieST
sheson Posted March 27 Author Posted March 27 12 hours ago, PRieST said: Hey, I don't know if this is an error done by DynDOLOD or a usererror of myself. I installed Unique Wooden Bridges - Base Object Swapper recently. Because I wanted to reduce the plugin count on my side I merged everything into my own .esp plugin together with the corresponding swap file. The mod is also shipping a LOD model for the bridge. During the new generation of DynDOLOD I saw this message - which is also mentioned in the summary: Warning: Textures do not match for "Bridge01:1": textures\architecture\farmhouse\stonewall01.dds in woodenbridge01.nif -> textures\architecture\farmhouse\woodwalkway01.dds in woodenbridge01_lod.nif for LittlePatchFixes.esp EastMarchBridge01 [STAT:68005DE7] Full Model: https://postimg.cc/BjDN32vM (textures\architecture\farmhouse\WoodWalkway01.dds / textures\architecture\farmhouse\WoodWalkway01_n.dds) LOD Model: https://postimg.cc/94hbQzRV (textures\architecture\farmhouse\WoodWalkway01.dds / textures\architecture\farmhouse\WoodWalkway01_n.dds) In a corresponding .bto file: https://postimg.cc/sB4cQy7W (textures\architecture\farmhouse\stonewall01.dds / textures\architecture\farmhouse\stonewall01_n.dds) This is the corresponding record in xEdit: https://postimg.cc/D4ryFCt7 Also not inside the DynDOLOD_SWAP.ini. The only thing I can assume from this is, that the texture for the LOD model gets not applied correctly. Or do I have to set up a specific mesh mask rule for the wooden bridge? Here are the logs: Logs on MediaFire As you can see by the messages and when comparing the full model and the "LOD" model in NifSkope, the shape names do not match, thus causing the textures to not match. The wooden pathway is "Bridge01:3" in the full model and "Bridge01:1" in the "LOD" model. The wooden beams and railing is "Bridge:01:4" in the full model and "Bridge01:2" in the "LOD" model. The shape names in the "LOD" model should match the names in the full models instead. That should address any wrong texture replacements. The "LOD" model is not really an optimized/decimated LOD model. It would benefit already from its UVs being adjusted to be between 0.0 and 1.0. The "LOD" model should be in ..\Data\Meshes\LOD\Bridge\ or ..\Data\Meshes\UniqueWoodenBridges\LOD\ or ..\Data\Meshes\UWB\LOD\ or something similar. There seems to be a newer version of the mod that has the Radius 0.0 fixed which reported in your logs. See https://dyndolod.info/Messages/Radius-00.
PRieST Posted March 27 Posted March 27 1 hour ago, sheson said: As you can see by the messages and when comparing the full model and the "LOD" model in NifSkope, the shape names do not match, thus causing the textures to not match. The wooden pathway is "Bridge01:3" in the full model and "Bridge01:1" in the "LOD" model. The wooden beams and railing is "Bridge:01:4" in the full model and "Bridge01:2" in the "LOD" model. The shape names in the "LOD" model should match the names in the full models instead. That should address any wrong texture replacements. Oh, ok, it's because of the naming. Now that I know that...this should be something I need to consider for the other 'textures not match' messages :/ Quote The "LOD" model is not really an optimized/decimated LOD model. It would benefit already from its UVs being adjusted to be between 0.0 and 1.0. The "LOD" model should be in ..\Data\Meshes\LOD\Bridge\ or ..\Data\Meshes\UniqueWoodenBridges\LOD\ or ..\Data\Meshes\UWB\LOD\ or something similar. There seems to be a newer version of the mod that has the Radius 0.0 fixed which reported in your logs. See https://dyndolod.info/Messages/Radius-00. I'll see if I can even further decimate the model myself. But wouldn't this one not ok for level 1 and a more optimized version for level 2 - and if I am correct renaming the mesh to *_lod_1.nif and *_lod_2.nif would than apply it correspondingly? I thought the new version only changed the NiTriShapes to BSTriShapes - will use the new version now.
sheson Posted March 27 Author Posted March 27 7 hours ago, PRieST said: Oh, ok, it's because of the naming. Now that I know that...this should be something I need to consider for the other 'textures not match' messages :/ I'll see if I can even further decimate the model myself. But wouldn't this one not ok for level 1 and a more optimized version for level 2 - and if I am correct renaming the mesh to *_lod_1.nif and *_lod_2.nif would than apply it correspondingly? I thought the new version only changed the NiTriShapes to BSTriShapes - will use the new version now. The main performance improvement of LOD is reducing draw calls by combining lots of different object into supershapes sharing textures on the atlas. This only works if the UV is not titled for the actual LOD texture that is being used in the end. In case of this LOD model and the 3 textures it uses, it is always between 0.0 to 1.0. LODGen will try to REUV/optimize on the fly but not sure how well it works in this case. Reducing vertices/triangle count comes secondary. One non actual LOD model here or there will not be noticeable, but more an more mods use full models or non actual LOD models it these things can add up, also prolonging generation time. If you are actually using Blender or 3DMax to do things, look into Simplygon, it can tile the UV on top of decimating triangles.
PRieST Posted March 27 Posted March 27 (edited) 27 minutes ago, sheson said: If you are actually using Blender or 3DMax to do things, look into Simplygon, it can tile the UV on top of decimating triangles. I was already working with Simplygon via Blender, but haven't recognized the UV tiling feature. Will take a look, thank you. btw: Yep, renaming the BSTriShapes solved the issue as you said. Edited March 27 by PRieST
PRieST Posted March 29 Posted March 29 (edited) On 3/27/2024 at 7:09 PM, PRieST said: I was already working with Simplygon via Blender, but haven't recognized the UV tiling feature. Will take a look, thank you. btw: Yep, renaming the BSTriShapes solved the issue as you said. @sheson Did what you suggested with Simplygon and the UV stuff. This is now the result of the same *32*.bto file (it's using textures from the atlas now as supposed to be). The mesh itself is a little bit broken, but for the map it's absolutely fine: vs. the old model: Just wanted to give you/all other people here the info. Of course best practice would be to reduce the overall polycount next, because you won't need all the little structures for the LOD-model at all - but I haven't worked on that, yet. Edited March 29 by PRieST
DoubleYou Posted March 30 Posted March 30 31 minutes ago, PRieST said: @sheson Did what you suggested with Simplygon and the UV stuff. This is now the result of the same *32*.bto file (it's using textures from the atlas now as supposed to be). The mesh itself is a little bit broken, but for the map it's absolutely fine: vs. the old model: Just wanted to give you/all other people here the info. Of course best practice would be to reduce the overall polycount next, because you won't need all the little structures for the LOD-model at all - but I haven't worked on that, yet. Of note, Simplygon will no longer offer its free tier after March 31st.
z929669 Posted March 30 Posted March 30 58 minutes ago, DoubleYou said: Of note, Simplygon will no longer offer its free tier after March 31st. There's no clear way to get said "free" tier now that I can see https://techraptor.net/gaming/news/simplygon-free-tier-abolished
PRieST Posted March 30 Posted March 30 1 hour ago, DoubleYou said: Of note, Simplygon will no longer offer its free tier after March 31st. 35k/year...holy... that's kind of a statement... OK I guess that's it then. Glad I just finished this and a few other things earlier.
User77111 Posted March 30 Posted March 30 Logs: https://1drv.ms/u/s!Av1dDuTYEuYRgcpG0GjoBXG5bQVTuQ?e=Bru3fR After updating DynDOLOD, all tree LOD in skyrim 3d trees LOD is very thin. LOD: Tree Model: Console of tree:
sheson Posted March 30 Author Posted March 30 46 minutes ago, User77111 said: Logs: https://1drv.ms/u/s!Av1dDuTYEuYRgcpG0GjoBXG5bQVTuQ?e=Bru3fR After updating DynDOLOD, all tree LOD in skyrim 3d trees LOD is very thin. LOD: Tree Model: Console of tree: You seem to have customized 3D tree LOD models with a higher alpha threshold then the ones from Skyrim3DTrees and Plants 3dLOD Resources 5.0.1. Test with the original 3D tree LOD models that typically have a threshold of 128.
User77111 Posted March 30 Posted March 30 (edited) 50 minutes ago, sheson said: You seem to have customized 3D tree LOD models with a higher alpha threshold then the ones from Skyrim3DTrees and Plants 3dLOD Resources 5.0.1. Test with the original 3D tree LOD models that typically have a threshold of 128. It's just slightly better with the normal ones. Not as good as the custom ones I made. Is it possible to disable or adjust this automatic alpha threshold that was added? Edited March 30 by User77111
z929669 Posted March 30 Posted March 30 9 minutes ago, User77111 said: It is better with the normal ones. Not as good as the custom ones I made. Is it possible to disable or adjust this automatic alpha threshold that was added? Did you make your own 3D models for this? If so, set NiAlphaProperty of the branches to 128. This will keep all of your other changes without messing up the alpha-to-coverage problem in LOD. If you also modified the base models to your own custom NiAlphaProperty, then just leave those as you like.
User77111 Posted March 30 Posted March 30 (edited) 12 minutes ago, z929669 said: Did you make your own 3D models for this? If so, set NiAlphaProperty of the branches to 128. This will keep all of your other changes without messing up the alpha-to-coverage problem in LOD. If you also modified the base models to your own custom NiAlphaProperty, then just leave those as you like. I did not make my own custom models, I just edited the models. I edited the NiAlphaProperty of the leafs for each of the trees to make them perfectly match the normal models. Do I need to add an alpha property to the branches and set it to 128 for DynDOLOD not to touch the branches? Edited March 30 by User77111
sheson Posted March 30 Author Posted March 30 50 minutes ago, User77111 said: It's just slightly better with the normal ones. Not as good as the custom ones I made. Is it possible to disable or adjust this automatic alpha threshold that was added? Either the normal ones are better or the custom ones you made are good. However you reported the custom one are too thin. How can they be good and too thin at the same time? Not sure what "automatic alpha threshold that was added" is supposed to be. What changelog entry are you referring to? 29 minutes ago, User77111 said: I did not make my own custom models, I just edited the models. I edited the NiAlphaProperty of the leafs for each of the trees to make them perfectly match the normal models. Changing models from the original ones means they are now custom. Only you have them. Without them I can not test.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now