Chicago BAT Project

[T Wrecks 10,209]

I'm with Matt: I think it looks great this way! This should be another superb CO§§ box tower, and quite an iconic building in any but the most ridiculoulsy skyscraper-ridden CBDs despite its simple shapes.

[Toothless Stitch 2,901]

I like th new colour. But I think the floors could do with a bit more stuff in there. Maybe adding some textures to the floor plaanes would help. Because right now the floors look somewhat unused and ampty just like inside a warehouse.

[Darknono35 3,137]

Thanks guys, I've add some details on the floors to give illusion of furnitures

And now an picture to show the night version of this building, I've an error with the light located on the roof with the HVAC, it's illuminated inside...

 

About the lot, it will be an 3x5  in-game, and I think to mod it in CO$$, growable and landmark

 

[darn42 1,268]

I have returned!

 

 

I got the windows looking how I wanted them to. I ended up just making a city around it to give reflections, and that seemed to do the trick. I used the free plugin ghosttown lite and it worked like a charm.

 

 

Right now the buildings intersecting the building are burning the facade so I'll take care of that, other than that, I'm doing nitelights. In the meantime, I'll export chase finally

[Cockatoo 2,256]

So those reflections are physically accurate? I just can't shake the feeling that the angle doesn't look right... maybe it's just because I'm not used to seeing them like that, especially on the curved wall. When I think about it, it does make sense though. It just seems so remarkably different to what we're used to seeing on a glass curtain wall BAT.

I would recommend making the refections seem less distinct though. When they're that sharp and defined, if you put them into the game (where the reflecting buildings don't exist) the illusion will be lost. A great example of this was was the Hong Kong ICC tower. Two BATers did it around the same time. One put in super sharp reflections that showed buildings really quite close to the tower. I'm sure it looked great in the preview renders but once put into the game, and the illusion of reflectivity was lost completely. The other (Paul's one) had indistinct reflections and looked infinitely better. Take a look for yourself and you'll see what I mean.

Otherwise, great work on this. It's coming along really nicely.

[Hamish 1,369]

I think the angle doesn't look right because of a couple of factors. 
The curve of the facade,

The sharpness of the reflections.

and the ground plane,

 

 

The curve makes the angles of the buildings seem out of place. Technically the reflections are correct, but when placed in the strict grid of SC4, they don't seem to fit. It also makes the curve of the facade seem more pronounced than it looks. It probably is as curved as it looks, but the horizontal lines running over it makes it look flatter than it is. This isn't really that big of an issue, as I think it makes the reflections look really good, but it may be adding to the issue.

 

The ground plane is nice, but I think the content of it makes it look a little strange. You can clearly see each building in the reflection. Which means you can also clearly see the perspective lines coming from each object. It makes this building, especially near the ground floor, look like it is hovering above the city. I think this is where the problem lies, because I also think there is a problem with the reflections.

As cockatoo said, making the reflections less pronounced would probably fix this issue. They look good near the top of the building, but at the base it makes it look a little strange.

Also, it might be good to to see how it looks in SC4, might be the best ways to show any potential issues with the reflections.

 

 

Other than that, the building looks really good. Its a really interesting shape, especially for a game that can be so blocky at times.

[T Wrecks 10,209]

Yes, I agree - especially about the hovering effect. That was the first thing that caught my eye. The glass looks good to me, i.e. it's not so much how it reflects that's the problem IMO, but what they reflect.

[art128 4,618]

I like the idea about the reflection on the windows, though I have to say I'm not a fan at all of it. Mainly because you've made it so we can see all the roofs, I'm not sure that will look great ingame.

But oh well reflection discussion, just like Simfox had on SC4D about one of his building.

[darn42 1,268]

So I decided to do a test export of wacker today so I could easily see all 4 sides of it, but, due to a computer problem earlier I had to do a fresh install of max, 2014 was just released, so I got that. Anyways, bat4max is giving me this error in 2014,

any ideas on how to fix it? the problem line is highlighted at the bottom.

 

edit: here's a preview for ya; first pic scaled up 133%. I think it misrepresents the height so I might change it to 120% or leave it at 100%, I know a lot of people like 133% but it just looks too tall.

redid some stuff with the reflection buildings. Scaled them up, raised them (they were below the building for some reason, which caused some funkiness in our perspective), changed some materials around. btw, a material got deleted on the roof, that'll be taken care of

I might do just a bit more tweaking but I like how it is now and once that exporting thing gets cleared up I'd like to export it. 

[RepublicMaster 428]

Looking good! Reflections look good too!

[Huston 5,798]

Reflections are looking amazing, a lot more developed in comparison to the other. But since, I'm no real BAT expert, to me, it looks perfect. Correct me if I'm wrong

[T Wrecks 10,209]

I am not an expert, either, but I'd say we have a winner. I agree that 133% looks stretched, too.

[Francis90b 748]

I really like how it's going!

 

I would consider altering the scene by adding some more tall, bulky buildings - that's what situation is IRL (where the real building is almost completely surrounded by bulky skyscrapers) or would probably happen in-game (after modding it you'd probably have some kind of stage 7-8 CO$$-$$$, rising among similar buildings).

[IDS2 3,346]

Try running Max as an admin. I've gotten the same error before and that's always worked for me.

[gutterclub 2,729]

The latest glass is almost there and looking great...it might just be my monitor but the roof materials all look too blury and washed out?

 

Any update on the Chase Tower, that was a fave of mine!

[Aaron Graham 4,417]

Keep doing you thing man!!!

[darn42 1,268]

IDS2: Thanks, I'll try it out. Makes sense, too, cause it seems that it has something to do with the camera rig.

 

Gutter: I'll redo the roof materials, something seems to have gotten really messed up with them, one of them got deleted and the tiles look weird. Also, I'm having more problems with chase tower I have to resolve, on opening it in max 2014 it crashes right away, it opened in someone else's computer with 2012, but the proxies were all messed up, so I think that's a cause. When I get some time with an earlier version of max I'll fix it.

[darn42 1,268]

I just did a test export, went rather fast, 2 hours for the whole shebang, but I've got some gamma issues. I got this:

In the lot editor. In my preview window, it rendered the correct colors, and I confirmed that I did have 2.2 gamma set. Anyone have insights into this problem? It happened at some point in the exporting of the rendered images to image files, that is all I know.

[Cockatoo 2,256]

Never seen gamma get screwed up in the export before, that's a new one!

 

So the images looked correct as they were being rendered, but when exported to the model file, the gamma was multiplied.

 

Are you sure both the input and output gamma under bitmap files were both set to 2.2. I'll often change the output value to 1.0 when working in vRay on non BAT4Max scenes, did you do something similar?

 

And Max 2012 or Max 2014? Has anyone actually successfully exported anything from Max '14 yet?

[darn42 1,268]

Yea, the images were rendering the right color and then got screwed up when they left.

 

I looked at the gamma settings again, the rollout for gamma in '14 lacks the "input" and "output" values that '12 had.

 

 

I'm guessing this is the root of the problem. What file format does BAT4Max save the images as?

[Cockatoo 2,256]

Looks like they've made some changes to the way gamma works in '14. Gamma is now "automatic".

 

http://www.ideateinc.com/products/brochures/2014/3ds-max-2014-features.pdf

 

On the plus side, the many settings relating to gamma could get confusing as hell in previous releases, especially if using a 3rd party render engine. So I do understand why they've decided to do this. On the minus side, less control over settings = higher likelihood of problems (like this) that aren't as easy to fix.

 

BAT4Max exports images as bitmaps, then converts them into FSH files and finally inserts them into the SC4Model file.

 

Can you do some quick tests for us?

 

Test export (a small box or something) at gamma = 1.0, 2.2 and maybe a higher value like 3.0. Then post a screenshot as it renders, a sample of the the raw bitmaps (found in the outputfiles directory) as well as a screenshot from the game for each test.

 

My best guess is that when exporting the bitmaps, Max is applying the wrong gamma settings. I seriously doubt this could happen in the bitmap to fsh stage conversion but I could be wrong.

[darn42 1,268]

I will do so when I have some time on saturday. Btw, are the renderings in the outputfiles temporary and only held until fsh's are created? I've never seen anything BAT related in there before.

[Cockatoo 2,256]

I usually use the clear outputfiles funciton straight after a successful render. Not sure if they're ever automatically deleted - could be.

 

They'll certainly be there before the FSH's are created though. There should be a whole bunch of folders, bitmaps and some other stuff in there too depending on what stage you're at.

[Toothless Stitch 2,901]

So, finally exporting Onterie Center for the first time. 

 

Let's see how it will look.

[Jack_wilds 550]

Hi and hello chicago project team... concerning the nuveen and upscaling to 133% or not... recommend to be judicous as you need to see in game as to whether upscale to 133 or less... as if its 100 it will have a 'squashed' look at certain view levels... make a 133 see in game and then 120 see in game what looks right with other scale appropriate models from jasoncw, BSP, Cockatoo, spa, mattb325, or others of that scale range... my 2 cents offered for thought...

[Francis90b 748]

SC4 uses a trimetric projection, i.e. things would need two different foreshortening factors, one per axis, for things to actually look "correct" - if you were to model a box, scaling it by 133% would make for the correct ratio 1:1 between it's height and it's base lenght - then you'd need another factor to adjust it's widht, something that unfortunately can't be done.

 

Again, by only scaling things up by 133% you only adress the problem between base lenght and widht - that's only half of what should be done, the remaining half is unfortunately un-doable...

this sets up some troubles with spheres, as they would actually look "stretched" if flat 133% was to be used - what actually happens is that their height and lenght are correct, their widht is off, but this is very noticeable, unlike what hapens with cubes - if we've got a cube, 133% scaling makes height and lenght correct, perception of widht is not as noticeable, and all in all it's probably the best possible compromise,.

 

We are now talking about a triangle with a bulging side - that's basically what your building is - but we still fall on the "box" situation - therefore there's no reason why 133% shoudn't be applied there.

 

On the other hand, given that we are seldom given the exact blueprints of a building, there's still possibility for errors from the modeller's side  - one looks at pics or streetview shoots, and decides, if we are to use that metaphor, that an "object" is a "cube" - if his guessing is right, 133% scaling will give him correct results - but chances are that that person's measurements might indeed be somewhat mistaken...and given that one modeller might be mistaken, perhaps other people's BATs are not exactly the most reliable source for comparison or measurements even when the said BATs were done as literally as possible as far as horizontal and vertical dimensions are concernned.

 

One thing that could be done, then, would be to take yet another look at building's proportions, overall height, etc, and judge from there if you did something wrong or not...if it looks like you did, and you can't possibly find any reason of doubt, then chances are that the building model is indeed looking correct, and your perception isn't - that's a somehow interesting topic, for it sometimes happens - perception is an odd (and sometimes misleading) thing.

[darn42 1,268]

Francis: I don't like the 133% here because it makes the building look taller than it actually is. It's not a tall slender building and the stretching makes it look so. I like it more unstretched so I will keep it real life dimensions. the proportions are with a few percent as well. Not more than a couple meters off in any dimension for the building; I spent a long time ensuring that, so that's out of the question. 

 

Anyways, I did the experiment you requested Cockatoo. I could not find any output file with BAT files saved in it... Can you give me the full directory for it? I looked in documents/3ds max design/renderoutput and in program files/autodesk/3ds max design/renderoutput

Neither contained images both during and after export.

 

 

I first made a cube with no textures, just colors, and did the 2.2, 1.0 and since they gave the same result, I turned off gamma, which corrected the color difference. As we can see, both the preview and during export the colors were correct, but when saved the gamma changed the same amount regardless of numerical value. We can infer that something is happening when it is being saved.

 

After that, I tested with a material: a dark, saturated marble. When gamma was turned on the correct value, 2.2, it render correctly in preview and in export (forgot an image of export), but when it was put in lot editor, it was all bleached out. When gamma was turned off, the texture input was bleached right away, making every result bleached from then on, but it was consistent the whole way. There weren't any further gamma errors.

 

If I saved a preview manually with the override gamma function, and set it to various gammas I get:

1.0

2.2

3.0

3.2

And untextured 3.2

 

My hypothesis is that somehow Bat4max is automatically saving with a value of 3.2 or higher for gamma at a consistent rate in 2014, I'm not sure how to fix it, and I'm not sure what is causing it, but that's what the problem is.

[Francis90b 748]

Francis: I don't like the 133% here because it makes the building look taller than it actually is. It's not a tall slender building and the stretching makes it look so. I like it more unstretched so I will keep it real life dimensions. the proportions are with a few percent as well. Not more than a couple meters off in any dimension for the building; I spent a long time ensuring that, so that's out of the question. 

 

 

 

This is a triangle with two even sides and a 90 deg corner between them - this is basically the kind of situation you're in.

I took two arbitrary decisions - first, i decided that it's hypotenuse was to be positioned on MAX's "south" or "front", second i decided that the model was to be twice as tall as the triangle's hypotenuse.

 

I rendered it as it was, which means no vertical scaling had been applied, and went to measure both sides - the triangle hypotenuse, which is the model's front lenght, and the box height.

I did actually count the pixels, but one pixel less or more is not that much important...it serves to the purpose of giving you an idea about how things are, though.

With no scaling applied, it seems like the model's front lenght and height and height are at about 0,66:1,00 ratio - but i guess we would like to get the "real" ratio between the two.

 

Then i tried the same, but with 133,333% scaling applied - result seems to be a lot better, quite close to the 1:2 ratio that's the ratio that "should exist".

 

So, again, 133% is not the reason of your troubles.

 

One thing you might do is try inferring what angles does SC4 perception uses between it's axis, take a paper, draw them there, draw a scale drawing showing the generic outline of your building, try different factors, then take a ruler to measure the results (which is what i did, and i admit i did so in a rather rough way, with my triangle's experiment) - anything else is honestly pointless.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

Yeah, 133% should get you something that looks right.  I wouldn't be surprised if your perception of the building is off, because those buildings are surrounded by such tall relatively slender buildings, it might make these ones feel a little more broad than they actually are.  It's happened to me before.

 

Plus if you don't do 133% it will look to short next to the other buildings when you plop them together.

[Cockatoo 2,256]

On scales: I'm not going to comment. We've been through that enough...

 

On gamma: after a bit of testing on my end (Max 2012) this is what I know.

 

The general 'Gamma' setting to the left of the pane only controls what you see in the program i.e. preview/ export renders. As Darn's results prove, it has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the actual output.

 

The setting which controls the output is 'Output Gamma', but this is missing from '14. I assume they now just expect you to enter your desired output gamma when you save out an image, but in our case this isn't an option because we're working with an automated process. Would it be safe to assume that the "Use system's default gamma" option is also missing or has been changed in the '14 save image dialog (?), as this links into the value you've entered for your output gamma in earlier versions.

 

After saving out a regular image from '12 with gamma 2.2, and then upping the gamma again by 2.2 in Photoshop, I get a result that looks almost identical to Darn's washed out previews. So I'd say it's safe to assume that the images are getting a double dose of Gamma 2.2 somewhere along the line. This is our problem. But what's responsible for that extra dose I have no idea... obviously something new in '14.

 

So, can we fix it? Yeah... well sort of.

 

It'd be nice if we could just say... well 2.2 + 2.2 = 4.4, so 4.4 - 2.2 = 2.2!... but gamma is non-linear and there's no such thing as negative gamma, so this makes manually fixing the outputfiles (C:\Program Files\Autodesk\3ds Max Design 2012\gamepacks\BAT\Outputfiles) in Photoshop (or similar program) a little bit harder. You'd need to apply the inverse gamma (0.4545) instead. So after the export completes, but before creating the FSH files, open each bitmap output file in Photoshop, Image > Adjustments > Exposure and set the gamma correction value to 0.4545 and save. Then insert. Might take a while, depending on how big your export is, but that's the best I can do.

 

For a real solution, unfortunately, I think we're gonna need SimFox.